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 Keep --Michael Billington (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to ((Infobox settlement)), with which instances should be replaced. This is part of a large-scale operation to merge similar geographical infoboxes into the generic parent, to reduce maintenance overheads. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I would support converting the template to transclude Template:Infobox settlement itself, to ease maintenance but maintain consistency within articles about Italian cities, abbreviating usage by caching all the shared details within Infobox CityIT, rather than increasing article source sizes by having to specify them over and over again. If a template is used nearly 7500 times, it strikes me that it's usually gonna be a bad idea to delete it. The alternative — making these instances use and transclude the generic parent — seems like a much better idea to me. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate in favour of ((infobox settlement)). Merge in any extra parameters. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As with all such templates care should be exercised so that no pages are broken. That means that conversion should occur before deletion. IMHO those who espouse deletion should be willing to do the conversion. ((Infobox settlement)) is a good template but is daunting for some including myself. –droll [chat] 04:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another person who has assumed that "delete" == "administrator presses 'delete' button" and nothing more. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still waiting for an answer to my question, as to what it does actually mean for these templates to be voted for deletion. Hesperian 06:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Beg pardon; user is currently blocked and so cannot reply. Hesperian 06:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have answered you on this point, elsewhere, in the last couple of hours or so. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but convert to transclude Template:Infobox settlement, per OwenBlacker. Ian Spackman (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Owenblacker. Orderinchaos 08:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A "one size fits all" approach does not necessarily work globally and adds a large overhead without necessarily allowing for vagaries of specific regions around the world. Donama (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please identify specifically which aspects of this template are not catered for by the generic parent. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate in favour of infobox settlement. Himalayan 11:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge; this will require that the ((infobox settlement)) include the "gentilic" field, for any special names given to the inhabitants, like the Trevani of Trevi. Why not? this is worth doing. I don't see the advantage of deletion, which will leave an unintelligible red-link on all these pages, until someone, sometime, cleans them all up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not how this works; nothing is deleted until the necessary merges, redirects or substitutions are in place. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are proposing a merge, you should have said so; you might have gotten more support. A deletion request deletes, leaving the information on the floor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps the place should be renamed "Templates for discussion", since proposals come here for a lot more than deletion, and a "delete" outcome frequently results in more actions than merely deletion. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed; see Rename as Templates for Discussion and please add your comments there. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you might share with the rest of us your plan for what happens next if and when this discussion is closed. Can you show us a working model of IS that does all the things that this template does already? You are asking everyone in this discussion to take you on trust that IS can do the same job better than the existing arrangement; why should they? While you have said at other recent TfDs that this is the first step, surely you can see this is a poor way to get support for your proposals. Wouldn't it be better to engage with the users of the template first, develop a working model and then move to migration and a TfD. The manner you seem to be championing here and at other recent TfDs seems to do nothing but piss other editors off. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: The settlement infobox has a gentilic property, but it's currently disabled. I've raised an editprotected request to enable it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Now done. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep regionalised templates are more effective, countering WP:BIAS. Gnangarra 06:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to be canvassing, based on a false premise ("globalised templates using terminology and spelling that isnt consistant with the region"). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This id the problem with your process is the lack of WP:AGF, I havent canvassed I advised people that process is under way, that process is the replacement of localised template in favour of a globalise template which uses US terminology/spelling this process occurred without prior discussion. oh and you seem to be stalking me. Gnangarra 16:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until ALL fields are sure to be maintained in whatever will be chosen to merge with it. I think I am the one here using this template the more (I think I've written or changed some 1,000 of these infoboxes) so my heart could get broken if you delete some of the adds I am painstakingly introducing since years! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me we have a consensus here from some of the main WP:Italian memberers like Attilios and Spackman that so long as ALL of the paramters and information is retailed they would support a merger. Note that this nomination was not about deletion anyway it was precisely about merging and giving the infobox a redesign. Himalayan 11:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert backend to use ((infobox settlement)). This will allow everyone to see the result of a merger, and make sure that nothing is lost in the process, as well as providing a more unified appearance. Once the backend is converted in a satisfactory manner, debate on the merits of keeping this as a regional-specific frontend can continue. And, yes, I will do the initial conversion. Just ping me. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:18, 14 September 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 with the strong suggestion that discussion continue at here, or a formal WP:RFC be opened to deal with accusations of irredentist terms. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern Epirus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I am nominating this template for deletion on behalf of another user. "This template is based on irredentist views of a particular ethnic group. "Northern Epirus” is an irredentist term, and therefore it would be highly POV to maintain a template regarding it." From what I understand of the subject, this template appears inappropriate, though I profess I am no expert. J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment perhaps it would be better to rename it to a more neutral title, e.g. "Greek minority in Albania". The term "Northern Epirus" does indeed represent the Greek POV, but that does not mean that as a subject group (Greeks in southern Albania) it does not exist, that it does not have its own history and could use a navbox to summarize the relevant articles. There are many similar navboxes on minority groups, after all. Constantine ✍ 00:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Apart from being considered irredentist the term is mainly associated with Greek populations that live in southern Albania (they call it N.E. and 785 hits in googlebooks use it too), which is the main reason that it exists. Historically, the term was rejected as irredentist by the Albanian communist regime (1945-1991). I see no reason to delete a 'term' virtually adopting a tottalitarian approach. Actually the template's title is Northern Epirus region & Greek culture in Albania (as per geographic and cultural background). For example template:Cham Albanians template is also considered irredentist by many Greeks, but the term concerns history and culture of a specific group that self identifies itself as 'Chams' (originating from Chameria-also considered an ir. term by some Greek). The same situation exists with a group called 'Northern Epirotes' that originates from 'Northern Epirus'. Imagine deleting any reference about terms associated with minorities because they are considered irredentism by parts of neiboring socities...Alexikoua (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this template is related to a region, and the term used to describe that region is related to irredentism. We need to be absolutely neutral.--Alarichus (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Epirus is a region that has existed for several thousand years.There was a south and a north just like an east and west of it.The term is used in archeological books as well as in political books or those of our recent history.Megistias (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, please do not express irredentist beliefs. Megistias, please sign your comment. As wikipedians we should be as neutral as possible, and that is why we must not support irredentist opinions of certain ethnic groups. --Alarichus (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments:Since the deletion proposal was initiated by a typical national advocacy spa (6 times blockes in 2 months for breaking wp:npa, wp:incivility+1, wp:3rr, with an 1-revert limit). I suggest to deal with the proposal with heavy precaution.

