< October 2	October 4 >

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 --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:24Trivia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:24-in-universe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I see no benefit to WikiProject-specific cleanup tags for either the articles or the WikiProject, and I think it sets a bad prescedent. delldot ∇. 00:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There aren't that many 24-specific articles, I see no reason why they should have their own. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neither of these templates are even being used on pages anymore (we have deleted most trivia sections or implemented things into the articles properly). And they standard templates ((Trivia)) and ((in-universe)) serve the same purpose. SeanMooney (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are no uses for these templates as the templates mentioned above serve the same purposes. WikiProject's should just use the templates already set up. If anyone is not happy about these templates deletions, lets just simply say "deal with it". Whats next, an original research template specifically for Power Rangers?. Mythdon (talk) 07:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Standard templates are always better. We can apply changes to the text of them, more people can participate in improving the article, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:35, 10 October 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 --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:24Plot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't think each wikiproject needs its own cleanup tags, I can't think of any reason why this benefits the article or the project, and it seems like this could get way out of control fast. delldot ∇. 22:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think the project created to have a control of the articles it wants to improve. I think they can use lists instead of creating templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Magioladitis is correct, that is the reason they were originally created. I am the current project leader and I agree these aren't necessary - it's just the same template as ((Plot)) but with a 24 logo basically. There's three other ones (((24Trivia)), ((24CleanupFlag)), ((24-in-universe))) that should also be converted over to the standard cleanup tags and then deleted. SeanMooney (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Good call. I actually had nominated ((24CleanupFlag)) on 9/26, but I'll nominate the other two in a new one now. delldot ∇. 00:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As I explained a while ago, these templates give the project authority over the cleanup tags that are standard practice. I don't believe this is a healthy precedent. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The template is redundant to the already existing template that serves the same purpose. In fact, WikiProjects should just stick with the standard templates already set up. Not create their own variations. If any of WikiProject 24's members aren't happy about this templates deletion and request its re-creation, lets just simply say "deal with it". Mythdon (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Somewhat merge Project-specific tags have existed in the past, and the solution to the situation was to add a category parameter to the parent template (in this case, Template:Plot). This allows for easier maintenance of maintenance tags (zomg) and allows WikiProjects to have easier access to what articles need attention. Everybody wins. -- Ned Scott 22:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then be prepared for many projects to follow this example. And they are tenths. --- Magioladitis (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the comment... -- Ned Scott 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine if every project wants to have its own tags. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:56, 8 October 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 Infobox divisions of Sarawak, Infobox districts of Selangor, and Infobox Federal Territory of Malaysia; no consensus on Subdivisions of Malaysia, Infobox districts of Malaysian states. delldot ∇. 00:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC) All Redundant to ((Infobox Settlement)):[reply]

• Template:Infobox divisions of Sarawak (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - only eleven transclusions.
• Template:Infobox districts of Selangor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - no transclusions.
• Template:Subdivisions of Malaysia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 13 transclusions.
• Template:Infobox Federal Territory of Malaysia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - one transclusion.

Also worth considering:

• Template:Infobox districts of Malaysian states (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) more, but < 50, transclusions.

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Keep in mind the articles which the templates are trancluded in are on states, and districts and divisions of the states; as I recall, China, Japan and Pakistan seem to be doing fine with their own infoboxes. However, three of said articles are on Federal Territories that happen to double as cities AND state-like divisions in the country, which is probably why this TfD was initiated.

Even so, I would preferably keep ((Subdivisions of Malaysia)) and ((Infobox districts of Malaysian states)), and delete the rest. ((Infobox Federal Territory of Malaysia)) is clearly redundant to ((Subdivisions of Malaysia)), as ((Infobox divisions of Sarawak)) and ((Infobox districts of Selangor)) are to ((Infobox districts of Malaysian states)). - Two hundred percent (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

((Infobox Settlement))'s lack of support for certain fields in the nominated templates is also a factor for my reluctance to endorse a deletion, unless the fields are included into ((Infobox Settlement)) or a standardise template for states or districts. - Two hundred percent (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Can you list those unsupported fields, easily (if not, I'll put together a list). Then we can see whether they can be included, or whether a suitable alternative exists. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

• State anthems (((Subdivisions of Malaysia)) under "anthem").
• Ruling party and history of the states' soveignty (((Subdivisions of Malaysia)) under "ruling_party" and "sovereignty_type"). These fields could be intergated into the "Politics" and "History" sections if possible, but the general rule is they are acceptable in an infobox as summaries.
• National calling codes (((Subdivisions of Malaysia)) under "national_calling_code") Listed in ((Infobox Settlement)).
• National postal codes (((Subdivisions of Malaysia)) under "national_postal_code") Listed in ((Infobox Settlement)).
• License plate prefixes (((Subdivisions of Malaysia)) under "license_plate")

