Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 12

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Late Night Call In Quiz Shows (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Links to speedily deleted article, so should be speedily deleted too — Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, criterion for inclusion appears to be original research. Gracenotes^T § 12:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; unused, broken link – Qxz 20:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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 page.

The result of the debate was deleted at author's request. John Reaves (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Missing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I made this to be placed in missing field entries in infoboxes. Realized it's probably better if field is left blank. — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 21:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, fields should be left blank. You could use templates like {{Novelinfoboxincomp}} on Talk pages to signify missing infobox content. Put {{db-author}} on the template to get this speedy deleted. –Pomte 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If you are the auther, better put {{db-author}} on the page. It will be a quicker proces --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, author requests deletion – Qxz 20:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was result. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:CCOTMprotected (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template discourages normal editing of an article, but collaboration drives should be encouraging this. It also (at least in name) suggests that there is some sort of protection involved when there is not. — JPD (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the well-known WP:OWN. Wikiprojects don't get to displace normal editing of an article. Gavia immer (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, bad idea. Templates should not misrepresent policy. >Radiant< 14:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete CCOTM should be encouraging community wide participation, not staking a claim to an article. If nothing else the template needs to be renamed (since it isn't protected) and reworded (asking to coordinate on a specific page is fine, but don't threaten to revert any changes). Koweja 14:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Gavia.↔NMajdan•talk 15:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. To be fair, I don't think the template is intended to claim ownership or discourage participation, but it is still a bad idea to direct edits away from the normal article. JPD (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think the template was intended that way either, but I do think that in practice it does it, since the message is that CCOTM can set ad-hoc editing rules and good-faith edits not following them "may be lost". Gavia immer (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Collaboration for improvement can and should be done on the main article. -Amarkov moo! 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per implying non-standard approach to editing --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus Martinp23 18:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Smallbullet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This can already be achieved with the entity "·". — Down10 ^TACO 06:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - It's not used anywhere anyway. I suppose, though, if it was made a subst-only template it'd be fine, but then, it's right there down in the Insert table below this text edit box. Lose it.Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, in fact, it can't. That may seem a reasonable belief if you've got low resolution or are working only with small fonts, but let's take a closer look:
⋅ ·
You want to tell me there's no difference between a circle and a square? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unused. - grubber 17:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not "unused", grubber -- any more than source code is ""unused" because you never see it in the compiled results. Rather, "mass subst'd when used to compose larger templates", along with the other subtemplates they separate, all to reduce the transclusion overhead in the final resulting templates. ... until now, of course, because now {{subst:smallbullet}} gets you this:
  ‹ The template below (Smallbullet) is being considered for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus. ›

⋅, thanks to the warning being included in the template results, making a mess of the overall template. Who'd want to use such a sabotaged subtemplate? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Is {{subst:smallbullet}} really that much easier than typing &sdot; or even <small>&sdot;</small>. I guess I am having trouble seeing the utility, especially since you're only using it as a subst template. - grubber 21:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - if it were used, I would suggest keep (see also {{·}}), but it's not, so delete it. Gracenotes^T § 18:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just because I subst: something, to keep it from being transcluded every time, doesn't mean I haven't "used" it, it just means you won't find anything in "what links here". -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• This was typed before I saw what you responded: This template has only been around for a bit less than a week? Nevermind, keep, because {{·}} is also widespread, and someone could just type '''&nbsp;·''' and be done with it, but that template makes it more convenient. Or we could use &#124; instead of {{!}}, but once again, the latter is more convenient. If this template still isn't used after some while, then delete it. Ben, I'm also sure that you know that you can <noinclude> the TFD tag if you want to (in this case, at least). One last thing: I would suggest giving it a shorter name. That's all. :) After I saw how you responded: I would love to see an instance of this template's substitution. Gracenotes^T § 19:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, here's source code for a version of {{usercheck}}, while I was still previewing results:

