< September 13	September 15 >

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 no consensous, might as well redirect. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 13:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ار (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template not in English. Template:Lang-ur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) does the job fine. User is trying to divert away from discussion on the original template page regarding text boldness. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 08:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Ragib 08:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:POVFORK. --ais523 11:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because of two reasons. (i) Template:Lang-ur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) doesn't have any positive effect for the reader. (ii) Template:ار (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is ideal for mass usage in multiple Pakistan-related articles without any need to switch language of keyboard, hence, making the addition of relevent Urdu script faster. Szhaider 14:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact is that most English Wikipedians cannot even type this template name. You don't seem to comprehend properly that this is the ENGLISH Wikipedia. Whether it's quicker to type Urdu or not is not a relevant concern here. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It is intended for those contributers who are able to type Urdu. Who else would be able to add Udru scripts to Pakistan-related articles? Therefore, I stress it be kept for Urdu-speaking contributers. It will make things a bit easier. Szhaider 23:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It would create a precedent for other language templates which stops people who cannot read/write those script (i.e. the majority of English Wikipedians) from maintaining/editing those templates. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Absolutely no justification for an Urdu template in the English Wiki. Cain Mosni 20:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Both sides need to calm down. Though I tend to agree with the nom that there should be only one template, which should not be bolded as is the case with other such templates, I cannot excuse the condescending nature of the debate, ("you don't seem to comprehend," et. al) See WP:CHILL --Roninbk 05:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, my condescending tone doesn't help. But, it's difficult when a user is being persistent in actually being a pain and won't even take on board what I'm saying or discuss it on the template talk page (see lang-ur). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 08:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or delete to English version of template. Does little harm as a redirect, but as a non-English fork, it's a hinderance to maintenance by non-Urdu users and/or WikiGnomes. Do not keep separately. -- nae'blis 16:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Just redirect it, and we get rid of this problem, no? Titoxd^(?!?) 04:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect per nae'blis --Quiddity 04:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, this would prevent a content fork and still allow the template to still work exactly as it has been. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Lang-ur" isn't that hard to type or remember, and deletion would avoid a number of problems, the first being continued usage of the Urdu title. As for a redirect fix, this template is on four pages. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  To add, I think it's clear to everyone that this was done as a POV fork rather than allowing "easier typing" by Urdu users. Hitting Alt + Shift isn't hard. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - anyone who speaks English should be able to understand an English wikipedia. DJR (T) 21:17, 20 September 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 speedy // Pilotguy (Have your say) 13:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:APA web cite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It is unused, and unlinked to. The template was moved to another name, and all that remains to it are templates saying it is deprecated. kenb215 03:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete via CSD G6. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:54, 18 September 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 based on what I have read, delete. I figure this will be on DRV in no time, which is fine. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 13:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC) From Category:Comic book navbox templates[reply]

• Template:Acolytes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Avengers members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Brotherhood members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Champions members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Dp7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Eternals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Excalibur members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Exiles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Exiles malibu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Fantastic Four members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Flight members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Gene nation members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Generation x members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Hellfire Club members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Hellions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Heroes for Hire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Howling commandos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Invaders members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Morlocks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Mutant liberation front (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Newmutants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Nextwave members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Psi-force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Serpent Society members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Strangers members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Thunderbolts members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Ultraforce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:X-Factor members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:X-Men