< January 27	January 29 >

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. The discussion is mainly centered around the use of icons, not the template itself, which other templates (mainly ((flagicon))) highly rely upon. Such discussion is better held at the template's talk pages. — Edokter • Talk • 19:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added note: Combined nominations are not a very good way to determine a choice between two templates/icons. I advise that each template be nominated seperately in order to establish a more clear consensus in the future. Having said that, there is no prejudice against relisting. — Edokter • Talk • 23:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Earth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Also ((Country data World)) .As per as per WP:OR and Wikipedia:ICONDECORATION#Inventing_new_icons. I've tagged the talk pages as i was unable to tag the template itself Gnevin (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Gnevin[reply]

• Keep See this article here for an example of how this has been used; the icon hasn't been made up - it's a map of the world - a suitable proxy for the earth, which, as you noted, doesn't have a logo. It's not in any way comparable to the North American Flag cited in the MOS guideline Wikipedia:ICONDECORATION#Inventing_new_icons and is clearly OR. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Strong Keep. Looking at MOS:ICON I can see the guideline itself is disputed and currently being discussed; this template is clearly in use at the moment and it is premature to propose it for deletion until that discussion on the guideline is resolved. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Strong Keep for "World" and Delete for Earth per Andrwsc: clearly we only need one icon and the former is the better one. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment When ,where and who decided on behalf of the world that the world needed a flag and When ,where and who agreed to it ? Gnevin (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply The question is irrelevant. When you propose something for deletion you need to show a reason in line with Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Reasons_to_delete_a_template this. The only reason given was based on a line in a disputed guideline which doesn't really fit with this example. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for "Earth" and Neutral for "World". In both cases, these templates render placeholder images ( and respectively) where national flag icons are typically used, but to represent the concept of "worldwide". For example, some articles on films use them in infoboxes to represent worldwide distribution, and some lists use them on table footer rows to indicate worldwide totals. I think they should be removed in the first case (per WP:MOSFLAG), and could be removed in the latter, as the "World total" rows in those tables don't necessarily need icon images. If spacing is a concern (i.e. the desire is for "World" to left-align with nation names (which all have flag icons), then ((noflag)) can be used. But if there is consensus to keep at least one of these icon templates, I strongly suggest that "World" is the only one kept (i.e. do a merge). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see this template as a handy tool - not more. It is certainly not the flag of the world. Who would have come to this idea anyway. It is simply an icon that conveys the message this here is dealing about the world as a whole, and I think it conveys the message quite fine. In the articles that concern me, I would not like to miss the.

A very ugly thing in my eyes is the current message attached to the template. Just put yourself in the perspective of the 99% of Wikipedia users, who have nothing to do with editing, and the concepts we are talking about. When they see the message that this template is currently discussed, they get confused in a multitude of different ways. So, I would like to close this discussion and remove the ugly message. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment certainly not the flag of the world. Who would have come to this idea anyway. I know its crazy, I mean the template mainly ever used in list with flags, its a flag size and shape and it uses the flag template. How people could think its a flag is beyond me Gnevin (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This icon is used where flags of countries are otherwise used. That doesn't make it a flag. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge the two together. I don't see why global whatever can't be represented with an icon, though the title for the template is a misnomer, but it is part of a series, so reasonable. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ((Country data Earth)), Weak Keep on ((Country data World)). I'm uncertain about the need for an icon to represent the whole world, but insofar as one is needed, the latter is definitely the better one; it's simply a map of the world, whereas the former gives the false implication that it's some kind of official 'flag of Earth'. Terraxos (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps might be a better icon? Less likely to confuse with a flag, perhaps. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a strong inclination to keep the world icon. So, can we please remove the ugly label that it is being discussed. I take care of some lists where it is used and this message is really an annoyance. It takes three times more space than the template itself. I see that the earth icon, which I do not care about, is much more controversial. So, keep discussing it (remove it, merge it with the world icon), but let us conclude that the world icon may be used. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This tool is really useful in a lot of articles. We should keep both and end this discussion as soon as posible. The template, so as the are really used in the Wikipedia. We don't need to erase one. --Aguilac (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I completely agree with Aguilac. --190.100.110.126 (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC) --Koala (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: We shouldn't make up things, including a world flag, and they are both used as such wherever I saw them.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The world icon is a very useful tool, it should not be removed. Regarding the guidelines, it is not a "new icon", it's the map of the world. I agree with Andrwsc to say that would be a better image, more easily recognized as the map of the world and not a flag icon. MrPhelps (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the world icon, it is frequently used (this TFD discussion is making a ton of lists look ugly) and serves its purpose well. The earth icon I don't really care about - don't see where it would be used that the world icon isn't already, and it's uglier than the world icon. TastyCakes (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete earth/Keep world. No need to go making up "flags of earth". Protonk (talk) 14:44, 7 February 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 result Delete --Magioladitis (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Catherine Britt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on three pages. No potential for further use, as there seem to be no sources to verify the track listing of Little Wildflower and none of the songs are notable enough for their own pages. Falls below my rule of five. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What rule of five, and where does this link into the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - unless anyone plans to create the remaining articles listed on the template. (For the benefit of AndrewRT, the 'rule of five' is the suggestion that a navigational template is only useful if it links to at least five articles; it's not policy by any means, but it seems like a good rule of thumb.) Terraxos (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't think there's any potential for articles here. Like I said, I can't even find the track listing for Little Wildflower outside of her own website. Is country music really that ignored in Australia? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough relevant articles linked.

