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 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned band template. Redlinks exclusively, the band article was deleted for failing to meet WP:N/WP:MUSIC. GregorB (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - useless. (Shouldn't there be a speedy criterion for a template with no links?) Robofish (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. @Robofish - may I suggest G8? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:25, 6 May 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 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned/Un-used template - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - probably created by mistake or as a test template. Robofish (talk) 04:23, 4 May 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 CSD T3. GlassCobra 03:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PTISD-Source (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Ophaned/Un-used template - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:40, 2 May 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 Erik9 (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Templates need to be maintained daily and are only done selectively. Information is supposed to be based on the depth charts on mlb.com but they are often not updated as ideally as one would like. Also in many cases there is no real "starter" classified on some teams, and users make updates from various sources. They are just too difficult to maintain properly. A brief disussion was just held here and all responses agree. Category:Major League Baseball position navigational boxes should also be deleted. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It's near impossible to keep up with them as they could, in theory, change multiple times in one day. blackngold29 20:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Not only is there a high probability that these templates will be incorrect on any given day, they offer absolutely no useful aid in navigation. Also, the starting player for team x is not remotely notable or defining for a starting player on team y. Resolute 22:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. This templates are likely to be highly out of date, and they violate WP:EMBED in that player on x team is not likely to already be linked in a perfect version of player y's article. -Djsasso (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There are other Web sites that have paid staff to maintain and update these kind of data. Having these templates, especially when much of the information they present is confusing or out of date, is not helpful to developing Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. BRMo (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as unmaintainable (and nonencyclopedic). --Orlady (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per what everyone else says--Yankees10 01:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems like consensus if I've ever seen it.--Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Some of these were tagged for G7 but I have declined the deletion as there have been non-trivial contributions from various users. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, and delete as unmaintainable reproduction of another site's content. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above: non-defining, changes from hour to hour, etc. In addition, our baseball articles are full of template clutter, with more than a dozen navboxes on many articles. Future candidates for TFD might include World Series championship teams and award winners (except for the big ones like Most Valuable Player). szyslak (t) 07:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Nat682 (talk) 00:05, 9 May 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. Template solely for use in a userspace for the purposes below, but as most of these pages have been deleted per a MfD discussion, this is meets WP:CSD#T3. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete ASAP. Template used only to interlink now-deleted subsections of a userpage and/or WP:WEBHOST-violating subpages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 13:30, 2 May 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 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pittsburgh Penguins 1991 Stanley Cup Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pittsburgh Penguins 1992 Stanley Cup Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Consensus has been clear on these templates in the past, having played together on a team together with other players doesn't merit having links to all those players. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are templates for every Super Bowl winning team. Why should hockey be any different. I am doing the championship team. It's not like I am doing division or coference champions, its the leauge championship. There are basketball and baseball league champion templates as well. It isn't a random template of players. —Preceding unsignedcomment added by Gilliganfanatic (talk •contribs) 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of other templates similar to this in baseball, football, basketball, and others. Examples include theSuper Bowl templates, World Series templates, NBA Championship templates, and many, many, others. I don't see how this is any different. If these types of templates are to be removed then beginning a discussion with the members of WP:WikiProject Sports might be a more constructive way of opposing this style of navbox. I find this template to be useful and informative, and there hasn't been an argument against it presented here. JohnnyPolo24(talk) 11:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually several similar hockey templates have been deleted here in the past, wait and I'll try to find them. —Krm500^{(Communicate!)} 14:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We choose to be different because we prefer not to create a proliferation of clutter. That the other projects got it wrong, imnsho, is no reason for us to do the same. Resolute 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There has probably been atleast 20 tfd's deleting various stanley cup championship templates, and a very large number deleting other sports championship templates. And atleast one that includes this specific one so it qualifies for a speedy deletion. Here is a link to one which links to a few others which in turn link to a few others. The argument for deleting them is that they violate WP:EMBED which says navboxs should only have links which would otherwise be included on the page in a perfect version of the article. Each player on that team would not normally have every other player on the teams they played on linked from their pages. It is not defining of one player to have played with a random other player on their team. The players on the team defines the team, but it doesn't define the individual players.-Djsasso (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G4 - recreated material. This has been the subject of numerous TfDs in the past, and deleted every time.Resolute 22:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I am adding ((Pittsburgh Penguins 1992 Stanley Cup Champions)) to this nomination, and it should also be speedy deleted.Resolute 22:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - this is at least as important to the encyclopedia as the 43 Super Bowl templates. --A. Gorilla(talk) 00:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would note WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I would happily put up those ones as well. Just because other projects have done things wrong doesn't meant the hockey one should as well. -Djsasso (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this dreck. Yet another way to needlessly clutter articles. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Why are Championship templates OK for baseball, NFL and NCAA football, NBA and NCAA basketball, etc.. but not hockey? This is about continuity throught the sports articles --PA Pen (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  They aren't ok for those other sports, I would note that many other sports also delete them, the ones you mention are some of the few that keep them. That being said this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguement. I would also note, I have no problem putting up all the others as well since these are routinely deleted for many sports. NFL and NBA one just keep surviving because there are so many fans that brute force their way through to a keep, while ignoring that the existance of them violates WP:EMBED. -Djsasso(talk) 03:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• G4 Speedy Delete per discussion here.-Pparazorback (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep What about the draft pick templates. Aren't those just a list of random players together. You might as well delete those templates too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by72.196.241.226 (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yup, those shouldn't exist either. Again this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguement. That being said there is a big difference between the two. A player is only going to be a first round pick once in his life (with the extreme rare exception) whereas a player like Henri Richard won 11 stanley cups so there would be 11 of these templates on his page cluttering up the page and making the actual important links harder to find amoungst all the clutter of unimportant links. -Djsasso (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To expand beyond my speedy delete suggestion: These templates are clutter. It is notable to a player that he was on a championship team, but his teammates are not a defining characteristic. Thus, these templates add absolutely nothing of value to the article. When you get down to it, there is no reason why teammates in year x are more notable than teammates in year y. The notability is the championship, not a teammate. And since there is no reason to build a template for the 1989-90 Penguins, there is no reason for a template for the 1990-91 Penguins. I would certainly agree that the draft picks templates fall under the same concern, and would have no qualms whatsoever with their deletion - those should be replaced with succession boxes anyway. Resolute 14:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - these are just unnecessary clutter. In addition, consensus has usually resulted in deleting templates like this, as mentioned above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per reasons above. blackngold29 14:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. In my opinion, these types of templates do not add any value to Wikipedia. Help Wikipedia by adding content, not by adding 'gingerbread' to content. Information should be first. There are many many stub articles that need to be worked on. There are lots of leagues with minimal information. Then, bring up template proposals at WT:HOCKEY. Alaney2k (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. What's next? Templates for every Cup runner-up Roster? GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - so, do we need to create a navigation template for every single team formation? Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 15:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - All their names are engraved on the Stanley Cup. They played together on a championship team. Teammates are an important part of a team, especially one that wins a championship. