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 per WP:SNOW. Bencherlite^Talk 22:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Harvard citation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Harvard citation is system used largely in academic publications, initially in printed material but it is now used in electronic documents. Using Harvard citation is not necessary in electronic publications since there is the more convenient system of hyperlinks. WP, being an encyclopaedia rather than an academic publication, means that the more formal academic style of Harvard citation is not needed. Given that the vast majority of our readers probably do not wish to follow up the references for an article having the more "invasive" Harvard citation rather than the smaller reference number is an unnecessary intrusion while reading.

There may be cases where the Harvard citation is needed or wanted. In these case it could be entered as normal text followed by the commonly used ((cite)) template.

There are also a number of related templates that can be deleted if this TfD is successful. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose - Wikipedia has always refused to mandate one form of referencing over another. If used properly, this does produce hyperlinks. See, for example, CYK algorithm. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ah! that article is precisely why we should delete Harvard citation. The article reads completely differently to the vast majority of other WP articles. It is a style of wring that is not needed on WP. A reader does not need to know who says what and when (but if they want to they can go to the refs). I am sure that most reader don't care who said what or when. They want the gist of the article and won't follow up the refs. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• WTF?? Strong oppose and speedy close. This system of referencing is one of the ones accepted as standard within Wikipedia (see the part about parenthetical references in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Types of citation and also Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing) and is used by thousands of our articles. The template provides an internal hyperlink to the corresponding ((citation)) that would be brittle in the face of future edits and difficult to replicate by hand if this template were to be subst'ed everywhere. And for articles with large numbers of references to different pages of large numbers of sources, it is very convenient to have both the more common ref-style footnotes and a separate alphabetized bibliography, with harvard citations within each footnote; see e.g. clique problem for an example. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Harvard citations are not needed to have separate notes and footnotes. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • None of our templates is needed, when you put it that way. But less fatuously, the Harvard citation templates are useful because they provide a wikilink to the corresponding citation template that would be difficult to code correctly by hand. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - Lack of consensus to establish a house citation style is evident at Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Citation discussion. I also note the lack of a plan for what do do about the articles already using the template. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was not aware of the lengthy discussions. Anyhow, a lack of consensus to date does not mean that a new consensus cannot be achieved. I am really frustrated with how WP is so conservative with its policies and guidelines. A lot of things can be improved for readers but change is extremely difficult to achieve. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The template can be deprecated and a (probably semi-automatic) bot cat revise them. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Revise them to what? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • ((citation)) of course. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • You do not want to put full bibliographic details in a running sentence (and what constitutes "full" is actually quite arbitrary.) The name of the author and date of publication are quite sufficient, less is not. —Ruud 02:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • I am not suggesting that full biblio info is put in a sentence. All would want to see, and I am sure most of our readers would also want to see^{[citation needed]} is one of those nice little blue superscript hyperlinks to the notes are refs at the bottom of the page. That is to say, I want less referencing info in the text of the article - not more. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • I want to see more referencing in articles. An encyclopedic article is not only supposed to tell you how stuff works, but also who invented it when. They are not mere technical descriptions, but also historical ones. Real world colleagues frequently tell me they like Wikipedia articles pointing them to further reading material. Your impression that readers do not want this is misguided. —Ruud 06:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • Amount of referencing in an article is not related to how it is done. And I am not suggesting that we remove references, and I am not suggesting the all readers do not want references. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                  • You're suggesting a whole lot of things here, most vaguely or seemingly contradictory (I'm still not sure how I should interpret the "((citation)) of course" above). If you want to convince your fellow editors that your controversial standpoint is in fact correct, do so by communicating and arguing clearly. In particular, you have not concretely indicated how you would like to revise the text of e.g. Clique problem. Both the amount and manner of referencing in that article seem perfectly appropriate to me. —Ruud 08:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                    • See here: Talk:Clique problem/Alternative draft - history section only. Is bedtime. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                      • Textually they are nearly identical. You now need to follow two hyperlinks to access the full bibliographic details. The additional footnote marker adds more clutter than removing the hyperlink takes away. How is this an improvement? —Ruud 10:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*There are nearly identical but a bit easier for the average reader who does not follow up the refs. Those who do want to follow the refs can still do so with the hardly difficult task of a few extra links. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose This looks like a backdoor attempt to impose footnote-style inline refs. That issue should not be joined at TfD. --Trovatore (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't like the insinuation of trying to do something covertly. My reasonns for this TfD are as stated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I apologize for my choice of words. It's still the wrong forum to try to impose footnote-style refs. --Trovatore (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Am cool with the words. What is wrong with footnote-style inline refs. It has emerged at the preferred method of referencing so why not adopt it universally? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • If you want to make that argument, you need to make it in the appropriate place. TfD is about templates, not about citation style. The merits of that issue are off-topic here, but I will answer briefly: Especially for mathematical and scientific articles (which are my main interest at WP), it is sometimes useful to reserve footnotes for explanatory notes rather than references. --Trovatore (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Point taken on the need to discuss the merits of templates elsewhere, but that is all that seems to happen on WP - all talk and no action! I must state that I listed this TfD not as a provocative move but instead as a good faith attempt to improve WP for readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • I accept that you acted in good faith. I think the reason you're not going to get "action" on this is that too many people disagree with you. --Trovatore (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • So it seems. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Most strongly oppose and speedy close. I concur with David, including WTF. Alan's argument against ((Harv)) templates is ludicrous, even absurd, and shows a total misunderstanding of their use. Given the downside of the substantial breakage that would ensue, a demonstration of a suitable alternative (as well as any real problem) should be a prerequisite of any discussion of deletion. As Jc3s5h says: Alan has not shown any suitable plan to handle breakage. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Have now suggested a plan. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh? Where? Perhaps that should have come first? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • I am fully aware of how Harvard citations are used. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps you think you do, but your comments suggest otherwise. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. Oh, dear, I suggest a change and everyone immediately jumps in and say "No we should not do that!" -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  An interesting observation. I hope you learn something useful from it before you next nominate something for deletion. Geometry guy 01:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I have learnt a lot in my 80,000 edits in WP. I have a good approximation on what the WP community want and my deletion recommendation record attests to that fact. Another thing that I have learnt is not to make it personal and I would suggest that you do the same. Please assume good faith. Anyway, what are you implying? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I was commenting on your observation of community psychology, nothing more: you initiated discussion of editors actions, not me. I am not implying anything, nor failing to assume good faith. You have just nominated for deletion a template that is widely used throughout Wikipedia; it is used in particular to support at least two site-wide approved methods of inline citation and this is an issue that has been a subject of endless and often contentious debate over the years. In your approximate understanding of what the WP community want, what did you think would happen when you nominated this template for deletion? A chorus of approval as editors say "Oh my God, we never realized... we've been doing it wrong all these years"? Geometry guy 01:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yep, yep, yep, ok. Note that Harvard citation is not widely used as the figures bellow attest. Also, I didn't expect this immediate reaction in opposition. I am quite stunned at the level of opposition. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Then you have learned something. As for the figures, see below. Geometry guy 01:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• oppose Parenthetical referencing is a well-used system on Wikipedia, in academia and elsewhere. Please note that this template is one of six templates used for this system:

• ((Harvard citation no brackets)) 12,411 uses
• ((Harvard citation)) 2,613 uses
• ((Harvard citation text)) 2,007 uses
• ((Harvcoltxt)) 498 uses
• ((Harvcol)) 214 uses
• ((Harvcolnb)) 130 uses