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 --Magioladitis (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2004 South African general elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a Navbox created to direct users to a series of articles that were never created. as it refers to a 2004 election and the last signifciant edit was in 2007, it looks like they never will be now. AndrewRT(Talk) 16:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - not useful until the articles themselves are created. Terraxos (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unused tempalte. --Peephole (talk) 21:29, 2 February 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 all --Magioladitis (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Transnistria/Conflict (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Transnistria/Politics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Both template were merged to form Template:Transnistria topics. The last one was used to jump to the other two. Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)))[reply]

• speedy delete I totally support this. Piccolo has done a great job with templates. Dc76\^talk 03:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 05:25, 28 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 result Delete --Magioladitis (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Same reason as below: this was apparently created as an alternative, but it isn't used on *any* articles whatsoever, so is of even less value. Terraxos (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Keep as per below. Though at this time it is not used. Maybe it will be used in the future... Lord Metroid (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is one of several "fan site" articles among a small circle of fans of Sam Konkin who has very few third party sources for agorism or any of his related articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be noted that on January 28 the creator of the Template asked sixteen users to comment on this. Special:Contributions/PublicSquare. 05:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Keep. Keep if and only if this template is added to the bottom of the main agorism article to instead of the agorism sidebar. Agorism doesn't need a sidebar (see my rational for deletion of the sidebar below), but could nevertheless use a template at the bottom of its page for easy and quick reference. If the agorism sidebar is kept, then my vote for this template automatically reverses to delete. allixpeeke (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unused. --Peephole (talk) 21:24, 2 February 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Agorism sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on one article (agorism). Could be substituted and deleted, but I'm not sure this template is needed even on that article - all the articles linked to are generally anarchism or libertarian-related subjects rather than specifically 'agorist' ones. Also, this template contains references, which are discouraged on templates. Terraxos (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I don't see why it would matter that it is only on one page at the moment. There are other templates that are merely on one page. Like the tables over various political statistics. Having a template keeps the article clean and editable. Lord Metroid (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The entire point of a template is that it can be used on more than one page to avoid retyping the same text, and so changes can be made to multiple pages at once by changing the template. If the text is only used on one page, then there really is no need for a template. In any case, as I said above, I don't think this template is doing a useful job even on the one article that uses it. Terraxos (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is one of several "fan site" articles among a small circle of fans of Sam Konkin who has very few third party sources for agorism or any of his related articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be noted that on January 28 the creator of the Template asked sixteen users to comment on this. Special:Contributions/PublicSquare. 05:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There aren't many topics that are agorist-specific. Most articles important to agorists are also important to the anarchist and libertarian movements as a whole. I'm inclined to believe that agorism is too specific to merit a sidebar at any time, although if in coming years there is more development of agorist ideas and strategies leading to the need of more agorist-specific articles, then I could be moved theoretically to accepting the utility of this sidebar. allixpeeke (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough specific and relevant articles for a template. --Peephole (talk) 21:23, 2 February 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 all --Magioladitis (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Curates of St Matthew, Leicester (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A unnecessary template for a non-notable post at a non-notable church, used on just one article (and look at the clutter such templates cause). Bencherlite^Talk 00:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also nominating, for the same reasons:
  • Template:Priests in charge of St Hilda's, Leicester (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Template:Vicars of St Benedict, Bordesley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Template:Incumbents of St George's, Edgbaston (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Template:Rectors of Port Burwell, Ontario (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Delete all per nom - these are not notable positions, and the article don't exist that the templates would link to. Just look at how William James Hughes looks with all of these at the bottom - it's overtemplating taken to a ridiculous extreme. Terraxos (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all in agreement with Terraxos above. --Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 10:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Navbox to non-existent articles makes no sense. AndrewRT(Talk) 16:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per others --Peephole (talk) 21:21, 2 February 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stanford Programs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was rendered useless when all of the pages it links to were merged into one page. I removed it from all the pages that used to use it, and replaced it with the "Stanford University" template.--Mblumber (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as redundant template. --Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 15:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see nothing constructive about combining and redirecting all these articles from schools that were almost certainly notable and should just have been expanded. Given that they have been, however, I can't see any reason not to delete this template. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Peephole (talk) 21:20, 2 February 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.