I was meaning to be "irredentist".The term is used by archaeologists- that was my point.Megistias (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the last removals on the template, I have provided a number of 'rs' sources that prove minority presence in the specific towns and regions. Seems there is no reason of adopting a 1989 totalitarian census, since it is questioned by today's bilbiography ([[1]]). What does neutrality really mean? Comply with questioned data by former regimes? Imagine relying on North Korean data today. This has mainly to do with how we treat historical, cultural and social issues.Alexikoua (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please focus on the TfD. Make no comments about other contributors, and discuss issues on their talk pages. And as I told you earlier, be neutral. And Megistias, please provide some examples. --Alarichus (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I've presented a number of sources about which regions are considered minority ones in the template's talk page. There is also a map of 'le monde diplomatique '[[2]], about minority's concentration. Also the polyphonic song of Epirus article, should be re-included since it is a cultural element of the local population (it is not exclusively Greek but this is not an arguement for deleting it as a cultural element -also shared- by local Greek communities).Alexikoua (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.--Kushtrim2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC). — Kushtrim2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Comment:The above user's contribution Kushtrim2 in wikipedia is 'zero' [[3]]. Seems to be I_Pakashems recently created suckpuppet.Alexikoua (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  CommentAs for Kushtrim2, his only WP contribution was to correct the word graffiti into graffities in an article just 8 minutes before deciding to come here and vote. He may be a sockpuppet but then, he may be not. --Factuarius (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Suppose he was born only to vote here.Alexikoua (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. To understand why, see Section "The Irredentist Legacy: The Northern Epirus Question" page 70-76 (Stirring the Greek nation: political culture, irredentism and anti-Americanism in post-war Greece, 1945-1967 Author Giannēs D. Stephanidēs Edition illustrated Publisher Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007 ISBN 0754660591, 9780754660590) [4] It would be in the same level with Greater Albania template Aigest (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Kushtrim2 has 2 edits, he may have been an ip contributor, he may be a sockpuppet. We don't know. I will have him checked. Alexikoua, please do not act like that again. Interesting book, Aigest. To all:Let the procedure continue and do not disrupt it.--Alarichus (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I do not think a section of a book is a justification to delete a template. Northern Epirus is a cultural entity that plays great role on both Greece and Albania and this template is very useful to demonstrate this.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Irredentist term, used by nationalists. Same would apply to greater Albania, southern Scotland, greater Bulgaria, greater Serbia, greater Romania. Please do not canvass. --Alarichus (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is really not that simple, not is it that at all. I recommend you made a little search to see this.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because x community has lived for x years there, y community are conquerors, and that means it belongs to "us". The same argument is used worldwide. Seriously, it's the same.--Alarichus (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have been trying all day long, to make Greek and Albanian editors be neutral, but that just does not seem to happen. Alexikoua, my friend, you should really consider not canvassing. --Alarichus (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I dont understand why asking for second opinion in wiki (espacially users that are considered real contibutors and not just 'reverters' and national spa's [[5]]) is more disruptive than making it through irc?
• Alarichus, you really believe that your are neutral, making a 'zero' contributor's vote valid?

  I am not in the mood to continue discussions with irc ghosts in wiki. Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Look I am currently checking if he is a sock. If he is a sock, then of course his viewpoint will not be valid. Until now there is no proof that he is a sock.--Alarichus (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Term is not irredentist, it is notable, and is well-attested in the literature. As far as I see, the only argument put forth for deletion is that it is an irredentist term, but it is not, and even if it were, that is not sufficient reason for deletion. What matters is notability and attestation in the literature, both of which are satisfied. If Albanian nationalist editors dislike the term, that is irrelevant. This is the second attempt by Albanian nationalist SPAs to delete it, after an unsuccessful first attempt. --Athenean (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The current title 'Northern Epirus region & Greek culture in Albania', concerns mainly the cultural, social and geographical background of a minority. It is obvious that irredentist associations by neighbouring nations is only one side of the coin. The place is not the appropriate for extended explanations but a detailed description on why I vote 'keep' is on this book's (Badlands-Borderland: A History of Southern Albania/Northern Epirus. Tom Winnifrith.), Duckworth, 2002 ISBN 9780715632017. (a short historical background by a neutral academic source),a look. Why should a geographically-historical term mainly be considered just irredentist, because a former regime or editors with well known Albanian nationalistic background and WP-activity rejected it as such? --Factuarius (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment related to the deletion proposal and nomination

• We have the irredentist term "In 1914 the Greek population left outside Greece proceeded in Gjirokastër to a general proclamation of authonomy for "Northern Epirus"(a political term of irredentist content established on the Greek side ever since) page 197 Greece and the Balkans: identities, perceptions and cultural encounters since the Enlightenment Author Dēmētrēs Tziovas EditorDēmētrēs Tziovas Edition illustrated Publisher Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2003 ISBN 0754609987, 9780754609988 link [6]
• We have the irredentist ideology "The Irredentist Legacy: The Northern Epirus Question" page 70-76 (Stirring the Greek nation: political culture, irredentism and anti-Americanism in post-war Greece, 1945-1967 Author Giannēs D. Stephanidēs Edition illustrated Publisher Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007 ISBN 0754660591, 9780754660590) [7] with the related propaganda continued even after 90' "In the northern Greek town of Konitsa, a radio station backed by the local Orthodox bishop was broadcasting Greek propaganda to South Albania" page 339 Macedonia and Greece: the struggle to define a new Balkan nation Author John Shea Editionillustrated Publisher McFarland, 1997 ISBN 0786402288, 9780786402281 link [8]
• We have the irredentist claim "Thereafter the fate of the Chams surfaced only rarely, usually in connection with Greek irredentist claims to "Northern Epirus" page 26 After the war was over: reconstructing the family, nation, and state in Greece, 1943-1960 Princeton modern Greek studies Author Mark Mazower Editor Mark Mazower Edition illustrated PublisherPrinceton University Press, 2000 ISBN 0691058423, 9780691058429 link [9] noticed even here in wiki see Greece mentioned here [10]
• We have the irredentist armed wing Northern Epirus Liberation Front which has made armed attacks even after 90'

"The most visible focus of the Berisha government's fear of Greek irredentism was the Northern Epirus Liberation Front (MAVI), which claimed responsability for the car bombing of Albania's ambassador to Greece in 1991 and was accused in 1994 and 1995 of orchestrating attacks on Albanian border posts and military personnel." page 179 The politics of national minority participation in post-communist Europe: state-building, democracy, and ethnic mobilization Authors Jonathan P. Stein, EastWest Institute (New York, N.Y.) Editor Jonathan P. Stein Edition illustrated Publisher M.E. Sharpe, 2000 ISBN 0765605287, 9780765605283 link [11]