  [[User:{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|{{ucfirst:{{{1|''Example''}}}}}]] ([[User_talk:{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|talk]]{{smallbullet}}{{contribs|{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|contribs}}{{smallbullet}}{{ccount|{{{1|Example}}}|count}}{{smallbullet}}{{userlogs|{{{1|Example}}}|logs}}{{smallbullet}}{{blocklog|{{{1|Example}}}|block log}}{{smallbullet}}{{listuser|{{{1|Example}}}|lu}}{{smallbullet}}{{rfadm|{{{1|Example}}}|rfa}}{{smallbullet}}{{rfbur|{{{1|Example}}}|rfb}}{{smallbullet}}{{rfarb|{{{1|Example}}}|rfarb}}{{smallbullet}}{{rfcuser|{{{1|Example}}}|rfcuser}}{{smallbullet}}{{rfcu|{{{1|Example}}}|rfcu}}{{smallbullet}}{{ssp|{{{1|Example}}}|ssp|list=y}})
  

  and as you can see, it's easier to follow what I was doing than a later "compiled" version, with all the subtemplates subst'd and extraneous options removed to "sleek down" the code (among other tweaks):

[[User:{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|{{ucfirst:{{{1|''Example''}}}}}]] (<span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8">[[User talk:{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|talk]]<small>⋅</small>[[Special:Contributions/{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|<span title="Contributions: {{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}">contribs</span>]]<small>⋅</small>[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}}}&site={{SERVERNAME}} <span title="Contribution count: {{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}">count</span>]<small>⋅</small>[{{fullurl:Special:Log|user={{anchorencode:{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}}}}} <span title="Logs: {{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}">logs</span>]<small>⋅</small>[{{fullurl:Special:Log/block|page=User:{{anchorencode:{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}}}}} <span title="Blocklog: {{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}">block log</span>]<small>⋅</small>[{{fullurl:Special:Listusers|limit=1&username={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}}}}} <span title="Listuser: {{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}"><font color="002bb8">lu</font></span>]<small>⋅</small>{{#ifexist: {{highrfa|{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}}}|[[{{highrfa|{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}}}|rfa]]|[[{{SITENAME}}:Requests for adminship#{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|<span title="There is no {{SITENAME}}:Requests for adminship/{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}"><font color=gray>rfa</font></span>]]}}<small>⋅</small>{{#ifexist: {{highrfb|{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}}}|[[{{highrfb|{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}}}|rfb]]|[[{{SITENAME}}:Requests for bureaucratship#{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|<span title="There is no {{SITENAME}}:Requests for bureaucratship/{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}"><font color=gray>rfb</font></span>]]}}<small>⋅</small>{{#ifexist: {{highrfarb|{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}}}|[[{{highrfarb|{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}}}|rfarb]]|[[{{SITENAME}}:Requests for arbitration#{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|<span title="There is no {{SITENAME}}:Requests for arbitration/{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}"><font color=gray>rfarb</font></span>]]}}<small>⋅</small>{{#ifexist: {{highrfc|{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}}}|[[{{highrfc|{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}}}|rfcuser]]|[[{{SITENAME}}:Requests for comment/User conduct|<span title="There is no {{SITENAME}}:Requests for comment/{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}"><font color=gray>rfcuser</font></span>]]}}<small>⋅</small>{{#ifexist: {{SITENAME}}:Requests for checkuser/Case/{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|[[{{SITENAME}}:Requests for checkuser/Case/{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|rfcu]]|[[{{SITENAME}}:Requests for checkuser#{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|<span title="There is no {{SITENAME}}:Requests for checkuser/Case/{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}"><font color=gray>rfcu</font></span>]]}}⋅</small>{{#ifexist: {{highssp|{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}}}|[[{{highssp|{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}}}|ssp]]|[[{{SITENAME}}:Suspected sock puppets#User:{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|<span title="There is no {{SITENAME}}:Suspected sock puppets/{{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}"><font color=gray>ssp</font></span>]]}}<sup>{{#ifexist::Category:{{SITENAME}} sockpuppets of {{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|[[:Category:{{SITENAME}} sockpuppets of {{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}| confirmed socks]]}}</sup><sub>{{#ifexist::Category:Suspected {{SITENAME}} sockpuppets of {{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|[[:Category:Suspected {{SITENAME}} sockpuppets of {{ucfirst:{{{1|Example}}}}}|suspected socks]]}}</sub></span>)

I would purely hate to have no option but to use only the "compiled" version during development. You want to end up with that long mess of code, because it's actually easier on the system not to do all the transclusions, but would you want to start out having to type out all that by hand? Or move sections around? Or even just add or subtract sections? Just keeping track of left-vs-right brackets would be a headache. This is why Object-Oriented Programming was developed in the first place... and it sure cuts down on the OOPSes.

