< June 23	June 25 >

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 page.

The result of the debate was redirect OMG out of process!! -- Drini 18:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:About[edit]

Redirect to otheruses4, as ((about)) is a more friendly template name. jareha ^(comments) 21:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per jareha. "About" is much easier to remember, and this template is currently used on hundreds of articles. --Musicpvm 23:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if it's keep or redirect, just please don't do anything that is going to make ((about)) disappear - it is MUCH easier to remember. Also, are there any objections to removing the TFD notice from being transcluded? It's appearing on eleventy billion pages right now. BigDT 00:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved the notice to its Talk page. --William Allen Simpson 03:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Technically, this is an out of process deletion request. I do wish people would read the directions! Also, you cannot just redirect to ((otheruses4)), as the 3rd parameter is broken. The (small) guideline group decided to eliminate this template long ago by merging to otheruses4 while fixing the 3rd parameter. Admittedly, the name otheruses4 is lousy, and I'd suggested ((Othertopics)) instead. Do folks here like Othertopics? --William Allen Simpson 03:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In the alternative, it has been suggested that ((Otheruses4)), ((This)), ((This article is about)), and ((About)) all be replaced by ((Othertopics)), a much cleaner and simpler design. See Wikipedia talk:Hatnotes#Consolidate some Otheruses again. --William Allen Simpson 03:56, 25 June 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was redirect redirs don-t hurt -- Drini 18:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese todofuken[edit]

Delete. Per nom. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 19:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can it be made a redirect to the version with the same parser functions? I can understand users prefering to evade them. Septentrionalis 19:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This template was only used by template:Japanese prefecture and two prefectures (Tokyo and Gunma Prefecture). It's unused now since I've revised template:Japanese prefecture to be directly usable by Tokyo and Gunma Prefecture (using parser functions to handle the extra parameters needed for these two special cases). template:Japanese todofuken could be made into a redirect, but there's no reason to do this (since it is unused). -- Rick Block (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 18:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ancient Sources[edit]

Template:Ancient Sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Contrary to WP:V, which requires use of secondary sources, not original interpretations of ancient texts. This is also being done by a sockpuppet of the banned user Iasson (evidence here; he denies it, of course).Septentrionalis 15:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My template primarily asks references to original ancient texts.And as long as most of the people dont know how to read the ancient sources, the template asks also translation (or translations) in english. It does NOT ask original interpretations of ancient texts !!! Isnt this clear? KymeSnake2 23:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on both grounds; nominator vote. Septentrionalis 15:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep it. Delete it only in case a similar template exists somewhere.. (Template creator vote). KymeSnake2 23:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Bridesmill 02:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Mi ra 05:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Aldux 13:41, 27 June 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was all redirects, listed in wrong discussion --William Allen Simpson 03:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox England place redirects[edit]

If they were redirects then they belong in WP:RfD, not TfD. Also, don't remove the redirect from the templates when placing the notice, it just mkaes it more confusing to those browsing to see what the template used to be.--SomeStranger^(t) 19:12, 24 June 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Drini 18:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coor title[edit]