members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Template:Weapon x (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Delete based on concerns of WikiProject Comics editors (here and here) that they are of limited use, multiplying out of control in spite of editors' concerns, excessive, redundant to categories and lists that already exist, deal with "current status" (problematic to keep current, problems with WP:WAF), hard to organize impartially, may pose compatability issues for some browsers, some characters end up with several, some templates are full of redlinks as the characters listed are non-notable, and some included characters' memberships were very brief. *Whew* -HKMarks 00:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. CovenantD 00:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've seen way to many of these things sitting there repeating information obviously found in the page's infobox. The worst example of this is The Strangers (comics) where the navbox is right beneath the infobox. Stephen Day 00:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - They have uses, but limited is right -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete them all. They have little use for their visual and bandwidth cost: The character articles link to the teams, whose articles link to the character's articles; there is no way to implement these cleanly and uniformly with NPOV; the small teams don't need them, and the large teams have pages dedicated to their memberships; we already have categories for these. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to cats and visual hindrance to clarity, per nom's excellent summary. Quiddity 03:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete please! And stop this insanity! Absolutely unnecessary and more a hindrance. Pretty much everything the nom said. --Newt_ΨΦ 04:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there are better ways to do this, as everyone's pointed out. --Mrph 07:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added a TfD notice to the WikiProject Comics page to give due notice, since the discussion on that page seems to have a lively exchange pro and con while this page seems to run 100% Delete. --Roninbk 09:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. Use categories for links of great amounts. -- Ned Scott 10:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Avengers, X-Men, and Fantastic Four because these are the three most promanat teams
  Delete Everything else incuding the Thuderbolts and Champions templete that I created Cnriaczoy42 12:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to see the FF template turned into an article Series box along the lines of ((Spider-Man)) -HKMarks 13:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Pause Deletion: Someone is jumping the gun. The problem is that there are to many of these with no standards. Instead of just deleting all of them (as some of them will more than likely reappear), limits should be created. One of the threads mentioned above is in the process of doing this, and proposing to delete all of these templates is ludacris, and should be done after some standards are created. That would clean up the larger templates, and limit the one created. JQF 14:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The problem is not that there are no standards, the problems are listed above in the nom. Please address these problems in your dissent to help further discussion. --Newt_ΨΦ 16:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: The way I read it is that the user thinks there are too many navboxes with too many problems to justify themselves, so just wishes to delete them all. Now, if the standards that people are currently discussing here were to be put in place, that would deal with just about every problem the user brought up. Thus the reason why a deletion pause should be called. JQF 12:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: That the boxes are "of limited use," "redundant to categories and lists that already exist," and cause "compatibility issues" with browsers is not immediately ameliorable with a list of standards on them, especially the first two. I don't appreciate being accused of "not reading" as you suggested in your edit summary. I was not contesting your "Pause" vote, but rather asking you to specifically address the problems instead of blanketing the problem under a vague claim of "needing standards" without addressing what those standards are or how they could make these templates viable. In fact, very little of the nom even talks about how these templates need to be "cleaned up" as you suggest in your explanation of your vote, rather asking why they're even needed in the first place, which you did not address at all. --Newt_ΨΦ 13:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep Avengers, X-Men, X-Factor and Flight Members at least. Seeing as how this isn't going to be stoped, I might as well at least cast my vote. These four are the most significant, in my opinion, and should be kept. JQF 21:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Pause Deletion as above, except spelling "ludacris" as "ludicrous", or possibly "ridiculous". :) --Jamdav86 16:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it doesn't seem remotely worthwhile to "pause" the deletion discussion. This has been under discussion for about two weeks, and in that time -- in spite of the editors creating them being fully aware of the lack of standards and the other editors' concerns that the templates were unnecessary -- they've continued to create them. I first considered listing them for deletion about 5 days earlier, and in the mean time they roughly doubled in number, and one of their most vocal supporters was discovered to be a sockpuppet of a banned user. If you think any of these are salvageable, please go ahead propose how. -HKMarks 01:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Based on this and other recent discussions, I have proposed a new guidline concerning navboxes for WikiProject Comics. Please take a look at it and help me make it represent the concensus of the WikiProject. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pause deletion pending discussion at above link - simply deleting them is a kneejerk reaction that won't solve things, just "prune the shrubs", leaving "the plant" to simply grow back at a later date. --Jamdav86 18:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary, redundant, and unwanted by the project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Additional past discussion of subject here. -HKMarks 20:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I just realized another problem: every page with these templates transcluded has *every* other member of the team on their "what links here" page. Complication to editing. It just keeps getting better and better. -HKMarks 01:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Keep them all, I have found them usefull, especially when searching for connections between characters. (UTC)
