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 Delete. Happy‑melon 17:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This template contains links to articles about five Australian model railway manufacturers, of which three are currently redlinks (a fourth is being considered for deletion). However, the main problem with this template is that it can never be complete, which means that it can never meet NPOV. In this case, categories are more appropriate as a navigational tool. –Black Falcon(Talk) 20:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why can it never be complete? Are there really that many model railway manufacturers in Australia? Grutness...wha? 00:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, but I don't see how we could know about them all. And it's also highly unlikely that all (or even most) are notable enough for an article. –Black Falcon(Talk) 01:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm frankly amazed at the things that are known by Wikipedian editors - I'm sure that someone out there would be deep enough in the cruft to list at least most of them (and there are lots of templates that are "incomplete" by that standard: try ((Northtexassports)) - would a hypothetical Forth Worth Flippers Table Tennis Club warrant an article? Would we even know about such clubs?). Also, given that there are two articles linked from this template it's not too far-fetched to think that others may be worth an article. As such, I'd say weak keep on this one. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 17 August 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 Delete. Happy‑melon 17:48, 24 August 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.
Template:European-English
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 Delete. This is political correctness gone wild; no different to CE as more 'NPOV' than AD. Wh
at about English-speaking Chineese wikipedians? Are they offended by their language as being labelle
d 'European'? A quarter of the world speaks "British English" because they are or have close relati
ons with former British colonies. Get over it :DHappy‑melon 17:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP People in Malta and Ireland speak the same English as in Britain, however they do not call it British English, they call it either Maltese English or Irish English, therefore European English is a more correct term to use as it includes other countries which use the same style of English, therefore making it more NPOV instead of pro British POV. Remember there are not only British and American editors on english wikipedia, but people from all over the English speaking world. This template respects that there are other people who use this style of English who are not British and don't even call it British English, so European English makes it more neutral, for example people may dislike that there are British English templates as they may think "what about they style of English i use, its the same as British English, but we don't call it British english". I think it fairer on all english speaking wikipedians to have a "European English" template as opposed to a "British English" template. Ijanderson (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Xeron220 (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've seen en-us and en-gb, never en-eu. Bazj (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ijanderson, or rebuild as commonwealth-english70.51.11.210 (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of the "Keep" votes address the fact that the template is only used on one article, and is unlikely to be used on many others; and that the links to European English and American and European English differences are entirely unhelpful. Neither is the argument that "European English is exactly the same as British English but for NPOV reasons we must call it European English" very convincing. And to 70.51.11.210, "Commonwealth English" is not a suitable replacement, as Canadian, Australian, and British varieties of English all differ significantly. Mike R (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, only used on 1 page. 90.216.152.126 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what Ijanderson wrote.--Avala (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ijanderson. --Son (talk) 04:18, 23 August 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.
Template:Document
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 Delete. The ultimate niche cleanup template :D. Happy‑melon 17:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time understanding the meaning of this template and how it is an image template. No uses. BJTalk 04:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it refers to the idea that a screenshot of text should be converted into text for the article. While certainly a less commonly used template, it does fulfill a possible need. The rule referred to is listed in the Manual of Style at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images as text.
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:Hollywood Freeway (US 101) exit list
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 Delete. Analysis of the discussion indicates that there was not the widespread support for this solution that would be required to validate use of WP:IAR. A clever idea, but this is not what the template namespace is for. Happy‑melon 18:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently when we added the text separately, some editors got annoyed because there are duplicates (and if one editor updates one exit list on say for example Bayshore Freeway they'd have to do it on US 101 as well). The templates solve this problem and we agreed with this. Delete this now, and be prepared to see a mess up on US 101's exit list. And as for Wikipedia:Template namespace#Usage, note that Wikipedia policies are flexible. --Splat5572 (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This template would only be used twice - is it even worth it? --Rschen7754 (TC) 04:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it's not worth it at all since i agree with you and NE2 and also it will be confusing for all new editors. --75.47.142.72 (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this template improves two articles, it is absolutely "worth it". John254 04:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this template, I say it's "worth it" as well. --Splat5572 (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rschen7754 you only nominated a tfd on this template. May I ask why you did not nominate all the other similar templates? --Splat5572 (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, because I didn't have the time? --Rschen7754 (TC) 22:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The referenced discussion took place on WT:CASH. The last 2 days of commentary by _2_ contributors was moved to a separate section to create the appearance of consensus. The actual discussion that went on for a week discussed several options. From what I can tell the actual consensus was a ((seealso|Bayshore Freeway)) type solution. For the record, this is not my preferred option, but so be