These templates add metadata content to the title area at the top of the page which could easily be included in the article. CG 09:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - kill them with fire and salt the earth afterwards. Raul654 15:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the fact that it's used on hundreds of pages proves it's usefullness - Qyd^(talk)15:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't mean anything. I don't understand why we put information in the title area while it could be easily included in the text or in an infobox. Plus this kind of templates opens the way to other similar templates like ((Part-of)) which adds text in the top title area and which I nominated for deletion. CG 17:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful standard formating; editing to remove metadata can be done without deletion. Septentrionalis 19:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. These templates are the standard for all locations on wikipedia. If you want to remove them from the top right hand corner, deletion is not the right course of action.--SomeStranger^(t) 23:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates -- these (or similar) are used on German, Portugese, and other sister projects. --William Allen Simpson 01:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can we please try to keep content within the article, rather than splattering it around the screen. What next? Article data added to the footer? The sidebar? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And they don't work as intended in the classic skin: the text is added where the template is placed, not top-right. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Footer: Categories, last modified date/time, copyright
  - Sidebar: Other languages
  - Header: FA star, spoken article speaker, geographic coordinates
  - --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - In your skin, perhaps, but most of these are in different places in mine. Which is why this kind of absolute placement of data should be generally avoided. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Places are a major super-category that arguably deserves this special treatment. And, it works for the relatively conservative German Wikipedia. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to what has been argued before, I think placing coordinates in the same place on every page is less awkward than coming up with prose to work around it. --Grouse 14:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm finding them useful in creating articles for Ethiopian geographical articles as a check on lat. & long. accuracy. -- llywrch 20:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find these useful on cities and stuff too. Is there something I'm missing about why meta-data is sooo bad? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It tends to proliferate. What if a city article using this is also a featured article? The techniques used to do this are classic examples of "things that are possible, but that you really shouldn't do". Using absolute positioning is a VERY VERY bad idea. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rick Block. Many metadata header templates have been created (a lot have been nominated and deleted by Raul654 and another one by me (see the template below)). Plus if two templates are used it renders very badly. And finally look at ((Infobox_protected_area)), there is many other places where coordinates can be put like in infoboxes. ps: I'd prefer if we move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Why metadata content?. CG 17:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm with Raul on this one. Permaban the folks who started this (alright, maybe that's a little harsh - how about 30 lashes with a wet noodle). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These templates provide a convenient way of creating the link to maps and satellite photos of places where the natural prose description of a location does not use coordinates, but some other description such as an intersection. There's also User:Dschwen/wikiminiatlas2.js which puts a link to a popup locator map next to the coordinates. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, get rid of absolute positioning and put these types of templates inside the article. This template is heavily used and even has web apps using it (for example, I think, geonames.org). Let's separate form from content - the template is fine - its positioning is not. That does not equal "delete". Outriggr 00:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors should know that non-"title" versions of these templates exist (eg. Template:coor dm) (I just re-discovered them) and serve the same function as the proposed deletions--but outside of the "title" area of the article. It basically confirms my opinion above, but mitigates the "web apps" concern. Outriggr 04:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and I would add that putting the template "inside the article space" does not have to mean putting coordinates in-line with prose. Outriggr 04:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as you say, inline templates exist ((coor d)), ((coor dm)) and ((coor dms)). Coor title is actualy using those templates. The history of the title template is interesting too. They were implemented with tremendous success on the german and portughese wikis before the english one, and they used plain absolute positioning. Large efforts have been put to make use of style sheets instead (the monobook.css), so that the absolute position doesn't interfere with messages and other templates using the title area. Qyd 05:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have the other Wikipedias managed to solve the skin issues and the conflicts with other templates trying to put information in the same place? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In de and pt, title coors are still above the line, but there's not that much fuss about it. However, discussion regarding "fixing" the template should go to the template's talk page. Provied it passes ((tfd)) - Qyd 14:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per above. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 03:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question to supporters. Is there any reason why coordinates can't be included in an infobox within the article proper? Would it be possible to include it just below, rather than above, the line break so as to clearly distinguish between article content and information about the article? --Oldak Quill 11:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- look for example at ((Infobox_protected_area)), there is many other places where coordinates can be put like in infoboxes. CG 18:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, get rid of absolute positioning and put these types of templates inside the article. Maybe placing under the linebreak (if it doesn't affect the title) would be the best option. --Oldak Quill 11:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (you will probably need a exorcist for this one) Grön^sv 11:29, 2 July 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Part-of[edit]

Strong Delete as the nominator. CG 09:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - kill them with fire and salt the earth afterwards. Raul654 15:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep serves the same purpose as a navigation template, in less space. Septentrionalis 19:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom + it doesn't even display correctly, at least for me. —Mi ra 05:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Breaks horribly in the classic skin. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This one does just kind of suck. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it seems to me this is what categories are for. How many independent grouping mechanisms do we need? Outriggr 04:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC) & 00:05, 29 June 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 00:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no legitimate reason to include this kind of content in meta-areas. --Oldak Quill 11:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Philippine president[edit]

Delete per nom. Template is not in use.--SomeStranger^(t) 23:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It should be noted that Hera1187 replaced all instances of Infobox Philippine president with Infobox President yesterday. Anyway, I agree that it can be deleted. Coffee 01:09, 25 June 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete As much as we appreciate Trek contributors, Wookipedia is just another website that is non wikimedia,so should not be displayed the same way.-- Drini 00:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wookieepedia article[edit]

Keep. Although not a wikimedia project, Wookieepedia is an official Wikia, and the template itself is quite helpful to the reader. The Wookieepedian 05:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. CG 09:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, nomination statement + source is non notable. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since Wookieepedia is not an official Wikimedia project, it should be deleted. I also think we should search for any other similar templates and list them for deletion. Afonso Silva 17:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and list the site as an external link per nom.--SomeStranger^(t) 23:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to something more like ((memoryalpha)). ((memoryalpha)) makes a nice line "(articlename) article at Memory Alpha, the Star Trek wiki" that can be placed in the external links section. I don't like the idea of outright deleting, though. There needs to be some meaningful replacement for it. Keep in mind that just because you don't care about something doesn't mean that other people don't find it useful. BigDT 00:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change per BigDT. —Mi ra 05:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change per BigDT. (Just because it's got "pedia" in its name, doesn't mean it should be treated differently from wikis which don't.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What next, ((uncyclopedia)) ? -Not Diablo 02:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Shit someone actually did create an Uncyclopedia template? Repeatedly? -Not Diablo 02:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change per BigDT. --bluemask 05:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
change or delete. Simply not a wikiproject.
Change per BigDT. --Grouse 20:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change per BigDT.----M @r ē ino 21:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change - it can be kept as long as it doesn't attempt to mimic the style or emphasis given to our sister projects. Wookieepedia should get a regular link only. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:02, 26 June 2006 (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 page.

June 24, 2006

Template:About[edit]

Template:Japanese todofuken[edit]

Template:Ancient Sources[edit]

Template:Infobox England place redirects[edit]

Template:Coor title[edit]

Template:Part-of[edit]

Template:Infobox Philippine president[edit]

Template:Wookieepedia article[edit]