Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 3

< November 2	November 4 >

November 3

Template:Commonwealth realms

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Never properly tagged. Consensus was for keep anyway. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commonwealth realms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template and the one below can be combine into a single one. CaribDigita (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, what for? The topics are both distinct. While we're at it why not merge the template of US states with the template of American presidents. It is more or less the same scenario. --Cameron * 21:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this is not a British Empire template. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one is different - it could potentially be merged with Template:Commonwealth of Nations since it is a sub-set of those countries. No opinion on that, though I note that it should not be merged with Template:British overseas territories as this is a multinational template and the other is a template for a single country. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Commonwealth realms are distinct from Commonwealth of Nations. As a last resort I would support a merge but I really prefer distinct templates. --Cameron * 21:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Governors-General of the Commonwealth Realms

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Consensus was for keep anyway. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Governors-General of the Commonwealth Realms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template and the one above can be combine into a single one. CaribDigita (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose see above for reasioning. --Cameron * 21:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Commonwealth of Nations

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Consensus was for keep anyway. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commonwealth of Nations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The British Empire templates seem very redundant. Can't some of these be combined and made collapsible within one? I think some could be deleted. See template below. CaribDigita (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this is not a British Empire template. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:However it does say "British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations" in the template named Template:British overseas territories

Reply Where does it say that? Did you look at the template? 70.55.86.100 (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to 70.55.86.100: Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I could have been. Inside the template listed below (See Template:British overseas territories) it lists both of them already. I contend, if you take the nice aesthetic value of the Template:Commonwealth of Nations template and then work it into the existing one titled ([[[Template:British overseas territories]]) it could work and also wont be confusing. It seems a bit crazy to have soooo mant templates in anglophone countries just to say they were once attached to the queen, they have her representative still, and the nation is still a member of the commonwealth of nations.

For some countries you have to have a template for it being a Realm, then one for the Realms matching Governor-General, then one for it being an English speaking state, then the anglophone map, then the monarch, then the commonwealth, then the British Empire, and all of that is even before you start adding geography templates (or after, depending how you look at it.) Esp. since many of these templates list the same names over and over again redundantly. CaribDigita (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger of Template:Commonwealth of Nations with Template:British overseas territories. A British territory is part the United Kingdom while the Commonwealth of Nations is a multinational organization. Combining these would be like combining the template on U.S. states with the template on NATO. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Actually I can tell you may not have even looked at the template in question or maybe you've just become a little confused. The current template titled "British Overseas Territories" is a list of states that are not even a part of the United Kingdom. The current "British Overseas Territories" template are all states that are independent of the United Kingdom.

A better analogy would be more like merging a template on Le Francophonie with a template on the "French Empire". Or a Latin Union template with a template on the Spanish Empire. They are all before-and-after type scenarios.

P.S. The British Overseas Territories are: Bermuda, or Montserrat, or Cayman Islands etc. So it is even mis-named. The British Overseas Territories templates should probably be like "Historic places in the British Empire" or "Posessions once in the British Empire" etc. or something along those lines.CaribDigita (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - No, I read it correctly. It is a list of British overseas territories - including those that are no longer part of the Britain. This is fundamentally different than a list of member countries in an international organization, even if there is significant (complete?) overlap between the two. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:British overseas territories

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Consensus was for keep anyway. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British overseas territories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The British Empire templates seem very redundant. Can't some of these be combined and made collapsible within one? I think some could be deleted. See template above CaribDigita (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger of Template:Commonwealth of Nations with Template:British overseas territories. A British territory is part the United Kingdom while the Commonwealth of Nations is a multinational organization. Combining these would be like combining the template on U.S. states with the template on NATO. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I would suggest the "British Overseas territory" template should be used only for those that retain this status (what used to be called colonies). The Commonwealth is a multi-national orgainsiation of independent states, a few of which retain the Queen as Head of State, though the functions of the crown are carried out by a Governor-General. I would suggest that this whole sequence of nominations is made by some one who does not undertand the nature of the structures that have succeded the former British Empire. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Anglophone states

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was template never tagged --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anglophone states (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template and the one below can be combine into a single one. CaribDigita (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:English official language clickable map

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was template never tagged --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:English official language clickable map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template and the one above can be combine into a single one. CaribDigita (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why nominate for deletion then? Go ahead and merge. Flowerparty^☀ 07:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Virna Lisi Films

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 19:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Virna Lisi Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Prior consensus has determined that such templates which only cover one area of work, such as an actor's film appearances are redundant to the already existing filmography endorsed in the MOS and filmbio work group and have consistently been deleted. They are superfluous. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Kirk Douglas

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 19:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kirk Douglas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Prior consensus has determined that such templates which only cover one area of work, such as an actor's film appearances are redundant to the already existing filmography endorsed in the MOS and filmbio work group and have consistently been deleted. They are superfluous. User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

personally I find nav boxes to be helpful, but if they are indeed against the rules, and superfluous, off with their heads. let them eat cake. banished. But it does seem enforcement is rather a losing race, since there are so many out there it just encourages editors to create more and in good faith spend time creating them then spend time defending them and others spending time to denounce them. What exactly is the "prior consensus" trying to prevent? Well meaning editors adding perceived value?; a casual reader of an article clicking on a show link at the bottom of a page to find a link to an obscure unknown bit of information? people come to wikipedia to find stuff they did not know. --K3vin (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The problem isn't that all such templates are discouraged. In fact, templates that encompass a variety of work are fine. I'd use Template:Harry Connick, Jr., Template:Laurence Olivier, Template:Tracy Hepburn films or Template:Abbott and Costello as examples of templates that add something beyond what is already available in a concise form in an individual article. Prior consensus is trying to prevent redundancy. An actor's filmography only already has a format within the article which provides a readily available point from which to navigate. As time goes on, there are fewer and fewer actor articles without a tabled filmography, which is what the MOS and filmbio project have supported. The other problem, which isn't directly related to this template in particular, is that for high profile actors, there is becoming a proliferation of navigation templates, mostly regarding awards, that I'm not certain is endorsed anywhere and are, in my opinion, less than useful for navigation. Just sayin'... Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:MKT Films

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deleion. RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 20:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MKT Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Prior consensus has determined that such templates which only cover one area of work, such as an actor's film appearances are redundant to the already existing filmography endorsed in the MOS and filmbio work group and have consistently been deleted. They are superfluous. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wont be able to get involved in this discussion unless you could provide the links to the talk page or discussion page where the decision was taken. I am not aware of what sort of discussion actually took place or what were the decisions made. Thanks-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 14:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Area under Dhaka City

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --Conti|✉ 15:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Area under Dhaka City (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Are under Dhaka City is essentially a random collection of thousands of entities ranging from police precincts, neighborhoods, streets, electoral districts, shopping districts, parks and what not. That fact already coming evident on the list it includes. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Enigma ^message 06:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Place in Time

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Place in Time (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. No reasons given what the intent is, or why it should be used. It seems to be being used on "given names", but the fields don't make any sense for that purpose. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; Now also unused, although I only deleted one of the 8 usages added by the originator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no offense to the creator, but it seems a little half-baked and ill-defined. Full disclosure, I removed one of the uses added by the originator. older ≠ wiser 03:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Names

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Names (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. No reasons given what the intent is, or why it should be used. It's not presently used at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.