< April 13	April 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 section.

The result of the debate was deprecate, replace transclusions then delete. The consensus is clearly in favour of deletion; however, with that many transclusions, replacing all the links to it may take some time (unless they're all via the same template, which has been known to happen in the past). Therefore, I'll mark the template as deprecated (to prevent it gaining more transclusions) during the time while it's being replaced. --ais523 08:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Auto hp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant conversion template that can be created with the more universal and consistent ((convert)) template. — Roguegeek (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.—MJCdetroit ^(yak) 20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Templates ((Auto Hp)) and ((Auto horsepower)) redirect to ((Auto hp)) and can also be deleted if decided upon. Roguegeek (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after the 830 odd pages which transclude the template are updated with ((convert)). JЇѦρ 00:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  ... and after HP (horsepower) is added to the convert template. Or am I missing something? I was missing something: lower case. Is it bad form to create templates to cover incorrect case? This is going to happen very often, I suspect.—Mrand ^{Talk • C} 14:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As above. Lightmouse (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deprecate, replace transclusions and delete, with the same reasoning as the above TfD. --ais523 08:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Auto kW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant conversion template that can be created with the more universal and consistent ((convert)) template. — Roguegeek (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after the 130 odd pages which transclude the template are updated with ((convert)). JЇѦρ 00:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above. Lightmouse (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are redundant to ((convert)) (which has more features). They are not in use (nor do I believe they ever had been). They may be in violation of WP:UNITS with its their use of "ft³/s" as opposed to "cu ft/s". Also delete Template:Unit cbft-per-s and Template:Unit cbm-per-s, the redirects created by page moves. JЇѦρ 16:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unit cu m per s[edit]

Template:Unit cu m per s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 20:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Roguegeek (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lightmouse (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unit cu ft per s[edit]