Please don't delete "source-code objects" just because the "compiled" results don't link to them. The links only exist for transcluded (non-subst'd) templates, and if all those subtemplates had stayed transcluded then any page using {{usercheck}} for a great many IDs would crash from the combined transclusion workload. (I once crashed WP:SSP by leaving "uncompiled" transcluded subtemplates in an update to the production version of {{user5}} -- which is used there a lot -- but I learned my lesson.) -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Of course, you could just use a dash, and all these problems would be unnecessary. I am personally not sure what a circle adds to the template (instead of a square or "-" line), but it may be worth it to sacrifice prettiness if it's getting that complicated. I don't see why you're telling me not to delete it, because I am deciding to go with keep, but I think that the way in which you are using it is a bit... hm, I do not like it, which is a personal preference. Gracenotes^T § 21:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should cross out your first delete !vote above. –Pomte 23:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What do you mean I can't vote twice? I hope you're joking! Gracenotes^T § 00:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - It's a mnemonic for the underlying code, shows clearly what you're doing while you compose a template with a list of other subtemplate tags, then all the tags go away when you do a mass subst:, just like compiling source code. It's an "object", darn it! You're never going to see it in the finished results, but that doesn't mean it isn't useful to have in the library! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  One last thing: it's standard to not <noinclude> TFD nominations, but this seems to be a special case. Gracenotes^T § 19:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It hardly a "mnemonic" when it's longer than the code it replaces. Also, it's misleading. Bullet are actually created via templates such as {{*mp}} or good old Wikitext.Circeus 18:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As long as it is getting substituted, this template is useful for particular editor(s). Their editing style should not be judged as it does not impede with articles. Consider redirecting to or from {{sdot}} for ease of use. –Pomte 23:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, at the very least rename per Pomte.Circeus 18:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Smallbullet" is a descriptive name, tells you exactly what this does. Abbreviations or other names -- well, that's what shortcuts are for. What name would you want to invoke it by? == Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  If it's going to be substituted anyway, why does it need a descriptive name? Someone's just going to type Template:Smallbullet into the search bar and hit enter? Gracenotes^T § 17:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  "Smallbullet" is how *I* think of it, how *I* remember it. Perhaps this proves how simple-minded I am. If something shorter suits your memory better, please feel free to use that name for it. Which name remains the actual page, and which the shortcut, I suppose doesn't really matter. I'd just like to remain able to invoke it, if you don't mind, please. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made a comparison table at User:Pomte/Bullets. In Firefox/Opera both middot and sdot look like squares, but you imply above that sdot is a circle, in IE? I can't check in IE right now. Looking at {{usercheck}}, it's odd that its dots are smaller than all those other templates. This isn't the place to go into detail, but I just want to clarify that sdot is actually helpful in some cases and doesn't create discrepancies against convention. –Pomte 22:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I too am using Firefox, and even in your table sdot shows up on my screen as a circle, regular sdot about the same size as small bull, while middot shows up square. However, on the local public library PCs, with IE, sdot is the hollow-square-or-rectangle of "unknown-character", while hardcoded "•" shows up properly. Accordingly, I've updated usercheck to use "•" instead of sdot; and just now have done the same for smallbullet. I think the probem is that some computers use fonts that simply have nothing defined for whatever their browsers are trying to convert sdot into. I'm not happy about changing from an HTML tag to a hardcoded character, but I need to find out what will work across all platforms. I may end up using small-small-bull-/small-/small. I won't know for sure until I can get a broad sampling of results. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am using Firefox 1.5. Increased past a certain font-size, sdot and bold middot start looking exactly the same, except sdot appears vertically low off-center. They also appear as rectangles in IE 5.5 regardless of hardcoding. An important question that I forgot to ask is why aren't you using {{·}} (bold middot) instead? I don't know if there is consensus on this, but · it · seems · to · be the most reasonable size, and its documentation provides reason for preferring it over other delimiters. Nesting two <small> tags is counter-intuitive, especially if substituted, though of course once the code starts getting complicated, the template should stop getting subst'd, as in the case of {{·}}. –Pomte 07:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Usercheck -- Mykungfu (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks ^confirmed_suspected) -- is a fairly long linklist even in Monobook skin with small default sanserif font and a hi-res screen... longer still in Classic skin with a larger serif font, or a lower-res screen. I'm trying to shorten it a trifle, and shrinking the separators was my preferred option. Abbreviating terms further, or using a smaller font throughout, would be less preferable, only because they'd make the linklist a little harder to read. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.2, but I don't think that's the important thing; it's the font being used, and there are even different versions of common fonts, so the character set and spacing may differ from computer to computer even with the same browser/version: example. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:TNG navigation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No longer in use and no longer necessary due to infobox. — Koweja 03:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. not used. - grubber 17:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not used, but not really superseded by the infobox though, which doesn't provide episodic navigation. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 00:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • comment: Template:Infobox Star Trek episode does provide navigation in the form of the next and prev parameters. Koweja 02:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • comment on comment: Thanks for pointing out the obvious to me! --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 03:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Unused template. — S.D. 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: replaced and good riddance of another show specific template --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete, but I feel that there should be a concerted discussion on how to improve the new template. Martinp23 17:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:SathyaSaiBaba (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Speedy Delete - Irrelevant "list" template has been superseded by more relevant and better organised Template:Sathya Sai Baba. — Ekantik ^talk 03:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. - Though I agree it may be a dup, I don't think it's a speedy for there should be some discussion on this. As an aside, Ekantik's new template is very well done. Smee 03:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
• Strong Don't Delete..I think the new one seeks to confuse rather than to serve as as a quick navigation/access point of information. Ekantik continues to mix up [1]supporters and opponents on purpose. So, I ask that the old infobox be retain/archived in the event that this new template proves itself to be a tool to hide information. Sincerely/PEACETalkAbout 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Er, this is not applying good faith by assuming I am "hiding" things on purpose. Please explain how the old template has an advantage over the new one? The old one was a sidebar that made a mess of the articles that it was imposed onto. Not to mention that it was necessary to remove some names of followers when their followership wasn't authenticated, and seemed to have been indiscriminately added in the first place.