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one disagrees that the players are defining of the team, but they are not defining of each other. The fact Player A played one game with Player B does not define Player A. Just like a co-worker of yours that you may have worked with one month doesn't define you. However, the fact both of you worked for the same company defines the company. -Djsasso (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You certainly make a strong argument. However, I still think these templates are helpful in linking together people who have a common thread, and they don't detract tucked away at the bottom of a page. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gordie Howe literally played with hundreds, if not over a thousand different players in his career. He shares a common thread with all of them. It is impractical to use such templates as they clutter the page. Resolute 23:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • He didn't win championships with all of them. For Howe, the championships and those who were part of them would be notable, and could be collapsed under one big banner using ((Navboxes)). For individual players, maybe it was notable that they played with Gordie Howe at one point, maybe not.--Muboshgu (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Winning championships are notable, yes. But I have never heard a single convincing argument that says a teammate in a championship year is more notable than a teammate in a non championship year. It is a non-defining bit of trivia in either case, imnsho. Resolute 17:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • All I can say to that is that if that group of players were changed somehow, they may not have won the title. Not a provable argument, I know. But again, the names of all teammates are engraved on the cup together. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • This may be true, Muboshgu, however this same article tells how not only are the players engraved on the cup, but also are the coaches, management and club staff. If your claim to keeping is because the players are all on the cup, then why not also have the coaches, management and club staff too? I still believe the arguement to delete these templates makes more sense than keeping these templates, thus the reason I !voted above for delete. -Pparazorback (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • The coaches and management, yes. If by "club staff" you mean lockerroom attendants, no. I understand it's me against all of you and I don't expect to change minds, but we all do what we can. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:17, 12 May 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 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American Idol 9th places (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a bit of overkill IMO. We already have American Idol templates for 1st through 4th place. Not only that but there are navboxes on each finalists page for the season that they are in. And on top of all of that, none of these people have done a whole heck of alot post-Idol except for Mandisa, who has released 2 CDs. It's just superfulous and unneeded. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the 9th one? unbelievable, I would just support the first, 2nd and 3rd place but nothing else! Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 15:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It is much more likely the average user would want to know other people in the same season as the contestant rather than someone from a previous season who finished in the same position. Also, out of eight articles this could be placed in, it is only being used in one article. Aspects (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Delete - this is not a notable or significant class of people. Robofish (talk) 04:23, 4 May 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 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American Idol 5th places (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a bit of overkill IMO. We already have American Idol templates for 1st through 4th place. Not only that but there are navboxes on each finalists page for the season that they are in. And on top of all of that, none of these people have done a whole heck of alot post-Idol. It's just superfulous and unneeded. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The proposal to delete this template -- and the one for 9th-place finishers -- seems sensible. Below the winner and a couple of runners-up, the fact that several different contestants finished in the same position in different contests is a trivial intersection that does not justify a navbox. I notice that Template:American Idol lists winners, runners-up, and "other contestants." However, the "other contestants" list is short -- there are many more articles for other contestants than there are entries in that template. Is there a logical criterion for including some contestants there, but not others? It would be logical to have some sort of navbox that points to all "other contestants" by name, without requiring a person to know which contest series the contestant was in. --Orlady (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pointless, same that ((American Idol 9th places)). Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 15:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It is much more likely the average user would want to know other people in the same season as the contestant rather than someone from a previous season who finished in the same position. Also, out of eight articles this could be placed in, it is only being used in one article. Aspects (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and I'd delete every template, including for first place finishers. Who won a different year's contest is neither notable nor defining to any other person on that list, regardless of whether they won or finished 46th. Resolute 16:08, 3 May 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 use Template:Disambig. There is agreement that having a category for disambiguation pages in a certain topic is useful. An effective way to do this is by using Disambig-Class on a WikiProject banner on the talk page. However categorising the page itself may also be helpful and the duplication is not harmful. This functionality, as pointed out by several participants in the discussion, may be achieved equally well using the existing template Template:Disambig. I will make the required changes there shortly and will point this template there. I suggest there is no advantage in editing translusions of this template to point there directly, and there is no benefit in deleting this template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Church disambig (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is essentially recreation of material that was removed per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 8#Template:POWdis. Having a separate disambiguation template for churches is pointless and confusing. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not pointless. Like similar templates (for example Template:Airport disambig) it allows orderly creation of the Category:Church building disambiguation pages, which allows the finding churches and church lists in the category system. There are endless churches (buildings) on Wikipedia and anything that helps people find the right one is a good thing. Furthermore many of these are similar to each other and would benifit from greater linking of them to each other, for example St. Thomas' Church vs. St. Thomas Anglican Church or the Basilica of St. Mary vs. St. Mary's Cathedral vs. St. Mary's Catholic Church.--Carlaude ^(talk) 07:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, for now, in part for reason of inadequate notice to interested parties. The POWdis template deletion was really not discussed: its deletion was proposed by Remember the dot and just deleted shortly after, with no real discussion. What are the relevant guidelines within wp:MOSDAB or elsewhere? What are practices for other types of disambiguation templates? There is a template:geodis that I see occasionally. What is the difference for this one? There seem to be several persons creating and adding church-disambiguation templates occasionally. Deleting without adequate notice and explanation seems hardly likely to build consensus / clarity on what is the right thing to do with these. Notice should go to appropriate wikiprojects on religions and on places of worship. Perhaps POWdis is the more appropriate one to restore, to allow broader coverage of synagogues, mosques, etc. Perhaps church-disambig should be revised. doncram (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  In the previous discussion about POWdis, the entire substantial discussion was "I don't see the point of having lots of different disambiguation templates when one would suffice. What do you think?" In this discussion here, the deletion nominator states it is "pointless and confusing". The point-ful-ness matter has been given by Carlaude, that it provides for a category which is useful to some. And I don't see how it can possibly be confusing. Confusing to whom? What evidence is there that having church-disambig template has been confusing to anyone? My answer is that it is not confusing. So, the nominator seems to have posed two questions, both answered. I am not insisting there is no possible reason to delete or revise, but the arguments for deletion are inadequate so far, in my view. doncram (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Carlaude and Doncram. It serves a valid purpose for me and other editors who are active in creating and editing church disambiguation articles. Why does the disambiguation template havee to be one size fits all. clariosophic (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are about 170 uses of this currently, and 10 incoming redirects from ((POWdis)). -- Quiddity (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep, but make superfluous by using ((Disambig)), see my Rephrase below. Idea is: add category:Church building disambiguation pages manually to the dab when needed. Main reason: in introduces incomplete or overcomplete dab-pages, counter to MOSDAB. Disamb-pages are needed when the primary title of the article does also exist for another article. Disamb is about the name of the article, not the meaning. (Skip all spellingvariants here: 'St.' and 'Saint' are taken to be equal in disambiguation, as are 'Church' and 'church'. Not bothering here about exact sequence of words, for the moment). So all articles named like "St. XXX Church" need disambiguation because of their name. Whether it is a church or not. Now what is confusing: it leads to 'false inclusion' and to 'false exclusion', seen from the template-intention. The example dabpage has the naming of: Ripley St. Thomas Church of England High School: it is not a church says the article. Why is it here then? false inclusion. The template says: "Church buildings", not curch as a religious group. So the link to the religious group Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse should not be in the disamb-page Bethel Church, because allthough the name fits there perfectly, it is not a church building. (Someone should rightly delete it from that page). So false exclusion. This problem starts by introducing the meaning of the title as a criterium for appearing on the dab-page. (Other example: see LON as an airport-disambiguation, or not).

