< December 9 December 11 >

December 10

Template:Lincoln cabinet sidebar

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. It was merged with the article with this edit Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lincoln cabinet sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Template:Lincoln cabinet sidebar appears to have been rendered obsolete by the Template:Infobox U.S. Cabinet. The latter template is used in nearly all the articles on U.S. Presidents. I have noticed a few articles on U.S. presidents that use a different template. Consequently, I am reviewing all the president articles to find the outliers that are not yet using the Template:Infobox U.S. Cabinet.

Only six users have edited this template since it was created on October 7, 2010‎, not including myself. I have notified all users that have contributed edits to the template. The following users have been notified:

Please share your thoughts on the proposed deletion. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong venue. Templates go to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(So moved. Rich Farmbrough, 00:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC).)[reply]
Yes indeed, but I have no objection to merging the content to the article, using the standard infobox. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 11 December 2012 (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.

Template:Cite video

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 rename to ((cite AV media)) with a redirect rather than deleting. Since redirects are cheap, and since some of the opposers had concerns that AV media is harder to remember and type than the shorter names, perhaps the redirect will make this easier for folks, since you can still use the redirect. delldot ∇. 04:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite video (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is for video and audio works; propose to rename to cite media cite AV media to make this more clear by moving with redirect. 9048 current uses. — Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

support is for "Template:cite AV media". --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC) —Updated to add "AV", since "cite audio" redirects to "cite video" and "cite news" is already established separately for newspapers. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT—This is a Template for discussion, not a category rename. Doesn't that make the above supports/renames somewhat invalid?? --Funandtrvl (talk)
LOL!! Thanks for the clarity! --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the "cite audio" template redirects to this one, the "cite video" template. I think the idea is to have the least amount of templates out there, doing the most possible with each template. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the debate is regarding renaming it. I see no one proposing it actually be deleted, so I don't think you need to worry. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A frequently asked question by neophytes is what CS1 template to use for audio sources. When we tell then ((cite video)), the reactions are obvious. I also plan to do some enhancement down the road. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the nomination explanation was very terse, and did not clearly state the rationale involving newbies. IMHO nobody suggests 'video' for 'audio'. We suggest ((cite audio)) (162) or ((cite media)) (78), it redirects to ((cite video)) (9058), and then new editors understand that the templates would have been similar anyways. Flipping the names of 'media' and 'video' is somewhat sensible, IMHO, but it's too late for this !vote (since the premise was changed during !voting). Audio sources aren't used very often, anyways. If you feel strongly about this, I recommend withdrawing this one, and starting over with "swapping 'media' and 'video'" as the proposal. --Lexein (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ADBA Australian Men's Team roster

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. No objections. Lots of input not needed at TFD. delldot ∇. 04:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ADBA Australian Men's Team roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

effectively unsourced template (roster link does not link to a roster, nor can I find a roster on that site) with only red links. All red links are unlikely to get links to noteworthy players. The Banner talk 20:06, 10 December 2012 (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.

