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.
delete, not enough primary links. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2013 (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.
Almost completely unused template; appears on a user page, a user talk page, a template talk page and a single article. The template certainly shouldn't be at "RDC" because RDC can also refer to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, and I reckon this can be substituted without issue. Launchballer 18:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete after merging any useful content with the article. Frietjes (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Launchballer is currently blocked for reasons unrelated to this template. He has talk page access, so if you want to respond to him, you should go to his talk page, or wait until the 24-hour block period has expired. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not any more I'm not. Another comment; if this gets deleted, I'd like to move Template:Rda to Template:RDC. (Basically from 'request deleted article' to 'request deleted content'.)--Launchballer 18:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do not strike my comments, and there's no need to notify you when I mention you at a discussion that you initiated. Nyttend (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete not the purpose of a template. Boxing off to highlight something should be done in the article, not in a template. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2013 (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.
Template:Periodic table (text only)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete per author request, and no reason to userfy it if the author wants it deleted. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 04:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The template was used in one article page, as a single topic. That page was deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Periodic table (text only)). Unfortunately an editor declined a subsequent speedy deletion for this template [1]. I can only repeat the arguments used for the article deletion, what I just did by linking to that AfD. DePiep (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: not to be too lazy, I'll repeat here my argument for deleting the one-template-only-article:
[Wrapper for a single template only.] Then as it states, it is "designed for printing" the information (in black and white). IMO, we do not create separate pages targeted for print. Printing is in the toolbox (wiki page, lefthand menu). When the page is gone, its template is up for deletion too for this reason. -DePiep (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, could easily be used in the future. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, looks useful, and definitely not something that it's downright bad to have sitting around until we decide what to do with it. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - We shouldn't be too hasty in deleting this template. It could definitely be useful in the future, especially for stuff like printing. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
re Jackmcbarn, Nyttend, Michaelzeng7. The AfD in this stated & concluded that we don't need variants that are made up solely for printing. Wiki pages are print prepared through other options. I explicitly repeat that we should throw this one out for being a print-version. Then, about the TfD process, "not too hasty", and "usefull in the future": well, exactly that is what this TfD is doing, discuss it now, whilenot deleted (standard XfD procedure). Can someone please point to any usefullness today? When reasons would arise in the future, we can deal with then in that future (note that in the future, there could be delete-reasons just as well). Today we cannot discuss or honour those unknown reasonings. -DePiep (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete or userfy if we must keep it around. — Lfdder (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Userfy rather than keep -PC-XT+ 07:42, 3 September 2013 (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.
Template:Infobox Tamils
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.
This shouldn't be a separate template. It's an infobox usage. —SpacemanSpiff 14:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's wrong in the template usage? It has more details. It is easy to edit. Many use similar template. Are you going to delete all of them? Eg: ((Infobox Jews))--Tamil23 (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC) — Tamil23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Keep. Not necessary to delete this template. It has more information and it can be used wide for other topics too. -- L o g X 17:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I don't see any reason for this infobox to be turned into a template. Contrary to the above opinion, what other article could it possibly be used for? Drmies (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete, will never be more than a single use template, so no need to fork it from the article. Frietjes (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question: This isn't showing up as transcluded anywhere. Where is/was it used? Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2013 (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 merge with no loss of information. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2010 TfD concluded "The result of the discussion was Keep for now, with the hope that this can be merged with Template:Infobox soap character in the near future. ". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I don't see any major problem in merging them, as long as everyone using the templates is happy, and as long as nothing is lost. The main difference between the two is that dates of birth and death are in Infobox soap character 2. There have been many changes since the last TFD, which made Infobox soap character a bit more like Infobox soap character 2, but I think birth and death dates is the main reason why they haven't been merged. This should be addressed. Infobox soap character is used for American shows and Infobox soap character 2 for British and Australian ones (and not just in soaps, for example Victor Meldrew). There are some other differences - animal breeds (for pets like Wellard and Willy (EastEnders), civil partners (such as Syed Masood), half-siblings, and other relatives (often someone more distantly related than a cousin is important, e.g. Alfie Moon and his second cousin once removed Michael Moon (EastEnders). Family members are separated by sex in Infobox soap character 2, but I'm not too bothered if they're combined (though it means a LOT of editing of articles to do so). –anemoneprojectors– 17:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Seems like a reasonable merge. I have no objection. --Elonka 18:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I prefer the gender-neutral Infobox soap character, there isn't any need to separate brothers from sisters etc. Spouse is all-encompassing too, which eliminates several useless parameters meaning the same thing. 2.24.47.157 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is a partner in a same-sex union (marriage, civil partnership, etc), still called a spouse? This seems to imply they're not. –anemoneprojectors– 09:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I have no problem with a merge, but I have always hated that specific parameters are excluded from the original infobox, that I actually appreciate in the infobox 2, for example the date of birth parameter. As for gender, I prefer parameters that are gender specific like they are in the infobox 2 template. However, not many people agree with me on that.--Nk3play2my buzz 21:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments. I support it. Though, I'd rather Infobox 2 be gotten rid of completely. I think Infobox 1 is much better and sleeker to use for soap characters. livelikemusicmy talk page! 21:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I feel much the same as AP and wouldn't want to lose anything from Infobox 2. I prefer the family members to be separated by sex as it means less clutter in the ibox. From regularly working on British and Australian soaps, I know that we had to deal with a big problem of users explaining who each family member was with bracketed notes. E.g. Parents: Mrs Smith (mother), Mr Smith (father); Siblings: Mary (sister), Paul (brother), Joe (brother). I found it harder to read/navigate the ibox with all the clutter in the way. - JuneGloomTalk 00:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment We had a consensus in the past against gender. Gender is always obvious and if it is not then it should be clear in the leading paragraph. Anyway, I think Infobox 1 is much better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the addition of a gender parameter is being suggested, but that fields such as "father" and "mother" aren't combined as "parents". I think this could actually be a good idea, because Hayley Cropper is a woman but also the father of Christian Gatley. –anemoneprojectors– 09:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge, now that I've thought about it. The templates are really too similar so there's no need for both. I actually think the birth and death dates can go, especially since episodes are shown on different dates in different countries, and are also available on YouTube and such places. The family section will require the most work, so I would suggest completely merging them, so that, for example, all three fields for parents are present (parents, mother, father), so that no information is lost, and then when individual articles are edited, some parameters can be removed. So fields that would be added to ibox(1) from ibox2 are... "appeared" (for a single date), "only" (for a single season, etc), "breed", "home"* (because some articles use "home" and some use "residence", though they're the same), "owner", "husband"*, "wife"*, "civilpartner", "father"*, "mother"*, "adoptivefather"*, "adoptivemother"*, "stepfather"*, "stepmother"*, "brothers"*, "sisters"*, "halfbrothers", "halfsisters", "sons"*, "daughters"*, "adoptivesons"*, "adoptivedaughters"*, "stepsons"*, "stepdaughters"*, "grandsons"*, "granddaughters"*, "grandfathers"*, "grandmothers"*, "uncles"*, "aunts"*, "nephews"*, "nieces"*, "relatives". Those I marked with * could be removed in future (though perhaps not, see comment above; if not then it could be the opposite change, i.e. "parents" removed in favour of "father" and "mother"). Also note that ibox2 uses ((infobox)), which should probably be used after the merge. –anemoneprojectors– 09:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dont merge - See above comments and previous discussion in 2010. There is not a consensus for one preferred template, nor is there consensus for what should be included in that template. Which is why there are two of them in the first place - in part due to certain projects/soaps having their preferred info included. So far discussion is identical to the previous in 2010. The closing comment of 'hope we can merge in near future' depends on the situation actually changing. As that has yet to happen, merging them would be premature. There is not a downside to having two - other than having to pick which one to use. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Do not merge. Infobox 2 has better more details with all the specifics, it is essential. "husband"*, "wife"*, "civilpartner", "father"*, "mother"*, "adoptivefather"*, "adoptivemother"*, "stepfather"*, "stepmother"*, "brothers"*, "sisters"*, "halfbrothers", "halfsisters", "sons"*, "daughters"*, "adoptivesons"*, "adoptivedaughters"*, "stepsons"*, "stepdaughters"*, "grandsons"*, "granddaughters"*, "grandfathers"*, "grandmothers"*, "uncles"*, "aunts"*, "nephews"*, "nieces"*, "relatives" all of them are needed, it make its more orgarnize, Box1 has too much clutter. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 10:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think they'd be lost if the templates were merged. –anemoneprojectors– 16:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge As long as the merged box will primarily look like box1, the much easier to use/read box. Separating family member parameters by gender adds a million redundant, unneeded parameters that only add clutter. I'd also be on board with getting rid of box2 completely.Caringtype1 (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A merge will mean one template redirects to the other. The page history would remain intact. –anemoneprojectors– 17:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So whatever template gets redirected, the other one won't change at all? I thought by 'merge' the two templates were going to be merged together.Caringtype1 (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes they will be merged, but we won't merge them and then keep both templates, so your comment "I'd also be on board with getting rid of box2 completely" seemed a little strange. One will be redirected and the history will remain intact, we won't delete the page, just redirect it. –anemoneprojectors– 08:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well yeah, I understood that. But if the discussion went that way, I was lending m support, as it was mentioned above.Caringtype1 (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't merge Really? I understand you want to make it smoother reading, but having no gender groupings would make the infoboxes look so cluttered - the Siblings parameter would get increasingly confusing in having to differentiate siblings from half-siblings etc. and also removing DOB and DOD - they are important parts of characters and most British soaps don't SORAS in the way American soaps do. Alex250P (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment, I've merged the two templates at Template:Infobox soap character 2/sandbox. This means no information is lost from any pages (other than birth and death dates, I deleted those). I don't believe anyone has suggested that any information (other than birth and death dates) should be lost. That's what a merge means. It's not a straightforward redirect or deletion, so I don't really understand the oppose votes. Birth and death dates are completely meaningless (especially when episodes are broadcast on different dates in different countries), and actually Ian Beale's (character from a British soap) age was increased at one point. –anemoneprojectors– 08:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this is the exact template that is gonna be used: Template:Infobox soap character 2/sandbox. Then merge, I just did not want to lose the family member (mother, father, sister etc...) parameter. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 11:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment, the "mother", "father" parameter is really uneccesary and causes clutter, in my opinion. It's part of the reason Infobox 1 is better. You don't need to cause more to read. The infobox is meant to provide an over-view of information. If they want to know who is the mother and who is the father, which they shouldn't NEED to, then it can be found within the article. Infobox 2 is far too complicated and overly detailed. And birth date / death date could be pointless, too. Since soap characters don't age due to SORAS, etc. livelikemusicmy talk page! 17:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also reimporting the gender field while there was a consensus against it, it's not the best. Anyway, we can merge and then decide what to keep but using a second infobox to bypass consensus is unfair. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. If this closes as merge, we should just fully merge (per sandbox), and then discuss any further stuff on the talk page later. –anemoneprojectors– 13:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment, the only thing I, personally, do not quite like about Infobox 1 is that the "classification" parameter comes after "book appearances" and "spin-off appearances". Should the character have had book appearances and/or spin-off appearances, the reader would have to scroll down to see the character's classification after that. Again, this is just my opinion. And I also don't see the problem with having two infoboxes per the discussion in 2010; different users/groups may prefer one infobox over the other. They only have a few minor differences, so I don't really see the need to merge. Creativity97 20:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The order of fields can be discussed after the merge has happened. –anemoneprojectors– 13:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MERGE, only if the template takes after Infobox 2.--Nk3play2my buzz 04:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I don't mind a merge (Template:Infobox soap character 2/sandbox is fine), though I don't think it's necessary. I don't think birth dates/death should be removed. If the show has addressed a character's age or birth date then it should be fine to address on Wikipedia regardless of rapid aging (but only if it is addressed on-screen, not just judging by the airdate; for example birth certificates or the date actually being stated) ..that's just my unpopular opinion. I agree with Alex250P. — Arre 09:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to make clear: The discussions is whether to use a single infobox for all soap characters. Which parameters are going to be used is not part of this discussion. So arguments that say to merge only if some specific parameters are kept are invalid. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps it is time to draw this one to a close now. Obviously editors want to use one infobox. Once the transition is made - we can then discuss what parameters are needed.Rainthe 1 10:49, 14 September 2013 (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.