Your comments seem like some stream-of-consciousness writing. To interject: it is obvious that Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse should be included in the disambiguation page Bethel Church. Please don't delete it, that would be unhelpful. Also, it is fine that some non-churches or non-buildings to appear in a category of disambiguation pages for churches. If there are no church buildings whatsoever in the disambiguation page, then perhaps the page should not be included in a church buildings category. There is no need to require that a disambiguation page include ONLY church buildings, for it to be covered in the category. doncram (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, the general rule is: if it's written alike, it takes a disambiguation. Whatever it means. If not written alike: not a dab. Even if it means alike. (Tip: use cat).

What do you mean by "Tip use cat"? I don't follow. doncram (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution: Only one disamb-template, the main one. Used as described in DABMOS etc. A dabpage can also have the category Category:Church building disambiguation pages, added manually. This is a distinguished category (see Subcategorization), so it does not take the dab-page out of the parent category. Then: the content of the category could nicely be broadened from "this dab page contains church buildings only" into "... church-buildings too". -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This subject is continued in general here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#'Xxx disambig' is a category only. -DePiep (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the delete I propose can be achieved better by changing the template and its rule: transclude main template ((Disambig)), add the Church-cat, change rule to effect "has churches only" into "has churches too". No article to be touched. Todo: merge the 2 dabs on St Thomas Church building + not so later on. Should I vote different now? -DePiep (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be helpful if you would cross out your Delete vote. doncram (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, eh, the solution is already there: ((Disambig)) has parameter options like ((disambig|airport)) already for these templates! See Template:Disambig/doc. To be extended for Churches would do. After bot-wise change into the parameter-used temlate, this one is superfluous: Delete. -DePiep (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your discussion of solution is too cryptic for me to understand. What I mainly want to avoid is having the church disambig identification ripped out of all 200 or so disambiguation pages having it now. The previous deletion of ((POWdis)) did just that, losing the identification which is useful to some. Keeping ((church disambig)) in place would accomplish that. The general treatment of various disambiguation templates including POWdis and NRHPdis has been pretty abrupt and rude in impact, if not in intent. I am suspicious about any change to replace the template by just a category, as I suspect that someone would try to delete the category.

