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 with ((Infobox settlement)), adding the ability to place the location map next to the other flags/shields/maps. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox settlement Chile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant fork of ((Infobox settlement)); even uses the latter's documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: If you can bring ((Infobox settlement)) to do what ((Infobox settlement Chile)) does, I support your delete call. If you can't then ((Infobox settlement Chile)) is needed and has to stay there. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 20:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You created ((Infobox settlement Chile)) yesterday, and are the sole editor. Did you raise your proposed changes on the talk page of ((Infobox settlement))? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't adress the question. Can you show 3 images in a first column and a long image in a second column with "Is"?. Show me how and we delete the IsC!. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You didn't ask a question; I asked you one; it is you who fail to answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • My answer to your question is: WP:SOFIXIT. That is, resolve the problem if you can without to ask for help from other editors. I don't violate any Wikipedia rule and didn't change your work (except sandbox code). If you want to help me, then give me a technical answer to a technical question: how can you get three images in the left column and one image in the right one with the "Infobox settlement"?. Please, don't be evasive. I am not keen to create and maintain new templates. I want only a technical solution for a optimal layout. I repeat: delete my template but give first a solution for the problem. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is not an answer to my question; and you really should read WP:SOFIXIT if you're going to quote it in support of your actions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First I asked an experienced editor but he didn't resolve the case. Instead he adviced me to rise the question in the Is talk page what I did. You can read my post in the talk page Is.

We know you are one of the most active Wikipedians. Thank you for your work for Wikipedia. People like you are needed to keep the comunication between Wikipedians. But we need not only the comunication, we have also to resolve the problems. So, I would appreciate to know from you a solution for the problem: how can you get three images in the left column and one image in the right one with the "Infobox settlement"?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the "experienced editor" concerned (see here). I didn't see it as my place to "resolve the case", and believe that my action (in directing Keysanger to Template talk:Infobox settlement) was the correct one. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete after the option for long-skinny maps. Chile isn't the only country with such an aspect ratio (e.g., Norway, Sweden, ...). Or at the very least, make it a frontend that calls ((infobox settlement)). forking the template to just add one feature is just bad. Frietjes (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Infobox settlement Chile" makes optimal use of the available area for location map with a long shape. It shows three images in a column and a fourth image in the second column. Please, give a reason why the best solution must be deleted. It is not redundant, it is not a waste of time, and the trunk doesn't perform what the fork does. What is the real reason, hard disk capacity?, server overload?. because I am the sole editor? because I was too fast to resolve the problem?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because we don't fork templates every time someone wants a new feature. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you don't fork it, great. Go on. But don't coerce other editors into inappropiate solutions for different layouts unless you have better reasons than we don't do it. Tell me, why should the template display 4 images one upon the other instead of side by side?. Why should we delete a template that does a good work?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "don't coerce other editors…" - Please read WP:AGF. It applies here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There's already a discussion open at template talk:Infobox settlement#A large image. Quite why Keysanger could not wait more than 24 hours before forking the template and unilaterally rolling it out is beyond me. There definitely doesn't need to be a fork for one change to the image layout. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Complete waste of time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox settlement Chile is not Redundant The claimer failed to provide a prove for his statement ((Infobox settlement Chile)) is redundant. This discussion is fruitless as long as the claimer doesn't deliver a data record for ((Infobox settlement)) that produces a similar layout as the new template. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy need not be 100%. The overlap here is so nearly universal (the original infobox, plus one feature that one editor decided was important) as to make the route forward here obvious. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how big/little is the difference. The function is the the determining factor. (Think of Men and Women's little difference. No one would say "delete it!" or "it is redundant!"). --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Arguing over the semantics of what "redundant" means is pointless. The settled consensus is not to fork templates lightly. End of story. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Give me a light answer to my question and I delete the template: how can the template display three images in a column and a long one in a parallel column?. It is not possible. That is the real "End of story". --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 04:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete useless, dupped template. (Just wanted to point out, the editor in question has been doing some POV-ish edits -don't know how to call it exactly, but you may get it anyway-, such as the one he did in Pichilemu some days ago: he removed the native name -Pichilemu-, replaced the settlement infobox with this one (settlement Chile) and changed the main picture. What I did not like the most is that he removed the native, original name.) Diego Grez (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I am now an Anti-Pichilemuist. Thank you for the information, I didn't know it. We know a little bit more about the foes of this city, you keep us informed about Pichilemu, Pichilemu City Council, Pichilemu News, Pichilemu post-office building, Pichilemu Aerodrome, Pichilemu railway station, Pichilemu (newspaper), Pichilemu Fault, Pichilemu Police and Pichilemu, Valparaíso. (Not to mention Agustín Ross Balcony, Agustín Ross Cultural Center, Agustín Ross Hotel, Agustín Ross Park, of course all in ... Pichilemu)

Can you say also any thing about the facts in discussion here?.--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. While not a useless fork (compare infobox settlement with infobox settlement Chile and you might see what I mean), I can see why people want it deleted. The specific functionality should, if at all possible, be merged into Infobox settlement. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The detractors of the template have been unable to produce proof of the redundance. They failed to deliver the data record of "Infobox settlement" that shows the same layout as "Infobox settlement Chile" does. So, the reason given to delete the template, redundancy, is a blatant fallacy.

The other reasons that have been given, like:

1. Redundancy need not be 100%
2. useless
3. You created ((Infobox settlement Chile)) yesterday
4. You are the sole editor
5. You Didn't raise your proposed changes on the talk page
6. we don't fork templates
7. Chile isn't the only country with such an aspect ratio
8. Complete waste of time

are spurious, irrelevant or beside the point. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:46, 30 May 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.

