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) 17:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant. Only 4 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Redundant to what? As the template is actively being used by a small number of articles, what do you propose to replace it with? PC78 (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant to ((Infobox Patriarch)), if not a more general religious person template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK then, transclusions have all been updated and this template is now unused. Delete. PC78 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per T3 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((Infobox Person)). Unused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Criteria T3. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Used only on userpages, which would make it redundant to ((Infobox user)) rather than ((Infobox person)). I don't think this is a speedy, but replace all transclusions and delete anyway. You might also want to have a look at ((Infobox profile)), which has only one use and appears to be the same sort of thing. PC78 (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed; thank you for the clarification. I've nominated ((Infobox profile)) for deletion, too. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• All instances now substituted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:40, 15 August 2009 (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 subst and delete/redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Archbishop of York (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox Archbishop)). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually, they aren't redundant, as they also include sainthood information, allowing the combination of both archbishop and sainthood information into one infobox. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then those parameters need to be merged onto ((Infobox Archbishop)). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good idea, but it should be done first before deleting these templates. --RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per the discussion above, these templates are now redundant to the more generic ((Infobox Archbishop)). --RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional delete. I've edited these two templates so that they call ((Infobox Archbishop)), but to properly deprecate them it will require the |archbishop_of= parameter to be manually added to all transclusions. As long as this is taken care of I have no objection to deletion. PC78 (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2009 (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 as now unused and redundant. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Patriarch of Constantinople (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox Patriarch)). Only 5 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've added the few extra parameters to ((Infobox Patriarch)) and replaced all five transclusions, so this template is now unused. Given its similarity to ((Infobox Archbishop)) I would question the need for ((Infobox Patriarch)) as well. It may be prudent to consolidate this (and perhaps others) into a single userbox. PC78 (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --RL0919 (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2009 (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 as they are now unused and redundant. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Bishop of York (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Bishop of London (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Marthoma Bishop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox Bishop)). Only 6 transclusions for York; one of London; 21 for Marthoma. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Not redundant. As with the archbishop infoboxes above, these contain additional parameters not present in ((Infobox Bishop)). PC78 (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The additional parameters are for sainthood, which is presumably not a status limited to bishops of a particular locale. Seems that the best long-term solution would be to expand ((Infobox Bishop)) so that it can replace these. Then it would would be appropriate to delete these templates. If that is done before this TfD expires, then I would support deletion. Otherwise, I'd say we need to keep these until the more generic template has all the appropriate parameters. --RL0919 (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Sainthood parameters now merged into ((Infobox Bishop)). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. All of these are now unused. PC78 (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your work on this. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per discussion above. --RL0919 (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete as unused and redundant Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Model/Actress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant fork of ((Infobox Model)) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be totally redundant. ((Infobox model)) has all the fields of this one, plus a few, and better documentation. --RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Did the creator of this template think it was necessary to have one infobox for models and one infobox for models who also act? This is totally unnecessary. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• All instances now converted to ((Infobox Model)). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:49, 15 August 2009 (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) 23:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grand Prix motocross racer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused & redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Skier Dude (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2009 (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 as redundant to ((Infobox Martial artist)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant. Only two instances. . Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Does seem overly specific. Perhaps replace with a more generic infobox, though I'm not sure which; ((Infobox martial artist)) and ((Infobox Martial artist)) are both distinct (and should probably be merged). PC78 (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2009 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Rugby league coach (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused & redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. Skier Dude (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ymovies title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Several dozen film articles use this template to link to the film's page at the Yahoo! website, but the pages are largely redundant to the Internet Movie Database's listing of basic information and the more comprehensive lists of reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. The "External links" sections should not be link farms of web pages that are more added because of the website's name rather than its direct usefulness to readers as a supplementary source. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - utility is minor in comparison to other more conventionally-used sites, and the EL section isn't equal-opportunity. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - About as helpful as the template someone made to add a Hollywood Walk of Fame sentence to biography articles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others BOVINEBOY2008 21:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Girolamo Skier Dude (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2009 (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, with no prejudice toward recreation. JPG-GR (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heroes season 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too early for this template, episodes haven't aired, information on them is unavailable, and articles are not created yet (nor should they be). Ejfetters (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As long as the template isn't being used on articles, I don't see any particular harm in having it exist a few weeks ahead of when the season starts, particularly since it is extremely likely that the season will air as scheduled and that articles will be created for the episodes. But it could also be easily recreated if it is deleted, and no great harm would ensue, so I'm neutral. Perhaps the easiest thing would be for the creator of the template, SnakeChess5, to copy it to userspace and allow speedy deletion, with the understanding that it can be copied back at an appropriate time. --RL0919 (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be recreated at a later time, but it doesn't seem to conform to WP:CRYSTAL for the time being. So yeah delete, and of course recreate at a later time. Ejfetters (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy to creator, so it can be easily moved to template space once the season begins. --King Öomie 15:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The season appears to be beginning in just about a month, no need to change/delete and then recreate soon. Skier Dude (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unused with no real content. Recreation would be trivial, so do so when there is basis for the template. PC78 (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2009 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-rorschachblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Also nominating:

• Template:Uw-rorschach1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Uw-rorschach2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Far too narrow user warning/block templates, designed for a single article. A reason like this can be easily provided with more general templates using the numbered parameters. –xeno^talk 16:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about a warning about removing verified content against consensus. There are a number of psychological pages in which content suppression is being attempted.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-notcensored1 / Template:Uw-delete1 ? If these aren't specific enough (note the ability to add Additional text if you wish to add a note about consensus), I'd recommend proposing a new template at WT:UW. –xeno^talk 17:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a very isolated issue to create a set of templates over. This issue can be enforced using regular policy based templates. Chillum 22:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The issue can also be enforced by not using any templates at all. :) --Conti|✉ 22:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Far too narrowly focused to need a template. Use the existing (slightly more generic) templates instead. Anomie⚔ 02:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, particularly xeno. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too limited in focus & others cover the situation adequately. Skier Dude (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2009 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1960-1969VogueCovers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1970-1979VogueCovers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1980-1989VogueCovers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1990-1999VogueCovers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2000-2009VogueCovers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Vogue template footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A bunch of (partially empty) templates that lists "Major Vogue covers", and with that it means all Vogue covers of the French, Italian, American and British Vogue editions in a given decade. Because it's really important to know while reading Claudia Schiffer that Hannelore Knuts was on the Vogue Italia cover in 2001. Totally relevant and important to our readers. Not to mention that these templates are "in the middle of an expansion" since March. --Conti|✉ 10:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These templates serve the same purpose as all templates that link people of common accomplishment. They are no different than say ((US Presidents)), ((AcademyAwardBestSupportingActress 2001-2020)) or ((Heisman Trophy)). They link articles that a reader of a particular subject may have an interest in and a need to find so that they can be accessed by a touch of a button. That is what a navigation template does. People who are interested in fashion have the same need to access articles about people of similar accomplishment as do people who are interested in sports, acting or politics. As for the expansion state, the last two decades have been becoming more and more complete (and thus more useful). I do not have access to resources to make them any more complete by myself immediately. I have attempted to use online resources but have at times found them incomplete and contradictory and the Chicago Public Library has limited resources. Also, note that the template is not cluttering articles because it is only linked to persons for whom modeling and fashion is their primary source of notability. Actresses and other celebrities who appear in the templates to not have these templates on their pages. Thus, while Claudia Schiffer and Kate Moss use these templates Scarlett Johansson and Penélope Cruz do not. Also, note that for several people for whom fashion and modeling is their primary source of notability the template serves as an aid to the reader in assessing notability of the subject. For example, Karen Alexander, Michaela Bercu or Kara Young are well served by template that currently remain largely incomplete.