Template:Infobox TaiLamTunnelENG
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.
delete, unused and no clear use. Frietjes (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2013 (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.
Template:Countries and territories of South Asia
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.
Keep South Asia =/= Asia, there's no distinction in the Asia template. This does a better job of navigation, being smaller and not crowded with too many entries, like a nav template should be, instead of too large like the Asia template. The Asia template should only be used on Asia-wide pages, and those countries that exist in multiple regions. Further, geographically, there's no clear reason why an Asia template should exist separately from a Europe template, so the larger template up from South Asia should be ((Countries of Eurasia)) Further, this is a culturally distinct region, so it makes sense to use this navigation template over the Asia one. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep for much of the same reasons as given above. However, the Countries of Asia were modified to include lists by region -- South Asia, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, etc., either in place of or in addition to a large alphabetical list, then I think the South Asia list could be safely deleted. YBG (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Changed my vote belowYBG (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment such a reformat would result in countries listed multiple times, as some countries are considered to be in multiple regions, depending on source used. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Yet another person that has so few content-edits in the topic and nevertheless want marshal the domain. Pldx1 (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. There's no huge reason for the region to have a separate template, and that's the only reason for the South Asia template's existence. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment as the Asia template doesn't show South Asia as a grouping, I'm failing to see your redundancy, since it clearly doesn't navigate South Asia. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per 76.65.128.222, were this kept, it would lead to multiple templates, each with overlapping subsets of ((Countries of Asia)). No reason to not just use ((Countries of Asia)) everywhere. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, what I said was if you formatted Countries of Asia to indicate subregions, you'd end up with duplicate entries for those that sit in multiple regions in that template. (such as Vietnam being listed twice, or Afghanistan listed thrice in the same template) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom, and also because there's no coherent definition of the term.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and merge into ((Countries of Asia)). I have a prototype herewhich I hope to move someplace more public where it can garner comments. I have avoided the nebulous definitions by generally following the UN-developed statistical scheme described at Geography of Asia#Regions. YBG (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC) prototype now out of my sandbox. YBG (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The countries are well-defined at South Asia, so the scope of this template is solid and reliable. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2013 (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.
Template:Random Gender
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.
delete, not enough useful links. Frietjes (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2013 (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.
Which one? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. And agree with Piotrus; add this restriction into template doc. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2013 (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.
Yes, two templates that don't aid in navigation are better than one. Right on track. — Lfdder (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering that the Africa template does not navigate North Africa, it certainly does not help. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment as the Africa template doesn't show North Africa as a grouping, I'm failing to see your redundancy, since it clearly doesn't navigate North Africa. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
which definition? Geographic or UN? this one is for the UN definition, so we need to hurry up and create more for the geographic definition. hurray, more clutter at the foot of articles with dozens of navboxes! because there is no way that a reader would think of going to North Africa to see the list of countries in North Africa. Frietjes (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current content of the template does not prevent people adding: Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad; and I was thinking the cultural area (Arab/Bedouin/Berber) . These footer templates autocollapse, and there's a "links to other articles" wrapper template to wrap up all the footers. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and merge into ((Countries of Africa)). I have a prototype here for the equivalent problem in ((Countries of Asia)), which I hope to move someplace more public where it can garner comments. I avoided nebulous definitions by generally following the United Nations geoscheme. YBG (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC) prototype now out of my sandbox. YBG (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2013 (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.
Template:Countries and territories of Central Asia
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.
Keep Central Asia =/= Asia, there's no distinction in the Asia template. This does a better job of navigation, being smaller and not crowded with too many entries, like a nav template should be, instead of too large like the Asia template. The Asia template should only be used on Asia-wide pages, and those countries that exist in multiple regions. Further, geographically, there's no clear reason why an Asia template should exist separately from a Europe template, so the larger template up from South Asia should be ((Countries of Eurasia)) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Yet another person that has so few content-edits in the topic and nevertheless want marshal the domain. Pldx1 (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment as the Asia template doesn't show Central Asia as a grouping, I'm failing to see your redundancy, since it clearly doesn't navigate Central Asia. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and Template:United States political divisions does not show Southwestern United States as a grouping, because the grouping is ambiguous. anyone wishing to navigate specifically by their favorite definition of the countries in Central Asia is welcome to go to Central Asia and read all about how "various definitions of its exact composition exist, and no one definition is universally accepted". Frietjes (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and merge into ((Countries of Asia)). I have a prototype herewhich I hope to move someplace more public where it can garner comments. I have avoided the nebulous definitions by generally following the UN-developed statistical scheme described at Geography of Asia#Regions. YBG (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC) prototype now out of my sandbox. YBG (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2013 (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.
