< December 31	January 2 >

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) 22:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Map of cities served by the Dutch railways night service (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. The associated Category:Pages with an EasyTimeline map (populated by this template) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 1#Category:Pages_with_an_EasyTimeline_map. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused template, despite its old age. Debresser (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2010 (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 to merge. No one stated a specific support or oppose, but there seem to be more reservations than enthusiasm. RL0919 (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Landmarks in Tianjin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Tianjin with Template:Landmarks in Tianjin.
I found this nomination incomplete. At Template_talk:Tianjin it said "Like the Beijing, Shanghai, and chongqing Templates, We should merge Tianjin Template with Template:Landmarks in Tianjin". Debresser (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not seeing a point in merging them, they both are fair sized templates. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The landmarks template seems to be even bigger than the general Tianjin one. A merge could be pretty complicated and add undue weight to the topic of landmarks. Or maybe not. I don't know... Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:48, 1 January 2010 (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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Footer The Novels of Arthur C. Clarke (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Arthur C. Clarke with Template:Footer The Novels of Arthur C. Clarke.
The footer is completely included in the general Clarke template, which is related enough to replace it. The only thing the general template deoesn't indicate is the authors with which some works were written as a collaboration, which I think is anyway out of place in a template. Debresser (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge - they seem redundant. --Ludwigs2 20:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but keep the collaboration names etc. in the merge. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:48, 1 January 2010 (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) 22:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer Movies Silambarasan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The work of an ardent fan, promoting his favourite actor. Unencyclopedic and irrelevent as the actor is not too famous and has not done anything of worth value Universal Hero (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not a good reason to delete this template. I think it helps the user to switch to every Silambarasan movies, in my opinion it is good that you can switch to every of his movies. He is one of the famous actors in Kollywood. He is acting since he was born and recently he got a worldwide audio release function of his starring movie. In conclusion it is worth to use this template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purushoth1992 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very opinionated view from yourself above. Silambarsan has not won any award from a major film awards committee or acted in nay true film which has changed the trends of Indian or Tamil cinema. This issue has been raised before, and even filmographies with more popular acrors such as Rajinikanth or Ajith Kumar or Vijay would be rejected immediately. Universal Hero (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it is helpful to use this. I would prefer you to make a template for rajini and kamal and etc., then every prominent kollywoodstar has a template like Simbu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.109.151.32 (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, no. We've had such discussions in the past - and there is a definite no-no for filmography only templates. Universal Hero (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, surely it should be deleted. It has no encyclopaedic value and is the work an over keen fan glorifying his favourite actor. Universal Hero (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per repeatedly affirmed consensus against navigation templates for actors. We have navboxes for movies by director, not for other cast and crew. As far as I can tell from his article, he has only directed two movies, which is not enough for a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2010 (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. Jafeluv (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baptist footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems to meet Reason 2 for deleting templates: The template is redundant to a better-designed template, specifically Template:Baptist. The template is also rather intrusive. Novaseminary (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Template:Baptist footer contains relevant material and is easier to use and understand. This template was made by those behind the Baptist portal and will be maintained and changed in line with the portal and the relevant workgroup. Template:Baptist lacks overall focus and should instead be focused on main topics as with other helpboxes; rather than on "Pivotal figures" and "Baptist Conventions and Unions" etc.--Chromenano (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Portal:Baptist seems to have been created entirely by Chromenano with only cats and other templates and the like having been added by a couple of other users, and it seems to focus on a rather odd assortment of "theological topics," for example. I am not sure that suffices as consensus. Chromenano is right that the Template:Baptist is no model of perfection either, but that doesn't mean that the new template is worthwhile. I wonder why Chromenano did not just improve the existing template. As for the template itself, this new Template:Baptist footer takes up the majority of the page of a good number of the pages on which it appears. It certainly is not lean and mean. I contnue to think it should be deleted. Novaseminary (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do plan to change the Template:Baptist helpbox to be focused on doctrinal issues, with the Template:Baptist footer navbox focused on denominational issues. I believe that together they complement each other and add to baptist pages. It should be noted that a helpbox (Template:Baptist) can only be so big and that navboxes (Template:Baptist footer) are collapsible.--Chromenano (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to ((Baptist)), with what appears to be a non-neutral POV. How in the world could anyone create a template with only one notable Baptist person in each of the last two centuries? Hokie RNB 19:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those listed are accepted baptist "pivotal figures". Feel free to recommend more.