  • Question? How are categories and wikilinks insufficient for that? -HKMarks 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Kind of - "What have I done?!" Anyways, since I did create the bulk of them (though I have noticed that a few more have popped up since Chris told me to stop - for now), but I'm really not into this whole lets delete almost everything because that solves all problems and "everyone" is happy. Honestly I don't see the point in just plain ol' deleting them because it makes some people either get really shitty and start rebelling to the point they get blocked or some just get disheartened and hate the site as much as they do myspace.com. I'm turning into the latter and have since returned to just concentrating on the music side of the wiki instead of the comics side since it is SO DAMN ANNOYING! And the consensus is usually the same people who seem to "control" (I was going to use "dictate"... but no) the comics side of the wikipedia. Not many of the other contributors do discussions or get into the "political" side of the site. They just contribute to their little hearts content and argue when they have to. Anywho, I still don't see the point I said earlier on the other discussion thing about eliminating the navboxes from the member pages and just having it at the bottom of the teams page only. Eg Brotherhood of Evil Mutants navbox in the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants page (instead of on every single page of the gazillion of members who have been Brotherhood members) and so on and so forth. This will eliminate the 4-12 navbox problem on characters whom are multiple members of different teams (Wolverine, Magneto, etc.) Originalsinner 20:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's nothing personal. If I could think of a way to make these work as they stand I'd do it in a second. We're not out to get you! :) We could Subst these onto the team pages but since many of them aren't much more than roster lists, is there really much point? -HKMarks 22:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not really useful, clutter up any page they are on. --Basique 23:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-Shows an interest in the categories, many of which still need information added to them. When the information is added, then the artciles will not look so cluttered. --Steadfast

• By that, do you mean that every characters in the roster doesn't have an article? Sometimes they're quite minor characters and don't need them. -HKMarks 14:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not needed, we have categories do the same function.--Gonzalo84 02:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Pause deletion I am not completely against the entire navbox idea, and, while some of them are worthwhile, pthers are somewhat redundant, especially since
  1. Some of the teams have disbanded;
  2. Some have very few active members.
• All I would suggest at the moment is an attempt at revision of the boxes within the WikiProject itself before another attempt at deletion can be contemplated.

  The previous two comments were made by JB Adder | Talk 14:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, use a list instead, this clutters the articles too much. >Radiant< 16:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I personally find them useful. But if you delete them, delete all of them. Keeping some and deleting others would be unfair. Breakaway 23:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've proposed a new template for the Fantastic Four... on Template talk:Fantastic Four members. This is what I'd like to do for Avengers as well. Avengers template will NOT contain any kind of character list, but the FF has had a nearly fixed membership. Teams without this kind of history don't need navboxes at all. -HKMarks 14:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I say leave them on the pages of the characters that were members of the teams, but remove them from the team pages themselves. That way there is a connection to the team pages, without cluttering up the team pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.116.251.228 (talk • contribs) .
• Subdivide Deletion Nominations - Some of these are useless, I'll admit, but some of the categories refer to some of the most recognizable items in pop culture, including X-men, Fantastic Four, and some others. These should NOT be deleted in one fell swoop. Instead, we should be going at these templates individually. --199.74.96.62 14:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Pause deletion until the deletion notifications are made bigger.- It came as a bit of a shock for me to see that all of these are up for deletion, since the notices on the pages where these templates are used are in teeny-weeny font. Most defenders of these templates are likely to be from Wikipedians that often visit those pages: therefore, the present deletion procedure is slanted towards those who wish this template deleted. -Toptomcat 15:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - as per Basique, these are also redundant of the ((Superheroteam)) info box. If people want to find other members of the X-Men, they can click back and pick another from the list, it's sufficiently organized to sort meta-data beyond "Category" restrictions. I suggest whoever wants a certain template left in place, to verify the data is accurate in related teams article pages with the Superheroteam template. -Zappernapper 18:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Mega Comments: Ok, this has gone on long enough. This deletion call is unjustified, and has been dominated a few people who are for the deletion. For un in-depth reason why it should be stopped, see OriginalSinner's post here. However, for those to lazy or just don't want to hear it, the short list is this:
  • They are not of limited use. If they were, would so many have been created? Do people really duplicate the useless things?
  • Categories aren't meant to be used that way, and have their own issues.
  • List pages give lots of info, and (most) are in chronological order, making navigation difficult compared to the short list of the navboxes, which are (for the most part) well organized. Those that aren’t just need to be cleaned up.
