< May 12	May 14 >

May 13

Template:Probert Encyclopaedia

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 after replacing all instanced of the template with ((nld)) ~ Anthøny 21:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template gives us the source of an image, but then effectively tells us, well, it's either free or non-free. It acts as a copyright tag, but doesn't give us the necessary information. We should delete this template, and the few images this template is used on should be tagged as sourced from the Probert Encyclopedia but missing a license, as we don't have any knowledge about whether these images are public domain or not. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A useless template; let's get rid of it. Jmlk17 06:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as source tag and tag all images using it with ((nld)) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or replace with ((subst:nld)) and delete it once the week expires. --BigDT 02:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do as the others have suggested and then delete it once orphaned. This is not a valid licensing tag as far as copyright is concerned, and thus shouldn't be kept around. --Cyde Weys 00:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Film-screenshot from Towerville council

The result of the debate was Delete. Shadow1 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...what? Unencyclopedic and such. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No purpose. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 21:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly useless; a practice template perhaps? Jmlk17 06:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a joke. Punkmorten 14:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ipa

The result of the debate was no consensus. A few users say to merge one direction, and other users say to merge to the other. This is an editorial decision that can be done outside the deletion process. The closest thing to a consensus was to delete ((User ipa-N)), but the consistency argument by Zeibura against that convinced me. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point having both this and Template:User ipa-N. I propose a merge, the format for writing systems generally seems to be -1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -N (see Wikipedia:Userboxes/Writing systems) — - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 20:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge they do look different, but there is no need for two separate templates. Jmlk17 06:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other way around The IPA is not a language. "Native-like understanding" of a writing system is nonsense, so we should merge ipa-N into ipa rather than the reverse. If the other writing system templates have the same problem, that's their problem, not that of ipa. Sorry! I didn't know about ipa-5. I think we should merge ipa into ipa-5 and replace "absolutely" by "fully" in ipa-5. ipa-N should be deleted instead, as should be all other -N templates for writing systems. David Marjanović 10:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC) | edit David Marjanović 10:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ((User ipa)) and ((User ipa-5)) and delete ((User ipa-N)), as it doesn't make any sense to say that one writes IPA "natively". —Psychonaut 16:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both into ((User ipa)) per above. — Zerida 05:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both ((User ipa)) and ((User ipa-N)). The former is redundant and the latter makes makes no sense, as one cannot be a native writer of IPA. ((User ipa-5)) makes sense, however, and gives an indication of ability level consistent with the other language scales used here. In other words, this change will make IPA just like all other languages, except it will lack a "native speaker" level, which would be nonsensical anyway. Furthermore, I suggest a slightly more dramatic language change than suggested above. I believe ((User ipa-4)) should be changed to "This user has a nearly complete understanding of the International Phonetic Alphabet," as this is the logical progression from the language of ((User ipa-3)) (and lower proficiency levels). It then follows that ((User ipa-5)) should read "This user has a complete understanding of the International Phonetic Alphabet. I believe this solution maximizes both sensibility and consistency. Postmodern Beatnik 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps this is a situation that should be addressed differently at some point, but the ability levels for all writing systems (have a look also at Template:User_iso15924 and the source of the "data-row" subpage) are -1, to -5 and then -N. For languages, rather than xx-N, it's just xx for native level. The point of this TfD was really just to remove the ipa template as ipa-N fulfils the same purpose, and standardise the IPA templates with other writing systems. If there really is this much consensus that having a "native-like" understanding of a writing system is nonsense, then someone should open a new TfD to sort out the -N row in the iso15924 page (which would be a lot of work). - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 17:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comment: One cannot be a native user of a writing system at all. Writing is something you learn at school. I propose relacing ((User ipa-N)) with ((User ipa)). Aminullah 17:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category maintenance

The result of the debate was Delete ~ Anthøny 21:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a free encyclopedia, contributors should not have to pre-emptively justify their edits. If an editor or a WikiProject is really interested in maintaining a category and its pages, they'd monitor it themselves, not rely on the authority of a boilerplate box. These, along with two other deleted WikiProject templates, were untranscluded from several pages in a CfD discussion on Feb 2. The current transclusions are all outdated, with the most recent date being Jan 2007, which means the transcluders have not been updating them every month to show their activity, allowing them to be unheeded. Unlike the heated debate on ((Maintained)), these two templates do not offer assistance, and more clearly violate WP:OWN in their tone. –Pomte 20:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Ownership of all the articles in a category is a bad thing. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Saying that someone must be consulted before changing categories, or removing articles from them, is a WP:OWN violation. There is no way in which it could not be so. -Amarkov moo! 04:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Both They just incite edit wars and other problemic issues. Jmlk17 06:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should die because it spits in the face of our policy against ownership. --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Encourages ownerships and would be a source of constant conflicts. Pax:Vobiscum 11:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bulgaria Squad 2004 UEFA Europe cup

