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) 07:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timestamp plus x (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, broken. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment did you try it? It works fine. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if someone could start a documentation subpage, I can actually tell you how to use it, since I read the talk page. (ie. this is an old template, old templates have documentation and examples on the talk page.) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as orphaned. Sure, it works, but why is it needed? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What is it used for? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it generates a timestamp, with a optional parameter, in days, as an offset to the current date. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know what it does, but where would it be of use? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 08:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not broken, but despite being around for four years it is not used anywhere, and no one seems able to specify how it would be useful. --RL0919 (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2010 (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 No consensus to delete, but some consensus to clean up the template (now that there are 6 working film links) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tarun Majumdar Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly redlinks. This may be useful for navigating, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because nomination is destructive; there are five blue links for readers to navigate through. Nominator himself admits that there is some use, so fix it instead of deleting as an easy and unhelpful solution. One possible approach is to organize it for 1960s/1970s, 1980s/1990s, and 2000s. Erik (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the word "delete" anywhere in the nomination. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep conditional on getting the blue link count up to seven films. That should be enough for navigation while encouraging people to fill in the blanks. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I personally think that 5 is enough, but that is a matter of opinion. Debresser (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough valid links to make a useful navbox. Although it appears to have five working links, two of them go to unrelated articles, so really there are only three. --RL0919 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, as RL0919 stated there are fewer than five working links. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Red links ust be removed. Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles, and even if they do, editors are encouraged to write the article first. See Wikipedia:Navigation templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as there are some useful links. Even the redlinks provide some insight on what films the person was involved in. I like the idea of organizing the content by year. Airplaneman ^talk 17:32, 21 March 2010 (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 The main article links to the other with a separate section. The two first films are linked to each other though another navbox. All films are in a related category. Consensus in similar discussions was not to retain navboxes for a so small number of films. Magioladitis (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer Movies Shaji N. Karun (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because it is extremely likely that the two most recent of this director's five films can be blue links if his first three films are blue links. Be bold and create stubs at the very least, and Wikipedia is all the better for this added navigation. Erik (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - if there's information to turn those links blue, and the director is still active, there's scope here. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough working links for a useful navbox. Can recreate if/when there are more articles to link. --RL0919 (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:35, 8 March 2010 (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 No consensus. RL0919 (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template seems odd: can I add non-English references in English Wikipedia without translate the title into English? Many people accuse me for using non-English references even if I tranlated the title into English. It's definitely unfair that they can use this template to use completely non-English references that I can't accuse but they accuse me even if I translate the title. Plus, this template is contradict to WP:SELF. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep This template is not only meant for referencing but it serves as copyright tracer for translations. Apart from that, there is nothing wrong with adding references in a language other than English, esp. when there is are no English sources. Nobody is allowed to accuse you when using non-English references. De728631 (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Edit: see also Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources. De728631 (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might have other usages, but the "referencing usage" must be removed. With this template, many people do not refer anything but put a Translation/Ref on, and this is contradict to WP:SELF. I agree to change this template into a Template-box, which box references translated from an other-language-article but the references itself must be translated into English (with the source language-title-oldid mentioned). --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem there. By putting Translation/ref on, you automatically point at the references used in the original foreign language wiki at the state of the article when it was translated. Also, as many other wikipedias are not as strict in referencing their articles as the English one, many original articles being translated are fully accepted on their wikipedia version but don't have any visible references at all. E.g. the German wiki uses to quote references and sources in the edit summary for small changes or even for entirely new, uncontroversial articles. As far as I understand it, WP:self only applies to referencing articles with other articles from this wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: reference or not, the template's documentation clearly advises to put it into the "External links" section, so maybe it should be renamed to something like "Translation/Ext" to point this out. That said, I still don't see a reason to delete it. De728631 (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact is, with merely advises to put it into the "External links" section, we can not verify which part of the article refer to what page of which referenced paper, and when others edit it (you'll probably not deny the English article won't be always kept the same as the non-English article), it's quite easy to add and HIDE an unreferenced statement. So the only acceptable method is to delete this and make a Template-box instead. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can always add unreferenced statements even in English without applying Translation/Ref on the article. And then there used to be a concept called "good faith". De728631 (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as to verifying which part in the article belongs to what page in a reference, in an encyclopedia it is not at all important to reference every second sentence with an inline citation referring to page n in journal x. References must be verifiable but that doesn't mean that this has to be done without some effort. If in doubt at a translated article, contact one of the translators at WP:Translation and ask them to check the foreign language article's permanent link version on the Translation/Ref link. And if they can't find anything corresponding, feel free to delete the passage in question. Moreover, it should be good style to copy all references from the original when translating an article. De728631 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, once somebody add unreferenced statements without Translation/Ref, it's easy to seek it out. With a Translation/Ref, it can be easily mixed to those referenced statements, and is hard to seek. And it's not only a "good style" to copy all references from the original - it's a must-do, so this template is in bad style, and at least needs large scale edits. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, to adress your original concern:

• "Can I add non-English references in English Wikipedia without translate the title into English?" When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors. Ergo you can freely cite original titles until someone asks for a translation. Quotes however must be given in the original and the translated version.
• "Many people accuse me for using non-English references even if I tranlated the title into English." Totally wrong per the above policy. Foreign languages sources with a translated title are ok.
• "It's definitely unfair that they can use this template to use completely non-English references..." As you said, a translation must include the original sources, which in turn may well be untranslated. Where is the problem and what does this template have to do with it at all? It's mainly for referencing the original version of the source text for the translated version, not so much for referencing external sources that should be stated anyway. De728631 (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:04, 8 March 2010 (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. Underpopulated navbox; deletion not contested. RL0919 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Murmur album (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

While I generally like these album template, they are really only meaningful if almost all of the tracks have articles; otherwise, what's the point? Since this only navigates three song articles, I am nominating it for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I thought TFDs that went uncontested for a week resulted in deletion? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:16, 9 March 2010 (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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Slovak municipality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I began translating this template from an equivalent Slovak-language template; I am persuaded that the Geobox template is a superior alternative. Objectivesea (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the author, simply tag it with ((db-author)). ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:08, 8 March 2010 (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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Slovak municipality/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As with the main template above, this is redundant. Objectivesea (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to request this separately, subpages will be deleted with the main template. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:07, 8 March 2010 (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 Wrong venue. Please take discussions of userboxes to WP:MFD. Thanks. RL0919 (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wiki-2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Userbox in Template: namespace, only used on one userpage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes go to MfD; see above.

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. RL0919 (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:England Squad Tournoi de France (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Also adding to nomination:

Template:Italy Squad 1997 Tournoi de France (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Brazil Squad 1997 Tournoi de France (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:France Squad 1997 Tournoi de France (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NOT. From my experience with WP:FOOTY, we only do squad templates for major FIFA or continental tournaments, not glorified friendlies. Mosmof (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mosmof (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The Tournoi de France was a friendly tournament, so these squad templates are pointless. Delete them. – PeeJay 03:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree. It was a friendly tournament, allowing this template to exist could lead to hundreds of irrelevant ones being created. Maracana (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, because the Tournoi was a friendly invitational tournament, similar to the Kirin Cup or the US Cup. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2010 (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 no consensus to delete, defaults to keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Automobile classification (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template creates a list of links to other articles which should be confined to a category. Template assigns unsourced and unreferenced comparative rational to a large volume of subjective categorizations in a way that implies a non-established common consensus. Mighty Antar (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — What, AGAIN? Please stop deleting shit on Wikipedia, or at the very least suggest something interesting to replace it with. Shadiac (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Wikipedia is not a bunch of made up stuff that look's interesting. It's supposed to be accurate and referenced. If it's shit as you suggest, then it should be deleted and replaced with something accurate. Mighty Antar (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Userfy — only used on one user page, not in any articles. PleaseStand (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Not true. The nominator deleted it from luxury vehicle, Car classification, and Category:Car classifications after nominating it here. I'm restoring these for now in the interests of fairness and transparency, especially if editors are going to cite its "lack of use" as a reason for deletion. --DeLarge (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I deleted it because as a comparative chart it is unsourced and O/R. I'm not aware of any consensus or any other comparative source that shows this chart to be an accurate representation of fact.Mighty Antar (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is used for automobile classification in automobile pages --Typ932 ^T·C 08:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. At a glance the information looks reasonably accurate to me. Also, it's not "unsourced"; the various European segments (A, B, C, etc) are explictly cited and compared in an official European Commission document (p.2) -- isn't that exactly the comparison the nominee is looking for? Further links to EuroNCAP's website exist, while citations from the EPA website at fueleconomy.gov could be added very easily to the North American classes. Most templates do not contain references anyway, only the articles to which they're transcluded do, so I don't think this is an issue. Whether or not it needs to be a template (transcluded on multiple articles) or a table (only on car classification) is an editorial decision better kept to its talk page. --DeLarge (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, but what is "reasonably accurate" supposed to mean? Its either accurate or its not and if its not then why is it here. The explicit link to which you refer is no longer the EuroNCAP standard, regardless of which, while it does specify cars in the EuroNCAP categories, it does not give any reference to any of the other "Automobile Classifications" which this chart implies are the same. Mighty Antar (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — useful way to present this information. Lots of articles, particularly in this subject area, need references to be found or properly cited; let's put our energies into finding those rather than deleting the articles before they've been properly developed. – Kieran T ^(talk) 12:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be useful if it had any basis in fact. As I stated on its talk page over a year ago "This should be a useful, noteworthy template, but at the moment it is a piece of guesswork. Car classification needs sorting out before this is pasted everywhere, and by sorting out, I mean it needs to be encyclopaedic with references to show who says that one car fits one category and not another and that something like A-segment exists as a defined term. At the moment things like Compact executive car are unsourced, opinionated articles that some editor or other has made up. Fine as long as you also include categories like Ugly cars, Nice cars or Big cars in your template. Not fine if you want to build an accurate cross-referenced template. At the moment I think this template easily satisfies points 1 and 4 at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, but it could be such a useful template that I think it deserves a chance to improve. Mighty Antar (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2008". Mighty Antar (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rework. This need to be changed to a ((navbox)), as it is currently intrusive. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, so far we have a bunch of comments that say keep without adding anything new to support the argument that this template is anything but O/R. Can someone please cite a single source that defines what D-segment means? Or explain why now that Euro NCAP have reduced their list of categories to passenger car, MPV, off-roader, roadster and pickup,[1] we enlightened folks at Wikipedia have not done the same? Or could anyone explain why a Jaguar XK is a grand tourer, but not a sports car? (Jaguars brochure states that it's both and mentions that it's a luxury car, but we obviously know better) Mighty Antar (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or convert to REFERENCED table/article. There is no need for this thing to exist as a template. Who in their right mind would paste such an enormous monstrosity into an article? It must be said that there are a LOT of unreferenced/unreferencable articles/list/templates floating around our automobile pages. I sympathise with Mighty Antar but I doubt these XfD's will ever help turn the tide. People are quick to !vote keep even in the face of WP:V problems, which is policy; the best way to win this "battle" is to remove unreferenced material and insist on references for everything that gets added back. Zunaid 08:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Typ932. However, list does need tweaking. Ford Ranger is still a compact truck and I've never heard of an "Entry-level luxury car" classification.--Ridge Runner (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for its usefulness. Car classification is essentially a folk taxonomy, since countries that have laws about these sorts of things all have different ideas of what segment is what. India classifies the B-C segment break at 4 metres length, while in Sweden the C-segment is also called the "Golf-segment", i.e. any lineup of cars that directly competes with the VW Golf lineup is considered C-segment. The Passat is a mid-size in Europe but is considered a luxury car in South East Asia, and probably something else again in the states.