It looks pretty clear to me that Alarichus proposal is more than based. As for the relation to Greek population in Albania the proposal of Constantine makes more sense than the use of such POV terms. Aigest (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the information provided by Aigest and the reasoning provided for in this nomination, I will opt for delete. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just had a crash course in irredentism and I find this template to be inappropriately validating a particular POV. A historical article explaining the history of this place is of course within our ambit; this is not. Delete. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I see nothing more than an one-sided approach, provoked by 'innocent' irc 'help'. I wonder why some users feel at the same time that the template:Cham Albanians template is just innocent looking. Obvious one more typical nationalist spa campaign under a npov fairytale...Alexikoua (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (clarifying allegations) there is no Chamëria template (we can open another discussion for it if you want) comparable to Northern Epirus template (the one we are discussing now). The irredentist claims relate to territory, as for the people related to the alleged areas (Cham Albanians templates relates to the people) as I said above the proposal of renaming it to "Greek minority in Albania" made by Constantine makes more sense than the use of such POV terms. Aigest (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Aigest: This means that your are ok with renaming 'Northern Epirus' to 'Northern Epirotes'? as per Cham Albanians? (suppose this is what you mean)Alexikoua. So, why don't you vote rename instead of delete? Remember that the term 'Cham Albanians' is also non-official irredentism (how about Albanians of Thesprotia?)(talk) 12:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Northern Epirotes or Greeks in Albania (scratch this proposal since the people existed before the creation of the Albanian state) per Template:Cham Albanians. Another possibility: keep and rename to Greeks in south Albania (at least this, as oppossed to simply Albania, gives the sense of geography)/Greeks in northern Epirus. 87.202.43.218 (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:current title is 'Northern Epirus region & Greek culture in Albania'. What do you exactly suggest? (The term Northern Epirotes is also rejected by the Albanian site, however it is in full accordance with Cham Albanians)Alexikoua (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nice logic Aigest is passing us: When this madness will end, I am going to ask J Milburn to nominate for deletion the Northern Ireland template because of the IRA and I will ask all of you to take part in the discussion there. --Factuarius (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Users Kushtrim2 and 87.202.43.218, are going to be checked for sockpuppeting. To the rest of you:Take it easy. --Alarichus (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the proposal of "Greek minority in Albania" made by Constantine is more than fine. I support also Greeks in South Albania (it depends on the content inside if we are to speak for the Greeks inhabiting in other regions of Albania than the first terms would have been more appropriate). As Dēmētrēs Tziovas says (see above) the Northern Epirus term was created in 1914 (none used it before) and it is "a political term of irredentist content so it is better to avoid such terms in WIKI templates. Aigest (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Exactly as the name of Northern Ireland in 1921 so it is better to avoid also such terms in WIKI templates. At least Northern Epirus had a state entity under the terms of the Protocol of Corfu in where the very Albanian Government officially recognized the area of Northern Epirus as an autonomous region. --Factuarius (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:Suppose you agree renaming 'Cham Albanians' to 'Albanians of Thesprotia' according to the same arguements you propose? since terms chameria/chams are clear pov pushing irredentism terms by the same reasons (there is no chameria and chams as well-same reasons right?). You try to create victims and criminals? The good and the bad ones...Alexikoua (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, please comment only on the issue. This is not a forum.--Alarichus (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict with Alarichus)Alexikoua the terms are not in the same comparison for obvious reasons. We can say that Cham albanians are a division of Albanians. They have distinct dialect, traditions, folklore, habits etc among other Albanians. I don't see such a division or even a difference between if we were to say "North Epirotan Greeks" and "South Epirotan Greeks" and we can continue in this line for hours. Given that it would be great if we stick to the proposal issue and not turn this into forum. If you have to something to say about the arguments and references I have presented related to irredentism issue on this specific topic, ok, otherwise this is the last off-topic comment by my part. Aigest (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentMy argument is clear, you cannot have a Northern Ireland template while deleting Northern Epirus template. As you cannot delete the Kosovo template because of the activity of UCK. To me this discussion is going out of any logic. That is my argument, and I found it absolutely relevant to the issue. --Factuarius (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination--82.114.79.163 (talk)

This vote was added to the template itself. This maybe a sockpuppet(70% possibility), or a user with a dynamic ip(30% possibility), when a checkuser is available he will be checked. Factuarious your parallelism is inaccurate. N.Ireland and Kosovo are official or semi-official entities, this isn't. This is just an irredentist term, for the southern part of an official country. This would be parallel to the creation of an "Aegean Macedonia" template. I may not be from the area, but I am familiar with the issues of the Balkans(please reply in my talkpage, not here). --Alarichus (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Alarichus you are wrong, I don't know what you mean by semi-official entities, but N.Epirus had very official entity signed by the very official Albanian government. This nomination is sliding quickly into a phony one due to the extended sockpuppeting and the resulting decision will be more of a disgrace for all of us who tolerated such a procedure to decide over such a serious issue. --Factuarius (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. It pushes an irredentist and nationalistic POV campaign by greek editors to a new level, which is already in full force with them editing all relevant Albanian and Albanian related articles to hellenize southern Albanian artificially and undermine Albanian history and culture.--I Pakapshem (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.To all: please be civil. What do you mean by "us" and a "disgrace" Factuarious? The possible sockpuppetry is going to be investigated as I told you. --Alarichus (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Both 'Northern Epirus' and 'Cham Albanians' templates should stay. What should change is the pov style of the relevant articles, not the topic itself. I'm sorry the delete arguments seems to be just nationalist pushing.