The new template is a footer that neatly fits at the bottom of relevant articles and also provides links to more articles than the old one did. I don't see how keeping the old template will improve Wikipedia as there are links to syncretism and interfaith dialogue etc that have nothing to do with Sathya Sai Baba. The new footer has superseded the old sidebar. Ekantik ^talk 16:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ekantik, Here someone fixed it [2] and here [3] you removed it and mixed the information up again?!? What is one to think? Like I said in the template discussion prior, an encyclopedia should be user friendly and not confuse the reader. So, I still hold the position of keeping the old one in the event that this one only serves to confuse people. If I was looking to see if there were opponents I would be confused and think there weren't any if you have your way. There is also the risk of voting for the old ones deletion, may be viewed as an implied approval of you mixing up the information. It may fit neatly at the bottom where no one may look, or access to see that there are many other related article.

So, as an act of good faith please pledge not to mix up the information. You first said/implied it couldn't be done or it could be done at a later date, then along came a little helper and Whala...it can be fixed. Then you reverted this editors work? As to "seemed to have been indiscriminately added", please provide a link where this was done and please don't just remove things. More information, all mixed up is of little value and a case for less is more. So, please keep the information in an accessible form. PEACETalkAbout 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm afraid I don't find your arguments coherent, and I'd strongly advise you to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. It appears that you are a new editor to a controversial subject and you may not know of the history relating to such pages. Let me point it out again: I am the editor who created this template, and while it is the wiki-way to have it edited by other editors, I'm still not convinced that it is helpful to separate followers and opponents.
• You speak of my "reverting other people's work", do you think this is an example of good editing? How about this? In both cases the editor made no effort to remove the names of the opponents from the original section, thus creating duplicate entries. Yep, while it may have been a genuine oversight, it is still careless editing. I'm sure you cannot blame me for reverting even though I disagree with the separation in the first place. Furthermore if you choose to make edits that you know are controversial, you should discuss it first on the talkpage before proceeding to make edits.
• If a bunch of followers and opponents were grouped together as "Followers and Opoonents" how exactly would anybody be confused when all they have to do is click on the link to find out? An administrator has already opined that the new template is still too large which I agree with, and I don't think it is even necessary to list followers/opponents.
• As for information being indiscriminately added, I am referring to the inclusion of interfaith dialogue, syncretism, Manmohan Singh, Benjamin Creme, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and other questionable entries that have little or nothing to do with SSB. The purpose of this template is to connect all articles that deal directly with SSB-matters and not to insert anything indiscriminately. Perhaps you should take another look at the template and think again about your words: "all mixed up is of little value and a case for less is more" and keeping the information in an accessible form. You can see that the original template is disjointed and has irrelevant entries in irrelevant categories, whereas the new template has categorised the connected articles properly with more to be added if and when they are created.