To comment on "breakage": no TfD will ever close with a template being simply deleted, leaving articles in a broken state. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well of course I am not suggesting that it is deleted before the linked articles are revised to another format. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for those numbers. I was curious about their usage. And now that you have pointed out the low usage it is all the more reason to go with the common convention on referencing! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are the number of articles which use the templates, not the number of transclusions of the templates, which is vastly larger. The figures here are in the same ball park as the total number of GAs and FAs, which are the articles one might expect to be reasonably well referenced as a matter of course. In no sense is this low usage!! Geometry guy 01:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because they are templates they will almost always be used as a transclusion making those figures good indication of usage in articles. The figures do look quite low considering we have almost 4,000,000 articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• (ec)Another comment. "..speedy close". What? With such a lively discussion? In the words of the wonderful Christopher Hitchens (rest in peace...) "I have only just got my trousers off". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose A very useful template when discussing actual academic publications in History sections, instead of merely using them to satisfy WP:V. The above mentioned clique problem is an excellent example. The claim that "using Harvard citation is not necessary in electronic publications since there is the more convenient system of hyperlinks" is unsubstantiated and so is "the vast majority of our readers probably do not wish to follow up the references." —Ruud 01:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose and WTF. Even if you don't like them within article text they are quite handy for footnotes linking to actual references. Anyway, it's been clearly expressed that usage of the template is understood as a matter of editorial freedom. Nageh (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. I created this template back in 2005, and was surprised how quickly its use spread, because there is a recognized need for it. Ultimately, I am working on a hard-coded parser function that would make this obsolete (see WikiCitation). But until then, I think we need this template. COGDEN 03:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thanks; that looks interesting. Alarbus (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose don't like them at all myself, but there's no reason to delete. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I gave a reason for deletion in the nom. Can you rebut the reason? Another reason for deletion is to work towards consistency of appearance and style. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• WTF–Oppose. Not happening, obviously. Alarbus (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • But what are your reasons for opposition? This is a discussion. You have to give a rebuttal of the points that I have raised. Don't just jump on the bandwagon. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I don't have to do any such thing. I'm fine with my post being discarded by whomever closes this, as you're about to get hit in the back of the head with a snowball. NB: I uses these templates a *lot* — they're WP:USEFUL ;-> Alarbus (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - this discussion has nothing to do with the relative merits of Harvard-style vs footnote citations; both are accepted per WP:CITE, and deleting this template would do nothing to change that. If you feel there is a need to change that, initiate an RfC, post to WT:CITE or one of the Village Pumps, or otherwise start that conversation. This conversation can't do that. No reason for deletion has been put forward. However, I will go further and say that in some cases knowing who said what is exactly what readers want, and that your suggested workaround for cases where Harvard citation is warranted is much less user-friendly than simply using this and related templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, I suppose I could have done an RfC and we would all discuss it until the cows come home - and probably end at at the same point. As to a reason for deletion, I put forward what I think is a good method to incrementally make WP more reader friendly. And what is you reason to keep the template? The workaround that I am suggesting may be as easy as typing the same text but without the template parentheses. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Reasons for keeping: easier to use than typing the same text without the template (which, depending on the approach, would either result in unlinked parentheticals or necessitate working out the citeref by hand), used for a purpose accepted by current practices/guidelines, fairly widely used, doesn't AFAICT fall under any of the normal reasons for template deletion...Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Yet another comment. I am not opposed to the Harvard style citation in a ==Notes== section. I just don't want to see them in the body of the article. A small hyperlinked superscript is a better option tor referencing. There is less "clutter". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This part I agree with; footnotes and explanatory notes are where ((harv)) is occasionally appropriate. For the article body, ((sfn)) is more useful, along with some ((harvnb)) bunched in ref tags. But you don't go tossing one of the tools out of the drawer. Alarbus (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Alan, we understand you don't like it, but Harvard-style for cites in the article body is a recognized, allowed style, provided it is consistent within the article. If you want to change that you need to raise the issue in a more appropriate venue. I will oppose any such change; I think Harvard-style is useful in certain types of articles. --Trovatore (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This not so much about what I like. It is about giving the reader a satisfying "reading experience". To further this end pages should be edited to cater for the majority, who I am sure do not need or want Harvard cites in the body of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Obviously I disagree. In any case it's off-topic here. Please withdraw your nomination and consider a more appropriate venue. --Trovatore (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Wrong. It is entirely about what you like/dislike (or prefer), based on your personal intuition as to what is good or needed or wanted, and your opinion that "pages should be edited for the majority", and that not other styles should be permitted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong keep per WP:COMMON: we generally follow the sources' citation styles for the articles (the general consensus on this question can be evidenced in WP:IC). That is, if source uses Harward style, we follow it. It is the clear implication of the principle of least astonishment which one should generally follow. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • WP:IC does not say anything about using the same citation style as the sources. Frequently the various sources for an article will use a variety of different styles, no style at all (e.g. newspaper articles), or a style not compatible with Wikipedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • WP:IC discusses the references' styles in connection to their typical use. This is the same point in more implicit way. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. So far I tally eleven "oppose" (to the deletion) and two "keep"; there is so far no support for Alan's proposed deletion. As to his (or anyone else's) objections to Harv, I have been thinking for a while that there should be a central, structured discussion of all the points that are raised against Harv. But this is not the place for it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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) 18:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Indian Idol Finalists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and generally redundant to template:Indian Idol. Frietjes (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 01:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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) 18:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Indian Election box begin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Indian Election box candidate with party link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Indian Election box turnout (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Indian Election box end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and redundant to other election box templates (e.g., template:election box). Frietjes (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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) 18:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Indian Coast Guard (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and redundant to infobox in the corresponding article. Frietjes (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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) 18:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Economist topic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The same arguments as per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_19#Template:CNNtopic. As noted it is against WP:ELNO #9, and potentially #13 and #19, and a link to a specific article is inline with WP:EL; these templates are not. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 22:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The nom is a good summation of the arguments given in the ((CNNtopic)) TfD, and this is exactly the same situation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as per nom. I feel this is a lazy way of adding external links, not even really meaningful or just marginal to the topic. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[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) 18:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Kiruna FF squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is no longer in use, aside from one article which has been PROD. Additionally the club in question is playing in a non professional league and will most likely not reach a professional league for some time, thus the probability that this template will be useful soon enough is minimal. Reckless182 (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Problems of inquiry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles, only used on two of them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Aye, and what exactly are 'problems of inquiry'? Since I'm not even entirely sure what the common thread here is, I can't say having a template for that seems terribly useful, especially since there are indeed only three of them. -— Isarra (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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) 23:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Modernism Framework (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles which are well interlinked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Redundant. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[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) 23:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Santa Claus's reindeer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Most of the "links" just go to the main page. Also note that the /doc page is empty. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You know, if there were actually separate links (and pages), that wouldn't be so bad... except they aren't, and I really don't see why they would be. -— Isarra (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as totally pointless. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[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) 23:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Arm-mol-cal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Just presents the same links over and over again, only one transclusion —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Well, now that's just odd. User probably just never finished it or something, but yeah, not useful. -— Isarra (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't see the utility of jumping from Byron Brown to Gerald Jennings. These persons don't interact very often, nor is their notability related to each other. The 100,000 population limit is arbitrary -- Albany was added on as the state capital not because it was the capital but because it was silly to include the other three major upstate cities and not Albany. This template only contributes to template bloat and does not facilitate encyclopedia navigation in any meaningful way. Powers ^T 01:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete I don't see what purpose this could serve. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per above. WP:NENAN applies strongly here given the silly intersection of civic mayors and an arbitrary population figure. I see if this one goes, there are about 35 more that should follow. Resolute 15:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There you have it right from the horse's mouth (see Pdcook below). This linkage is helpful to reader's and serves a valuable service. Even though 5 of the other related template creators are no longer active, Pdcook is probably representing their sentiments as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Mayors from the same state lobby the state for resource allocation and influence. For any statewide issue, the leaders of the largest municipalities are relevant actors.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am curious why the nominator only nominated this template and failed to notify the creator. Was it so that he would not have to get input from GGMcDaddy (talk · contribs), Pdcook (talk · contribs), J654567 (talk · contribs), SolidNames8 (talk · contribs), Phillies1fan777 (talk · contribs), MadGeologist (talk · contribs), and Americus55 (talk · contribs) who have all created virtually identical templates for other states. Is this a divide and conquer deletion nomination. Obviously if all these editors have created identically formatted templates for other states they should be involved in the discussion here. It is quite odd only to nominate one template and not notify its creator for an issue like this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oddly it seems that only two of these editors remain active.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Apologies; I thought I had notified the author (you, presumably?). It's not a divide-and-conquer nomination, I just didn't have the patience to attempt a mass-nomination of 35 templates. Powers ^T 14:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - I made additional templates because I found the first several to be quite useful. I was researching state politics and found it convenient to have the mayors of major cities listed in a template and linked together. I still do. Thanks TonyTheTiger for notifying me of this. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• What I don't understand is why this would need a template, exactly - it's a common thread between the folks that might be useful to some readers, but it's also a rather arbitrary common thread, the sort of which one could potentially make many. Now maybe I'm just missing something, but wouldn't a category(s) perhaps work better for tying these folks together? -— Isarra (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What is arbitrary about mayors from the same state. It is not like it is a template of mayors born in June. Mayors from the same state are involved in debate about the use of state resources and for the reason stated by the discussant before you are encyclopedically linked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • What's arbitrary is the 100,000-population cutoff. Is the Binghamton mayor never involved in these "debates"? Powers ^T 17:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The 100,000 comes from the established wikipedia cutoff. See List of United States cities by population.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Simply because there has to be some sort of cutoff, and since the list is by population, it makes sense to have the cutoff be a population figure. On the other hand, since this navbox is supposed to represent the fact that these mayors work together, a population cutoff doesn't make sense and strikes the observer as arbitrary. (I am looking forward to seeing Template:Hawaii cities and mayors of 100,000 population and its single link to the mayor of Honolulu; I think that will amply demonstrate the arbitrariness of the 100,000-person figure when used on these templates. I suppose Template:West Virginia cities and mayors of 100,000 population will be, what, empty?) Powers ^T 21:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • If I am understanding your argument, it is to delete the New York template because other states have fewer than 3 cities with 100,000 populations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • That's probably an argument to clean up Template:Cities and mayors of 100,000 population footer, but that would be another TfD. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Apparently, you're not understanding my argument at all. I'm citing these other templates as proof that the 100,000k figure is totally arbitrary. The fact that it works semi-well for New York (omitting Albany and including Yonkers) is mitigated by the fact that it doesn't work at all for other states. However, I suppose if you prefer I could nominate them all, but a) mass nominations rarely work well and b) it's an awful lot of work. Powers ^T 20:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • A single mass nom is proper procedure. We are not suppose to debate this 35 times for each template separately.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, but potentially create a list article with all the mayors of U.S. cities of population greater than 100k. For example, something formatted like List of United States cities by population, but with the mayors. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The list article would be impossible to keep up to date. The templates are kept up to date because when one mayor replaces another it is common for editors to see what mayor templates the prior mayor had.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Object I have mentioned several times that I don't like this divide and conquer nomination. These should not be nominated one at a time. I never knew about Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_12#Template:KS_cities_and_mayors_of_100.2C000_population. I imagine that there are people who are interested in the templates for other states who might have an opinion here. These should all be nominated at one time instead of one at a time. Nominator has done some handwaving about being too lazy to nominate these properly and wanting to wait for this divide and conquer nomination to be settled without alerting anyone interested in similar templates. I think nominating these one at a time is bad form.