Template:States and territories of East Asia
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.
Keep East Asia =/= Asia, there's no distinction in the Asia template. This does a better job of navigation, being smaller and not crowded with too many entries, like a nav template should be, instead of too large like the Asia template. The Asia template should only be used on Asia-wide pages, and those countries that exist in multiple regions. Further, geographically, there's no clear reason why an Asia template should exist separately from a Europe template, so the larger template up from South Asia should be ((Countries of Eurasia)) Further, this is a culturally distinct region, so it makes sense to use this navigation template over the Asia one. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
East Asia =/= Asia You don't say? This does a better job of navigation, being smaller and not crowded with too many entries Both templates are adequately small. The Asia template should only be used on Asia-wide pages, and those countries that exist in multiple regions. What 'Asia-wide pages'? It only links to country articles. Further, this is a culturally distinct region, so it makes sense to use this navigation template over the Asia one. Makes no difference for navboxes; the content still is a duplication. — Lfdder (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course it does, it depends entirely on how you use the templates, and whether your defined replacement is an actual replacement or not. It doesn't actually define East Asia, so it isn't a proper replacement. And it also matters if your Asia template should actually exist or not (and I don't think it should, it should be a Eurasia template if it were to exist) I wouldn't say it's adequately small, since there are many countries in Asia, and your selected replacement is inordinately jumbled. It does not navigate East Asia, since East Asia is not defined in it. Your Asia template should only be used in Asia-wide pages, and those nations that exist in multiple regions. There are a few countries that do do that. Asia wide pages exist, even if they may ore may not currently use the Asia template, most of them are list articles. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why does it need to define East Asia? — Lfdder (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why wouldn't it need to define East Asia? You say it is redundant, to be redundant, it must be able to define East Asia. It cannot be redundant if you can't show what's in East Asia, since you could take a template for all the countries of the entire world listed and call everything redundant to it, but it does not provide navigation because it doesn't show the same things. This shows what is East Asia. The Asia template shows no such thing. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Yet another person that has so few content-edits in the topic and nevertheless want marshal the domain. Pldx1 (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment as the Asia template doesn't show East Asia as a grouping, I'm failing to see your redundancy, since it clearly doesn't navigate East Asia. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and merge into ((Countries of Asia)). I have a prototype herewhich I hope to move someplace more public where it can garner comments. I have avoided the nebulous definitions by generally following the UN-developed statistical scheme described at Geography of Asia#Regions. YBG (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC) prototype now out of my sandbox. YBG (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I think Frietjes suggestion of template:East Asian topics is better than this one; though merging to East Asian topics does not preclude your expansion. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2013 (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.
Template:Countries of Western Asia
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.
Keep Western Asia =/= Asia, there's no distinction in the Asia template. This does a better job of navigation, being smaller and not crowded with too many entries, like a nav template should be, instead of too large like the Asia template. The Asia template should only be used on Asia-wide pages, and those countries that exist in multiple regions. Further, geographically, there's no clear reason why an Asia template should exist separately from a Europe template, so the larger template up from South Asia should be ((Countries of Eurasia)) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Yet another person that has so few content-edits in the topic and nevertheless want marshal the domain. Pldx1 (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment as the Asia template doesn't show Western Asia as a grouping, I'm failing to see your redundancy, since it clearly doesn't navigate Western Asia. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete in another nomination, a user said that as a general rule, navboxes that only link country articles are a waste of space. I agree with that assessment.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and merge into ((Countries of Asia)). I have a prototype herewhich I hope to move someplace more public where it can garner comments. I have avoided the nebulous definitions by generally following the UN-developed statistical scheme described at Geography of Asia#Regions. YBG (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC) prototype now out of my sandbox. YBG (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2013 (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.