< January 1	January 3 >

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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quicksort CODE BLOCK 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not needed at article it was destined for (Quicksort); can safely be deleted, I think. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 23:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused and unneeded. Terraxos (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unneeded, whether or not used. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2009 (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 discussion was Delete (template overkill). The template will be deleted after it is removed from all pages. Ruslik (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1989-1997 Batman film series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is most definitely not a proper use of templates. A template for the "1989-1997 Batman film series" might be fine, but this is way too much. The template lists pretty much all main actors of all the four films, most of the crew, all the songs, all the video games, all locations, all amusement rides(!), etc. As a result of this, the template is used on more than 130 articles, like Uma Thurman, Bo Welch, Kiss from a Rose and EFilm. This is overkill. --Conti|✉ 22:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what! This template is the most in-depth one in relation to the Burton-Schmuacher Batman films on Wikipedia. Naturally, with four films, numerous characters to be featured, and different production crews, there's going to be a wealth of information. The video games and other sorts of merchandise (which typically don't get as much coverage as the films themselves), are purely an expected offshoot of this. The soundtrack also falls under this table. TMC1982 (talk) 1:03 a.m., 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Split - It is a useful template, listing the people involved in the Batman film series, but is large. I think that it should be split into nine templates:
  • 1989-1997 Batman film series cast
  • 1989-1997 Batman film series characters created for the films
  • 1989-1997 Batman film series crew
  • 1989-1997 Batman film series music
  • 1989-1997 Batman film series video games
  • 1989-1997 Batman film series Batmobiles
  • 1989-1997 Batman film series vehicles, items, and gadgetry
  • 1989-1997 Batman film series sets and locations
  • 1989-1997 Batman film series amusement rides and stunt shows

There's already individual templates for Batman related video games, the Batmobiles and what not, so giving them their own template as you suggest would be pretty redundant. Plus, why should a there be an individual template for the characters created for the films, when there's pretty limited number to begin with? TMC1982 12:57 a.m., 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The related articles section can be simply placed as it's own section in the appropriate articles. 70.21.170.130 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm pretty sure that almost all of those would be deleted in further TfD's if they would be created. --Conti|✉ 23:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I can see at least one way that the template would sill wind up on ~130 articles, but with a smaller footprint on each one. I still wouldn't agree with about roughly 1/2 of what's currently in the template being retained or spun off into separate templates. Crew, Locations, Music, "Props", and "Spin off material" seem to be almost entirely over kill. This and its siblings - ((1966-1968 Batman television series)) and ((Christopher Nolan Batman film series)) - have a kernel of a useful concept. But they either need a drastic cull down to a functional size or a deletion and re-work from scratch. - J Greb (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to complate about how this particular template is overkill, then you might as well do the same for all of other film related templates on Wikipedia. This Batman template isn't the only one (e.g. Back to the Future, Terminator, Rocky, Spider-Man, X-Men, etc.) that mentions the movies, actors, crew, msuic, and other sorts of marketing tie-ins like video games or theme park attractions. TMC1982 (talk) 1:07 a.m., 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - this is another in a long series of template overkill that is just cluttering up far too many pages. Sections of this that like amusement rides and video games are only tangentially related to the films themselves and really add nothing to most articles this template is on. Beyond my growing aversion to the template jungle, this is too much. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key is that they're related (regardless of how you want to define it) to the films in question, instead of merely having the Batman namesake. Don't you think that people visting Wikipedia, want to have easier access to the info about the Batman Returns video game or the Batman & Robin roller coster rides and what not!? TMC1982 (talk) 1:10 a.m., 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - See comment above, template overkill. Garion96 (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Template overkill. —Markles 00:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to complate about how this particular template is overkill, then you might as well do the same for all of other film related templates on Wikipedia. This Batman template isn't the only one (e.g. Back to the Future, Terminator, Rocky, Die Hard, Spider-Man, X-Men, etc.) that mentions the movies, actors, crew, msuic, and other sorts of marketing tie-ins like video games or theme park attractions. This template is the most in-depth one in relation to the Burton-Schmuacher Batman films on Wikipedia. Naturally, with four films, numerous characters to be featured, and different production crews, there's going to be a wealth of information. The video games and other sorts of merchandise (which typically don't get as much coverage as the films themselves), are purely an expected offshoot of this. The soundtrack also falls under this table. There's already individual templates for Batman related video games, the Batmobiles and what not, so giving them their own template as you suggest would be pretty redundant. Plus, why should a there be an individual template for the characters created for the films, when there's pretty limited number to begin with? The key is that they're related (regardless of how you want to define it) to the films in question, instead of merely having the Batman namesake. Don't you think that people visting Wikipedia, want to have easier access to the info about the Batman Returns video game or the Batman & Robin roller coster rides and what not!? TMC1982 (talk) 1:30 a.m., 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to cover the basics:

• The fact that other templates are as overboard does not make this the right approach and those templates should also be looked at for clean up or removal.
• There is a difference between "in depth" and "trivial", "tangential", or "non-notable association". A lot of what is currently in the template falls into the last three categories.
• The navboxes should be easy to navigate. This one is an example of too much information making the 'box hard to use.

As I pointed out, there is a fundamental good idea here, it's just that 'box needs to be deflated back to that. That can be done by either removal of extraneous articles, restructuring how the template is coded to limit its "footprint" in article, or a combination of the two. There is a strong argument for removals to be a mandatory part of reworking the 'box. - J Greb (talk)

• Split split it into Tim Burton Batman film series and Joel Schumacher Batman film series like the Template:Christopher Nolan Batman film series is--Yankees10 01:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or split - far too large to be useful as a navigational template, most of these links will be trivial or irrelevant on most of these pages. I wouldn't have a problem with smaller, more specific templates (e.g. ((Batman films)), ((Batman video games)), ((Batman music)), ((Batman amusement park rides))) where appropriate. Terraxos (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All All but 89-97, rework 89-97. For reasons covered above for this one, Delete all four templates:Template:1989-1997 Batman film series, Template:Christopher Nolan's Batman film series, Template:Tim Burton's Batman film series, Template:Joel Schumacher's Batman film series. All are so thoroughly overstocked, including real world buildings appearing in scenes as OTHER buildings.. buildings are actors now? Some of what's in the templates isn't even in the articles, because it's trivial. ThuranX (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • I have adjusted my preference to reflect that I agre wit hothers that 89-97 can be distilled to a usable size, but that we do NOT need multiple templates for four movies. Also agree that a massive reduction in the number of pages on which it is applied is called for. ThuranX (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The hostile comments left by TMC1982 at both my tlak page and Conti's are disruptive to this TfD. ThuranX (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity's sake the difs are:

• ThuranX's talk page - over 2 edits after ThuranX's comment.
• [Conti's talk page - over 8 edits kicking off at about the same time as TMC1982's initial comment to this TfD.
• [Wildhartlivie's talk page - over 2 edits, also having a concurrent start with TMC1982's comments here.

It's also worth noting that TMC1982 created ((Tim Burton's Batman film series)), ((Joel Schumacher's Batman film series)), and ((Batman amusement rides and stunt shows)) in response to this TfD, as well as de-linking ((1989-1997 Batman film series)) from the originally transcluded articles. I'd put forward that:

1. If this closes as a "Delete" for the "1989-1997" template, that it and its "replacements" all be deleted; or
2. If this closes as "Rework" to limit the articles included on the "1989-1997", that such a limitation be applied to the replacement navboxes.