Comment: I woudln't vote since I was not related to this yet. Someone in 'irc:wikipedia' had a great desire for propaganda today (as well as yesterday). Villick (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Alarichus? Do you really believe that the user who caused the current discussion was all these days out of the procedure coming just now just to vote? Have you seen his history in the Administrators' noticeboard? --Factuarius (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomin.--79.126.180.226 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment What I mean? That is what I mean. And you will find nothing, everyone can go to an internet-cafe and vote. --Factuarius (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I can prove nothing, an disprove anything. 3 who said delete, and 2 who said keep may be or may be not sockpuppets. I cannot know. They will be checked. --Alarichus (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• And what you are going to do? You will continue to count IP votes until the last internet coffee shop? --Factuarius (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There are no checkusers available. And I cannot know if they are dynamic ips or internet cafes or new users trying to be "responsible" or new users interested in the subject or anything else, and neither can you. PLease let the procedure continue.At the moment it is 10 for deletion 8 for keeping. --Alarichus (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just to laugh a little: Someone sent to someone the voting txt ready for posting; and the ..user post it it to the template itself!!! [12]. But finally the vote found the way to here. Thanks God. Nice "procedure" Alarichus --Factuarius (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I informed you all on that. Factuarious, you are becoming disruptive. Wait for the checkuser investigation. --Alarichus (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The term "Northern Epirus" may be OK for us Greeks, but it is a fact that it has irredentist overtones to Albanians. Since Aigest for instance seems to be OK with a title like "Greek minority in Albania", which covers the issue (which is real & valid irrespective of national POVs) just as well without limiting it to the geographic or historical (if we consider the 1914 Autonomous State) aspect, I'd like to vote Keep and rename accordingly. Any others? Constantine ✍ 15:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Constantine your proposition is historically, culturally, religiously and geographically wrong. What we will answer to a Turk nationalist who will come tomorrow and say that the term Western Thrace has irredentist overtones to the Turks? Or, to a Greek nationalist who will come to say that the term Eastern Thrace has irredentist overtones to the Greeks? Not to mention other geographical parts --Factuarius (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upadate:10 delete, 7 keep, 2 keep & rename --Alarichus (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be possibly counting all the socks, IPs and 2-edit "users"!--Michael X the White (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (Edit conflict) Factuarius, why? Is not Northern Epirus the same as the area inhabited by the Greek minority in what is today Albania? I rather think I am historically, culturally, religiously (?!?) and geographically correct when I say that both terms are roughly the same, since Greek presence in Albania has in modern times not extended north of Northern Epirus. Each case is judged on its merits, and the exclusive use of the term "Northern Epirus", which is considered irredentist by the country in whose territory it lies, would imply some sort of wider acceptance, which is not the case. In contrast, for whatever reason, the terms for Thrace are much more neutral and widely acceptable among the countries that share it (PS I don't really get the argument with Eastern Thrace). If a template about the Slavs in Greek Macedonia were created under the heading "Aegean Macedonia" would you not oppose it? (And again, there I would propose a more neutral heading like "Slavic minority in Greek Macedonia".) The point of a navbox is not to enforce the use of a certain label, but to provide a summary of the main topics pertaining to a subject group. This the template can do equally well under another heading. Constantine ✍ 16:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Now that I became informed in how you can solve a possible future problem by proposing a more neutral heading like "Slavic minority in Greek Macedonia", I became relaxed upon your proposition. But unfortunately I have already vote. --Factuarius (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Please, sarcasm won't bring us anywhere. I was making a comparison: the Albanians view the term just as we view "Aegean Macedonia". You may disagree, but they have a right to their own opinion. I also second Michael IX's comment above on the IP user votes. On such a controversial subject, IP editors are by definition suspect. Constantine ✍ 17:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' The term is geographical and cultural not a nationalistic issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.20.27 (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Another one to be checked for being sock. --Alarichus (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP! N. Epirus has nothing to do nationalistic issues and must not use "MAVI" to delete the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.2.82 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC) — 79.166.2.82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Northern Epirus template must stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.74.227 (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC) — 92.118.74.227 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• keep, a guy with a weird Incan like nick from irc wanted to convince me to vote the opposite, but accorting to historical cultural criteria mentioned i vote to keep it77.83.253.148 (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)— 77.83.253.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep I am from Northern Epirus and I am not terrorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.202.84 (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC) — 79.131.202.84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Seriously, stop sockpuppeting --Alarichus (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Some IP and user votes are going to be deleted, after the investigation of meatpuppeting/sockpuppeting is over. So, just wait. --Alarichus (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, due to the reasons stated above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.119.204.167 (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC) — 92.119.204.167 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Nothing wrong with it.--Leonidas120 (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)— Leonidas120 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sick off-wiki amateurish bait job

About this off-wiki [[13]] activity, I am for God's sake NOT involved in this kind of extremist action.

• This 'skolixx' user has joined topixx 5 hours ago [[14]], seems his only intention was to inform in an disturbing way about the template deletion. I wonder who would do that in such an obvious way? Seems like an amateur bait job to me.
• What's really erroneous is that this link has been recently updated, after it was initially -20:41, 8 September 2009 - mentioned in admins noticeboard , with a picture of Nikolaos Michaloliakos, leader of the Greek extremist group Hrysi Avgi, which OFF COURSE I HAVE NOTHING TO DO (reasonably thinking why should I do that? upgrading the link with that picture).
• The level of English is far too poor and my contribution in wikipedia proves exactly the opposite.

As for the canvassing issue I'm accused by i_Pakapshem, ([[15]] I wrote about 'a multiply times blocked user', who -according to his record- is Pakapshem, and off course practically impossible to be a current admin), since I have been informed by User:Alarichus that he proposed the deletion of the specific template from irc-wikipedia. Alexikoua (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There was later found also this [16]. I tried to translate it by using a greeklish to greek converter and then google translate. The main meaning was obvious, but a detailed translation is needed. This seems to be a message previous to this [17]. I personally do not want to blame anyone for anything, but this sudden influx of ip editors at approximately the same time, is suspicious. --Alarichus (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since Alarichus, has been blocked as a sockpuppet, I propose to continue the discussion on the template's talk page. Actually the real debate is between keep and rename.Alexikoua (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Summary:

  • In favor of delete: User:J Milburn, User:OwenBlacker, User:Aigest, User:Zscout370, User:Closedmouth, User:I Pakapshem

    In favor of keep: User:Alexikoua, User:Megistias, User:Michael IX the White, User:Factuarius