The result of the debate was Delete (all) ~ Anthøny 21:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus says only World Cup templates should be on Wikipedia. — Mattythewhite 14:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 06:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous concensus. Neier 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Ytny (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also bundling the following templates:

Delete all per previous discussion. --Ytny (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, following our extensive discussion it's a pity these templates still exist. Punkmorten 14:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all' - per consensus. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 15:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i also nominated The Champions

Matthew_hk t c 15:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And what if I strongly disagree with this "consensus"? Who decided it, where is the talk page on this matter? Chudinho 19:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 9#Lets standardize national team templates, where different types of teams/templates were discussed. Neier 22:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK TV viewing figures

The result of the debate was Keep—the main reasons for deletion (WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#INFO) are not applicaple in any way ~ Anthøny 21:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Del - WP:NOT#DIR. Amazingworlds 12:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - Which part of WP:NOT#DIR does it violate? --tgheretford (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Graphs shouldn't be at the bottom of all the articles on competing stations for POV reasons, and they're not incredibly relevant to each article. The scales are different, so the images are misleading in thumbnail size. Put these in a larger size into one article devoted on the subject (see List of Australian television ratings for 2006 for an example), so they can be read properly. –Pomte 05:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too many graphs, uninterestingly grouped together. Jmlk17 06:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it violates WP:NOT#INFO, specifically #9 - Statistics — Brother Flounder 21:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete; Why the heck do we need it EVERYWHERE? Also WP:NOT#INFO. ViperSnake151 20:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Super Smash Bros. series playable characters

The result of the debate was no consensus, but a CfD might be helpful, too. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 03:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary. Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters already covers all of this information. — hbdragon88 00:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. A lot of templates are unnecessary, but useful. Templates and categories can coexist. However, Super Smash Bros. is a unique case in that it groups together a variety of characters from other series, so it's more of a stretch to connect these character articles. –Pomte 03:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Super Smash Bros. (series)#Playable characters does a nice job linking them altogether already. hbdragon88 04:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have a category and article dedicated to SSB seres characters, we don't need a template. -- Jelly Soup 06:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did anyone besides me notice that this template is more used as an SSB display rather than for article navigation? - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's like overcategorization, except more annoyingly visible. Axem Titanium 20:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a useful template, and is obviously already used. Jmlk17 06:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's redundant to the category. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful, especially for finding out which characters were in which game. 64.228.199.105 13:18, 15 May 2007

(UTC)