--Chromenano (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far only the template's creator thinks the template should be kept. Chromenano, are you aware of any other editors that might agree with your position? Novaseminary (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's no inherent reason that a side-bar info-box template and a footer template can't be used together for a single topic. For instance, we have Template:Christianity and Template:Christianityfooter. If you look at the Christianity page, they seem to work reasonably well together. Having said that, I do think this footer could use a good bit of work.EastTN (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I couldn't agree more. Many other pages use the same method.--Chromenano (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while I agree that there isn't anything inherently wrong with having two different templates covering the same übertopic, these two templates cover the same material. There isn't enough differentiation to warrant a second template, and as has already been stated, the second one is poorly designed. Ἀλήθεια 21:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I continue to think it should be deleted. The template remains duplicative and is not attractive or functional. I also note that to date no editor other than the creator of the template has come out in favor of keeping the template. Novaseminary (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed that the TFD notice had been placed in a "noinclude" tag, so that the notification was not appearing on articles that use the template. That could have a lot to do with why so few editors have participated in this discussion, since only someone who views or watchlists the template would have known about the nomination, unless they intentionally follow TFD. I've made the notification visible now, and if need be will relist this discussion again in hopes of getting more participation. --RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't sure whether that would be too disruptive to transcluded pages per the template deletion listing guidelines ("If placed directly into the nominated template, use <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice if it is likely to be disruptive to articles that transclude that template."), so I mentioned it on the Baptist talk page instead figuring editors watching that page would be interested. That said, it looks fine to me and I doubt it is causing problems on too many pages. Maybe editors will chime in now. Novaseminary (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One other thing to note is that it looks like there was a consensus back in July 2009 against changes made to the Template:Baptist by the creator (Chromenano) of the Template:Baptist footer that we are currently discussing. Here is that discussion. I will post a pointer to this discussion on that talk page, too. Novaseminary (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The slight differences to Template:Baptist are not sufficient to warrant having both. +An gr 19:37, 8 January 2010 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adobe Illustrator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NOTADVERTISING. As far as I can see, this template serves no purpose other than promoting the software. See discussion of related categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 31#Category:Created_with_Illustrator BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just the note said it was created by AI, nothing promoted here. By the way, if you want to delete this, you may want to delete this, too: Template:Created with GIMP.Tuanese (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Knowing what software was used to create a file is generally not relevant information, since files saved into standard formats can be viewed/edited using various applications, and files saved in proprietary formats will probably a) be useless on-wiki, and b) have an extension that makes it clear what the format is. And yes, that means ((Created with GIMP)) should also be deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it can be useful to include specific notes about how to recreate the image, but there is no need to simply advertise the software used. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the usefulness of the template, but there are several similar templates which probably should be deleted if there is consensus to delete here: ((Created with Blender)), ((Created with GIMP)), ((Created with Inkscape)), ((Created with Microsoft Paint)), ((Created with Numbers)), and ((Created with R)). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 04:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly I was just waiting on this one to close before nominating ((Created with GIMP)), but thanks for finding the others! --RL0919 (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2010 (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 deleted Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox in need of more info (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently unused template of unclear purpose. Is it for templates which lack fields, or for articles whose infoboxes are incomplete? The only thing this template does is to categorise the article in Category:Infoboxes in need of more info, which if kept should be a hidden category since it's a maintenance category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as template creator Sorry, newbie mistake

. Tim1357 (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Category:Infoboxes in need of more info speedily deleted at request of creator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template also speedily deleted at creator's request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 1 January 2010 (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. RL0919 (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CASH-SA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. A parameter on ((U.S. Roads WikiProject)) handles the needs of this template, making it redundant also. ---Dough 48 72 15:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though in reality there are CA selected articles, but the parameter can take it. --Rs chen 7754 18:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the doc page, there's no parameter for subproject selected articles, only for the portal SA. – TMF 20:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not documented. --Rs chen 7754 20:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, it's only for the CA one. That should be reconfigured to support all of the states that have SAs, but in the meantime delete this template. – TMF 20:13, 1 January 2010 (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) 22:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox geographic region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No explanation as to what it is for, and it's unused/orphaned. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 14:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like it was created, an attempt was made to use it on Pacific Northwest, but it was never functional and the creator has evidently moved on to other things. --RL0919 (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2010 (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.