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, but there may be some desire to reformat the presentation. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Carlton Cuse (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Performer-by-performance. We don't navigate people by works that they starred in, wrote in, produced, etc. Also, this has three links to the same five works, making it redundant redundant redundant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You are confusing theatrical performer-by-performance templates with movie executive performer-by-performance templates. We delete theatrrical performer-by-performance templates. Writers/Directors/Producers commonly have these templates. Although it is less common for someone who has never directed to have one these do exist. They don't need to be as robust as ((Jerry Bruckheimer)) or ((Lorne Michaels)). The common standard for such templates is three unique links.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• rewrite to reduce the redundant entries (put a parenthetical or footnote after each entry to indicate the role in the particular work). Frietjes (talk) 16:35, 14 May 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) 04:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

I don't understand the suggestion to rewrite these. It is not much different from templates like these: ((Rhythmic Contemporary Radio Stations in Colorado)) and ((Rhythmic Contemporary Radio Stations in California)) with redundant rows. Also, these are fairly standard templating sections for this field.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

because here we have tripled the number of links, and there are very few. in the cases you list there is (1) already a convention to list radio stations both by callsign and by frequency, since the order is different and (2) there are more links, so it actually aids in navigation to have it presented in more than one way. here, there is no change in the order and there are very few links. it would be better to just add a footnotes, which would shorten the template to one line of links in most browsers. Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. However, he is fairly early in his career and arbitrarily removing details from any one section could cause complications latter when he has a more detailed filmography.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early in his career? Brisco County was nearly 20 years ago. Possible futures should not be considered though. He may also never produce another show. It's about how it is right now that matters. It can always be modified later if his filmography becomes more detailed. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:09, 23 May 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.

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) 03:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American Idol Top 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Similar to a prior template discussion for fourth place finishers on American Idol, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 5#Template:American Idol 4th Place Contestants, third place is just not notable and people are unlikely to want to navigate between the fourth place finishers that the only thing that they have in common with each other is that they were on American Idol and finished in fourth place in their season. Aspects (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as an arbitrary grouping. Frietjes (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not important enough for a template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:56, 15 May 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.

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) 03:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Leading Hotels of the World (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unnecessary navigation box which is completely subjective in nature. Leading according to whom? RadioFan (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why, according to The Leading Hotels of the World, Ltd., of course! SRSLY. --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at first I had thought this was just going to be a subjective listing of hotels, then I looked at it to see what hotels were/were not included, and as pointed out by Joe above, it is in fact a grouping based on the article mentioned. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ridiculous navbox bloat. This is a barely notable marketing organization, hardly the sort of defining characteristic that makes for a navbox. Toohool (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and assume good faith. "a barely notable marketing organization" you say. No actually most of the hotels rank amongst the most notable hotels in the world and are hotels we should have articles on and in due course will have articles. I've done a fair bit of work on hotes and I've noticed a lot of the notable hotels are part of this company and to me seems very notable and appropriate to cover them in this way as important hotels. Leading is the name of the company, so is there not "subjective", you appear to be utterless clueless of this RadioFan..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's focus on the template and not other editors shall we? I misunderstood the purpose of the nav box and I doubt very seriously I will be the only one to misunderstand it. Even knowing that this is part of some reservation system for independent hotels, who cares? Is this worthy of a navbox? I dont think so. This marketing organization is worthy of an article and perhaps each of these member hotels are worth of placing in a category (though that category should be labeled in such a way to make it clear that this is a marketing organization and not a judgement of the notability of the member hotels) and nothing more. No reader is going to go to the Bellagio page and have an itch to navigate to other hotels that can be booked through this marketing organization.--RadioFan (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not implying any bad faith, this is just not something that belongs on (potentially) hundreds of articles. It may be that every one of these hotels is notable, but that doesn't make this organization any more notable. The question is, how relevant is membership in LHW to an understanding of each individual hotel? Let's look at the sources. I picked one at random, Sandy Lane (resort). Out of 2,430 Google News Archives hits for '"sandy lane" barbados', how many mention its membership in LHW? Answer: One. Furthermore, navboxes are meant to aid navigation between articles, and a box of this hulking size with 90% red links is not serving that purpose. Toohool (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • the template itself just transcludes a bunch of subtemplates, so the hulking size could easily be fixed by simply replacing the transclusions with the appropriate subtemplate. the red link issue will require writing the articles of course. Frietjes (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I wouldn't have created this template if it weren't constructive, the hotels are all mostly very notable ones and the "elite" hotels. You say barely notable but in fact it is hugely notable in the subject of hotels, 56 million google hits and 260,000 google book hits. Yes, a cateogry can categorize them but it doesn't organize them by continent and country for easy browsing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:37, 16 May 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.

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) 03:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FOXNetwork Shows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in very few articles. Excessive use of links. There's no full list of NBC, CBS, and ABC shows and for good reason. The template, ((FOXNetwork Shows (current and upcoming))) should suffice for current programming, but a template for every show that ever aired in Fox's history is a bit extravagent and unwieldy. This was previously nominated in bundle nominations on 7 Oct 2011 and 19 Oct 2011, each resulting in no consensus. Singling this one out seems to be appropriate. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As the creator of the template, I see that it might make sense to have only current templates for the major networks. I will remain neutral in this debate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, navbox bloat. Excessive links. Severely underutilized.--RadioFan (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Way, way, way too much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and above Tate Brandley Stockwell 15:16, 19 May 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.