  • There is not a "current status" problem. Most don't have a "current status" feature. Those that do, like the Avengers template, are rather well maintained. If it is an issue, then it has to be brought up on that template's talk page to be resolved, instead of using it as a reason to remove all of them, since so few of them use it.
  • Hard to organize impartially? They are all (as far as I know) arranged in alphabetical order.
  • If there was a "compatibility issues for some browsers", then all navboxes would be up for deletion, as they all use the same basic function. These navboxes are among the simpler navboxes out there.
  • Is it so bad that some major characters get multiple navboxes? Unless they start causing issues with one another (which they shouldn't if properly made), that's not a valid reason.
  • Redlinks are being filled in by fans. Look at the Avengers navbox. That was full of redlinks when first made, but how many are there now? Go look if you don't know. That's the whole point of Wikipedia. Well, maybe not the whole point, but you know what I mean. If they were non-notable, why would somebody have created the page?
  • Ok, saying that, I'd like to call a No Faith, but your comments in the discussion mentioned above, you want navboxes of some kind. So I don't know what your doing, but if you want a navbox of any kind ever, then hope this TfD doesn't go through, as there are people who will hold this a reason not to have navboxes period, and will use this as a constant example as to why not have them.
  • Either way, the discussion is still ongoing, and this was called prematurely. JQF 00:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've moved this comment to chronological order, as is typical. Most of these comments have already been addressed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they've already been addressed, then why is this deletion still ongoing? This deletion is not valid, as I've just pointed out. You want the extended version of why this isn't valid? See here. There is no reason for this Tfd. How many times do I have to say it? Please stop making me fell like I'm talking to a three-year-old, or that I'm a broken record. JQF 01:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've read that discussion, at length, and, frankly, it feels like Chris Griswald and Newt explaining at length why these navboxes are a bad idea, and you and Originalsinner going "Nuh uh!" I don't see why it obviates this TFD, where the survey and the arguments seem to be in favor of deleting the lot of these. If you ever feel that you're a broken record or speaking to a three-year-old, it generally means that you need to stop repeating yourself and being patronizing. As for why this TFD isn't closed yet, an uninvolved admin hasn't come through and closed this day's TFDs yet. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Broken Record: Every reason as to why these navboxes should be removed has been shown to be invalid, as seen here. You are just refusing to accept them. JQF 01:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I find it very disturbing that one editor has stated his/her intention to recreate these navboxes should they be deleted, regardless of the results of this TfD[1]. CovenantD 01:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Record: Every reason as to why these navboxes should be removed has been shown to be invalid, as seen here. You are just refusing to accept them. JQF 01:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Who were you addressing when you said "you seem to want navboxes of some kind"? Well, in any case, yes I do--in some cases they're useful for linking closely related articles. The kind we want are linked on the proposed guideline page you so kindly linked to just now. Member list templates, on the other hand, we don't want. We've been pretty clear on that. -HKMarks 03:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But there is nothing wrong with them. They help as a matter of fact! All the reason asking for the deletion have been proven invalid, and given their two most beneficial qualities (1. Short, easy to navigate list, 2. Brings attention to other characters that normally don't get it from the big ones, a kind of "share the wealth" thing), they really deserve to stay. If you still think they're wrong, just read the stuff posted, because it's obvious you didn't the first time. JQF 11:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in Originalsinner's defense, he only said he's "anti-deleting" regardless of TfD survey. I don't know that he necessarily meant he was going to undelete them, when he could have merely meant he was against their deletion regardless of the TfD's overwhelming favor for it. --Newt_ΨΦ 03:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Avengers, X-Men and X-Factor templates. These are the most useful, in my opinion.--Kross^Talk 17:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - time's running low and this may need more discussion before it's settled. The last thing I have to say for now is that I feel the templates will require heavy maintenance in the future, and that editors' time could be better spent improving the articles and categories that they're apparently meant to supplement or replace. I think the templates, as they stand, are encouraging people to create stub articles for non-notable characters, and linking characters with no direct relationship to one another. In addition, I stand by the all the original reasons for the nom, and the ones that followed. -HKMarks 03:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Since I created the bulk and this arguement/debate/whatever is carrying on, I am going to remove the navboxes (that I created!) from the individual members until this issue is resolved with a satisfactory outcome for ALL parties involved in this. I'm stil not with deleting ALL of them and I've even suggested things that I felt were within reason (eg the Ultraverse teams). As I stated in the other discussion I created these not to denounce categories or infoboxes or lists but as a quick and easy way of going from one members page to another and also in the misguided hope that someone would update the C-Z list characters. And no throwing the importance of a comic character clause in my face because I have heard it all before. Regarding that "clause", I have seen characters on the comicsproject that aren't as significant but are kept on anyway. I would mention some but I don't want them to be deleted either (though I didn't create them but still). I think the actual issue here is not that the navboxes are annoying or whatever, it's actually because of "A-List" characters like, Wolverine, Magneto and Kitty Pryde, who are on multiple teams and in turn have multiple navboxes. And in turn "clutter" the bottom of the page or "crash" some browsers (what is being used? Internet Explorer v1.9?).

