< January 19	January 21 >

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 debate was delete by request of author. ... discospinster _talk 15:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grand Lodge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template not in use. Does not link to any page. Zef (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete since you are the author and editor of it zef, you can speedy delete this with ((db-author)). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that. Thank you. Zef (talk) 15:12, 22 January 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 --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Second attempt at this): This tag is underused and is pretty much useless, because a) there is no speedy removal criterion for off-topic threads, and b) anything that can be speedily removed can be done so using WP:NOTAFORUM. Borderline T2. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Personally, I think there needs to be greater enforcement of talk page guidelines, and something like this is needed. I understand your point, but I would rather see the development of a criteria for speedy deleting talk threads as opposed to deleting the template. --Pstanton (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If a thread should be removed, it should be removed. There's no need for a template saying just that. --Conti|✉ 18:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - bad idea for a template. As Conti says above, if a talk page thread is irrelevant to the article or contradicts talk page rules, it should be removed or archived immediately; there's no need to propose that someone else remove it (and then discuss that proposed removal...). This seems, at best, like an attempt to introduce new process where none is needed. Terraxos (talk) 23:50, 27 January 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. delldot ∇. 00:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tim Burton's Batman film series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Joel Schumacher's Batman film series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Christopher Nolan's Batman film series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm nominating these three templates for the same reason that I've nominated Template:1989-1997 Batman film series for deletion: Overkill. Actually, two of the three templates were created in response to my original nomination. Make of that what you will. All templates include way too many links and are included in way too many articles. For example, what is the template doing at Webb Institute? Or Super Freak? Or even Lee Smith (film editor)? We already have Template:Batman in popular media, which links to all the films and media, which really is enough. A template (with maybe a dozen, but not ten dozen links) for all the current films (starting with Tim Burton's Batman) would be fine, too, but not three huge templates for 6 films. That's just way too much. I've discussed this extensively with the creator of these templates on my talk page, but we've come to no agreement, so here I go. Conti|✉ 13:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the above argument. Merge them into a single template. Madhava 1947 (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These templates were created after the original, massive template for the whole film series was deleted - but they suffer from the same problem, of being too large and having too many irrelevant links to be of much navigational use. I'm inclined to think now that having one template for the Batman film series was in fact the right approach, but it will have to be drastically smaller than any of these. Most of these links (Pinewood Studios, Rainmaker Digital Effects, Toyetic, Batman (pinball)...) are of no real relevance to the Batman films, and should be removed. I'd be willing to help working on a new template if necessary. Terraxos (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Template overkill, again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:51, 28 January 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 --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Law and Order SVU Characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnavigable eyesore that contains pretty trivial information (I strongly doubt Adam Schiff (Law & Order) is thought of by anyone, anywhere, as an SVU character) and has only 4 transclusions. I wouldn't be against something like this existing, but this particular template is just too much. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 12:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thought I'd find something like this. The aims of this template are already pretty well served by ((Law & Order: Special Victims Unit)) Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 12:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the other template found serves the purpose much better. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to delete it or replace it with the other one in the articles? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - redundant to existing template linked above. Terraxos (talk) 23:39, 27 January 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 --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airline holding company organizations of the world (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is a very large sprawling footer navbox which is being added to airline holding companies and other slightly related companies. It does not really provide a logical navigation between related articles but it does provide complicated navigation between loosely related ideas. Function where needed is better served with categories and in my opinion does not add any value to the articles. The template has images and explanation more suited to an article. Has been removed from related articles following discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines but removal is reverted by template originator (a non-fixed IP). MilborneOne (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's absurdly long, and I can't see why it's beneficial to have in the first place. NcSchu_(Talk) 15:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a huge template that is not just a directory of holding companies (many of which don't even have articles) but also the airlines that are held by the company. While this is potentially useful information, it belongs within the holding company articles, not in a navigation template. I agree that categories are more appropriate. I would also support the deletion of Template:Airline holding companies of the United States. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Hey folks, I am new here, but I personally like to know who is the owning business entitiy of all these different airlines, as do many other people I am sure. SOME OF US DO NOT WISH TO FLY STATE FINANCED and backed entities such as EMIRATES, which portrays itself as a none flag carrier, when a choice exist between a privatized BRITSH AIRWAYS. ETC. The Master List of Airlines is a completely sprawling and unmanageable list, but I do not hear complaints about that. Therefore this is an excellet source to find information quickly rather than plodding through page after page of airlines and "questionable airlines" as I have done to help establish this page. 166.129.7.86 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would still be better to describe such companies as state-financed on the holding company and/or airline article rather than in a sprawling template. For this particular case, an additional suitable option might be the creation of something along the lines of Category:State-financed airline holding companies as a sub-category of Category:Airline holding companies. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link to Flag Carrier State supported airlines was included. I did not want to include all of the state supported airlines for it would make this list of holdig unmanageable. Check out the goverment holdings of Air India for example. This is significant amount of the worlds passenger traffic. Also check out TUIfly, Lufthansa is in on this with some of their airlines along with the renamed Hapag Lloyd shipping consortium, renamed to TUI AG. I trully feel this information will refine itself and begin as a "template" for continued refinement of organized wiki information. Thanks for yor comments. If you have ideas for tweeks, well I know this is wiki so that happens!!!166.129.7.86 (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to the logic for this template as a method to avoid flying certain airlines. This is an encyclopedia and not a travel guide. So your basic reasons for keeping seem to be totally unsuited for an encyclopedia. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I am shooting for corporate transparancy, which this list helps to clarify as to which holding company conglomerates and consortiums are in control of what airlines, especially when it comes down to mergers and acquisitions. Our goal here at WIKI is to be an encylopedia which broadens knoweledge, rather than stifle information which sometimes expert and hobbiest such as yourselfs may not be all to familiar with. I used the golden rule of trying to expand a questionable area and topic, and allow others to participate, rather than the tyranny of a few to dictate what is important and what is not to those seeking knowledge, clarity, and wisdom for all. 166.129.7.86 (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While templates and categories can coexist, the existing articles and categories serve very adequately for any navigational need in this area. In fact the level of detail being imparted in the template argues for improving of articles, if they are not adequate for the purpose of describing the nature of these various types of companies. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overkill. --Conti|✉ 21:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just tweek it a bit to make it more user friendly while still being accurate. There was a lot of research done on this to actually discover which and what corporate entity actually pulls the strings at the various airlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.129.131.203 (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is this the same user that also voted "keep" above? Both IP addresses are in the same netblock. Also, There was a lot of research done on this to actually discover which and what corporate entity actually pulls the strings at the various airlines suggests that the template violates WP:OR. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Milborne and Hawaiian717, and a few others on here, do you guys happen to know if I were to Log in if I could "Watch" a certain area as far as links posted and and additions by someone with a certain screen log in. I sure would like to watch some other peoples posting, and grind my axe, like I do get a impression a few other of those Logged in types like to grind their axes and suggest deletions of this or that instead of improvements. Thanks for the tips!166.129.138.152 (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe it's possible to track particular users automatically, but you can check the edit history for any user by going to their user page and clicking "User contributions" in the toolbox on the left side of the screen. You don't even have to log in to do this. If you log in, you can watch individual articles for changes by clicking the "watch" link at the top of the page. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• rename - the template seems to be developing extra text, that would mean that it should be an article rather than a template. And in this case there may be a unbalanced point of view evident. Originally I thought that the template should have had another name such as Template:Airline holding companies. organizations and of the world are redundant parts of the name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Graeme, thanks for your positive comments. I just had to leave that text in there because I did not want to be accused of "Vandalism" by anyone. Can we agree holding companies represent greater complexity than simply airlines operated as airlines??? I am great by renaming it into something simple, but we tend to run into the complexity of weather certain airlines are holding companies. Example Delta Air Lines. Delta is a certificated airline of Delta Air Lines. Some people seem to be in denial that Delta now is also more than the simple Delta that has been described in its page. Presently Delta Air Lines has 5 fully government certificated and individually IATA code airlines which it managerially directs and controls. These are not "brands inside of brands such as TED. Additionally it partially holds Midwest Airlines.