- J Greb (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is absolutely no reason to have 4 separate Batman series templates. It's just clutter. Most of the information is redundant. Just combine them all into one and then delete the remaining ones. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*comment I've had a simple first pass at culling the dross from the 89-97. It can be done, but I'll hold off on more until this is closed. ThuranX (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my above comment; TMC1982 has objected to any such editing down. Since that means that any templates which 'surive' TfD would be constnatly restored to their bloated form, just Delete all of them. ThuranX (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I objected to any such "editing down" (you're putting words in my mouth). I don't like the exact way you edited (which I consider to be way too selective in certain areas) it to be brutally honest. TMC1982 (talk) 4:50 p.m., 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Far too large to be of any use presenting as it does a wall of text. I have to agree with others that there are too many of these templates around, many of which don't add much in the way of usability to articles. --Deadly∀ssassin 07:40, 17 January 2009 (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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future Paperless Tickets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too specific, only used in one article, but just a bad reason to have a template. Garion96 (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This template is easily replacable with ((future)). It's like making a template about a specific upcoming type of car or something. --.:Alex:. 21:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This template isn't too specific. There are many similar templates, and none are too specific. It is simply specific, and is better than placing a generic template on the article. This template improves the article in question, and should be kept.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.170.130 (talk • contribs) 17:05, January 2, 2009
• Delete Not very useful, too specific. --Conti|✉ 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - standardise on ((future)). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too specific. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's a single transclusion, and it's on top of material that already makes it fairly obvious that it's describing a future deployment. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Redundant and superfluous, copying the functionality of ((future)) -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposed Change From Future:Paperless Tickets To Future:Paperless Documents, or Future:electronic payment By Owner --Koman90 (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That, er, doesn't solve the problem. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Creator Understood, I will take greater consideration into the creation of temporal templates before creating them, for the Compass card article i will find a less specific template to post until the program is fully launched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koman90 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note for future reference, but you aren't its "owner". You are its creator, but no one owns any article, mainspace template, etc, no matter how much they have done with it. :)