Template:Unit cu ft per s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 20:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Roguegeek (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lightmouse (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Superimpose-text (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Completely redundant with Template:Text-superimpose. It is currently being used in one article, but it can easily be replaced. eDenE 15:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after replacing. JЇѦρ 00:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now no main article uses this template. eDenE 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Per CSD G6 or T3. ><RichardΩ612 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not just redirect it? 70.55.85.177 (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy deleted as requested by author of this template. - Darwinek (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum It's been restored and moved to Template:Infobox Country/styled sandbox, so the work on it is not lost. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Country styled (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Controvertial fork of Template:Infobox Country being used without obtaining consensus. Has the ability to display "national colours" (see here) which are (to my sensilibilities), garish, add no value to the page, and heavily politicised. — --Jza84 |  Talk  09:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: There has been some instances of canvassing to specific editors of preference which may skew results somewhat. I've marked them where I felt necessary. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I think it is wrong to use a pejorative term like canvassing here. People who are active editors on the Country Page may not even be aware of this page and this vote. It is reasonable to make them aware of it.--Snowded (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that that message left by Dracenfyre was neutral? Do you think it's right that he contacted users of preference, not the 5 or 6 who have opposed this template? Why does Wales own its own page and template and get special treatment? I thought this template was to be rolled out elsewhere? See WP:CANVASS. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to calm down. Many of us who care about the country pages were unaware that this template group existed until an attempt was made to prevent us making a minor change. Now some of us are aware we need to tell other people so that they have a vote. Drachenfyre put in most of the work so I can see he will get frustrated. I suggest both of you cool it and we get into a discussion on the talk page. If you closed this vote down that would make a major contribution to reasonable discussion as it was seen by several of us as premature and an attempt to prevent debate. --Snowded (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a standard, non-biased message left on several project or template talk pages (that I left) to ensure a fair process was followed. Drachenfyre left his partisan message at Talk:Wales too, so people know about this. I also made sure that the transcluded template included a note this was nommed for deletion. What more can I do? I note too, again, that you didn't answer my concerns over a) Drachen's message b) who he contacted and c) ownership over Wales. Also, please note, I'm perfectly calm, just robust and thorough. I believe in fair process and strong arguments, not drama, name-calling and ignorance to Wikipedia's principles. You guys seem to be doing anything and everything to keep this odd template for Wales; the pantones aren't even verifiably attributable to Wales! I suppose I need to cool down and delete that point right? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: The discussion on the talk page has started to progress from antagonism to some degree of reasonable discussion although people are still sensitive. This has been put to the vote prematurely and any action should be suspended while the discussion takes place. --Snowded (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the discussion!! Is it not hypocritical to have a discussion to slow the process down here, yet you 2 or 3 guys who created this fork held no discussion with the community as to gauge support or obtain consensus? Now I've discreditted it's colours, use, the process behind this infobox, the process behind the canvassing, you want to suspend discussion? No, I must protest. Also, it's not ok for me to use "canvassing" but I'm "sensitive antagonist"? Give me strength! :O --Jza84 |  Talk  12:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is premature - there is a discussion in the talk page without voting. You haven't discredited something (except in your own mind I don't find it convincing), you are angry because we did something in another place (the Wales page). We are now getting people together and conversation is started. There was an appeal on the talk page for people to calm down, I suggest we follow that, go back to the talk page and attempt to get a compromise. I proposed one earlier.
• Keep: allows for the display of a colorful info box border and title header. The origional idea was for something akin to the colored info boxes for islands, for example Ireland. However, others have pointed out that this will allow for country info boxes to have national colors displayed within the context of their page. It will allow for diversity of pages, while consistancy of vital information within the info boxes remain unchanged. Though not necessarily a national colors issue (editors may chose to change them at will), allowing editors this styalistic ability is more akin to chosing the style of map displayed within the info box. Examples currently include Wales, Kingdom of Gwynedd, Kingdom of Powys, Principality of Wales (note, the borders for Powys and P.o Wales page have not been minimized as yet, but they will be) ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All those examples which have no national colours by custom or tradition; those neons are purely conjectural. Simillarly, Ireland is an island not a country, and uses a different template, which still has no ugly, political, faux-national colours! --Jza84 |  Talk  09:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are so very hostile to change! Why! OMG! ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that the closing admin take note of some canvassing and incivility (eg. [1], [2]) which may skew polling. --Jza84 |  Talk  09:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You thought to sneek this in without telling the community of the issue! While we continued to be in discussions on the country info box page, and after I had asked for mediation from Deb! My goodness! I did post on the Wales portal and project pages (which have the red/green color scheme present) so as to broaden the discussion. Because you have take such alarming actions♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was never informed of any request for mediation, and was not asked to participate. However, I maintain that those diffs present problematic edits. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of corse you havent! You've taken such precipitous actions! Why would take such actions without letting the discussioin and consensus build on the Template talk:Infobox Country page? This is crazy! Its been less then 24 hours! ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apoligies: Deb is not part of the team anymore, so sent another request for mediation.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I agree with ♦Drachenfyre♦. Keep the coloured borders. cwb61 (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The country infoboxes are quite large, and the current color scheme of the info box in the Wales article is drawing far too much attention from the reader. Keep it simple and consistent. Wikipedia will not look better if every page have a different color scheme. And there is no need to enhance country colors in this way, since the flag and coat of arms is present at the top of the box. --Kildor (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Some variety is necessary for evolution. Attempts to enforce uniformity smack of excessive control and a process orientation. Please do not complain about lobbying as you put up this nomination on a site not watched by most people on the country pages who put the effort in. That is sneaky. --Snowded (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassed with this diff. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Another reason to keep this artical in place is to allow the concensus to build (one way or another) on Template talk:Infobox Country. To take it down now would destroy the work of Wikid77 who created it, and not allow others to see the example. Also, to let the mediation process work. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 11:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I realise its a major issue for people concerned about templates, and a minor stylistic issue. However it is a matter of importance to the volunteers who put time in on the country sites and to the degree of freedom allowed in Wikipedia. I can accept that some structure is required, but this is excessive control and against the spirit of Wikipedia. So if you say something like "the colour can change but it the width of the border should range between X&Y that would make sense. But one colour one size is bland uniformity. If we get this sort of control I think I will give up on removing vandalism etc on these and other pages. --Snowded (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - for goodness sake, wikipedia is not a dictatorship, why shouldn't there be a different style of box? The infobox is, after all, only a wikipedia convention, not something with a real presence in the outside world. Deb (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassed with this diff. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jza, givin your sneaky post here on a page practically no one in the wider editorial world knows about... if someone posted on the Wales portal or Wales wikiproject page, more then like I sent them a message. You can start there. I didnt get everyone... in the short time I had... but there you have it.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 11:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaky? Sneaky how? Perhaps I didn't follow the TfD process, or didn't notify any talk pages with a standard, neutral message? I don't understand why you're assuming bad faith when I've merely initiated debate. Perhaps you forgot to canvass those editors who were opposed to this template?? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unnecessary fork, discourages standardisation, encourages UGLY infoboxes (Wales!!!). Alternatively, if people want to use this as testbed for future development, it can be moved to e.g. ((Infobox country/temp)), in which case it should not be used from the main namespace. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think it looks good, and not ugly at all. I think that having a different style for Wales is just as political as insisting that the Wales article 'conforms' with other countries within the UK.--Rhyswynne (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassed with this diff. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This infobox is not an improvement on the original (which is not very pretty anyway) but this looks amateurish and does nothing for the Wales page. -Bill Reid | Talk 12:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with standard country box There should be only one country box otherwise consistent use will be impossible. I would suggest to implement this as an optional into the other countrybox (with current style as default) rather then making this fork. (Of course I can see why there is a second as there seems to be a lot of resistance against creating the optional form in the current countrybox). Arnoutf (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Wiki77 (the author) has requested on my talk page that this be speedy deleted by an admin. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 13:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this work should be sandboxed until accepted by the country WP. My personal opinion is I find the colors garish and unsustainable, but with work and refinement it might be workable. But for now it doesn't belong in the templatespace. (and yes, in the long run there should only be one box - and this isn't in a mergable state yet) --Golbez (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2008 (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.