Keep. Template is small, non-intrusive, and easier for navigation than the category, especially in an article like Ganon, where there's five lines of gategories and it took me a bit to find the SSB Fighter category. - Silent Wind of Doom 16:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that more as a personal problem. The category is very visible, especially if you use your browsers search function. -- Jelly Soup 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles barley mention the Smash Bros games at all. All the template does is show which characters are in Smash Bros. - Takuthehedgehog 17:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Categories aren’t the only way the organize article collections, and they are not to be in competition with one another, but work together in synergy, complementing one another. The difference is how they group information. The cats can’t list the articles by subjects, but only alphabetically. The purpose of the template is easy navigation. JQF • Talk • Contribs 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update, I've re-formatted the template to be better organized and actually list all current games. This now makes ((Super Smash Bros. series)) more or less obsolete. I'd also like to point out links in the template point directly to the sections of that characters article about their appearance in the SSB games, should they exist (which they do for most), or to the character's section when they are part of a list (like Falco Lombardi), while the cat link points to a re-direct page. JQF • Talk • Contribs 19:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The template is both redundant to the list of SSB characters and the category of them. The category is used to lead people to the respective articles, and the list is for a list of all characters, including those w/o articles. What does the template do? Give a more well-designed, convenient access-point? - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These kinds of templates are useful for navigating to articles that are all closely related to a specific topic. However, in a game like SSB, the characters are so diverse that their only connection is that they were in games made by Nintendo and are in this game series. Most of the content in each character's article isn't even related to Smash Bros. Categories do a good job of compiling sets of articles that have a common thread, but aren't necessarily closely related to each other that you'd want to navigate directly from each one to another one in the category. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good navigational aid and likely to be highly used by readers. --- RockMFR 20:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel the template is much more convenient and user-friendly than the category, and allows for quicker navigation. SixteenBitJorge 23:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It links to non-articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quicker navigation is pointless, considering that the articles it links to are mostly about the characters' appearances outside the Smash Brothers games. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SixteenBitJorge.--Tempest115 00:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jtalledo, and possibly merge all sections from character articles into Super Smash Bros. (series). - Chardish 16:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a very handy guide and it doesn't take up much space (Zojo 00:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete The characters really have little to do with eachother other than appearing in a spin-off game. The odds are pretty low that someone wanting info on, say, Kirby, would then want to see an article about someone like Samus. And if they did, they can easily just go to the characters in super smash bros. article. This issue is very similar to the Nintendo franchise template from awhile ago, and it was deleted for similar reasons. 75.153.231.20 06:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep - Unnecessary doubts on whether a template that has just links often anger me. And, if only some of the characters are related, then experts, better do some cleanup and not deletion. Vikrant Phadkay 13:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting that we remove the unrelated characters thereby making the template smaller and even less useful than it is now? -- Jelly Soup 18:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I love The Smash Bros. Series, but it's just not necessary. Each article about any character can say that "this character was in such and such Smash brothers games" but we simply don't need but having a template for it. Rustyfence 21:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep - This helps me find characters when I do research. Keep it. --NapalmRiot 14:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: small, useful, non-intrusive, helps tell which characters are in which series. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 16:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Templates, categories, and lists can exist in harmony, as said in WP:CLS. This template is probably the quickest way between the articles, as it is not necessary to load another page. --Luigi Maniac 17:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not when they are patently redundant. The template provides literally no differences from the category. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and nav templates are two different methods for reader navigation. Categories do a poor job in this regard. Hence, they are mostly used for project organization. In this case, it is highly likely (in my opinion, of course) that readers will want to navigate between these articles and sections. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to have a redundant, yet highly superior, system of navigation. --- RockMFR 19:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Keep Possible. I've used this template on a number of occasions. It's a logical extension, and the category is useless. As far as I'm concerned, it's the Category that should be deleted, not the template. --myselfalso 00:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. If anything, delete the category. This is far more useful and less of a hassle to get to. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thores (talk • contribs) 5/22/07.
Keep. How many times has this template been deleted now? If it keeps getting recreated, then obviously there's some use for it. It's no different from the other templates that list characters in game series. Toomai Glittershine 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty useful for navigation around SSB-related pages. In face, I would suggest rather deleting the category instead.... --Palffy 06:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think getting rid of the category is an great idea. Most readers would probably use the template before they use the category, so what reason is there to keep the category and delete this? I know I used the template when I was just a reader, as it was quicker and shown earlier in the pages. As I said before we should keep this, but also possibly put the category up for deletion as being redundant to the template. --Luigi Maniac 12:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's more than enough to have these characters linked in the main Smash Brothers articles. This template just takes up space with information almost wholly unrelated to each article's subject. 151.201.134.209 14:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:CLS does not make categories/templates/etc exclusive. In fact, I'd prefer this template to replace the generic smash brothers template. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:32, 23 May 2007

Comment. Category:Super_Smash_Bros._fighters has been listed for deletion here.

Keep This sorts the characters in which game that they appeared into the franchise.

Delete this template IF we manage to keep the category, which is also currently up for deletion. One or the other should go; but not both. --Bishop2 19:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since in this case the template provides more information and organizes the information in a way that you can not do on one page with a category. Delete the category. Vegaswikian 19:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems unnessecary. - Joshua368 22:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like this template, because it clearly organizes the characters in a way that makes sense. -dogman15 20:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete the characters are unrelated to each other in their own pages, but maybe merge it into the super smash bros pages because it IS helpful when reading about smash brothers--MunchableSandwich 01:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infoboxneeded