    In favor of keep and rename: Constantine

• Note: Summary added by Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is only used in a single article, and it really doesn't have purpose in that article anymore. TTN (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Used for fancruft (listing each game where something has appeared is very trivial information). --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 23:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not currently used in the main splace. –droll [chat] 04:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coming out (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template seems like a really bad idea. Besides the obvious possibilities for vandalism, why does this even need to be announced in a template at the top of an article? Generally, we don't draw attention to people's sexuality in this way; if a person's 'coming out' is sufficiently notable, it will be mentioned in their article anyway, but I cannot think of a single circumstance when using this template would be appropriate. Robofish (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I understand that the purpose of this template is like the purpose of ((Recent death)). Nevertheless, I do not think the event of recently "coming out" is in the same order of importance as a person's demise, to warrant the use of this template. It may be important for the person doing the "coming out", and for the GBTL-community (who is always overly eager to welcome new members in its midst), but I fail to see the value of this event for the maintenance aspects of our encyclopedia. 20:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Debresser (talk)
• Delete. What the heck is the point of notifying our readers about this in a big, friendly box at the top of the article? --Conti|✉ 20:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep With all due respect to my fellow wikipedians I think this template is particularly useful at moments where someone (usually a notable personality) has come out of the closet. That said, I understand that some users might find extremely unusual to notify that a person has come out of the closet. However, you must acknowledge that the LGBT community has gone to great lengths to be taken seriously and I personally don't see how this template could not be of help as a follow up of who has or has not come out of the closet. As far as comparing this template to the template recent death in not being in the same level of importance it's my opinion that coming out of the closet is a milestone in anyone's life, especially those ones that are public figures. As the creator of such template I request the editors to keep an open mind regarding the importance of such template. I must add, this template has not been added as a trolling move whatsoever and as many of you can see I do use my real name in my contributions here in the English Wikipedia and I do believe this template is to be taken seriously. I would also like to request the involvement of editors of Wikiprojects related to the LGBT community so they can also give their opinion on this particular matter. Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete If it's important information it should be stated in the article and lead. Not on a simple template. Garion96 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Debresser. For the record, I'm gay and a member of Wikiproject LGBT studies. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unnecessarily draws attention to the fact, and a potential tool for vandalism. If the specific event concerned is newsworthy, we already have templates for this. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems pointless. If somebody comes out LGBT, the LGBT template can be applied with the appropriate section highlighted. Mish (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If the LGBT community wants to be taken seriously (which of course we do), this is a step in the wrong direction. Granted, coming out is a milestone in a person's life, but then again, so is turning 18, getting accepted into college, getting married, or becoming a mother or a father, and it would be equally ridiculous to have templates for those as well. Coming out, as well as the other examples I mentioned simply aren't comparable to one's death. I am also a member of Wikiproject LGBT studies and a transwoman. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are trivializing the act of coming out of the closet. If that was the case then Clay Aiken would have never made the news. You got to keep in mind this template is intended to be used with notable personalities. If you think about it personalities are the ones that get the attention of the media in their milestones (such as the ones you have mentioned). My point with this template is simply that it's just another programmatic tool as infoboxes and bots. In fact , I don't even think the context of the template is as relevant as what it can do from the structural point of view. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, coming devoutly Christian and subsquently fiercely homophobic family I know all about the coming out process including depression and suicidal tendencies - I went through all of it. The simple fact is, every conceivable milestone in a person's life doesn't need to be highlighted by a recent tag. Secondly, Clay Aiken is a poor example, as he had millions of fans since his first day on American Idol and in fact, he didn't even come out of the closet until his media hype started to dwindle (to be exact, five years - 4 studio albums - and over 5 million records sold wordlwide - after he became a household name) and on top of that his coming out wasn't even that big a deal since half the planet suspected he was gay in the first place. And on top of that he became a father around the same time: so why aren't you arguing for a "recent parent" tag as well? Does not having one trivialize parenthood? I don't think so. This template doesn't serve any greater purpose than the LGBT Project tag or the sexual orientation categories, which are far more constructive. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It makes it into something it isn't - do we have boxes to announce that a person is straight? It's not like the moment they come out, part of them dies and it needs to be elevated to a glaring notification at the top of the article. If they are a prominent spokesperson or activist or artist/musician for whom being gay is central to their notability and work, then it can be in the lead of the article and still doesn't need a template. There is also massive BLP issues for us as a project if either they are not gay, or not publicly or openly gay - our saying so in bold caps causes them distress or discrimination in their real lives, especially in parts of the world with far less progressive legal regimes than our own. (Interpret GLBTIQ etc for "gay" in any of the above, I use the term purely for convenience of reference) Orderinchaos 08:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepSounds like a sensible innovation. Visibility of gay men and women in any media remains low, therefore anything that helps highlight where a public figure has come out is to be welcomed in the interests of improving transparency. I can think if several articles where this would work well. I'm less concerned about vandalism as an argument against. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not Wikipedia's job to highlight where a public figure has come out. Resolute 20:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Such a template gives massive undue weight to an issue that is rarely the reason a person is notable. It does not provide anything useful imo. Coming out for most people is also not usually a single-event thing - a template cannot provide the nuance about if the person was previously out to his family, or it was an open secret, or if he was forced into admiting something. A complex issue cannot be approached with a one-size-fits-all template.YobMod 19:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per many above, also per WP:UNDUE. Resolute 20:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In its best, most encyclopedic use, this would be an unnecessarily specific version of ((Current)). At worst it can demonstrate all the problems described by others above. --RL0919 (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - in agreement with several of the points raised above, particularly the notion that coming out is a process that can't necessarily be easily qualified. Even those who go on magazine covers under the headline "Yep, I'm Gay" don't just switch over from being in to being out. Otto4711 (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is a time-based template being applied to a non-time-based process. At what point should it be applied? When the subject has come out to his/her siblings or parents or family in general? When the subject is out at work, but not to family? When a journalist has written about the subject in a blog or in Women's Day or E!? When the subject is involuntarily outed? Would applying the template contribute to harm to the subject or otherwise go against WP:BLP? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Kaldari (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. More appropriate to Wikinews or other time-sensitive publication - not an encyclopedia. - Davodd (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. The Main use I can see for this template would be to show that the subject has indeed come out of the closet, it is verified by multiple independent, reliable sources, and it is considered factual. How many vandals have added "and is gay" to a BLP, just to mess around? How many editors have reverted a factual edit that shows someone coming out of the closet, on the assumption that it is actually vandalism? Something that says that the subject is out "For realz" would have value. The tone of this template is all wrong, though - the language isn't encyclopedic, and - hard as it may be to believe - someone might not immediately know what "coming out of the closet" means. Is there a clearer way to say what we're saying? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:05, 9 September 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 Non-admin closure, speedy delete as per WP:SIG. Launchballer 16:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a user's signature template. In essence, the user launchballer places this on a talk page, fills in some parsers and his message, then leaves it without substing. A template's not needed to flag that specifically launchballer has left a message on a page. GrooveDog (oh hai.) 19:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Violation of signature guidelines, abuse of template namespace, and not at all constructive. Resolute 21:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I thought that the idea of having the talk bubbles and burgers would be a good idea. There are no ParserFunctions on that page. Also, if I were to substitute it, it would leave so much crap dotted around the editing window it's just uncanny. It's not for specifically me, thats why I also wrote some editable ones (talkbubble and burger). And BTW, those images are, as I have said before several times, NOT part of the signature itself. It is part of the talkbubble itself.--Launchballer 06:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't matter that the images aren't part of the signature itself, fair use images are not (with very few exceptions, if any) allowed outside of the mainspace. GrooveDog (oh hai.) 13:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be acceptable if the images were not there, but the bubble was?--Launchballer 15:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally still say no. Honestly, if your signature (and this is a signature) has "so much crap" associated with it - whether or not it's substituted, it really is nothing more than an annoyance. Consider how your little bubble would look in the midst of an involved discussion where you've made several replies. It is just not functional as part of a talk page comment. Resolute 20:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not appropriate per WP:SIG, and frankly having individual users create their own signature templates doesn't strike me as a good idea in any case. --RL0919 (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still say keep, especially when I've found a way of dramatically reducing the markup required making it even less of a nuscience.--Launchballer 16:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete, against WP:SIG, specifically WP:SIG#NT. No way around that. --King Öomie 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Forbidden by WP:SIG#NT. Besides, there is no reason why signatures should be large and conspicuous. It wastes space on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recall reading somewhere that no signature should be so bombastic that it gives the impression that user is more important than the page's other editors.