Template:Infobox East Asian name

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 delete it at this point, defaulting to keep. Per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, I have discounted the "POV delete" rationales because of the "sort" option - even assuming that its use is improperly indicated in the instructions, that would be a reason to change the instructions, not to delete the template. There is general agreement (in both "keep" and "delete" comments) that the current template should be replaced with something, but I don't see consensus there either, as there are three possible replacements that are proposed: the development of a subtemplate, a supertemplate, and/or a set of modular templates. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox East Asian name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A large number (most?) of the 144 transclusions of ((Infobox East Asian name)) seem to be on articles which are not about names, but about subjects which happen to be East Asian, and where more suitable infoboxes (for places, organisations , etc) exist (see, for example, Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905). Some, like Rumi Suizu, have two infoboxes; the subject specific one could perhaps use the East Asian name as a subtemplate. And do we need it for name articles? What should we do about the other cases? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you seriously think Infobox East Asian was created for the purpose of promoting a Korean nationalist point of view, you should have a chat with the non-Korean-speaking British film buff who created it and put it into use on most articles in the first place. In fact, though I favour deleting this template just like everyone else here and wish for a better solution on the few articles where I ended up using it, I'd be interested in PC78's opinion about what should be done, but regretfully these days he's typically only active once every few weeks so I don't know whether we'll hear from him in time.
And finally, this is a Wikipedia discussion, not a court of law. The topic of all Wikipedia discussion is "how to improve Wikipedia", and we'll discuss whatever templates we please. cab (call) 06:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reading over the above comments, I believe the broader discussion here is whether or not we need templates like this and ((Infobox Chinese)) at all, and on that I have no firm opinion, though I appreciate both sides of the argument. I do however share some of the POV concerns of the Chinese template, as it becomes problematic when people try and use it in articles where the subject is not exclusively or even primarily Chinese. That was at least one of the problems I was trying to avoid when creating this template, even if I wasn't entirely successful in doing so.
I have no opinion either way with regard to deletion, except to say that I disgaree that the template is redundant to either ((Infobox Chinese)) or ((Infobox Korean name)). PC78 (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again at some of the "delete" comments above, what I don't see is any coherant plan on how to proceed if the template is deleted, in fact most of the comments seem to be based on misconceptions of what this template is actually for (I already touched on this with my earlier comment, but I'll have another go). First is the notion that the template is redundant to and can easily be replaced with ((Infobox Chinese)): in fact, I actually created this template to compliment ((Infobox Chinese)), for use in situations where Chinese would not be regarded as the primary language. Would it be appropriate to use ((Infobox Chinese)) in Sakhalin Koreans, for example? I can see some people having an issue with that. Second is the idea that this template is redundant to ((Infobox Korean name)): well no, because that template doesn't support other languages. Again, this teplate was intended to compliment ((Infobox Korean name)), for situations where other languages are desirable. With that in mind, I don't think it would be inappropriate to have a single discussion for ((Infobox East Asian name)), ((Infobox Chinese)) and ((Infobox Korean name)), and indeed other such as ((Infobox Tibetan-Chinese)) - they are all basically meant for the same purpose, depending on the subject matter.
Finally, I wanted to comment on something from the initial nom: this template was never intended to be used as it is in Rumi Suizu, i.e. as a standalone "Japanese name" infobox. In fact, it's always been my understanding that Japanese related articles use the inline ((Nihongo)) rather than an infobox-style template. Perhaps we need to look at doing likewise for Chinese and Korean articles, and using the infobox templates only when a longer list of names is needed? PC78 (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2012 (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.

Template:Wict

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. Ruslik_Zero 14:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not helpful at all.Of little help. ((wict|abc)) is completely equivalent to [[wikt:abc]][[wikt:abc|]], and ((wict|abc|xyz)) to [[wikt:abc|xyz]]. What's worse is that it hinders other contributors' edits by obfuscating.

It's only used in 37 pages. After deletion, I can fix them manually, but I'd appreciate if it could be done by bots.--Ahora (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC) (This template saves one vertical pipe from a raw wiki. Corrected this point, and one typo. --Ahora (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2012 (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.

Template:Update

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 per the plan outlined by Ahora and Debresser and DGG. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Update (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Update section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Update with Template:Update section.
I think we should do one of two. Or we should change all instances of Template:Update section to ((Update|type=section)), or we should remove the |type= parameter from Template:Update and change all instances to Template:Update section. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we can simply add "section" the way we usually do ((Update|section)). That is no reason to delay the merge. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has a problem with that. So let's do it. Debresser (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was more or less the idea, yes. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2012 (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.

Template:IMDb and Template:NNDB

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) 01:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IMDb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NNDB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same reason. --76.232.68.248 (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2012 (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.

Template:Clifford the Big Red Dog

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) 01:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clifford the Big Red Dog (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates a few topics, which are all interlinked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:17, 10 December 2012 (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.