At the end of this all, it looks like I am the only one willing to find a compromise even stating the following in the discussion:

• • Acolytes - I reckon this one should stay, if only limited to their team page. It's a harmless one really with only Magneto being the main cause of it having to be limited.
  • Avengers members, Champions members, Fantastic Four members, Nextwave members, Serpent Society members, Thunderbolts members, X-Men members - I didn't create it so I won't say anything.
  • Brotherhood members - I would like to keep this one as well since it's actually more indepth than the members list.
  • Dp7, Psi-force - I think the New Universe should get their own one instead of individual teams like I first intended.
  • Eternals - I'm 50/50 here. Don't mind if it stays or goes.
  • Excalibur members - I do think Excalibur's should stay since there have been three incarnations of the team.
  • Exiles - likewise with the these teams.
    • Flight members
    • Generation x members
    • Hellfire Club members
    • Heroes for Hire
    • Invaders members (unless of course people think that the Golden Age needs one)
    • Mutant liberation front - I like this one because a lot of readers don't realise that Humanity's Last Stand had an MLF.
  • Exiles malibu, Strangers members, Ultraforce - instead of each Ultra team having their own, I think that the Ultraverse should just have one since both Ultraforce and Prime have had cartoon shows and then there was Black September.
  • Howling commandos - This should stay and I am getting around to finding out more info on the deadlinks characters.
  • Morlocks - although good to me, I unsure about whether to merge this with Gene nation members
  • X-Factor members - I was eventually going to add the two characters from the second series of this since they get missed and not mentioned at all in the members list mainly becuase the second series wasn't about a team.
  • Weapon x - it's only Weapon X but I understand with the God of the A-List being in this, the X-Men, the Avengers, a former F4 member etc.
  • There are a few I don't care about because they overlap like mad! The navboxes for the New Mutants went on to become X-Force and then were replaced by X-Statix (and also the X-Force that was before the more well known X-Force) and then X-Force was reorganized more recently after Cable's Underground went belly up. However the navbox can include the new New Mutants who fought the Hellions who were based after Emma's old team but who were in fact the third team called the Hellions and then the new Mew Mutants and Hellions went on to become the New X-Men who are totally indistiguisable from the old New X-Men who were actually just X-Men. Headache much. So do what you want with this one.

So yeah... still currently at Pause Deletion. Also I find it ironic that contributors are still updating the navboxes even while they are up for deletion. Originalsinner 05:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or subst X-Men, X-Factor, Fantastic Four and Avengers. Delete the rest. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - proposed replacement template for ((Avengers members)) at Template talk:Avengers members -HKMarks IS FROM SPACETALK ♦ CONTRIBS 17:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on the (rather drawn out) conversation on this page, I *think* we've (JQF and I at least) reached a consensus to do the following:
  • Rename ((Avengers members)) to ((Avengers))
  • Rename ((Fantastic Four members)) to ((Fantastic Four))
    • And remove both from character pages and apply to relevant (linked in template) pages.
    • Replace them both with the tentative versions on their respective talk pages.