• Delete Too specific and seems fairly useless all things considered. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:08, 5 January 2009 (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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ABC Utah (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one link of any significance, the 'see also' section can be added to the article. Unused RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - One link does not a template make. Delete and replace (on KTVX page) with ((SLC TV)). - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 2, 2009 @ 17:16
• Delete - as above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:24, 3 January 2009 (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 discussion was Keep. I do not see a consensus for the deletion. However it may be advisable to redesign it using ((Infobox Settlement)) as a meta template. Ruslik (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Province or territory of Canada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox Settlement)). Only 13 article-space transclusions. —Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not just make it an Infobox Settlement usage then? DoubleBlue (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. I'm not sure how this is any different than ((Infobox U.S. state)). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not really a valid argument to keep it. Consolidation into a single mastertemplate seems useful. --Dschwen 01:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dschwen - if that's a call to delete, please mark it explicitly as such, Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there are only 13 provinces and territories in Canada. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Could be deleted. It could be deleted if Andy wishes to do all of the standardizing. I did Quebec to see if it would work and how it looked and then reverted it (see diff here). If needed, Infobox Settlement could be adjusted (like the timezone field). —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 15:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion should be based on the merits of the case; there is no requirement for any individual to carry out some task or other. This is a wiki - if the community decides that a redundant template should be deleted, then the community will carry out the necessary conversions; whether that's me or other editors. It's not as though I sit idly by, making deletion suggestions without any other contribution to Wikipedia. That said, thank you for showing that ((Infobox Settlement)) renders the template in question redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: "13 article-space transclusions", aren't there only 13 Canadian provinces/territories? –Howard the Duck 16:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are too many differences between the Provincial infobox/template and ((Infobox Settlement)) - there is no redundancy. As to the number of times it's used - 13 is the correct number, as others have noted. PKT(alk) 23:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no suggestion that the figure of 13 is incorrect; that is merely an indication of the low number of conversions to be made if the template is deleted. What differences are there, that you think could not be incorporated into ((Infobox Settlement))? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 03:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because this is backwards to the way I'd like to see this done. I generally prefer templates to be more general and useful across many articles to simplify the number of templates editors need to know but it is highly unlikely that new articles will need use of this infobox so that's not a real concern here. Sometimes when infobox templates get too general, they get overly complicated to use and lose special characteristics that are useful in special areas or add useless or redundant information that is equally insensitive to the situation. Infobox Settlement strikes me as one of these "too general" infoboxes. It certainly seemed complicated as I sought to go through and test its use for Northwest Territories as an example. The way this should have been done, in my opinion, is to raise the issue on the template talk, article talk, or related WikiProject discussion and then actually replace the infobox on the articles. Once consensus finds this use is acceptable, then nominate the orphaned template for deletion. Or one could make this template simply pass the parameters on to Infobox Settlement as a meta-template. There is nothing wrong with this template as it is and thus no reason to delete. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dozens of redundant templates have already been merged into ((Infobox Settlement)) in this manner. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep 78.148.91.80 (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No reason? This is not a vote. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with every other subnational entity infobox (these, among others such as ((Infobox U.S. state))) and create ((Infobox Subnational entity)) (or whatever title). The settlement Infobox is for settlements, not political units covering large tracts of land. It's bad enough the settlement infobox has been stretched to apply to counties and districts. vıdıoman 20:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The opening sentence of the documentation of ((Infobox Settlement)) states unequivocally (my emphasis): "This template can be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, etc. - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country…". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Then every subnational entity infobox, (these, among others such as ((Infobox U.S. state))) as well as ((Infobox Indian Jurisdiction)) and ((Infobox Australian Place)) and any other similar infobox should be merged. I don't quite have the time to do this, I'll leave it up to you. vıdıoman 12:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Working on it… Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and convert this into an intermediate template which calls ((Infobox settlement)), getting the best of both: standardize the graphics and names of headings and field, but omit fields irrelevant to Canadian provinces and territories. At the same time, some superior qualities of ((Infobox province or territory of Canada)) can be rolled into the general template: only boldface table section headings, and not any subheadings and data, get rid of the ugly hyphen bullet points altogether, put the population rank next to the heading, split combined GDP cells into three rows, split website into header and data fields. (And for goodness' sake, let's normalize the capitalization of both template names—only capitalize the first word and proper names so we can just type them in normal English.) —Michael Z. 2009-01-08 17:51 z
  • If you wish to redesign ((Infobox Settlement)) this is not the forum; you should raise your suggestions in that regard (which appear to have merit) on its talk page. Likewise the naming policy for templates. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope: there is no real justification for keeping this template as is—but neither should it be replaced with the status-quo {Infobox settlement}, which would degrade the appearance of 13 important articles' infoboxes just a bit. I will only support an alternative which makes things a bit better, and not in any way worse. (But naming is separate, and I will bring it up in the right places.) —Michael Z. 2009-01-08 19:19 z
• ((Infobox Settlement)) was designed for cities and towns — extending its use to Canadian provinces and territories, to me, dilutes its intended purpose and has the potential to vastly overcomplicate its coding. While I wouldn't necessarily object to, for example, a properly-designed template which standardized the appearance of the various first-order divisional templates (Canadian provinces, US states, Australian states, etc.) while using option flags to permit the necessary differences, ((Infobox Settlement)) isn't the right merge target for ((Infobox Province or territory of Canada)). While I agree that there are far too many unnecessary templates serving similar functions that can be merged together with current Wikipedia functionality, we also need to recognize when we're merging too far, and making templates do too many different things at once. Oppose current proposal, but favour Vidioman's alternate suggestion. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be in favour of merging into ((Infobox Subnational entity)) too, along with this template's better typographic design. —Michael Z. 2009-01-10 05:26 z
  • Again: the documentation for ((Infobox Settlement)) states clearly (my emphasis) that it is "for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, etc. - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country…" Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: discuss usage of another template (such as ((Geobox Region))), get the transclusion count to zero before nominating a template used in high visibility articles. --Qyd (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not suggested grounds to circumvent due process with a 'speedy keep'; and there are no such grounds. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• why cant wikipedia just get rid of this legalese crap and develop a patch-based system for anything that might be quite a change? a way to make changes to a virtual instance and then propose an exact change. Otherwise these arguments are the most bullshit beurocratic things ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.88.167 (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've placed examples of the two infoboxes on one page so that people can compare them; using the edits by MJCdetroit, referred to above. This demonstrates that conversion is feasible, and should settle some of the concerns raised above. My view in that the Settlement infobox has the better visual appearance, overall. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what you've done, but this is a misrepresentation. The infobox in the article Quebec looks much better than the one in your comparison. —Michael Z. 2009-01-10 19:19 z
    • Try now - I've removed a spurious class from the parent table; both templates were affected equally. Feel free to check my mark-up (including the wrapping table, which did give me some problems). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Andy, that looks much better. Sorry to sound huffy, there. —Michael Z. 2009-01-10 21:36 z
      • Questions: Can you make the Settlement example as thin as the P/T of Canada example? Is there a way to put a divider between sections in the free fields area? (ie a field to add a divider at any point in the infobox?) Can the UTC display problem be fixed? (Allow multiple time zones for jurisdictions that cover a large area?). Thunder Bay District, Ontario has another example of the multiple time zone display error that should be fixed before this is implemented. vıdıoman 00:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply to Questions: Being thinner? Technically it could, but realistically no because the minimum size has almost become standard and it allows the infobox to grow if needed (with the use of   or ((nowrap))). Timezones: Yes I think so as I mentioned above. Dividers between free fields: Hell of an idea! I'll try. I've got a few ideas to make that happen... thanks. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 02:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connormah (talk • contribs) 02:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No reason? This is not a vote. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I don't see why it needs to be deleted. It's a useful addition to the bottom of provincial pages and whatnot to link to the other provinces, and it is just as useful and as any other infobox on the site. NeonFire (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to be referring to ((Provinces and territories of Canada)) and not the template in question. How did you come across this debate? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:51, 11 January 2009 (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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NMI Delegates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary Navbox. There's only one person on the list and it will probably not add a new one for at least four years. —Markles 13:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and recreate if/when there are enough people to warrant a navbox. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with the above comment.