- Two hundred percent (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, please see Template talk:Infobox Settlement#Merging properties from Subdivisions of Malaysia. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are six "blank" properties in ((Infobox Settlement)), which can be labelled as needed; will these not suffice? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malacca Melaka Darul Azim
State of Malaysia
Flag Coat of arms
Motto:  Bersatu Teguh
Malacca Sultanate	15th century
Portuguese control	24 August 1511
Dutch control	14 January 1641
British control	17 March 1824
Government
• Yang di-Pertua Negeri	Mohd Khalil Yaakob (UMNO)
• Ketua Menteri	Mohd Ali Mohd Rustam
Area
• Total	1,650 km2 (640 sq mi)
Population  (2007)
• Total	~733,000
• Density	432.1/km2 (1,119/sq mi)
• Estimated rank	6?
National postal code	75xxx to 78xxx
National calling code	222
Licence plate prefix	M
State anthem	Melaka Maju Jaya
Website	http://www.melaka.gov.my

Wasn't aware of that. But as demonstrated, the template is far from perfect in migration if ((Infobox Settlement)) is maintained in its current form, and I haven't compared it with the districts template yet. I would like to resolve this on ((Infobox Settlement))'s talk page before making a conclusive decision here. - Two hundred percent (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, see you there ;-) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 22:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAIL at generating a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. :P delldot ∇. 05:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for his reply too. Either the nominator is busy working on something else or busy working out how to integrate fields in these templates into ((Infobox Settlement)). - Two hundred percent (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I certainly wasn't criticizing you, your participation was very helpful. I was hoping for participation from others, but I guess this just isn't a very interesting topic to the other 600,000 or so editors :P delldot ∇. 06:16, 12 October 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. delldot ∇. 06:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simpsons character2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Redundant to ((Simpsons character)). The only difference is that it contains "Last appearance" , which is not really needed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Magioladitis (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, duplicate repeated redundancy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. This template is completely redundant to Template:Simpsons character thus making this template useless. I don't even think Template:Simpsons character should exist as Template:Infobox character does the job just as good thus making that template redundant to Template:Infobox character. I have even nominated Template:Simpsons character for deletion. Mythdon (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:41, 9 October 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. delldot ∇. 06:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BttFCharacterNon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan. Exact copy of ((BttFCharacter)). -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Magioladitis (talk) 20:41, 3 October 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. delldot ∇. 06:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CanadaCoatsOfArms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned (unless subst'd), replaced by ((Heraldry in Canada)). Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 13:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nominator. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 13:51, 3 October 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 keep. delldot ∇. 06:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Missing fields (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template informs that some fields of an infobox are not used. This is an editorial matter of little relevance for readers, it doesn't legitimate a mainspace template. It may be possible to use it on talk pages instead, though. Cenarium ^Talk 12:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is a talk page template. Any uses in the main article space should just be removed. -- Ned Scott 22:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see the confusion here, most of the uses were in the main space. I've removed them and placed the banner on the talk pages. We should be able to do one of those namespace-check tricks to help prevent this in the future. Thinking about it, a better method might be to not use this template at all and instead use a maintenance parameter for a WikiProject, or simply use a hidden category. Or, force open empty fields in said templates, which will alert editors and readers that something is blank and not yet filled out. This is the technique used for Template:Episode list. -- Ned Scott 22:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had forgot this one. I see, thanks for doing that. I concur with your reasoning. It's not particularly useful, but deletion is unneeded, as long as it's used and not deprecated. Most infoboxes are incomplete though, having this template or not won't change much. Cenarium ^Talk 22:49, 11 October 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 no consensus. delldot ∇. 06:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:About lists of countries and territories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is in essence a dictionary definition prepended to a handful of list articles. It isn't an appropriate way to disambiguate pages. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also violating wp:selfref currently.

However, it's being used in 4 featured articles (out of its 9 mainspace uses), which should be taken into consideration (many people must find it helpful in some way, to pass that many peer-reviews without a deletion attempt before this one).

Perhaps it could be usefully transformed into a "notes" or "see also" section template?

Keep but actively improve (for my !vote) -- Quiddity (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's being used in four featured lists; WP:FL criteria is considerably less strict than WP:FA is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It might just be better to include this bit of info in the pose of the article itself, in the same way any explanation is given in the lead to say what the list is about. -- Ned Scott 22:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and discuss. This isn't for TfD, it's a question of how to best phrase the difficulties involved. I don't see how it violates wp:selfref, we have many notices of this kind. It can always be put in ((Selfref)). --dab (𒁳) 08:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It looked like this until 24 hours before Chris/Thumperward nominated it for TfD, when he changed its visual style. Which seems like a purposefully-misleading action, to me. (?)
  In its old style, it's more obvious why it violates selfref. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • ahem, how is reacting to concerns by improving the template a "misleading action"? --dab (𒁳) 18:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per rationale in nom. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:36, 10 October 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.