  • Subst the rest to the talk pages of their associated main articles, for later use in creating character pages or better templates or whatever. Then Delete per nom. --HKMarksCANDY IS A FOOD GROUPTALK♦CONTRIBS 20:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and create roster lists on each team's article, if indeed its not already there.Mallanox 13:39, 23 September 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 // Pilotguy (Have your say) 13:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Irish Clerical Child Sex Abusers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Without getting political or whatever.. I just really really REALLY think that we need to avoid templates like these. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox comes to mind. Even without a direct policy or guideline violation, again, this isn't the kind of thing we should promote. What's next, a template of "evildoers"? -- Ned Scott 10:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's not our place to judge and besides, the template itself remains factual and neutral. As a topic in itself, there are a number of books, studies and indeed, inquiries on this very subject. In short; it's neutral, relevant and encyclopedic - Alison^✍ 19:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - maybe it's just me, but presenting the names in a template like this gives the idea that it is an exhaustive list of all the clerical sex abusers in Ireland (when of course it isn't). Maybe the template would be better presented as a "see also" section in each article? Or a category? Demiurge 20:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per nom. Category as alternative, if desired. Cain Mosni 20:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is clearly not an exhaustive list but it does enable those interested to see these individual episodes in a wider context, should they so wish. This template is not a soapbox, nor indeed does it promote anything whatsoever Duf 20:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Above poster is template creator. --Aaron 18:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It pushes the POV that "these individual episodes [fit] in a wider context". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but possibly rename, as the capitalization scheme makes little sense. There's been a lot of effort to ensure that names on this list are verified and factual. I don't think anyone would argue that the church scandals are encyclopedic, and when the group is relatively small, a template can link them fairly well. I wouldn't necessarily oppose a switch to categorization instead, but the group may be too small for that right now. -- nae'blis 16:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per A Man In Bl♟ck above. The template's existence is itself an NPOV violation. --Aaron 16:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How is it NPOV? It doesn't forward any particular point of view other than cataloging its subject and I believe the subject itself is factual and neutral - Alison^✍ 17:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• AMIB answered your question already; these are individual incidents that have little to no connection to each other. But beyond that, note that this template was created by Crimson Observer. Of the fourteen names/articles in the template, twelve of them were created by Crimson Observer. Also, when running a couple of quick Google checks, I discovered that at least some of the names on this list would never pass WP:BIO. As such, I think it's logical to put forth the hypothesis that Crimson Observer has reasons to want to make a bigger deal out of the issue of clerical sexual abuse in Ireland than it deserves. That's a POV. --Aaron 17:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant to category system. --Quiddity 18:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per AMIB. >Radiant< 16:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not the sort of thing an encyclopedia needs to have; also redundant to already-used categories hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 17:23, 21 September 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 // Pilotguy (Have your say) 13:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:East Rail infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single use template for KCR East Rail. I've subst'ed it on that page, following through here with deletion proceedings. Slambo (Speak) 15:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom.  DJR (T) 21:18, 20 September 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 // Pilotguy (Have your say) 13:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Light Rail infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Singe use template for KCR Light Rail. I've subst'ed it on that page. Slambo (Speak) 15:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. DJR (T) 21:18, 20 September 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 // Pilotguy (Have your say) 13:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ma On Shan Rail infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single use template for KCR Ma On Shan Rail. I've subst'ed it there. Slambo (Speak) 15:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The currently used template on KCR Ma On Shan Rail uses horrible color schema and sits in the middle of the text, making the whole article very unprofessional, so to say. Delete also the other rail templates. Pavel Vozenilek 23:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DJR (T) 21:19, 20 September 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 // Pilotguy (Have your say) 13:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West Rail infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single use template for KCR West Rail; now subst'ed there. Slambo (Speak) 17:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. DJR (T) 21:20, 20 September 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 // Pilotguy (Have your say) 13:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Steel Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Legendary Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Electric Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Fire Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Starter Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Poison Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Grass Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Flying Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Normal Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Bug Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Water Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Psychic Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - added by Andros 1337 22:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fighting Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - added by Andros 1337 22:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ice Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - added by Andros 1337 22:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rock Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - added by Andros 1337 22:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dragon Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - added by Andros 1337 22:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dark Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - added by Andros 1337 22:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the superteam nomination above, these templates are redundant to categories, of limited use, may pose compatability issues for some browsers, and some characters end up with two or more. There's metadata that doesn't appear in the categories, but that's essentially unimportant metadata about essentially unrelated articles (It's not at all useful to note that Magcargo is Rock/Fire in Charmander's article). Moreover, many of these templates don't actually work right, with broken hide/show functions.