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Look, this was the only one in which I was interested. If you want to have a larger conversation about whether these templates are appropriate in general, you should start the discussion instead of criticizing me. (In fact, maybe you should have had that conversation before you started creating them in the first place.) I don't intend to start 34 additional discussions at least until we know the outcome of this one; if you think that egregious misbehavior somehow, there are other channels to address that. Powers ^T 00:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Misbehavior? It is just disingenuous not to inform all interested parties of a XFD. How does it serve WP to just delete stuff without notifying people? What purpose do you think you are serving? You did not notify the template creator. I presume you did not notify the talk page project (note that there is only one project listed although at least three others — Cities, Government, and Politics — should be on the talk page). The reason to nominate them all is that they are all for a list of mayors of cities over what you consider to be an arbitrary 100,000 population hurdle and all people interested in these templates should be informed of the issue. 100,000 has the same relevance or irrelevance to all cities. I don't really agree with your nomination of NY, but all states are in the same boat.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I already apologized for neglecting your notification; that was a simple mistake. As for the other notifications, I am accustomed to AfD, where we generally rely on watchlists to catch the attention of interested parties, plus volunteers who link to deletion sorting lists. I've never before notified a WikiProject personally of a deletion discussion, and I didn't realize that was necessary or desirable (to be honest, I didn't even realize this template was tagged as part of WPNY, and in any case, this discussion is mentioned on WPNY's Article Alerts, so I don't think a talk-page notification is needed). Powers ^T 19:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Article alerts are a good substitute for notifying projects, but I think if all the templates have a notice that they are up for discussion that gives individual templates the best chance for survival. It sounds like you will be doing the others after this one is resolved. If so, do them all at once.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: There is precedent for this template's deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 12#Template:KS cities and mayors of 100,000 population. Powers ^T 00:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note that at the time the Kansas template only had two mayors with links and ther rest were redlinks. Typically, a template needs three links or more to avoid deletion at TFD, so that preecedent is not relevant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• delete as better served by list articles, like those found in Category:Lists of mayors of places in the United States. Frietjes (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. A useful template, per PD Cook. It doesn't have to be useful to all editors; its fine that editors such as Cook find it useful (as do I). Templates, lists, and cats are complementary. Not "either/or". The benefit of this not being a paper project.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We can't simply include every template that some person might find useful; it results in increased maintenance difficulty and visual clutter that does a disservice to our readers. Plus, no one has actually laid out a use case for why one might want to link directly to Thomas Richards (mayor) after reading the Mike Spano article. Powers ^T 17:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oh you need a case laid out. Let's rewind a few years when Byron Brown and a few other high ranking political figures were jockeying for Hillary Clinton's senate seat. People trying to figure out who the leading contenders were would want to bounce around a few templates such as ((New York State Senators)) and the one at issue here to figure out who has the right credentials.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Lists are much better suited for that sort of thing, not least because they avoid cluttering their constituent articles. Powers ^T 23:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • separate city mayor list articles for each city are much harder to find this same content. Additionally, you are required to know which cities are the largest. Furthermore, only a fraction of the cities over 100,000 population have mayor list articles. A much higher percentage ove current mayors have articles that could be incorporated onto a template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • A list of former mayors of a particular city is hardly a replacement for this template, I agree. A list of mayors of New York cities, on the other hand, is, at least for the use case you laid out above. Powers ^T 02:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • State-by-state lists of mayors would be impossible to keep up to date enough that they would be considered useful.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • How could it be any more difficult than this template? Powers ^T 15:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • When a new person gets elected, they look at the templates of the outgoing mayor and copy them over adding their name. This would not happen with a list.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                  • List articles in which a subject appears should be linked in the "See also" section; problem solved. Besides, navigation templates are not to be used for editorial convenience; they are intended for the use of our readers who want to browse related topics. Powers ^T 17:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[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.