As such rather than get into this debate, I broadened the term to holding company organizations so others could understand this somewhat abstract concept for many. We are not living in times when airlines were simply airlines and strictly focused upon the airline industry as in the past. Thank you for your positive comments about renaming above.

(Holding Company Guy!) 166.129.26.226 (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, if the articles are wrong, then they should be corrected. And Delta is probably an easier cleanup for some of your points then say, Singapore Airlines. You still seem to be pointing out the need to fix articles rather then then need for this template. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At some point prior to this discussion, I believe it was pointed out that this might be better as an article. However a concern was raised that the information may well be WP:OR. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can understand that someone might want to know what holding company owns a particular airline, or what other airlines are owned by the same holding company, or whether a particular airline is government-owned. However, putting that information for every airline holding company into a single template does not seem to be a particularly effective way to communicate this information. (One has to click through three "show" links to see any information.) To take the example of Delta Air Lines, the other airlines owned by Delta Air Lines, Inc. (besides "mainline" Delta) are listed in that article. In turn, each of the articles Comair, Northwest Airlines, Mesaba Airlines, and Compass Airlines (North America) mentions that the particular airline is a subsidiary of Delta Air Lines in either the first or second sentence. So I don't think this template is needed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan 90. I tell you we are dambed if we do and dambed if we don't! We got concerns earlier from this discussion that the page lists were too long, so we made attempts to address this by putting the holding companies into more expansive packages by regions. If we put this into an article the list would be way to expansive too. I wonder if we can be in agreement that it is important to know who owns and controls the strategic direction of each group of airlines? By creating this page we know all at once and in one place which entity is in control of which airline and subsidiary airline. Who really knew Austral was a state owned entity through being a subsidiary of another state owned entity Aerolinas Argentinas. (Holding Company Guy!)166.129.46.190 (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it might be better if it were set up simliar to List_of_airlines. It is a nice list box, but extremely long and complex. However, as holding companies seeming to be growing in number, it may be worthwhile to convert it to a form similiar to that one??? (Holding Company Guy!166.129.186.194 (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a better idea, List of airline holding companies. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this would work as an article or a category, but it does not work as a navigation template. There is no reason why someone would want to navigate from the article on one of these airlines to another. I don't mind it being kept around in the short-term if the author wants to convert it into a list, which would be much more appropriate and easy to use. Terraxos (talk) 23:37, 27 January 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a roster template for a defunct cycling team. Defunct teams don't have rosters. They don't need roster templates. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 07:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only transclusions of this template are now in the userspace. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 12:30, 21 January 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:C.A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a roster template for a defunct cycling team. Defunct teams don't have rosters. They don't need roster templates. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 07:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the only transclusions of this template are in the userspace. The same will be true of GST tomorrow, sometime after I've defied my handle for sufficient time... Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 13:14, 20 January 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. GlassCobra 15:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cruz Garza (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template doesn't seem to have any purpose, and appears to be written directly by the person it mentions. Brianreading (talk) 05:28, 20 January 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. The template confuses nationalities, ethnic groups and races. Even in the current trimmed form it continues to suffer from the same problems. For instance, whites and black are neither ethnic groups nor nationalities. So, in my opinion, consensus is clear: the template creates a lot of problems (especially related to WP:OR and WP:V), which can not be fixed, and therefore should be deleted. Ruslik (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template claims to be based on ethnic groups in the UK. However, it confuses nationalities for ethnic groups and the result is a mish-mash of ethnicities, nationalities and religions. I propose that it be deleted, possibly to be replaced with separate templates for country of birth and ethnicity per the UK census. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination as discussion on Talk page already. --HighKing (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A confusion of nationalities and ethnicities is nothing that can't be fixed. It's not enough to warrant the deletion of an entire template. Middayexpress (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Considering that most editors can't appear to distinguish, and considering that the template is in reality a list of *all* possible nationalities/ethnicities (give me an example of an ethnic group that isn't in the UK?), it serves no useful purpose whatsoever. --HighKing (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Template necessitates dubious presentation of controvesry without providing means of reconciliation. E.g. "British" as an ethnic group is controversial; so is Cornish; is there a difference between "Irish", "Scots-Irish", "Scottish" and "Gael" ... are they mutual exclusive (bearing in mind exclusivity is potentially offensive to a number of wikipedian camps) ... so how would you get that across in a template? You simply couldn't. I didn't even move out of the British Isles on this one. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per Deacon of Pndapetzim and HighKing. I don't see that it can have any useful meaning. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, with some potential trimming. While there may be some issues with the proliferation of "Fooian-British" articles listed in this template, that's an issue with those articles, not with the template. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've missed the point, or otherwise failed to address the fact that most of the articles have nothing to do with ethnic groups, but with nationalities. You've also complicated matters by describing some of the articles as "Elbonian-British" which implies that there's some sort of criteria for inclusion and that some groups aren't good enough. Yikes - please drop the stick and move away from the hornets nest.... --HighKing (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was using "Elbonian" as a wildcard for all the nationalities/ethnicities listed... I've changed that bit around, hopefully it's clearer now that I'm not trying to single anyone out with that phrasing. With regard to the nationality/ethnicity issue - granted, but I'm not sure why this can't simply be solved by renaming the template to "nationalities and ethnic groups", or by splitting it into two templates. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but reorganise into actual ethnic groups with large populations and delete the articles with small populations/move them all to another page about 'nationalities in the UK'. We've had this debate before with your proposals to delete various ethinic group articles and that was on the basis that certain articles were poorly written, without citations and that the topic in questions was 'not significant' i.e. the population of the ethnic group wasn't 'notable enough'. There is no basis for complete deletion which seems to be your favourite policy in many your posts. A simple reorganising of some articles is all that's needed. Signed 'freize1' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.136.171 (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think anon ip's can vote on these things. Can you log in to register your opinion please? --HighKing (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • This isn't a proposal to delete the articles in the template, it's a proposal to delete the template. The rationale for deletion has nothing to do with whether the articles are notable. The problem is that very few of the articles listed in the template are about ethnic groups as such. Also, please don't remove deletion templates as you did with this edit. This is considered vandalism. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete For reasons already given by Deacon of Pndapetzim and HighKing.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as this is not based on any official classification scheme, and many of the 'ethnic groups' listed are arguably nationalities instead. This seems to have unsurmountable problems with original research. Terraxos (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible delete and split up This is an important template in my opinion, but I also agree that it could be seen as a bit of a mess with a mix of ethnicities and nationalities. Maybe it would be easier to rename the article Ethnic Groups and Nationalities in the UK, only a suggestion. Otherwise we could get ideas from these Template:Asian Americans, Template:Canadians of Asian descent. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the reasons given by Deacon of Pndapetzim and HighKing. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete -- this is an utter mishmash. Ulster-Scots is an American ethnicity, not used in Britain. The proper way to handle these is via categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep but I plan to move each nationality to their respective ethnic cluster template as in Asian British.--23prootie (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a very bad idea. What is an "ethnic cluster" for example? Forcing readers towards your own perspectives, especially on such a complex and controvertial issue is not good for the project. Ethnic groups are negotiated labels which change over time and between different people. I could be have dual British Bangladeshi nationality, identify as a British Bangladeshi but be considered White, not South Asian, as I'm a descendant of colonial Britons. Same could easily apply to parts of Africa. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: There is nothing in this template that cannot be fixed. Deletion should only apply to ones that have no grounds to exist in the first place! The current state of the template being confusing is not valid grounds for deletion. As for the ethnicity/nationality issue, the UK census defines all ethnic groups according to place of national origin. There is nothing nothing to be confused about. It would be pointless creating two seperate templates for ethnicities and nationalities when 'ethnicity' obviously refers to place of origin according to the UK census. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the "UK census defines all ethnic groups according to place of national origin" is completely wrong. The UK census defines ethnic groups according to the United Kingdom Census 2001 Ethnic Codes. Where was the entry for French British? Jamaican British? So perhaps there is something to be confused about. Also there is fundamental gap in knowledge when you say "ethnicity obviously refers to place of origins according to the UK census" - that's most definately not what an ethnic group is. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 04:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace with something more logical, the diversity of just a few cities (many more are missing) is not the same as ethnic groups. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can we add the recently created Template:White British to the TfD. It's pretty close to a fork. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I listed this template, it has been edited so that it only includes the ethnic groups listed in the census, but a whole load of other templates such as that one and Template:Black British have been created, and the nationalities that were listed on this template moved to them. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:28, 25 January 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 No consensus. Ruslik (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox churches and cathedrals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Parish church (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The functions of the templates have been incorporated into ((Infobox church)), and so the templates are now redundant. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Both, per nom, templates now redundant. – ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Both, per nom, templates now redundant, and standardisation of templates is to be encouraged. Good work! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both once unused: Delete Per nom. However, would encourage convertion of articles before the template is deleted though. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Shouldn't I request a bot to carry out conversion after deletion of these templates, in case there isn't consensus that deletion be carried out (though this seems unlikely at the moment)? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once the deletion votes passes, the template can be listed in a "holding pen", while conversion is carried out; then it's deleted. However, that doesn't prevent template conversion in the meantime, just like any other edit. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both once unused: Per nom after phase out of use. -- Secisek (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom once unused. Dgf32 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Dgf32 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose The new template is too big, unwieldy, and awkward to warrant deletion of other these existing templates. The newly designed Infobox Church template introduces huge subsection headings, which make the infobox far too large, which will be especially problematic since the vast majority of church articles are relatively short. The majority of churches will only use a few fields of the new template, and thusly the infobox will become crowded with subsection headings. Just because there's a new template doesn't mean that the old ones are obsolete and need to be deleted. These templates will continue to be needed for articles where the new infobox is simply not going to be appropriate, easy to read, or visually appealing. Dgf32 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can you provide an example of the new infobox being "inappropriate, uneasy to read, or visually unappealing"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's an example (albeit hypothetical) of visually unappealing due to the high ratio of subject headings to utilized fields: St. Philbert's Church. Dgf32 (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it was broken because you used invalid data in one field.; I fixed it here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose:As a major contributor of information on the architecture of churches and catherdrals, I do not want to see the present relatively discrete info box replaced with that absolute monster that has been proposed. If you are going to introduce that HUGE info box, then we might as well stop writing articles altogether and just let the systemised info-box take over.
  It's a ridiculous way to go. An entire list of clergy, the dozen or so architects who have contributed over 500 years to an English church, the lengthy list of specifications right down to the height of the cross on top of the tower, ....Do we want a also statement of the weekly offertry along with the number of in attendance? If someone counts the bosses on the ceiling or the number of slates on the roof, does this go in the box as well?
  The information that is being put into these info boxes needs to be written out in sentence form, (or lists where appropriate) and included in the text. All the measurements, for example are completely superfluous to an info box. However, a separate template, of horizontal form could be developed that would contain this type of information usefully. I have created a list at St Peters Basilica that has this effect.
  Basically, horizontal boxes are generally useful, big vertical boxes are very intrusive.
  Furthermore, Long infoboxes contain text, and quite an amount of blank space. They often take up space which could be better used by a few appropriate pictures. There is an old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words. As an art historian, I like to combine them within an article. It is important to be able to place pics next to the text which they pertain to. If, down the entire right side of an article is a box telling us who the clergy are, etc etc etc, then there is no room for pictures, regardless of how significant the visual aspects of the church may be. The space where they could go is crammed with superfluous text that is probably repeated (or could be better placed) in the body of text.
  Whatismore, the editors that jam these blinking boxes in, for the most part seem never to have learnt how to operate the "Show changes" key. At least, the evidence is that they don't bother to look at the results of cramming a box in, or if they do look, then they are unable to recognise that the formatting problems so caused, are indeed caused by what they have done.