Template:Cabuyao City

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cabuyao City (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A child template of ((City of Cabuyao)). I don't see any reason not to merge the two since the info in this template is already found in the other one. Unnecessary and redundant. Xeltran (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This is a re-listing of the template since the previous deletion nomination did not result to a consensus. Xeltran (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same with ((Legislative districts of Valenzuela City)) in which all of Valenzuela's barangays are separated from ((Valenzuela City)) template. Othanwiki2009 (T)
No, i am referring to the "city" of Tabuk. In a country where even the smallest towns dominated by farmlands and cows are labelled as "cities" (thanks to its influential congressman and mayor with good connections to the president), the city tagging isn't and shouldn't always be relied upon as indication of progress or even, notability. Heck, even the laidback Sipalay and remote Bayugan or even the NPA-infested Guihulngan are labelled as cities these days. As for the "richest municipality" or LGU (thank goodness we had that deleted), if anyone ever believes that, it only means you have a mayor to thank for, for keeping corruption at a minimum and declaring its income honestly cos more populated towns with closer proximity to the metropolis don't get that like Cainta and San Pedro, Laguna. I bet you Barangay Balibago in Santa Rosa, Laguna is at least 10 times more notable than all of your Cabuyao barangays combined, and yet even that doesn't have its own article. --RioHondo (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"City" tagging is not the main topic for this discussion, you're out of topic. Anyway, we're not discussing for which barangay or village should be notable to have a WP article, you even mentioned Balibago which you said 10 times more notable than all of Cabuyao's barangays, are you trying to say that Balibago (if it has an article) is more notable than the whole Cabuyao article? Why don't you list down all small villages which you think are notable and request to have an article in WP?? You know, it's in the content that makes an article notable! All municipalities in the Philippines have articles in WP, do you think all of their articles have notability? Especially the small ones, remote areas, fourth or fifth class towns?? What's the difference between Mamatid's article (Cabuyao's most populated barangay) and El Salvador, Misamis Oriental's article when it comes to notability?? El Salvador is a city in Misamis Occidental, its population is 47,000+ in which I think is lower than the population of Mamatid, an urban barangay, of 50,000+ people. Mamatid is very progressive, it's income and population is already qualified for a municipality status, it is even more progressive than other municipalities existing. Is it enough already for Mamatid to have an article here? Or it is still lacking for notability? -Othanwiki2009 (T)
AFAIK, this conversation only became off topic when someone started saying Bacuyao is the Entrepreneurial and achuchuchu City, 1st class City-BS that deserves this many templates. That's city tagging for you. All these cities and municipalities are incorporated places and they belong to the third-level administrative country subdivision which are all considered notable by default. Mamati or whatever you call your little village and all the rest of the barangays, however, aren't. Unless they are real prominent and backed up by many solid sources from the internet that would prove their significance (e.g, economic), notability or prominence, then they're valid as separate articles. But Manati, Achuchu-I and Achuchu-II? If you ask me, the only real notable barangays in Laguna would be Canlubang, Balibago, Pansol and maybe Mamplasan. All the rest are forgettable. But who knows? the largest barangay of each city (population-wise) could be an exception?--RioHondo (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I don't give a damn to whatever a certain city is called or has "achieved." Don't take a nomination personally and keep your head on what is currently being discussed. See WP:ALLORNOTHING (that means no If you delete this you will have to delete this arguments, please). Xeltran (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please be careful with your spelling of Cabuyao? and Mamatid?? So simple spelling. "Bacuyao", "Mamatid" or "Manati"??? Don't pretend to be idiot, because I know that you just want to insist that your bet "Balibago", "Canlubang" and others are more popular and notable than all barangays of Cabuyao that is why you spelled them right. -Othanwiki2009 (T)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:56, 10 December 2012 (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.

Template:Uw-vandalism4im

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) 01:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-vandalism4im (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Our system of user warnings is and should be based upon being able to assume good faith, educating our users and being able to guide them in the right direction towards being productive members of Wikipedia.

This template does not assume good faith in any way, nor does it attempt to educate users or help them find the correct path towards helping the project - it is, in effect, a "One strike, and you're outta here".

I appreciate warnings are needed in various stages, but one which gives the user a very harsh, very blunt impression (and I have seen this template misused on relatively minor vandalism), does not and should not, have a place in this encyclopedia.

Would you please note that this nomination includes all of the "4im" series of warnings, not just this one. Thank you. FishBarking? 02:01, 10 December 2012 (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.
More