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One should assume that Vogue cover models of 1989 are more relevant to Vogue cover models of 1990 than to Vogue cover models of 1999. One should also assume that Vogue Italy cover models of are not very relevant to Vogue US cover models. These templates aren't really comparable to Template:US Presidents. Instead, it's more like Template:Heads of state of the four biggest countries from 1990-1999, which would make as much sense. Not to mention that these templates are often larger than the articles that they link to. Honestly, I don't get most of these navigational templates in general. Because we can sort people like that, doesn't mean we have to. I do not think we need to link from Jay Berwanger to Sam Bradford. Linking from both to List of Heisman Trophy winners seems to be much more appropriate to me. And, in this case, using a list seems like the better solution to me, too. --Conti|✉ 12:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like ((AcademyAwardBestSupportingActress 2001-2020)) you have to draw the line at a specific year. The years at the end may require two button clicks. However, if you are nominating this because you do not believe in navigation templates in general for persons of similar accomplishment, well I think you are wrong. People who want to read about Sam Bradford would likely be interested in Jason White (American football) and Billy Sims. The fact that the template is larger than the article for people like Karen Alexander, Michaela Bercu or Kara Young simply says that although wikipedians may not be willing to volunteer their time to create substantial articles for these modestly notable people does not mean that they are not notable. We could go back and forth, but if you are against navigation templates and prefer lists, that is your preference. I do not think we should just yank the templates. The reason why the four should be included together is to help the reader understand whether models are globally relevant. You might think of Kate Moss, Gisele Bündchen and Cindy Crawford as similar, but then look at the templates and figure out that Crawford is not really as significant a model in certain parts of the world.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose we can agree to disagree here. I think that we could have dozens and dozens of nav-templates like these on practically every article, and I don't think that's really the way it should be. And yes, I think Template:AcademyAwardBestSupportingActress 2001-2020 would do better as a list, too. --Conti|✉ 13:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Template clutter. Who appeared in one nation's cover in January 2002 is not relevant to who appeared in another nation's cover in August 2007. Resolute 14:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Navigation templates often serve to link articles of people of similar accomplishments. 2002 and 2007 persons who have done the same thing are as related as they always are for navigation templates. This nav template is no different. It just happens to be for fashion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom, just template clutter. Garion96 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator argued that it is template clutter in Claudia Schiffer that Hannelore Knuts and in neither case are there too many templates. I don't see the argument for 95% of the pages that the template is on.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can template clutter be an argument when this is not only template on one of the articles. In fact, these are the only way many of these articles are linked and many would be orphans without these templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want them linked, create a list of vogue models articles and link to that page from the respective model articles. Oh and on Claudia Schiffer there are definitely too many templates. The same for Stephanie Seymour where also the by you created template:1995-1999VSFashion Show is being used. Another example of template clutter. Garion96 (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since when is four templates considered template clutter? For most models (including Claudia Schiffer and Stephanie Seymour), the only templates on the page are templates linking them by fashion accomplishment and once you remove one they will all likely be removed and then none of them have templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it's the number of templates, it's their size. If expanded, the templates take about twice as much space as the actual article at Claudia Schiffer. --Conti|✉ 12:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Correct, it's not just the amount of templates which is clutter but just the template itself. This kind of information would be great in a List of Vogue cover models article but not on a template. Garion96 (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For these articles, the templates are saving many of them from being isolated (I think you call them orphans). Although the templates may be large when expanded, they would only be expanded by someone looking for more information. Thus, it is not as if it appears in any unwanted form like a pop up ad or something. People who want to know about a models covergirl career can get extensive details with a few clicks conveniently with these templates. Also, I have gotten use to attempting to understand which models have been successful by conventional standards by looking at these templates. I do not think a separate list article would be well received by all you folks who create these deletion discussions either. So in my mind deleting this template would be tantamount deleting information from this encyclopedia that is useful and helpful. You folks would delete a separate list too. As I say the templates are not really a problem becuase they have been formatted so that they are not expanded and some open to the section with the models information automatically.--Babybambam (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um.. I don't want to sound rude or anything, but you seem quite closely related to User:TonyTheTiger, and seem to be voting on his behalf. You might want to read about Meatpuppetry. --Conti|✉ 17:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I have said before that he is my son. I don't vote on much, but when we talk about some things sometimes some issue are interesting and I vote. I don't vote much because you have too many rules about who can vote.