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 discussion was Keep. Ruslik (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Italian people (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Made redundant by Template:Italian diaspora, Template:Immigration to Italy and Template:ItalianLanguage. Contains a mix of subsections not strictly related to the template's topic. Also quite POV (see Italian irredentism and Greater Italy in the template). Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think that this template is separate from those because none of them quite fill the role this one does. Statue2 (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Could you clarify that? Almost every topic it covers is treated more accurately in another template, all that's left out are nationalistic rants. If an article is about the Italian diaspora, one will use the Template:Italian diaspora; if it's about ethnic groups in Italy, Template:Immigration to Italy and so on. Using this template to jump from one article to another is pointless, if not outright deceiving (for one, Italian Romanian and Romanian Italian). If you really insist on keeping it, could you care to explain me how Italian irredentism, Demographics of Italy and Religion in Italy are related to the main article Italian people? Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per above. 70.21.170.130 (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Same reasons of Statue2.--DuilioM (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subsections are related to template's logic. Good to jump from one subsection or article to another.--Againstantism (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2009 (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 discussion was deleted G6 by User:NawlinWiki. JPG-GR (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kaleb Wilson projects (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template created for non-notable film-maker, only used for pages in User space. Beardo (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I think this qualifies for speedy deletion actually.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: Moved to be a User-page only article. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now it's been userfied. Terraxos (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2009 (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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bukidnon State University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless template of mostly redlinks (now removed), two redirects to unrelated articles, and one article currently up for CSD as it is nothing but a personal drawing showcases (seriously). Template is not actually used in the main BSU article, but is just a personal creation of a disruptive editor. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The only article the template contained at the time of nomination has since been deleted (A7), making this template completely redundant. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 12:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Completely redundant and no encyclopedic purpose. – ukexpat (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - Only one link left, and it is red. Useless. 70.21.170.130 (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally useless, only one red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:24, 7 January 2009 (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.