I wouldn't care so much if the appearance of the template was changed so that, to readers, it showed just the same as regular disambiguation, besides adding the category which is useful to at least editors. I don't know that it is necessary to hide the category or not. (Hiding the category or not could be discussed at the category, doesn't have to be part of this Template deletion discussion.)

Could you explain more about the bot etc. It is not clear to me what you would want to do, and whether it would rip out identification of these pages or not. doncram (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase (RE to Doncram here. You're right, could be too cryptic. I am thinking from dab, these days. POWdis is unfamiliar to me). Surely I do not want the template to be pulled out of all the articles. And keep the cat too (this being tfd). The goal I propose is that all disamb-pages end up themselves in the parent cat:disambiguation pages. Because the word "St. Thomas Church" should be disambiguated on one plage only, whatever it means. That same dab-page "St Thomas Church" can also get the sub-cat:Church building disambiguation pages. There the special-interest editors can find their list (usefullness not discussed by me). For this the definition of the subcat should change: instead of meaning "dab-page with churchbuildings only" into "dab-page with churchbuildings too". So only the rule of the cat changes, not the existance. That's all for me. Now if we agree on that from here, next is: how to get there? Technically we could change only the content of this TFD-template, without toutching any article: the template adds a) the parent cat:Disamb and b) this subcat:Disamb Churches. As you write, shorter than me ;-). Then left to do: if there are two dab's with "St Thomas Church" (church buildigs and non-churchbuildings), merge them into one, keeping both cat. (Example result now: LON as merged dab-page for airfields and non-airfields). ((Now step 3, technically only: adding the sub-cat: can also be done by using a parameter-option in the main template like ((Disambig|airfield)); Church not working yet. The churches would still be in both categiries: that is the precise effect of the parameter. Such a mass-replacement should be done by a bot. After that this TFD-template would be superfluous, but the subcat would be used and filled)). So I will vote: 'Keep, but make superfluous'. -DePiep (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rephrasing. About the hypothesized split between dab pages about church congregations vs. church buildings, there is none. I am not aware of any case where there are two pages that should be merged. I agree there should be just one disambiguation page, covering both any denominations, church buildings, and church congregations (sometimes different). In particular, for St. Thomas' Church, there's just one disambiguation page (well, there are also linked, more specific pages for St. Thomas Anglican Church and St. Thomas Episcopal Church). I know that there are some articles out there which are written more about a church congregation, which include subsections on one or two historic buildings that they have been located in. There just needs to be one disambiguation page, to help readers find their way to articles of all three types. doncram (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Is the category populated by this template supposed to be useful for readers, or for editors? If for readers, I don't see it. Why would a reader who is looking for St. Michael's Church, and uses the disambiguation page to find the right church, conceivably be interested in lists of churches with different names? If for editors, then (a) it should be a hidden category, (b) the same goal could be achieved by adding a template parameter to ((disambig)), such as "subcat=Church building" to add the page to Category:Church building disambiguation pages, and (c) I still haven't seen a good explanation of what editors are going to do with this category. There are some comments above insisting it is useful, but useful for what? Withholding my opinion until I get more explanation. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is primarly useful for editors-- but could also be useful for readers. Example: Lets say I am looking for St. Michael's Episcopal Church (Charleston, South Carolina) but cannot find it on the St. Michael's Church page -- I flip over to the the St. Michael's Episcopal Church page which is often but not always links from the plain St. Michael's Church page.--Carlaude ^(talk) 21:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely following the alternative proposal R'n'B is making.