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete They're not extremely useful, as the Pokémon are already sorted into categories. Over time, as more Pokémon are introduced to the series, these boxes will get big and unattractive. For dual-type Pokémon, especially those which are Starters or Legendary, that's three templates that can instead be handled by categorization. --Brandon Dilbeck 03:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because they're useless. Also, other people may find them too crufty. -De Nam 14:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all but the Starter and Legendary templates, which expand on regional connections, quite important to Starters and Legendaries. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 14:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and go to CfD for categories per Lengis. These look much better, just that dual types should have their own box instead, like a Psychic dual-type template for placement on Beldum or Latios. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 05:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' them all, pointless. Highway ^Daytrippers 15:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question There's a few templates not listed above, like Template:Fighting Pokémon and Template:Psychic Pokémon. Are these included too? --Brandon Dilbeck 22:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Never mind --Brandon Dilbeck 22:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Not really necessary, and has caused debates on color, i.e. whether to use red or an orange/tomato color for the Fire type. Andros 1337 22:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - It is easier to look for all types of pokemon. (Bobabobabo 02:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep You know, I really like them, they're presented nicely. Color debate isn't the point here, it's presentation and usefulness. And I enjoyed these templates, personally, even if I've only seen them for a short time. Toastypk 22:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete some - there may be value in having a template for starters or legendaries. For single types, we have categories, and categories are preferred over lists or templates. Also, some types are unwieldy as it is (Normal, for one), and with at least 100 new Pokemon making the new generation, it can only get worse. kelvSYC 03:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 06:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; why can't people just use categories? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 12:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to categories. --Quiddity 18:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 00:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep They are convienent, and save time when navigating through the pokemon. It's annoying to constantly go back to a category page to selection the pokemon. To compromise on redundancy, delete the category and replace with the template, because it's easier to use. Lengis 03:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom for all the same myriad reasons as the superteams. If you don't want to go back to the category pages, why not use Firefox and load the category into your sidebar? Categories are how everything else on Wikipedia is organized. They're not going to be deleted just because they're redundant to a template or list. -HKMarks 15:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of our readers use Internet Explorer. That is not in the reader's interest if they can't support it. myTrackerTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 16:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They're really convenient and easy to search for Pokémon! SuperSonic 16:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ((Legendary Pokémon)), delete the rest Navigating by type is pretty useless; however, Legendary is not a type and probably needs separate consideration (it's in a situation where a navbox seems reasonable). --ais523 10:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What about categories? Highway ^Daytrippers 07:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categories are preferable to navboxes here in my view, but I don't think the type ones would stand up to CfD. --ais523 08:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • We already have categories for these. The templates are ghastly. Highway ^Daytrippers 22:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per every delete vote above, especially Brandon Dilbeck's. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 08:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep It is easier to look for pokemon (72.177.68.38 02:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete Delete all but "Starter Pokemon"- in response the reasoning of usefulness Legendaries, create a Legendary Pokemon Category and group them there. also, as per Normal and Water types being to large and likely to expand considerably. -Zappernapper 17:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - And while I'm not familiar with criticisms of categories under fire in CfD debates, it may be logical to add dual-type categorization for dual-types exhibited by more than one Pokemon (Magcargo is currently the only Fire-Rock type). -Zappernapper 17:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • the starter pokemon are the single case in which i think a category would be bad, but this template would be VERY useful. The current navigation offered in the pokemon articles does not allow for quick simple comparison of say Charizard and Venusaur - two of the final evolutions from the first games. These related articles are all of special importance and many have even been the main focus of WP:PCP editors, considered to be among the "most likely requested" pokemon articles. -Zappernapper 18:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, wholey useless and redundent. For starters, create category.--Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 16:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change - It's nice, but the text runs together. Remove the dual types lists, and just list the Pokemon. --Nintenfreak 19:55, 22 September 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.