I fear that a 1.25" block of HTML may just do that. --King Öomie 12:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 userfy Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bad Warning (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems redundant with ((Uw-tempabuse)) template series. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That template is for specifically users templating other users and probably works in sync with Wikipedia:Do template the regulars.--Launchballer 06:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: just to make my vote a little more obvious.--Launchballer 16:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy- includes the creator's signature, thus making it cumbersome for any other user to actually use. --King Öomie 19:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Users' personal stuff doesn't belong in template-space, and the content can easily be recreated by the user if they want it in their own space. If made generic, it would be redundant to the template abuse templates mention in the nom. --RL0919 (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy It appears the creator did not realize they could create a template in their userspace and it contains their signature so it clearly was meant for their own use. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very old template. Redundant with ((IPA|ɑ)). The especial character can be found in toolbox and in the special characters section of the new toolbar. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like this is another of those templates that was valuable once, but is no longer needed. --RL0919 (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unused and obsolete. Robofish (talk) 21:58, 8 September 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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Apache-2.0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is only one image tagged with this. The image should be moved to commons and the template deleted. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I moved File:SpamAssassin logo-2384x1014.png to commons:File:SpamAssassin logo.png and requested an F8 speedy deletion of the file here. Soon no files will use this template on Wikipedia. It is a valid and free license and I think it should be keep. I going to edit it so that it agrees with the commons template. –droll [chat] 05:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is a valid license. Just needs a bit more visibility (i.e., links). — RockMFR 13:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I moved this template to ((Apache-2.0)) in keeping with the names of other copyright (copyleft) tags. This was not done in an effort to circumvent this process. Also I added information about this tag at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. For more information on this licence see Apache License. –droll [chat] 23:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As long as this is a valid license for images, infrequent use doesn't seem sufficient reason to delete. --RL0919 (talk) 00:57, 8 September 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 G7. JPG-GR (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AlumniStart2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Alum2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AlumniEnd2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of them are duplicates (((AlumniStart)), ((Alum)) and ((AlumniEnd2))). The only difference is that ((AlumniStart2)) use width as percentages instead of px. Unused. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even remember creating this. Delete. --Pgp688 (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per T3 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alessandra Amoroso (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No links. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useless. Delete. Himalayan 18:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Linkless navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No links. Maxis ftw (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aicelle Santos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One link. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 17:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Two links? It does no harm and is of use in minor way. –droll [chat] 06:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually three links, but to the same thing: Make Me Believe. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 17:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still see two in the main space: Aicelle Santos and Make Me Believe. –droll [chat] 18:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough distinct links to make a useful navbox. Could always be recreated later if/when there are more articles. --RL0919 (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RL0919 - a navigational template is not needed at this time. Robofish (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. The category that it includes doesn't use numbers as sorting. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 17:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (and this would be a bad way of organising the category anyway). Robofish (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prettytable95 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Prettytable100center (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated with class="wikitable". Unused. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 15:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Useful at one time, but a lot has changed since 2005. --RL0919 (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - obsolete and unused. Robofish (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City in Afghanistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in any articles. Should be replaced with the standard Template:Infobox settlement. Himalayan 12:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deprecate in favour of ((Infobox settlement)). Merge in any extra parameters. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in favour of ((Infobox settlement)). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Used on only 16 articles Unused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate as per 81.110.104.91. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A "one size fits all" approach does not necessarily work globally and adds a large overhead without necessarily allowing for vagaries of specific regions around the world. I don't think the fact that this is not used in many articles is a reason to delete it either. That doesn't mean that those articles aren't in need of special treatment due to the specific culture and geographic diversity of the subject. Donama (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please identify specifically which aspects of this template are not catered for by the generic parent. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Donama's argument seems to be that specific templates are in most cases better the overly large generic templates. As such Donama's concerns do not seem to be so much about what the generic template can or can't do, but whether the regional variations are best dealt with specifically or in the generic IS. You might try responding to Donama's actual concerns rather than making your own interpretation of them. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep regionalised templates are more effective, countering WP:BIAS. Gnangarra 06:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to be canvassing, based on a false premise ("globalised templates using terminology and spelling that isnt consistant with the region"). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This id the problem with your process is the lack of WP:AGF, I havent canvassed I advised people that process is under way, that process is the replacement of localised template in favour of a globalise template which uses US terminology/spelling this process occurred without prior discussion. oh and you seem to be stalking me. Gnangarra 16:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in favour of Infobox Settlement. Localised templates may be more useful in some cases, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Robofish (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Gnangarra, this is one of many deletions proposals that were not discussed on the relevant WikiProject. We should allow various templates to have a regional flavour rather than forcing conformity Pahari Sahib 12:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This template is not tagged as being of interest to any project. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace with ((Infobox settlement)). There doesn't appear to be anything unique in this template that isn't in the global template, and it is used on a small number of articles so replacement should be easy. --RL0919 (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused and redundant. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Stunning beauty of graphics and simplicity of the Image:Afghanistan locator map.svg-map, made me fall for this template, and I incorporated this file in Template:Infobox military attack, when I was writing Kunduz airstrike, as I again felt the simplicity of the map (without surrounding countries) and the little red dot and the Citys name was very beautiful and simple, but now someone has removed that option from that template. But what puzzles me is how somebody have managed to also remove the map from Template:Infobox City in Afghanistan, and why? PS: You can still see the original map in the example on the templates documentation. But in a wider political perspective I could understand why someone do not like all of Afghanistan cities under the same 'Afghanistan-only' colour, because one of the problems in todays conflict is the drive to create a central government for the very diverse people in Afghanistan, who doesn't feel like afghans first and foremost, but see themselves as Pasthuns, Tadjiks etc. Michelle Bentley (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stunning beauty of graphics" is a valid reason to keep? Because you like the fact is used purple? You say we remove all of the current infoboxes from all of the articles and replace with one that looks "pretty"? Rather than the template actually being more flexible and have the ability to store more info you'd like to keep it because it is purple? LOL, sounds like something my mum would say. Lets buy that car because I like the colour!! Um, if you look at the Kunduz airstrike article now you'll see we don't use that white map, we use a better quality svg and have done for some time.. Himalayan 13:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template is currently unused. You can use whatever map you want in ((Infobox settlement)). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per T3. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poole Town FC Squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template not being used. Unlikely ever to be used. Unlikely to be beneficial if used as this list is probably only ever going to be of interest to one article. DanielRigal (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Replacement with a simple in-article list would be sufficient even if this were used somewhere. --RL0919 (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary, ugly and not formatted consistently with other football teams' articles. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, speedy if possible. I am about to block this user; each and every one of his edits to date have been in regards to this NN football team and its members. I've deleted at least two. No positive contribs whatsoever. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:32, 7 September 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 keep. JPG-GR (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Town AT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The reason for deleting this template is because it is in German! German language text is not permitted on wikipedia especially when editors are supposed to understand exactly what each refers to... Meaning we have several thousand articles maybe with German text in. I understand they were copied from German wikipedia which was great as a start, now I feel it is time they were converted to english and to a standard Template:Infobox settlement. Not to mention that the map shouldn't be the same size as the coat of arms and it uses a big red pin so in effect the locator marks like a 60 mile radius!! Himalayan 10:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No actual reason for deletion given. The nominator's comments apply to many useful templates (for example the railway ones which are used all over the place). I don't see why the fields (non-visible) being in a different language, so long as the documentation correctly explains it, is a problem. The greatest number of users of this template will likely be Germanic-speaking anyway as, despite contributing in English, their local knowledge and ability to access sources in that language would be essential to improving articles and details (English language sources are often deficient for European topics). If it presents a particular problem to the nominator, it would not be hard to decide upon an appropriate translation of the template fields and then get a bot to go over all instances. It appears to be a useful template that meets local circumstances far better than the generic. Orderinchaos 19:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Perhaps you should try to Assume Good Faith a bit more. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it works, use it. If I am coding up an Austrian town, I'll use the Austrian template. If I don't quite understand the terms used (and they seem pretty intuitive anyway so that is unlikely), I'll look at whatever documentation is available to work out how to do so. It's back end coding, it doesn't appear to the user (so is not "German text on Wikipedia"), and it probably makes it easier for those who actually *know the language and can read the sources* (i.e. Austrians, people from neighbouring countries, expatriates or students/workers/migrants living in Austria) to add content - which I fully support. Orderinchaos 03:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in favour of ((infobox settlement)). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The template isn't in German, it's bilingual, allowing easy cut-and-paste from the German Wikipedia and perfectly normal editing by any non-German-speaking editor. If someone wants to make it so that the template itself transcludes Template:Infobox settlement then that would be a useful change, but it seems like a particularly foolish idea to delete a template that's used on nearly 2500 pages when it makes perfect sense to have an Austrian-specific template (just as there are French-, German- and British-specific templates) that make it easier to ensure that Template:Infobox settlement is consistently implemented across a nation. If you have a problem with the German arguments, I'm sure you can use AutoWikiBrowser to search and replace them to the English-language equivalents, but deleting the template is something of a sledgehammer for that walnut. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep A bullying attempt to force conformity on a North American standard that does not apply here. Attempting to make square pegs fit round holes is futile. Passive aggressive comments like "Mmm. Would you really be commenting here if I hadn't have nominated "your" Aussie template too?" don't really help either. Address comments on their merits, not what you feel their underlying basis to be. Cherry-picking the Australian and Austrian templates while leaving ((infobox UK place)), ((Infobox French commune)) etc. alone smacks of trying to pick off the easy targets and then claim precedent to get rid of the rest. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be fair to User:Himalayan Explorer, I'd just assumed he was going through all nations' localisations of these templates alphabetically, hence starting with Austria, Australia, Afghanistan and Bangladesh :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Firstly, please assume good faith. There is a list (incomplete) of similar templates, already deleted, at Template talk:Infobox settlement#Deleted. Other suitable templates will be addressed in turn. No "North American" standard is involved. Secondly, there are criteria for Speedy keeping, and your comment doesn't invoke any of them; indeed, you give no good grounds for keep, at all. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I guess AGF applies both ways and the nominator would be best advised to keep this in mind as well. I suggest Speedy Keep as the way forward because this method of cherry-picking individual cases is a poor and divisive way of assessing consensus for these nation-specific infoboxes. My keep rationale is clear (and your failure to understand it, wilful). The nation-specific infoboxes better reflect the nation-specific circumstances they have been created to deal with. A single infobox (designed to reflect North American circumstances) is too large and unwieldy to allow for simple use everywhere. Regional variation is best dealt with in a manner similar to WP:ENGVAR rather than a bullying, crash through approach to standardis(z)e on the US model. Believe it or not, things really are different in the rest of the world and a "one size fits all model" does not always work. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the nominator is being rather petty about the size of the locator dot. These things can be changed. It's also rather hypocritical given that one of his complaints about ((Infobox Australian Place)) is that its locator map should be of the whole country rather than individual states. If changes were implemented to suit his desires then the Australian dot would cover a much larger area than the Austrian dot does now. While he argues for standardisation, there's not a lot of it in his nominations and the complaints that he uses in an attempt to justify deletion. As for the size of the coat of arms, compare the size of the seal of Lincoln, Nebraska, which uses ((Infobox settlement)), to the state map. I don't really see an issue with size in either template but if there is a real concern about the size of the coat of arms, I'm sure it can be changed. I must admit, I'm rather concerned at the weak excuses the nominator is using in his crusade to get the same bulky template jammed into as many articles as possible, when much smaller, purpose-designed templates are doing an excellent job. This template seems to be one of those. Having examined the template code, I don't see any real issue with translating the field names into English if that's really necessary. As the instructions are bilingual there is no problem with the template as it stands and the translation seems like a lot of effort for very little outcome, although not as much effort as replacing the template. Since there seems to be no real, justifiable reason for standardising for standardising's sake, (many years in project management taught me that is very rarely a good thing), I have to vote keep. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate in favour of ((infobox settlement)). Merge in any extra parameters. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mattingbn. This somewhat is suspect of bullying tactics to force a "standard" template without discussion with the involved wikiprojects and countries involved. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mattingbn. Aaroncrick (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I notice the keep comments here tend to focus on two statements. One is "one size does not fit all". The proposer of that viewpoint may be surprised to find out thanks to named parameters to a template being optional, and no limitation on the number of parameters a template may know about (there may be one on the number actually passed, but we don't seem to have hit it yet), in this case one size does indeed fit all. The other statement is that there has been "no valid reason" for deletion or deprecation. I would ask that someone advancing this statement prove its truth. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment' No, replacing an easy to use streamlined template with a bloated monstrosity of a template attempting to be all things to all people does not equate to "one size fits all". The onus is on the self-appointed standardisation committee to demonstrate that this standardisation is actually useful and desirable. Merely stating "redundant" before actually assessing if it actually is redundant (let alone actually coming to some consensus with the users of the template about what the issues are) is not a valid argument to delete. This short sighted attempt to push through with a standardisation program that does not have demonstrated support from the wider community is doomed to failure unless you and your fellow group of standardisers tone down the arrogance and demonstrate some good-faith willingness to discuss the issues with the wider community. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please cease and desist your bullying. There is prima facie evidence of redundancy. This is a valid reason to propose the template is deprecated and deleted (it says so at the top of WP:TFD and WP:DP). Evidently the nominator feels that this alone demonstrates consensus not to retain redundant templates in the article space. Migration is inherent in the execution of template deletion. Your repeated attacks, circular arguments and deliberate misrepresentations are fast becoming disruptive. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bullying" is a strong word and not one appropriate to the context - he simply disagrees with what you are doing and says so, clarifying how and why. Does that make my maths tutor a bully? (Maybe.) Please assume good faith of fellow contributors. Orderinchaos 08:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:IDONTLIKE isnt a valid reason, apparently this is one of many nominations suggest the nominator work with the community at large rather than pushing changes thru TFD. Gnangarra 04:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cite a single comment to this TfD whose reasoning is "I don't like it". 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very easy - the nomination statement. 1 = I don't like it, it has German in it failing to mention it's only in the back end and each and every term is bilingual! For a German-speaking location with German-speaking editors! Heavens! "now I feel it is time they were converted to english" - Yes, those damn Austrians, they should just, you know, get with the times and adapt. 2 = Comments about maps and coats of arms. Oh dear, they're showing signs of *shock horror* individual thought! Can't have that on Wiki. What would we have next? OK, so I'm being sarcastic for humorous purposes, but the entire nom is an IDONTLIKEIT without any reason given to delete and any serious proposal for moving forward besides criticising perfectly good faith people from another culture. Orderinchaos 05:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How about the nomination statement for a start. "I feel it is time they were converted to english and to a standard Template:Infobox settlement." No reason actually given, apparently it is self-evident.
• Speedy close as unactionable. The only sensible way to handle this is to get consensus to migrate, then migrate, then delete the template. This nomination is upside-down. Hesperian 06:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Orderinchaos ("one size fits all" does not work) with which I agree regardless of my nationality or ethnic persuasion. Donama (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. At best, the proposal for deletion is premature. First, the interchangeability of the templates should be clearly demonstrated and second the project(s) that use the templates should be engaged to produce a consensus supporting the switchover. Neither has happened. Furthermore, as others have discussed above and elsewhere, the philosophical approach of one-size-fit-all is deeply problematic in it that usually either results loss of features or in greater complexity (i.e., a higher obstacle for usability). older ≠ wiser 14:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mattingbn, this is one of many deletions proposals that were not discussed on the relevant WikiProject. Ostensibly it is for standardisation, but custom Infoboxes tend to be better I believe, succinct lines of code to display the details and easier to maintain. And they actually allow uniformity across that particular WikiProject. Pahari Sahib 19:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Speedy close per Hesperian. Ian Spackman (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Although some text is in German, each section is bilingual and confusion is not an issue. Secondary vote to edit if absolutely necessary Raan0001 (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it is truly redundant, consensus should be found to convert them all to the more general template, before deletion is considered. Presumably the project uses it for a reason, so that indicates they don't consider it redundant. The bilingual nature allowing easy copying from German wikipedia certainly sounds like a useful feature to me.YobMod 10:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand how templates are actually converted. Nothing is deleted whatsoever. The current AT infobox is updated with a more standard layout and english text so it becomes more like the standard. Then a bot or automation is used to just switched the paramters in an easy transition by rmeoving the German fields and replacing with engnlish so when you edit the page you do not see German text. I think most people imagine that somehow these infoboxes will all be rmeoved. Absolutely not, it is just a move to a more standard layout (and to remove German text). I was involved myself under an old account copying infoboxes from German wikipedia. Now they have all been copied, there is now no longer a need to retain the German text. Himalayan 10:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the template is being deleted, why is there a need for "the standard" - aren't regional templates easier to maintain by their respective WikiProjects rather trying to steamroller them all away and confirm to one big template. Can't the bot be employed to make any changes to the current template, after discussion with the WikiProject - what is the point of a WikiProject otherwise? Pahari Sahib 12:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it can. You have a point about project discussion, I did mention it to WP:Pakistan and also said about the huge cleanup task that was needed. As far as I'm aware nobody responded, only you who objected. What you are fialing to see about this template is that it isn't because "it is easier to operate a regional template" it is that this template only existed because it enabled us to copy infoboxes directly from German wikipedia. Now that they have all been transferred there is no need to keep a bilingual template, it could easily be converted into english at least even if the template remains seperate. Himalayan 13:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you being somewhat disingenuous here, you never discussed the TFD at WikiProject Pakistan and when did I object to the cleanup? Coming back to this template, if there is "no need to keep a bilingual template" then the appropriate action would be to discuss this at the WikiProject - not to ask for the template itself to be removed. Pahari Sahib 17:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert backend to use ((infobox settlement)). This will allow everyone to see the result of a merger, and make sure that nothing is lost in the process, as well as providing a more unified appearance. Once the backend is converted in a satisfactory manner, debate on the merits of keeping this as a regional-specific frontend can continue. Oh, and yes, I am willing to do the initial conversion. Just ping me. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Intro-fringe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template states: The neutrality of this introduction is disputed with the claim that a fringe or minority topic or view has been given too much space or attention. However the ((POV-intro)) template already states: The neutrality of this introduction is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. It seems that this template is redundant. Whether the POV is fringe or just biased is irrelevant.