About usefulness, for me, I find the category useful for doing maintenance and development work, as an editor. Most of these include NRHP-listed places, and I mainly work on NRHP articles, list-articles, and disambiguation. There is some evolution going on, about how disambiguation pages including these are supposed to appear. And there is continuing development of the church/NRHP articles they cover, so there is ongoing maintenance of the dab pages to update (for example, to follow MOS:DABRL it is proper to include an explanatory phrase such as "listed on the NRHP in Arkansas" for an Arkansas church whose main link is a redlink, but then to delink that phrase after the article for the church is created. It is helpful to be able to revisit all these disambiguation pages. Although reading disambiguation pages is a bit unusual, I think there are some readers out there who would follow and be interested in the disambiguation pages. I think many people, finding such a disambiguation page, would browse through the categories to look up their own church's denomination and to see if their church has a wikipedia article. I don't want to endorse creating articles about every church out there, but it is fine and good for readers to be able to browse and see if their church has been deemed notable enough for a wikipedia article already. So, I think it serves both editors and readers. doncram (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I see value in maintaining disambiguation pages for church buildings with similar names and I have no opinion on whether or not they need their own disambiguation template. However, I wish to point out that not all "church" disambiguation pages are for buildings. For example, Church of God and Church of Christ (which use a generic disambiguation template) exist to help sort out Christian denominations with confusingly similar names. --Orlady (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't just looked at those two, but yes the disambiguation pages can cover multiple denominations and/or multiple churches and/or multiple congregations (whose articles can differ from articles about buildings). The current category name, Category:Church building disambiguation pages, could well be improved by expanding it, to allow for denominations and congregations. Say just call it "Church disambiguation pages". Or perhaps the category naming that was set up with the deleted Template:POWdis would have better wording to follow again. I don't have strong feelings about broadening it to cover synagogues and mosques, etc., more clearly by using the places of worship terminology (but then maybe that would tend to exclude denominations and congregations, so maybe church is better). I think that would not interfere with the purposes of readers and editors, to broaden the category name. doncram (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two examples are good ones to add to consideration here. Both were disambiguating only among denominations. However, I've added a number of NRHP-listed buildings named "Church of Christ" to the second one, so now it has two sections, one on denominations and one on individual church buildings/congregations. I think disambig pages about denominations should be included in the template and category coverage. doncram (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds natural to me. To be clear: "Church" would include any meaning of church, not buildings only. Then does it include mosks and synagoges or limited explicitly to Christian? Should we start a cfd-rename then (at cfd)? -DePiep (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment further on usefulness and suggest closure: Over the last couple days i've gone partly through the now-315 dab pages in the category that Carlaude created. I am finding it extremely useful, for me to add NRHP-listed items (both bluelink ones with articles and redlink ones with appropriate MOS:DABRL compliance) to them, or to figure out that a new disambiguation page is needed, or to figure out when a merger of dab pages is probably appropriate (as for Immaculate Conception Church and Church of the Immaculate Conception). It is hugely helpful to be able to see in one place that there is just one St. Peter and St. Paul Church dab, and therefore all the spelling variations i see in NRHP names (Saint vs. St., & vs. and, etc.) all belong there. And, Carlaude's point that readers would be served by being able to find their way to similar disambiguation pages is very true. So, I would like to conclude that the TfD should be closed with Keep. If someone has the power to open a discussion on adapting the existing, protected template:disambig to include churches as an option, and to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion, then at some future time it could be appropriate to drop the separate template. Since there are so few options within that huge template (covering >100,000 articles), I surmise it is hard to get new options added. So for the time being I think it is clear the church-disambig template should stay, so this TfD should be closed with Keep. If this is closed, then I don't oppose then opening a CfD about renaming the category involved to be more general. doncram (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Doncram summarise: Keep, change content to allow Church general. The template could change technically. The rest is for CfD, not here. -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Keep unless/until an alternative is created Saying a disambiguation page is about something specific is generaly a bad idea as, natuarlly, their subject may be ambiguous, just as the above discussions about "church (the building)" and "chusrch (the institution)" showed very clearly. The category, though not the matter here, seems useful and can either be added as a parameter to ((disambig)) or quite simply added in each relevant page [I'm pretty confident we can edit without turning everything into a new template, can't we?] - Nabla (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC) PS: Obviously it should be replaced by ((disambig)) + category before deleting.[reply]

(Edit conflict with someone deleting this whole church disambig thread!???)