--Babybambam (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, thanks for the explanation. You're free to voice your opinion wherever you like, of course, but when supporting User:TonyTheTiger, it might be best to be upfront about this to avoid any possible confusion. --Conti|✉ 19:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is my big problem with this whole nomination. I have been through a similar nomination with debates over the now deleted ((NYRepresentatives)) template. In that case the fact that the template was large was a good reason to delete for three reasons that are not present in this case. 1.) List articles of Congressmen by state are unarguably encyclopedic; 2.) List articles of Congressmen for New York already existed; and 3.) without the template there was no risk of less well-remembered subjects of the template having stub articles deleted and redlinks left with no encouragement for article creation. With these templates a semi-forgotten model from 30 or 40 years ago could create an article without fear of it being deleted. Suppose a model appeared on the cover of one or two issues of Vogue in the 70s. If these templates remain, her fans could create an article and slap this template on it and no one would WP:AFD it. They would say yes she was a notable model. Without these templates such a subject would likely have trouble passing an WP:AFD. Furthermore, many of the articles that exist would become orphans and likely be deleted. In addition, all kinds of semi-related templates would get deleted until half the model are left with the option of saying so and so was best buddies with so and so to avoid being orphans.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Additionally, look at the content that is included in the templates. When I open Claudia Schiffer (since her article is at issue here) if you look at the 1990s template you can see she was a major force in the New York fashion scene, but less so in London, Paris and Milan although still a respectable presence in all. If you go to a person like Karen Mulder and look at the same template you might be surprised to learn that she was not a fashion Icon in Milan according to this fuzzy metric. There is a lot of encyclopedic content in these templates that is quite readily available with the touch of a few buttons.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I don't get it. Where's the difference between "She's notable. Look at the template that shows that she's been on the cover of Vogue Italia in May 1984!" and "She's notable. Look at the article that says that she's been on the cover of Vogue Italia in May 1984!"? I'm pretty sure templates are not supposed to be used to establish notability. And these articles won't be orphans if there will be List of Vogue covers or something similar, either. And whether Karen Mulder was or was not a fashion icon in Milan can also be written into the article, if necessary. --Conti|✉ 11:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like I said, since Claudia Schiffer is an example you present, look at the information in the template for her article. You can tell which of the four major fashion centers she was most notable in. There is no encyclopedic source that says Karen Mulder was not an elite force in modeling in Milan, but clear inferences can be drawn from these templates. If I were debating with someone from Milan about whether Cindy Crawford, Claudia Schiffer or Karen Mulder was an elite international model, I would better understand their perspective. List of Vogue covers is an article that you can easily pretend would be kept with a high degree of certainty, but everyone involved in deletion discussions knows it would be considered on the fringe of encyclopedic topics. Sure they are not suppose to be used to establish notability, but having a profession where 30% of the articles say model W is best friends with model X, model Y and model Z to avoid being orphans is not a better solution than these templates. Sure the top models of today will be kept but try to create an article for a model who appeared on one or two Vogue covers in the 70s without these templates and see if you can keep it out of WP:AFD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Why Vogue and not Vanity Fair? Why not Vogue Mexico or Germany? Why does the template go on Schiffer's article and not Nicole Kidman's? The answers might be pretty obvious to some, but my issue is that the existence and placement of the templates depends on subjective criteria, which should never be the case. I mean, no opinions are involved in who goes into a U.S. Presidents template and where it goes—it's indisputable, and if it's not indisputable, it shouldn't be a template. I also take issue with some of the "keep" arguments made here. Templates are not made to trump the existence of significant coverage and avoid AfDs, and asserting that these templates are a way of assessing international impact as a model is absurd (Vogue covers are not the end-all be-all of modeling). These templates are a navigational tool, that's all, and trying to turn them into something they're not in order to keep them only points out that they fall short when looked at for simply what they are.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why Vogue and not Vanity Fair? (Why Oscars templates and not Chicago International Film Festival ones? For obvious reasons to those interested int he subject) Why not Vogue Mexico or Germany? (What are the four major fashion centers of the world?) Why Schiffer's article and not Nicole Kidman? For template clutter reasons it is on pages for whom fashion is a primary source of notability (based on the content of the WP bio).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Navigation template creep; appearance on a Vogue cover is not (with a few small exceptions) a defining characteristic of a person. Powers ^T 12:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—both out of eventualist considerations, and practical considerations—the subject is not important (not an important "mutual accomplishment"). The practical consideration is that the template is huge, and mostly empty. If it was reduced in a way that only names/years would be displayed, this consideration would be alleviated, leaving only the previous one. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Everything about these templates is subjective. If there were some objective criteria for establishing the content of these templates I would be more inclined to consider their usefulness, but as it is, I have to say I don't think these belong on Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With due respect, I think "appeared on the cover of Vogue" is pretty objective, isn't it? Powers ^T 13:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-defining, trivial, and unnecessary template clutter. PC78 (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have reformated as List of Vogue cover models.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete Plastikspork (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive Box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mis-use of Template space, Appears to be a archive from someones talk page, the template is orphaned and was created by someone who is now indef'ed as a sockpuppet. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 05:17, 14 August 2009 (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.