  The problem that typically occurs is that the first section in the body of text (after the intro and table of contents) frequently has a pic to the right, near to the top. The info box, unlike the toc, flows into the next section. It immediately displaces the pic. AS the pic gets pushed down, every bit of text beneat it also gets pushed down. The effect is to orphan the section heading from the text. On a narrow squarish computer screen, this may not happen, or else the text might omly displace by a few lines.
  The effect of a badly-placed box can be seen at Church of St. Walburge, Preston, which I have temporarily returned to the state I found it in. Amandajm (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the horizontal template you've been developing at "St. Peter's Basilica"? It seems to have a standard vertical infobox. Also, the main problem with the infobox at "Church of St. Walburge, Preston", in my view, is the over-long image showing the full length of the church spire! Reducing the image size or substituting a different image may help. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The main rationale for developing ((Infobox church)) was to address the need for an infobox that allows users to indicate, if they wish to, information concerning the history and architecture of a church building as well as the people associated with the church. Almost all of the clergy- and laity-related fields were imported directly from ((Parish church)). The utility of the infobox is that practically all of the parameters are optional; if one doesn't want to provide certain items of information, one doesn't have to. The infobox can therefore be very small. If there is a disagreement as to what information should be included in a particular infobox, this is a matter that should be resolved through discussion on the talk page of the article that uses the infobox and is not a fault of the infobox itself. Another reason for the template is to avoid a proliferation of similar templates, such as ((Infobox churches and cathedrals)), ((Infobox Medieval cathedral)), ((Infobox UK cathedral)) and ((Parish church)). Out of curiosity, Dgf32 and Amandajm, which template(s) do you generally use at the moment? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The sort of Historical, Architectural and Organisational info that gets crammed into boxes is much better written out in sentences within the text. Why on earth is it so important to know, as an immediately accessible fact, that this is the 4th church on the site, or that the vault is 79 feet high or that William Wilkins is currently a Lay Canon? Amandajm (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I don't use templates. I merely tolerate them if they are not too horrible and intrusive. Amandajm (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox used at Church of St. Walburge, Preston is ((Infobox religious building)), which is not involved in the current debate. (I've swapped the images to fix the problem.) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Let me say that I appreciate the new template and thank those who worked on its creation. There will certainly be instances when the new template will be a fine addition to articles. There are substantial differences between the new template and the templates nominated for deletion, and there are appropriate uses for each. Given the differences, infobox proliferation isn't really an issue here. The point was made above that the new infobox can be small provided limited fields are used. However, as I pointed out before, if the fields used are in different subsections, subsection headings are added for each. Discussing what fields of the template should be used on articles' talk pages doesn't address the design issues of the new template. As I said, I do appreciate the new template, but there are plenty of instances where the subsection headings are a drawback.Dgf32 (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's no clear rationale for deleting the templates in question. The new template clearly does not replace the templates nominated for deletion. Discussions on how to improve the new template can be had on its talk page, but there doesn't appear to be a consensus here for deletion. Dgf32 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose Deletion. I for one have never found the generic "Church" template of much value. This one for the Parish Church, though, I have found to be of great value and easy to use. Many of the arguments for deletion are specious. Just because it was not used at some point is no reason to delete. It is very much used now and has been for several years. Why do we have to have a Procrustean bed template for all churches? One size does not fot all. clariosophic (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment By my rough count the transclusions to the Parish church template are just under 500 articles.

• Comment: I did not say that the templates ((Infobox churches and cathedrals)) (ICC) and ((Parish church)) (PC) were not used – clearly they are. But they are now replaceable by the single template ((Infobox church)) (IC) because that template takes over the functions of these two templates. If editors find ICC and PC useful, then there is no reason not to find IC equally useful, because most of the fields in IC were directly imported from those two templates. The main difference between ICC and PC on the one hand and IC on the other is that fields from ((Infobox religious building)) were also added to IC to allow editors the option of referring to architectural details of a church building in addition to information about its history, clery and laity. But I stress this is an option – editors who do not wish to provide such information simply need to leave out the relevant parameters and – voilà – they will not appear in the template. In fact, there are only two mandatory parameters in the template. If there is a difference of opinion as to whether information should or should not be included in the infobox in a particular article, this is a matter for discussion on the article's talk page. It is not a fault of the IC template itself. Dgf32, you commented that the section headings in IC tended to increase the length of the infobox. What if an option was given to editors to "switch off" the headings? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - The current template serves the purpose impeccably. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Kieranmrhunt (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Which current template are you referring to? ((Infobox churches and cathedrals)), ((Parish church)) or both? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved[edit]

[I have moved the following, over-long, comment, because the template concerned is not one of those involved in this deletion proposal, as noted above.]