The Four Deuces (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's simply redundant. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 15:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this template itself is not neutral, as it effectively attacks the introduction. That sort of comment is exactly what the talk page is for. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm frankly amazed that anyone would vote to delete. I created this template. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to represent fringe issues as any more than fringe issues. See WP:Fringe. I created this template to address that. Sure, one can just put up the NPOV-intro tag, by why not have a tag more specific? Introman (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We dont need a separate template for every posible dispute type. The POV-intro template should always be backed up with reasoning on the talk page - a template that gives a vague reason on the page itself is un-needed.YobMod 10:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Wiki User (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently an unused template. Completely orphaned. Created in 2007, editor has not edited since and appears it has been orphaned all that time. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless anyone wishes to use it. Robofish (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Unused because unwanted. There is no move for standardisation of user-pages AFAIK.YobMod 10:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adelitas Way (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently there is nothing to navigate here. All links are already present in each article. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pointless navbox. This isn't needed purely to link three articles. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Insufficient number of articles to warrant a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It does no harm. Deleting it will not save "room". It is of use where it is used. Deletion would cause more harm than good. –droll [chat] 18:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a navigational template is not really justified here. Robofish (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. When/if Adelitas Way gets big, then they can have a template. Right now, there are too few articles related to them to warrant a template like this --Ethd (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Actors in Yasmin Ahmad films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A navbox with actors that participated in films from X director? I don't think this is something good. Anyway, most of links are red. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this might be appropriate where producers or directors tend to use the same regular cast each time, but there's no indication that this is the case here. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete -Consensus indicates we are not to have navigation templates for actors.. Himalayan 11:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tenuous connection and mostly redlinks. Either problem would be sufficient reason to delete. --RL0919 (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please clarify "something good". Otherwise delete. –droll [chat] 06:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I mean, this kind of navbox templates are not good because including links to unrelated movies with different casts don't help navigation. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 17:29, 7 September 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 per WP:NODISCLAIMERS and any notable "controversy" should be stated in "the article text, not as a warning template." Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:NODISCLAIMERS. If there is not reliable source, then there shouldn't be an article. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 01:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unresolvable inherent POV, and an inappropriate disclaimer. I note we don't have a template for "Reliable information about this location may be lacking because nobody lives there" (((ghost-town))?). 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --RL0919 (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is useless clutter. –droll [chat] 18:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a shorthand way to tell people that the place, while de jure part of Azerbaijan, is in Nagorno-Karabakh. The nominator totally misunderstands its purpose: It doesn't say that there are no reliable sources, hence no article; it says that there is no reliable source on the current conditions of the place. Since we have no reliable sources for the current condition of any missing people, we should delete those articles based on Locos' idea. Removing the template will make it seem as though WP has no clue that some places of Azerbaijan are under occupation by NK. If dumbing down is the purpose...go for it. Let's also remove all templates about NK while we're at it, since it doesn't really exist. As for POV, if you thought that it was POV to mention that the place is under occupation, then we'll remove that sort of rubbish in various articles elsewhere if that's what WP is. More dumbing down. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I didn't mean that. But tell me, is it better to include a cluttering ambox or mention the situation of the village in the body of the article? Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this doesn't need to be a template. Information about the state of Nagorno-Kharabakh should be contained in the article text, not as a warning template. Robofish (talk) 21:46, 8 September 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.