it. With that said, I have no opinion on this matter.Dave (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and subst: It was a decent try, but needs to be nuked per User:Davemeistermoab comment and what I think the nominator was getting at. This shouldn't exist and was against consensus. The consensus said there should be a separate article in the main namespace with the Hollywood Freeway (on 101) exit list. -- KelleyCook (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But consensus doesn't mean we can't integrate ideas. I made the templates, Freewayguy (talk·contribs) finished the rest, and Zzyzx11 (talk·contribs) added the ((start)) to show the tables. We are all okay with this. --Splat5572 (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "We are all okay with this" is not entirely true. I only made those edits to make it easier to edit those templates. But IMO, their use is not my first preferred option. Zzyzx11(Talk) 19:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still I see no reason why it should be deleted. --Splat5572 (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this makes it harder to edit the exit list. --NE2 05:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. You can see the tables now. And when you edit the page and wish to edit Hollywood Freeway, a notice will remind you to see the template in order to edit those junctions. --Splat5572 (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does make it harder, especially for new editors. --NE2 20:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does it make it harder? All you do is go to the template and you can edit like normal. Any person familiar with WP:ELG and WP:USRD can figure it out. --Splat5572 (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep:The template was built per the discussion on WT:CASH instead of using See Golden State Freeway which confuses many people to make them jump to another article to find the list when they collde with two numbers, to have a template so it updates over two articles at once. Anyways using the tempalte will not change any kilobytes. The problem with duplicating it handwritten is people will only update one but leave out the othrs.--FreewayguyAsk?+000s 18:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's policy, you can't have templates such as these. Please, everyone involved in this dispute, consider this: whatever the outcome of the edit warring on CASH articles is, it will not affect your daily lives. Many people get too worked up on Wikipedia issues without considering that it won't affect their doctor's appointment, date with their girlfriend, or candidacy for city mayor. CL — 20:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where there's a policy that prevents us from improving Wikipedia, WP:IAR comes in. --Splat5572 (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per reasons above - Wikipedia is NOT a game of articles and other pages and it also violates the sprit of the policies. --75.47.142.72 (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we duplicate the exit list, then we then time it gets outdated, most poeple will only update one but forget about of the other one. This will be confusing to people to find which one is right. If we write See Golden State Freeway people will actually have to jump to another article, and it annoys some people, might not annoy much to me. We gone through enough warring though.--FreewayguyAsk?+000s 23:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your lying about the exit list that are outdated which is clearly not outdated and please stop asking. Your answer here is a joke to us. --75.47.142.72 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be mean please. The exitl ist can get outdate-I'm not saying it is but it might, and many people will just update one list but lieave out the other ones. See XXX can be a pain to poeple the way they have to jump to another page to find the list when one name like Hollywood Freeway colides with two numbers.--FreewayguyAsk?+000s 01:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
75.47 that is a lame reason when you said it was not a gaming system. That had nothing to do with the templates. --Splat5572 (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a lame reason Splat5572 (talk·contribs) so please stop wasting our time here. Wikipedia does not tolerate users who is gaming the system and you're the one who did that to thwart polices to everything else and you don't understand the NOT word mean so don't even say that even if you don't like it when i voted this template for deletion. You're a useless editor that wants to be a disruptive editor to illustrate a point. --75.47.142.72 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasting our time? Yeah, you got to be kidding. You're the one wasting our time. How do we know you're not "a useless editor that wants to be a disruptive editor to illustrate a point"? --Splat5572 (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm will warn you NE2 (talk·contribs), as i warned Freewayguy, Splat5572 is the sockpuppet of Artisol2345 which he is now a sockmaster of all accounts. Do not even feed the troll with him. if you make a mistake you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for 1 week or more for feeding the troll. --75.47.142.72 (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My sockpuppetry has nothing to do with the templates for deletion. In fact, your comments might be removed because your comments are now irrelevant to this discussion. --Splat5572 (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all these exit list templates. --75.47.141.93 (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
75.47 stop voting. I think you should take anger management class. You seem even worse then the way you were before. You just come here and slurring around, and make everyone feel uncomfortable.--FreewayguyWhat'sup? 18:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Freewayguy acted like me (which he pretty much doesn't), then we would be meatpuppets, not sockpuppets. It's pretty much evident that you do not have a thorough understanding of sockpuppetry; read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry so you don't have to make all these annoying comments. --Splat5572 (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have anything to do with DR? it's all your vote to delete, and most of your comments is off-topic.--FreewayguyWhat'sup? 04:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stay on topic. 75.47's comment have nothing to do with this deletion debate.--FreewayguyWhat'sup? 23:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure what to make of this, because there are a number of other articles (which happen to be lists) which use templates for tables because of the massive size of the lists. However, in this case, this isn't a very long list. So, I think this template is unnecessary. Also, I'd like to note that the above conversation is the most bizarre exchange I've seen in a deletion discussion. No one should be making threats of being indefinitely banned in this manner. --Son (talk) 04:14, 23 August 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.