One could easily find twenty verifiable sources with slightly differing opinions on what constitutes a "subcompact". What do we do? No article on subcompact (bad) or twenty articles (worse)? Or do editors look for a possible consensus amongst the sources? And this is not a rhetorical question, I would honestly like to know what the policy is. Until there is a scientific system for classifying cars (hard, in light of their rate of evolution), the folk taxonomy (or fauxonomy if you please) is all that there is. – Mr.choppers (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after substituting the table into Car classification. When I first looked at this discussion, my initial thought was that many of the problems of this template could be solved through regular editing, but the more I looked at it the more I thought it would be better to start over from scratch. The basic concept of this template, which is relating different classifications to one another in columns and giving examples of each, does not belong in the articles about every classification. When reading about the Luxury vehicle class, we don't need to know that the Smart Fortwo is a Microcar -- it just isn't relevant. The comparison table belongs only in Car classification. (That is assuming it isn't original research that doesn't belong in any article. Editors at Car classification can sort that out after the template is subst'ed.). What would be relevant in other articles is a simple navigation template to help readers find the various articles on car classifications. No examples, no external links, just navigation. I am happy to help build a proper navbox for these articles. I started a sandbox version at User:RL0919/Carclass to give an idea of what such a navbox might look like. It doesn't attempt to compare the classes or give examples, which is something better left as article content. The sandbox is incomplete, but if that is the direction folks would like to go, it is easy to add the rest of the links. --RL0919 (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Encouragement – ;-) Like the suggested navbox. – Kieran T ^(talk) 16:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we dont need navigation template, this table is just for reference guide for automobile articles, we dont need to jump different class pages to another --Typ932 ^T·C 16:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that a big comparison table is not relevant in any article other than Car classifications, but readers may be interested in seeing related articles. A navigation template to related articles is a pretty common thing to have, when there are several clearly related articles that aren't linked in some other obvious way. --RL0919 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that table is used as help to define car class field in template automobile infobox and also help to see what names are used in different continents about same classes, related articles can be found via Category:Car classifications --Typ932 ^T·C 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it shouldn't be used for anything without reliable sources that support the synthesis it displays, and it certainly shouldn't be used as a source for further templates if it is not 100% accurate, you're building a House of cards. I agree with Mr.choppers that most automobile classification is folk taxonomy, which is why many of the car classification articles are not properly sourced to begin with - one editor takes a subjective term, spells out exactly what they think it means, then the next editor who also "knows" exactly what it means comes along and sorts it out. Both may have several magazine articles to support their view, but look closely and I bet the articles do not provide a definative statement of what the term means - and the UK/USA context complicates things further. This template takes not one, but several unsourced folk taxonomy's, constructed from largely subjective terms and puts them all together to make what our readers can only conclude is as an objective reference chart. RL0919 navbox User:RL0919/Carclass is a very positive step forward. Mighty Antar (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is navigation box better than table? It doesnt fix the problem and its not needed...--Typ932 ^T·C 13:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the individual terms are all sourced, it's better because it shows a range of classifications without stating unsupported guesswork about which classifications in British English, EC commision or America English mean the same thing. However "nice" or "useful" it might be to show such equivalencies, they are guesswork not fact and however hard we might try, we can't support them because almost all the terms are subjective. Mighty Antar (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the remaining links. Some of the entries on the existing table were composites or piped links to the same article, so there are fewer items on the navbox than in the table. I did leave the redundancies between US and UK terms; I leave it to future editors (if any) to decide if that is a good thing to keep. I'm not a regular editor on car articles, so I'd prefer that someone else adopt this if they want to use it in articles. If anyone volunteers, I'll move it to the template namespace. --RL0919 (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find this table better, because RL0919's proposed navbox loses the comparative element shown in this link. We should find a way to keep that aspect if we're changing to a navbox. Chryslerforever1988 (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find this table extremely useful, I would even suggest that it be given its own page and extended to include more models. --scottleonard101 (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — the template's a mess, and I really like what RL0919's proposed template looks like. Airplaneman ^talk 16:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful, referenced, and used in articles. Chryslerforever1988 (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced? The single 1999 reference from the EC that is shown provides us only with this very basic information:

"The narrowest segmentation previously used by the Commission is the following: - A: mini cars - B: small cars - C: medium cars - D: large cars - E: executive cars - F: luxury cars - S: sport coupés - M: multi purpose cars - J: sport utility cars (including off-road vehicles)"

It doesn't tell us when or in what context the segmentation was used and with the exception of luxury cars, none of these segments appear on our template in the form stated. Even the wikilinks for "A-class" etc. don't go to the terms stated, they go to some editors idea of what these segments are without anything to show that their inspired guesswork is correct. Try following "small car" and it redirects you to "compact car" which is where "C-segment" is redirected to - but hold on, according to our source "B-segment" is "small car". But our source says "C-segment" is "medium cars", look for medium sized cars and you've guessed it, a redirect to "Mid-size car" which of course is not where we redirect "D-segment" even though it's shown in our chart because that's a large car. Come on guys, the whole thing is a complete and utter mess! Mighty Antar (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. If this is kept I think the examples column needs to be deleted or seriously reworked/sourced. swaq 15:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• First substitute/delete the table into Car classification, then replace with a navigation box similar to the one that RL0919 has created here, for use in the footer of articles like Luxury vehicle. Note that this would preserve the useful information, and provide more concise navigation for car class articles. Plastikspork (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2010 (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.