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) 23:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Electric vehicle categories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. No prospect of use. Rich Farmbrough, 23:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Speedy Delete "Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category or a See also list can perform the same function." --Cybercobra (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a speedy deletion criterion so far as I can see. Nevetheless, this is obviously not going to see any further use. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I misread T2. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:48, 6 May 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alternative Pro Wrestling (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox centering around a previously PROD'ed article, only two blue links. Orphaned. - Mobius Clock 22:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unused, only 2 bluelinks. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:15, 6 May 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 as too subjective for a useful navbox. I note that "Criticism of X" has been accepted in the past as an acceptable basis for a navbox, so this deletion should not be taken as precluding the creation of a template on a narrower, objectively definable topic. However, content that labels people or ideas as "controversial" or "extremist" is best avoided no matter what the scope of the template. RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Controversies related to Israel and Zionism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Delete NPOV pushing, subjective inclusion and grouping, coatrack, etc. Avi (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to Israel and Zionism where editor is further engaged in POV warring. -- Avi (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Avi. Yossiea ^(talk) 20:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an absolute impossible template; no way of knowing what to include, or not. Presently "critics" include Norman Finkelstein...and Osama Bin Laden! Seriously. Delete, delete, delete. Huldra (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Everything about Israel is controversial to somebody; why not list every Israel-related article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no need for this. Delete. i never commented here so i don`t know if it is allowed, if not, i apologize and delete my comment iadrian (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Rami R 21:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Poliocretes (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Avi--SPhilbrickT 21:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—inherently a WP:OR template (what are the inclusion criteria?), inherently violates WP:NPOV. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everybody - POV, original research, etc, etc Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Palestinian President Yasser Arafat should be removed. Chesdovi (talk) 17:00, 6 May 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. Tim Song (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tributaries of Mureş River (Romanian and Hungarian names) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Delete This template should be deleted because it wasn`t created with accordance to wiki naming policy, POV pushing , WP:NAME,WP:PLACE and foreign language use, official names.iadrian (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This template was created before Template:Tributaries of Mureş River which latter contains the same information, but does not contain alternative names for the tributaries. The Template:Tributaries of Mureş River (Romanian and Hungarian names) was created January 5, 2010. There was an extensive discussion as to the use of official and alternative names in geographic templates with the participation of more than 10 editors. According to the decision of Moonriddengirl, the consensus of responders at this essentialy identical type of discussion was that a separate 'alternative name template' beside the 'official name template' should not be used. (In the given case also Romanian was the official language for the area, but several editors were sympathetic to the need to recognize the prevalence of Hungarian alternate names for the locality support a single, bilingual template at Template:Mureş County. It was also suggested that a list may be appropriate. There was no prejudice against implementing either or both of these alternatives. This is Wikipedia and Romanian laws are not providing guidance.WP:Naming is for articles and not for templates. Bilingual lists are also common.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 21:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that a short time ago there was already here [1] a discussion and decision practically on this very issue, when it was ruled that Tributaries of Mureş River (Hungarian and Romanian names) should be deleted as redundant to Template:Tributaries of Mureş River (Romanian and Hungarian names). In other words, the decision was to keep the template where official Romanian names stand first and alternate Hungarian names stand second in brackets. I do not see in this issue any nationalistic excess, but a reasonable compromise which is not offensive for anyone, gives prominence to official names and makes identifiable the streams in alternate names as well, so it can give additional information for those rare readers who happen to be interested in Transylvanian mountain brooks. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 22:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the template and the wiki rules. It clearly violates WP:PLACE and WP:NAME and that is all that matters. Respect wiki policy as we all do.iadrian (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAME and WP:PLACE are the naming conventions for article titles. It is not possible for a template to violate these rules, and therefore they should not be cited as grounds for deleting any template. In a previous TFD for a template that used only Hungarian names for Romanian-named articles, deletion was appropriate because there was another template that used the proper article names instead of redirects, and the two were redundant. However, nothing about the naming policy precludes listing alternative names on a template in addition to the regular article names. By the same token, however, nothing requires a template to include alternative names. It really is a question of doing what is right for readers. If few readers would prefer navigating to these articles by their Hungarian names, then it would be unnecessary clutter to include them. That is an empirical question that I know nothing about, so I take no position for or against deleting this template. However, I will repeat again that the article naming policies are not grounds for deletion of this template. --RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I understand. Then the matter is about the readers. Wouldn`t such a template be more appropriate for the Hungarian Wikipedia, since it would serve only the Hungarian speaking users. If it is an empirical question then it is already answered since there is not a single case of bilingual templates on the English Wikipedia (referring to places) even in federal republics where there are 4 official languages like Switzerland; since in this case there is only one official language (Romanian). iadrian (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All of the tributaries of the Mureş River are found in Romania. Since that is the case, then I don't see any relevance for the Hungarian names for those rivers. Such an information would be more relevant on the Hungarian Wikipedia and not on the English Wikipedia. Scooter20 (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete As per Scooter20. Rokarudi has made similar attempts in defying the wiki naming policy and enforcing Hungarian names in inappropriate places as in the case of Hungarian_names_of_Romanian_places where he failed.Amon Koth (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)— Amon Koth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [--Rokarudi 21:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)] (UTC). Rokarudi.and what does that has to do with anything? anything with wiki rules that are violated here? Wikipedia is editable by anyone.iadrian (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no need for this template to exist. The ((Tributaries of Mureş River)) is perfect for the job. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The template is not made for the Mures river, but for the tributaries of the Mures river. And since none of the tributaries of Mureş River are located in Hungary, I don't see any reasin to keep the foreign desigantions. --Olahus (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No matter what nationalistic POV pushing suggests, there is no wikipedia guideline saying that the use of alternative names in a template is forbidden. Template is template, not an article. If such disputes are decided by the number of available nationalistic voters then the outcome for the Romanian side is beyond doubt. This has nothing to do with consensus as except for Mjroots there are no uninterested editors. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 21:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Rokarudi, they are also German and Latin denominations for the Mures river. maybe also Slavic denominations. Should they be included too? How long do you expect to make this template list? Do you realize that this is a nonsense? You may add at the article about each river the Hungarian name too, but the template must be short. The meaning of a template is to make a comprehensible and clearly arranged delineation. What is actually your justification for the inclusion of Hungarian names? Maybe Hungarian nationalist and revisionist feelings? Or maybe something else? --Olahus (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - purpose better served using ((Tributaries of Mureş River)). See my reasoning in the TFD below. Airplaneman ✈ 23:07, 13 May 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 keep. Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tributaries of Mureş River (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Delete: This template is redundant to Template:Tributaries of Mureş River (Romanian and Hungarian names) existing since January 5, 2010. There was an extensive discussion as to the use of official and alternative names in geographic templates. According to the decision of Moonriddengirl, the consensus of responders at an essentialy identical type of discussion was that an alternative name template beside the official name template should not be used. In the above-written case Romanian was also the official language for the area, but several were sympathetic to the need to recognize the prevalence of Hungarian alternate names for the locality support a single, bilingual template at Template:Mureş County. It was also suggested that a list may be appropriate. There was no prejudice against implementing either or both of these alternatives.