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason any page should be tagged as "needing" an infobox. Nominated in light of recent bot gone bad, and in light of recent inappropriate deletion by User:Cyde. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename it to ((infoboxrequested)) then. It's not either "delete" or "keep and never change", it's not a binary choice. --W.marsh 03:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please consider change your comment to a delete+create: moves and renames are often ignored and treated as keeps. Also, if it's renamed I presume a redirect will be left.. people will just keep using the old name and doing the wrong thing with it. --Gmaxwell 03:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If someone can commit to moving all the existing templates over to the "requested" alternative with AWB then deleting this one, sure, but I don't think we should just lose all the current requests, which were made in good faith. --W.marsh 03:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of the current requests were mindlessly added either by bot or in a huge batch of WikiProject-related templates. Not much conscious thought went into any of them. --Cyde Weys 03:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I dunno... the ones I've looked at are all articles where an infobox would have been useful. Places, people, movies, albums... the kind of articles that usually have infoboxes. --W.marsh 03:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. I don't particularly care for it, either, but that's not a reason to delete it. Useful for project sorting and for those who find the infoboxes worth having. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was being put robotically onto a huge number of articles. I think we need to delete it and remove it from all pages that included it, then start over. It's absurd to think that all articles automatically need infoboxes. You can't have a robot just tag every article in a given category with it. You need a human making a conscious decision, after looking at an article, to say that an infobox is needed. But right now it's populated by a bunch of automatic inclusions, so it's worthless. --Cyde Weys 03:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So maybe that's a problem with the person running the bot, not the template. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then possibly create a ((infoboxrequested)), if it is created make it clear that it is never to be added by bots, and never to be included directly in articles since random readers won't be able to figure out our complex infobox procedures. --Gmaxwell 03:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is deletion needed to do that, though? It would just mean we'd lose a lot of existing requests (made in good faith). --W.marsh 03:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - All the ones on articles were just mindlessly added by bots as far as I can tell. --Gmaxwell 03:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The ones on the two articles I watch were added by humans... a bot was moving them from the talk pages to article pages, but I don't think bots originally added them to the talk pages. --W.marsh 03:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah is everyone getting that these templates were added to the talk pages gradually by humans, and only in the past few days did a bot come and move them all to the article pages? That's important to understand here. No one seemed to mind this template until the bot thing. --W.marsh 03:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, most were still added by robots. See this example. --Cyde Weys 03:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - One example doesn't prove that "most" were added by robots. here is one being added by a human. --W.marsh 03:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That same guy added it to every Kentucky-related city article, dozens of them, in a nearly-robotic fashion. --Cyde Weys 03:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, again, is that a problem with the template, or the user? I can go add prod tags to every random article I click on, too - that means I should be dealt with, not some deletion of the ((prod)) tag. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - He didn't add it to every Kentucky-related city article... he added it to like 15 articles, all of which seemed to have substantially more prose than the default RamBot stuff. They were clearly all articles where an Infobox would have been helpful. --W.marsh 03:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename. I changed it so it yells at you if it's on an article, and toned down the wording. It should generally not be added by a bot, though I could see members of a project deciding that all articles in a set, such as all Interstate Highways, should have an infobox, and then tagging the talk pages appropriately after human-verifying the list to ensure it only contains Interstate Highways. Then the project could use whatlinkshere on the template, restricting to talk pages, to find articles that need infoboxes, like [1]. --NE2 03:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except in practice it's not being used that way at all. It's just being added willy nilly to articles. --Cyde Weys 03:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not really a reason to delete... lots of templates can be added semi-automatically, like ((uncategorized)) or the endless project banners. If correctly applied, they still serve their purpose. If not correctly applied, then we should deal with the bot operator, not delete the template because one bot operator got it wrong. Deleting a template because it got used incorrectly is throwing the baby out with the bathwater and then some. --W.marsh 03:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But it seems that all have been added under this entirely mistaken notion that all articles need infoboxes. So the data that we have is bad. :( Even if it were true, we wouldn't need a template for it. --Gmaxwell 03:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's an assumption not really supported by the discussion so far... interstate highways, articles on places that are getting a bit long, these are all ones where an infobox would be useful. No one's shown that bots are just running around adding this template to all articles indiscriminately. At any rate, templates like ((npov)) are certainly added incorrectly on occasion... do we delete the template when that happens, or correct the misuse? --W.marsh 03:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Eh, but it has been shown that bots have been going around mindlessly adding it.. In any case, so long as it's not in the actual articles and so long as no one is actively adding it via mindless processes, I don't have any other objections. Consider my position just changed to rename. --Gmaxwell 04:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The need for an infobox really is just one person's opinion - delete and recreate as Template:Infoboxrequested. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Delete and recreate? I think you'll find we call that "keep and rename!". --kingboyk 15:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to ((infoboxrequested)). Infobox needed is certainly an incorrect name; however until such time as there is consensus to do away with infoboxes folks are entitled to request them. It ought to go without saying that this should be used on talk pages only. I have no objection to bots adding the template either, provided it's in area where there's clear consensus (such as albums). Furthermore, deleting the template is not the way to counter a bot problem! --kingboyk 15:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People are reading far, far too much into the name of this template. I would say that the greater problem is the wording of the template itself, which should be changed to say something along the lines of, "It is requested that an appropriate infobox be added to this article or...". I'm entirely neutral on the subject of renaming, which strikes me as a trivial issue compared to the incorrect content. Xtifr _tälk 18:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Solid keep, I don't care what it's called. There is a need for this template. We use infoboxes to allow readers after salient facts about some subject where there will be many notable examples to quickly extract those facts. Discussions about which namespace it belongs in belong on the template's discussion page, or anywhere but here. Daniel Case 04:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but this really belongs on the talkpage, along with all other metadata that does not point out problems a reader should be aware of. Rename is fine too. -Amarkov moo! 04:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as Amarkov says, it should probably be on talkpages instead, but is useful as it is as well. Jmlk17 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an infobox is never needed. Whether it helps an article (as it sometimes does) is a matter for those working on the article, or knowledgeable about the field. At the moment these things just seem a invitation to instruction creep - interference and inflating edit counts. Certainly such editorial requests should NEVER appear on the article itself. That's just vandalism. -Doc^g 10:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not used on articles at all: [2] --NE2 11:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The name "Infobox requested" does make more sense. This is a necessary template to allow editors to standardize similar articles. There is no reason to delete it. If it is on the article or Talk Page is debatable, however it is clear that the template on the article gets more results. Timneu22 12:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this please. Infoboxes are bad enough, without this template infesting the few articles blessedly free of them. --Tony Sidaway 18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creates a false impression that infoboxes are generally useful or required. Please simply leave article editors alone to structure information in the most useful way. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But they are useful if not required. Look at any Maryland county aritlce, and see an infobox (it's like this for most states). These look great. Then go to a Wisconsin county and you'll see no infobox. For consistency across all these articles, an infobox is needed. How can that be in dispute? Timneu22 22:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Since when have they been required? Please provide me with a link to the discussion which ended in the consensus that infoboxes are ever required. Picaroon (Talk) 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  I mistyped. I meant "if not" required. Timneu22 00:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Perhaps they are useful, perhaps not. Personally, I believe it depends on the article. Very clearly, there is no general consensus that they are useful. Articles include them on the basis of personal preference only. And the Wisconsin articles seem quite consistent. Each one lacks an infobox. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  :-D Yes, the Wisconsin articles are consistently bad. Unlike pretty much every other county in the US, they have no infobox. Too much beer and cheese up there to write quality articles, I guess. Timneu22 10:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Will ((infoboxunwanted)) be created as the counterpart to ((infoboxrequested))? Christopher Parham (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% agreement with Doc Glasgow above. Giano 18:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Doc on this completely. It's presumptive and disruptive. Since when did we all become slaves to the great Infobox Master? Eusebeus 18:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Doc and Christopher Parham. Let the people who are editing the article decide whether the page will be improved by an infobox. Taggers should tag articles, not make decisions about trivial things which go in them. If you would like to request an image, that is obviously different; it is clear to most when an article needs one, unlikely to be viewed as petty interference, and is not necessarily within the tagger's capabilities. If an infobox is really "needed," let the tagger add it themselves. In conclusion, until there is consensus that all biographies need boxes, (which there certainly isn't), let us delete this box. Picaroon (Talk) 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and let the editors of the individual page decide whether that particular article needs an infobox. Some pages "need" infoboxes more than others. I deal mostly with geographic articles and infoboxes on those articles are always needed. Perhaps an infobox on every ocsar winning actor is something that would not be "needed (or better said, wanted). But for God's sake let the individual articles' editors decide whether they want an infobox or not. Sometimes, editors just don't know that there is an infobox out there that may be helpful to them. Renaming to infoboxrequested doesn't seem right either maybe infobox suggested would be closer to the true. Those are my thoughts not yours... I'm —MJCdetroit and I approved this message. 03:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Infoboxes may be OK for asteroids or chemical elements (subjects with easily quantifiable data), but for a significant number of articles where I have seen them, they are at best redundant (including nothing not already found in the first few lines), ugly and compete with other graphical elements (images, TOC) at the top of the page in a way that disturbs the layout. In many cases, especially in biographies, they encourage the entry of inaccuracies and anachronisms by forcing the summarizing of complex article content in the form of simplistic dismembered tabular data without the necessary context and explanations. To imply that this crap is needed is ridiculous. It is better to focus on writing good, readable introductory paragraphs to all articles. Pharamond 07:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename per User:Daniel Case. Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 08:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I wouldn't object to ((infoboxrequested)). No article "needs" an infobox. Generally, they are at best redundant to information contained elsewhere that is better explained and are at worse positively detrimental. Moreschi ^Talk 10:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this has now been moved to ((infoboxrequested)), please strike out your "delete" vote. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 16:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, thank you. My previous remark was made more out of diplomacy that anything else. Those actively working on an article are the ones to decide whether they want a box or not, and they are certainly the ones who we have to trust to apply it correctly, not some bot. Moreschi ^Talk 17:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as ((infoboxrequested)). Infoboxes are not for all articles no, but the misdemeanour's of a bot isn't a good reason to delete a template. Should only be used on a talk page though. Severo^TC 11:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Doc, Eusebeus and many others. In the last few weeks the infobox problem has been massively disruptive for some of us. It really must come to a stop so that we can get back to working on on the encylopedia. No print encyclopedia has ever tried to put an infobox on every biography/article. There should be a common sense approach to using ancillary material on WP. -- Kleinzach 11:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
" No print encyclopedia has ever tried ..." WP is not a print encylopedia/ Andy Mabbett 16:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither are we an indiscriminate collection of information, or a rubbish heap for every passing inaccuracy. Moreschi ^Talk 17:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doc G, Eusebeus, Pharamond, Moreschi, Kleinzach et al. Horribly inflexible and inaccurate when applied to most biographies. Perhaps we need a template saying "This article needs an infobox like a hole in the head". --Folantin 12:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...when applied to most biographies" - this isnlt just about biographies. Andy Mabbett 16:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...agreed, but it's the "needed" bit that's worse of all. That applies to all articles. Moreschi ^Talk 17:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doc said it nicely, as have some others. Only the people actively working on an article are in a position to decide whether or not it needs an infobox. Antandrus (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Only the people actively working on an article are in a position to decide" No. See WP:OWN Andy Mabbett 16:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stuff and nonsense. This has nothing to do with ownership, since it's the ones working on an article who keep the article free of misleading information that these boxes encourage. They should be purely optional if people want them, not "needed" or "requested". Moreschi ^Talk 17:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doc put it well. If an ((infoboxrequested)) template is created I wouldn't object, though I think I'd rather have a request on a talk page explaining what it is that's missing from prose that would work better in a box. --Myke Cuthbert 13:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pharamond. Best explanation I've read yet about why infoboxes (while helpful in some places) led to distortion of information. Infoboxes need to be carefully designed, and even more carefully applied. They (along with images and tables and contents lists) should complement the text, not distort or distract from it. Carcharoth 15:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, we can change the name. Yes, we can try to educate people. No, it will not ultimately make a difference unless we change the people involved in that type of activity (the finishing, "consistency," and "polishing" of articles). The only truly consistent people are the dead, as John Ruskin said, and yet dead people are not so very consistent, either. Infoboxes are not requisite, and the template is being handled by an automated process. Let people work by hand, with their individual voices and individual judgments, and add to articles what they may. An imperious "you must" cannot stand. Geogre 19:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this should be done within WikiProjects only. While there is consensus that some classes of articles should have infoboxes (cities, highways), nobody should think there is a need to apply infoboxes to biographies or mathematical theorems. Kusma (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's a lot of articles where an infobox is appropriate in theory, but a lack of information makes it a waste of time, and there's a large number of subjects where an infobox isn't useful. -- Nick ^t 23:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to infoboxrequested; most of these deletion arguments state that the template is being used inappropriately, which is grounds for it being removed from articles where it is being used inappropriately, not grounds for deleting