Except, I believe that there are people who have a policy of stripping out categories off disambiguation pages (on the typically stated basis that "disambig pages are for linking to articles, not articles that get categories" or whatever), and there is no recourse (once a category is stripped off an article, no way to see at the category level what was lost). So, reducing it to having the disambig template plus a category added, exposes it to those people. So, the only practically acceptable way to eliminate the separate template, is to have it created as a subdivision of ((disambig)) first. So, I hope you will oppose Deletion of the separate template until the disambig template is changed (in which case deleting this template would be obvious and noncontroversial). In other words, I believe and hope your vote should be interpreted as Keep. doncram (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We mostly agree, we are simply asking for different processes for the same outcome. Apparently you are sying 'keep for now, get a replacement, then delete'. I'm saying to close this as delete, put it on hold - at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#To Substitute - and then delete. I am assuming that it is no big deal to add the parameter to 'disambig', or actually to ((dabcat)), and I (or any closing admin) can do it if that is clear from this discussion. - Nabla (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest closing as Keep now There was just an attempt to relist this discussion by User:Magioladitis at a new date, which I think was inadequately justified and I deleted the relisting and restored this. I am not an uninvolved editor, so don't feel comfortable to close this dicussion. But, I think this has been adequately discussed and the consensus conclusion is Keep, unless or until the big, protected Disambig template is revised to accommodate this as a subtype (in which case deleting this template would be non-controversial). I commented at User talk:Magioladitis already, that he/she should state his/her position on this, and my view that discussion here has been entirely adequate already. The main participants in the discussion here have been User:DePiep and me, and our consensus is Keep, or at least no consensus to delete, and that is how this should end. Could someone else please close this now as Keep, please. And/or, Mgiocladitis, please review the articles covered, the template, the discussion, and so on, and give a then-informed opinion. I don't think it is appropriate to "relist" by copying to a new TfD date, stripping out the edit history here and dropping it off the watchlist of everyone involved so far. doncram (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-involved administrator Magioladitis judged that this needed further discussion (probably by users who have not already commented extensively) and relisted this debate. Since the April 17th list was closed and is no longer transcluded on the TfD page, restoring it here does not help achieve closure. Accordingly, I will relist it on Magioladitis' behalf. --Orlady (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Orlady (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous, in my opinion. It has been plenty well discussed, and there is no consensus to delete, and good reasons to keep, so conclusion should already be Keep. However I won't edit war and remove it again from here. For transparency, please be informed i am going to notify previous Keep voters to speak up again here. Please note, the only semi-serious delete vote (after DePiep discussed further and chose otherwise) was the nominator, who did not choose to comment further when there was any other discussion, so this pretty much amounts to notifying everyone who has commented.