Misunderstandings

• I did not say that I had "developed a horizontal info box" at St Peter's. I wrote,specifically with regards to architectural specifications:

However, a separate template, of horizontal form could be developed that would contain this type of information usefully. I have created a list at St Peters Basilica that has this effect. Let me repeat list. I am not referring to the vertical info box from which I removed the great lengthy list of specifications that is now in the list that I created.

• St Walburges. The problem at St Walburge's is not the overlong image.. That overlongg image is the image that needs to be at the top of the page, either in the box, or in the intro. The spire is the cause of the buildings Heritage status. The spire is the landmark. The facade is of very little significance.

However, once that very significant pic is placed into a box, and under it, some bright spark inserts a map of the county, and after that, the location, denomination, etc etc etc etc, then one has an info box of ridiculous dimensions, considering the length of the article. No room is left for the facade, the interior, the stained glass or a landscape shot of the city with the spire rising out of it as a landmark, all of which would be to the benefit of the article. In the past few days, since I put the article back to the ridiculous state in which I found it several months ago (before I sorted out the problem) 3 different editors have attempted to solve the problem, and all their attempts have been unsuccessful. Putting the facade pic in the box (in place of the best and significant pic) doen't work. Well, it might work if your screen is very narrow and your typeface set very large, but not otherwise.) The problem of the heading being orphaned from the text is still occuring even on the narrowest screen.

• Getting to the point, the inability of three editors to fix this clearly demonstrates why we don't need bigger boxes with yet more possibilities and yet more headings. Most editors who insert boxes don't recognise the problems they cause. An the experience at St Walburge's indicates the inability of a number of experienced editors to identify and solve the problem, even if they are aware of it.
• If editors who like putting things in boxes, have bigger boxes to put them in, then they will simply fill them up, to the extreme provocation and frustration of people like me who contribute textual and illustrative material to articles. I get heartily sick of writing and laying out articles only to discover, next time I look, that there is a gap in the text 3 inches long, caused by the well-intentioned insertion of a box crammed with stuff that is better placed in the text.
• Let me reiterate, that I am not totally against boxes. Some of them are very useful. The horizontal boxes that fit at the foot of the page, are generally an asset. More of these should bbe developed.
• There is a real need for a horizontal box of two columns wide to include building specifications, like the list, let me repeat list that I created in the St Peters Basilica article, or the simple box at Cologne Cathedral. Why doesn't someone take on this challenge? Amandajm (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 04:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as with geographic areas, there's no need to have a proliferation of templates essentially doing the same job. I understand the argument that the infobox can be overly complex for buildings simpler than a cathedral - but there's two ways to deal with that: (1) use a reduced set of recommended parameters appropriate for the building type; (2) use the building type: church, cathedral, chapel, etc; as a parameter to generate an appropriate infobox. I feel that is a discussion that needs to take place in 'designing' an appropriate template, and probably before these current templates are removed. Kbthompson (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Clearly there's no consensus for deletion. The template hasn't been replaced or replicated by other templates, and so the delete due to proliferation argument doesn't even apply here. Dgf32 (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to point out that no one has really responded to my point made above on 14 January about editors having the freedom to simply omit parameters that they do not use, thus potentially making the infobox quite short. Also, Dgf32, you haven't stated your thoughts on whether you would find ((Infobox church)) more acceptable if it provided an option to editors to "switch off" the headings. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:17, 30 January 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.