it (which would of course remove it from article talk pages where it is being used appropriately). — The Storm Surfer 00:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I totally agree with kingboyk and Daniel Case. I also feel that deleting this template before there is a consensus on Wikipedia concerning the use of infoboxes themselves is totally uncalled-for. S.dedalus 02:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Surely, logically, it's the other way round? -- Kleinzach 02:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really... if infoboxes are still "allowed", there shouldn't be any problem with requesting them. Get rid of infoboxes (unlikely) then there won't be a need to request them. --W.marsh 14:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep but Rename Let the editors of individual pages decide whether that particular article needs an infobox. Some pages "need" infoboxes more than others and the contributors to the specific article are probably in the best position to judge, but maybe they need a reminder to help them think about it. I do feel that infoboxes should be neither banned or required across the board on a "Project" basis as this clearly creates turf battles. Let an individual article's editor(s) decide whether he/she/they want an infobox or not. I agree with the idea floated above that "Infobox suggested" might be a good compromise for a name. Nickbigd 04:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - current usages, since they have been added in a robotic fashion to vast swathes of articles, and then rename for those specific instances in which a specific human thinks they would be particularly useful. Mak (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC) p.s. the wording should make it clear that infoboxes are not required on articles. Mak (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was originally going to say rename this (which I see Kingboyk has already done, but having read the discussion above, I agree that is the editors of an article who should decide whether one is needed, not somebody trawling through a long list of articles and tagging them anyway. If that editor feels strongly about it, they should go through the list adding them personally. After all, an incorrect/unwanted infobox is more likely to be reverted than a requested template. The point made by Christopher Parham of a ((infoboxunwanted)) template, may not be as tongue in cheek as first suggested. If a collaboration of editors decide that an infobox is inappropriate, what is to stop another editor(s) placing the requested template back again without reading the talkpage. Perhaps it could be similar to ((notstub)). Therefore, I am saying delete, and request editors to be bold and add the box themselves rather than to tell somebody else to do it for them. –MDCollins (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Some infoboxes are pretty easy to implement, but some are rather intricate and the average user has trouble setting them up. I have had many requests to fix up infoboxes in various places. In some cases it is better to state that help is needed rather than to have someone else clean up any mess later on. That said, this template should only be used by those writing the article, and not by someone else on a tagging spree. - 52 Pickup 09:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename (or Delete and Rename as above) - It is true that an infobox is not always needed, but it should be left to the editor to decide if one is needed and to place a request for one. It is also true that certain articles and infoboxes are within the scope of various projects, and many projects contain infobox requests within their project banners (see the subcategories of Category:Articles needing an infobox) rendering this particular template redundant in some, but not all, cases. These project infobox requests usually point to a list of suggested relevant infoboxes and alert project members to the request. I'm not sure if this encourages turf battles - if an editor disagrees with a project-related request for an infobox, the necessary parameter can always be cleared. If an editor does not know what project banner to use to call for an infobox, then this particular template is the only way to do it. As for the actions of that bot, that is clearly a misuse of the bot: infobox requests should never be automated as that is far too intrusive. - 52 Pickup 09:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (and rename if preferred) - some of the deletion arguments here are mindless. Deleting this template won;t solve issues of alleged inappropriately applied infoboxes, and a dislike of infoboxes in certain subject areas should not lead to the removal of a template which is is useful in other areas. If people want to stop the use of infoboxes, there are other places where such policy should be proposed. While it's common practise to use them, tools such as this should be freely available. Andy Mabbett 09:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment It seems that other editors have already moved and re-worded the template. Andy Mabbett 10:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Mak. David Underdown 09:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xtifr. While infoboxes are in no way a requirement, I don't see how their usefulness is debatable. We use them all the time in the comic wikiprojects as well as a number of other topics. I would bet that at least half of the articles on Wikipedia make use of infoboxes. But I'm getting off track. The point of a template is to inform readers and editors about information or formatting that could be used. This template serves that purpose. -- Jelly Soup 09:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tony Sidaway and Mak. The best argument I've seen for keeping this is that some infoboxes are difficult to set up for some users. In those cases, it's easy enough for the user to request help by hand. This template, on the other than, encourages mass, mindless tagging. (Renaming would not solve this problem.) Fireplace 21:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of name and regardless of article or talk-page placement (although talk-page placement would be much less obnoxious). Infoboxes are not a Good Thing, although they are frequently a necessary evil. -- Visviva 11:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unlike for instance sources and categories, infoboxes are not necessary. Punkmorten 14:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]