To respond to Nabla who stated that "We mostly agree, we are simply asking for different processes for the same outcome. Apparently you are sying 'keep for now, get a replacement, then delete'. I'm saying to close this as delete, put it on hold - at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#To Substitute - and then delete." Well, that is very different. I don't know if you have much experience or not with WikiProject Disambiguation and/or persons who choose to monitor and edit disambiguation pages, but it is a different world. Not meaning to be overly negative, but it has been stated and recognized generally that the area attracts rules-oriented persons who, in my observation, state a rule like "it's a disambiguation page and shouldn't have categories" and will strip out categories. It is therefore not helpful to remove the template. So, you get it accepted as a revision to fully protected template Disambig first, and then come back and list this for TfD. I do not agree in advance that getting any change into template Disambig, present on 100,000+ pages, is likely. I haven't had experience directly on that, but i have had other experience trying to get obvious changes into fully protected templates that were rather frustrating. In the absence of that, this should be closed as Keep. doncram (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of that, this should be closed as Keep. I fully agree, so, to make it clear I edited my initial statement accordingly. Note that adding a category to ((dabcat)) will *not* affect any of the current uses of ((disambig)), so it is probably no big deal. As an admin I am tempted to do it my self, given there seems to exist a consensus that the templete usefulness comes from the category, but as I am now an involved party I'll insted tag your question at Template talk:Dabcat#Church disambig as an editprotected request (and, naturally, support it) - Nabla (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I favor keeping the categories within the disambig template also for the reason that it would make it much easier to change the category name if that is needed-- and it clearly could be needed. --Carlaude ^(talk) 03:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still favor keeping the template for reasons indicated above. --Carlaude ^(talk) 03:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That I relisted the debate it doesn't mean it can't close by another admin any time soon. Since this was the only discussion left from the period 17-22 April I relisted to make space for the other discussions. Moreover, there was an ongoing discussion how to standarise this template. Additionally, there is not a single subpage for each Tfd as it happens in AfDs (Day subpages are created instead) so there was no way to relist the discussion and keep the edit history at the same time. I am not experienced with these disamb templates enough yet, so I didn't want to be the closing admin. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Repeat my previous Keep. I agree with Doncram. Entering a category manually runs the risk of the category being deleted, as has happened previously. Again, why does one size have to fit all. Why don't you listen to the editors who are actually creating and using the disambiguation pages covered by this template? clariosophic (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Category for discussion opened: Well, per comment above and editprotected request at Template talk:Dabcat#church disambig, it seems Nabla is ready/willing to make the change to the big Disambig template (actually to its sidekick "dabcat"), and/or to get another administrator to do so. It was my expectation we'd close here, then do a CfD and then perhaps do the Disambig template change, but maybe all this can happen at once. So, anyhow, I've gone ahead to open the also necessary CfD process for the category rename from "Category: Church building disambiguation pages" to "Category:Church disambiguation pages", at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 2#Category:Church building disambiguation pages. doncram (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless/until replaced by ((dabcat)) "religious" parameter -- this is a worthy effort, as church buildings and cemeteries are among the most common name conflicts, and have numerous references in human name articles.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am still not seeing the benefit to this template. If you want to make a list of church disambiguation pages you'd like to work on, use the user space or a category. Why do we need another variant of ((disambig)) with slightly different wording? Disambiguation pages with both church and non-church entries have to use the regular ((disambig)) anyway. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for rejoining the discussion. I think you are an important participant here because you nominated this template for deletion, and because of your past actions to remove the former template ((POWdis)) and the former template ((NRHPdis)) from many articles. I think it is fair to characterise your past actions as "campaigns" against those similar templates, which culminated in the usage being reduced to zero, the corresponding categories being deleted, and the templates being deleted. I appreciate that you are, this time, nominating the template and not, as far as i am aware, proceeding to remove the template (and hence the related category assignments) from the disambiguation articles covered. The effect of your deletion nomination here is to put a lot of wikipedia work into play, as it then leads to questions about the correctness of the corresponding category name, and perhaps the possibility of the category being deleted, and so on.

Given those past "campaigns" (my term) and your current nomination, I would like to ask you to please be a bit more direct and complete in stating your objections to the use of the template and also to share your views more clearly on the corresponding category that the template puts in place. I and others have already stated some reasons why we feel that having the category and template are helpful for editors (including that we can find and maintain the dab pages, we can identify useful dab page mergers, etc.) and for readers (including that readers can navigate among church dab pages to find the one they might have started out looking for, or just because they are interested in similarly named churches). Those "benefits" have been stated. By your statement now, do you mean that you think those are not benefits to any editors and to any readers, or do you mean to imply there are other costs which need to be balanced, or what? I don't think that it suffices to nominate for deletion a template that is now being used in 315 articles simply because you don't understand, personally, why it is useful. There are lots of things in the world that any one of us does not understand, but we do not go around burning buildings or books or whatever simply because we don't understand their purposes. I believe, rather, that you must be being extremely polite or otherwise indirect, instead. Could you please clarify?

In particular, your response seems to suggest that your objection is to the template and not to the corresponding category. Could you please clarify about that? Your past actions in removing templates have had the effect of removing categorization of articles as well. And, I have seen other dab editors strip out categories from dab pages based on simple statements that "dab pages don't need categories" or "dabs are not articles" or merely "cleanup". I would appreciate if you could be clear if you mean to say that you support the use of the category in dab pages, but you only don't want the template used, or whether you would likely proceed to delete the category as well. Is that your proposal, to remove the template and replace it by the category only. (I would have comment about that, but I would like to understand if that is your proposal.) Honestly, again I do appreciate your participating here, and I look forward to your response. Thanks! doncram (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main objection is to the template. I'm neutral about categorization. I don't like the idea of having to figure out which of a plethora of slightly different disambiguation templates I'm supposed to put on a disambiguation page when one template would suffice. The slight variations in wording also seem to imply to the reader that there's something special about the disambiguation pages that are categorized by template.

In the case of similarly named dab pages, the similarly named pages should be linked in the "See also" section. Readers should not have to navigate a category to be directed to what they are looking for. This solution also helps identify dab pages that should be merged. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying somewhat. Can i ask for one more clarification: do you oppose the use of the type extension to the ((disambig)) template (as was previously set up for the powdis case), which is what some here were supporting use of for church disambig or a renamed version, instead of having a separate template as now is the case for church disambig. Or, if the ((disambig)) is revised to allow for a separate type, would you oppose that, too? If you oppose that, then we have a bigger discussion whether to remove all the types within the disambig template, and perhaps that should be announced to attract wider participation.