Rokarudi--Rokarudi 19:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : The template that Rokarudi created and silently added to every article in Romania is not according to wiki naming policy. After talking with the user we come to the conclusion that a new template would be the best solution, the one in accordance with WP:NAME, official names, WP:PLACE. In Romania, Romanian language is the only official language therefore the Romanian names are the official. Not to mention that only 6.5% of population of Romania is Hungarian and Szekely, and Romania is not a bilingual country therefore standard rules should be applied like everywhere else, without the forcing of minority names. The template Template:Tributaries of Mureş River (Romanian and Hungarian names) is redundant and it has to be deleted. Rokarudi has the tendency to violate the WP:NAME everywhere he can forcing Hungarian names as alternative. Alternative names are in the article according to the naming policy, nothing else is according with WP:NAME. A template is not an article, it is proper to mention the Hungarian-language names for some places in the region of Transylvania, but within the respective articles (as is presently the case). There's no need to create a special template just to emphasize their Hungarian-ness." Romania or any other country has river templates that use the standard naming policy, why should this be any special? If we do this let`s make all templates bilingual in all the countries. As i demonstrated, this has no point and we should respect the naming policy in Romania too. The Hungarian Wikipedia users may use the Hungarian page if they need to see Hungarian names, also this template can be used there, not on English wikipedia. The English page should keep only the official name in Romanian. The autonomous province Vojvodina, where Serbian, Hungarian, Slovak, Romanian, Croatian, Pannonian Rusyn are official languages has a single template, in Serbian. Also Transnistria there is a single template in Romanian, there isn't any alternative. The point is that some Hungarian users use this to promote irredentism, Kingdom of Hungary, having in mind that only places before treaty of Trianon are the target. iadrian (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : This version of the template is better since it does not hold unnecessary and irrelevant information for the English Wikipedia, such as Hungarian names for rivers that are found only in Romania. Like I said before Hungarian names are not relevant in this context and therefore should not be used! Scooter20 (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : A template has to be short and informative not cramped with alternative names. Amon Koth (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)— Amon Koth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [--Rokarudi 21:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)] (UTC). Rokarudi does not understand that Wikipedia is editable by anyone and the validity of an opinion is not judged by the number of edits Amon Koth (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep There is no reason to have translations of names from one language to another in templates. Such translations are appropriate to the ledes of articles. See also WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive613#Template problem.. Mjroots (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This template agrees with the wikipedia policy. --Olahus (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - cleaner and less crowded than the alternative. Airplaneman ✈ 23:05, 13 May 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. Unused and apparently won't be used in its current form. No prejudice against creating a new template under the same name based on a more widely accepted model. RL0919 (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I have asked WikiProject Vietnam to look at it. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:43, 5 May 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) 13:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unused and redundant to standard 'people' infoboxes with custom parameters; also has an awful green colour scheme! - Mobius Clock 15:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think infoboxes are typically based exclusively on nationality (i.e. no "Infobox British", but perhaps "Infobox British Monarch") --Cybercobra (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you are mistaken on the functionality, it is not based on nationality, it is based on non-alphabetic character language. It is supposed to show various transliterations and native forms of the name of the subject. Vietnamese language is rendered in traditional Chinese derived characters (Han Tu), traditional Vietnamese script that is Chinese derived (Chu Nom), French-Latin alphabet derived script (Quoc Nu), and several transliteration schemese from Chu Nom or Han Tu to roman characters. It is similar to ((Chinese)) except instead of the Chinese language (not Chinese nationality), it is for the Vietnamese language. It also takes a translation of the name of the topic for English. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it just plain looks bad visually by comparison, so I'd suggest starting over from a clone of ((Chinese)). --Cybercobra (talk) 03:12, 6 May 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox LACMTA station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do delete this template. I created it, I believe that I was the only one that used it, and I replaced all instances of it with a new-improved template. Jcovarru (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy Since it's only of sentimental value. Completely misread "do" as "don't". Delete --Cybercobra (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userspace isn't a graveyard. This falls under G7 as the author has requested deletion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:39, 5 May 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. RL0919 (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chinese image rotation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely unused; I believe image rotation is not standard on Wikipedia. Cybercobra (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : see Template:Indian image rotation Hong Kong ICC (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC) (Sockpuppet vote struck)[reply]
  • Hm, interesting. Still, that one is at least in use. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I can only find about 3 other "image rotation" templates and they're all India-related, whereas the one in question is about China. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't see the point of this template. If there's more than one image to show, we could link to a gallery (or create one within the article). Randomly serving different pictures to different users is not a proper solution. Laurent (talk) 20:02, 7 May 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.