Like I say, I find your argument incoherent and I can't understand how you cannot see how this template greatly improves upon and supersedes the old one, but that's my opinion. Anyway that is a different subject altogether which should really be discussed at Template talk:Sathya Sai Baba instead of here. This is about whether the template should be deleted. It should, because it is a) redundant, and b) it is unnecessary. Regards, Ekantik ^talk 03:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Readers should note the article Sathya Sai Baba was subject to a recent ArbCom proceeding. The issues raised in this may or may not impact on this TfD, but you're best to be at least aware of it before voting Orderinchaos78 02:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Duplicate with Template:Sathya Sai Baba. Template seems excessive for purpose intended - a sidebar assumes certain screen resolutions, and may cause excessive scrolling requirements for those on lower resolutions. The footer replacement, while still quite large, appears to fulfil the same purpose appropriately and conforms better with other Wikipedia navigational boxes (I'm not offering any opinion on content). Orderinchaos78 02:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina cities (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete. This was created for Sarajevo and replaced the standard template {{Infobox City}} when just the addition of a few fields that infobox city has (that the creator may not have been aware of) would have displayed the same infomation. Specialized templates should be avoided when a standard template will work even better. — MJCdetroit 03:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Specialisation can at times justify a separate template, but this template is entirely redundant to (and presents less information than) {{Infobox City}}. -- Black Falcon 07:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Reason (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - Most (if not all) of the articles in this template have been merged into the main article. — Betaeleven 14:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the cliched navigational template that navigates not. Gracenotes^T § 18:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All roads lead to Reason (program) --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 00:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete - the keep arguements are unconvincing. If one editor needs to create multiple articles with the same lead format, there should be no problem with them simply making themselves a template in user space. Martinp23 17:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:TVep (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is non-substitutable (thus every time it is edited Wikipedia has to re-cache all instances). Lead-ins should not be templateified, it also does not help if the lead-in requires modifications that this template cannot handle. Matthew 16:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this should be done in prose. - Peregrine Fisher 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Peregrine Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Helps standardize the lead-in for a specific type of article. The template is not edited often (see history), so the caching problem is minimal. If lead-in requires specific modifications, then don't use this template. Although an editor has to be knowledgeable about the template in order to use it, in most cases it won't ever need to be updated. –Pomte 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (or userfy) per nom. We don't standardize lead ins. If you have to, subst: this template whenever you use it, but keeping it in the articlepages is just a bad idea.--TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is lightly better than templating the entire lead paragraph, but still bad. -Amarkov moo! 17:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I have recently been forced to substitute the text for this template in order to disambiguate links to Entourage generated using it. Example New York (Entourage) and every other article about an Entourage episode. There is no reason why this line can not simply be copied from existing articles if standardization is needed. If you do keep it make sure it supports piped links.Phatom87 23:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • HELP. omg. this shows exactly why these kinds of things are a bad idea. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • On closer inspection I realize that this overparticular case in theory could have been avoided by proper use of the template but I can not seem figure out how to do it without substituting the template. There's some sort optional parameter. I still don't know how to use it. Phatom87 00:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • OK. I wrote too soon I only had to do two this way. Finally figured it out.Phatom87 00:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • BTW: in order to subst: these kinds of templates, we need to use Special:ExpandTemplates, which is really annoying. Isn't there a template call which does the same thing? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Is there a bot that can call Special:ExpandTemplates before we delete this? Would save a whole lot of rewriting of Lead paragraphs .... --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep!, Because: Although I agree with deleting this if it is kept in articles as a template call, the template CAN be very useful for editors or creators of multiple episode articles, if it is substituted. Currently this requires Special:ExpandTemplates, however, I will alter the template so that a) it can only be substed and b) when it is substed it comes out as just prose. Obviously, the decision to delete the template would go alongside removing it from all the articles it is in, which is what we'd have to do if I changed it to a subst-only version, too. So please keep the template, and I will fix it so that it is subst-only, which makes it useful without causing a template-for-content issue. --Alfakim-- talk 17:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This would be fine by me.Phatom87 13:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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.