Also to risk being a little flip, if you "don't like...having to figure out which" template is to be used, then, don't! You can leave the choice of template to editors who are building these disambiguation pages. So, I am having trouble understanding the disadvantages you perceive for having a church disambig template. You seem to be saying that you don't like having more than one disambiguation template, because you don't like it, which is not an explanation. Or I am missing what is your explanation. And it is hard to balance that against the preference of me and some others who are building these dab pages to have this template.

About having a template (or subtype of the disambig template) vs. using just a category, I personally oppose going with just the latter because I believe that categories which are not "built in" will be vulnerable to being stripped out by dab page editors who state that "dab pages are not articles, and don't need categories", or make similar assertions. Also I think it is slightly clearer to readers looking for a given church, to see the church disambig in the template, and who will be more likely to follow the link from there to other church disambig pages in their search process or in their browsing process just to follow their own interests. I see advantages, and I don't see any disadvantages, any costs, to using the template with category, rather than just a category alone.

About having similarly named dab pages linked in the "See also" section, yes, that is always nice. But, that does not help identify dab pages that should be merged at all like using church disambig to allow many separate editors to identify dabs that are similar. It is a problem while developing the wikipedia, that we do not know what are the related dab pages. Allowing independent editors to group them together, puts them together, so that we can then a) add "See also" notices where there is potential for confusion and b) put through mergers. Without a template and/or a category, that process is undermined. Also, and perhaps i am getting a little paranoid because i have seen so many campaigns removing stuff from dab pages, what is to prevent dab page editors from removing "See also" statements? Some might just assert that it is unlikely a reader is looking for the given See also entries. It is a matter of judgment how closely related See also entries should be. Having the template with category provides backup, so that if there is no See also entry, readers who are really looking can still find their way to something a bit further away than a dab page editor might anticipate they would be looking for, or interested in.

Finally, we may agree on one point, that the use of multiple disambig templates on one page may not be best: I personally would prefer to revise the disambig template type system to allow more clearly for multiple types applying on one dab page. I would support your opening some discussion on the disambig subtypes within that template, although i want church disambig added as a type to that system (and kept as a separate template until it is). doncram (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- The previous redirections and deletion by "dot" had almost no discussion:
  1. Template:NRHPdis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

     Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 6#Template:NRHPdis

     Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 23#Template:NRHPdis → Template:Disambig

  2. Template:POWdis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

     Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 8#Template:POWdis

  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, back in September 2008, i myself did not have adequate knowledge to participate in those template discussions and/or I was unaware of them. There were then other ongoing campaigns stripping material out of NRHP entries (often churches) in dab pages covered in those templates, or stripping out red-link NRHP entries, or deleting dab pages altogether. Those other battles were all pretty much resolved by one big discussion running from September 22 to October 20, 2008, archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 13#what is wp:NRHP doing wrong RE disambiguation?. That discussion did not address the role of templates. doncram (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: discussion on three places now: this tfd and this cfd, and a preliminary! ((editprotected)) request for a protected dab-template. Very bad. Suggestion to Administrators: no action whatever to be taken, except for closing at least two out of three. Contradictionary conclusions possible. -DePiep (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with eventually concluding this discussion with a resolution to keep the template, unless and until the disambig template's dabcat is adjusted to offer this as a substitute instead. Or if the decision was to delete the template here, that does not affect the cfd discussion, which is separate. The cfd discussion, about what is the best name for the category, doesn't need to be decided before this tfd. doncram (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Endless parameter additions to ((disambig)) also seem suboptimal (inflexible, unwieldy). I suggest adding a single parameter to ((disambig)) to disable default categorization so that [[Category:Church building disambiguation pages]] and any other relevant categories can be added. Since the category says right in its name that it is for disambiguation pages, we shouldn't have much trouble with ignorant editors outright removing it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well that is a bigger proposal than can be handled as part of this church disambig template discussion. It might be part of a reasonable, different system than is in place now, which would allow categories of disambiguation pages, part of policy and guidelines, and perhaps replace the need to have some templates like this one in question here and in the dabcat system. How about open discussion at wt:WikiProject Disambiguation and link from wt:disambiguation (or the other way around). However, this underlines for me that this church disambiguation tfd should be closed as Keep. There is not now, nor will there be extremely soon, consensus for an overhaul, and the church disambig template is within the scope of previous consensus that templates and categories like it are allowed. Remember the dot, would you withdraw your proposal to delete this specific template? I will support discussion of an overhaul of the system (and i think i agree with your perspective in some respects). doncram (talk) 07:01, 10 May 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.