Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 4 May 6 >

Contents

[edit] May 5

[edit] Numerous edit-count userboxes

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 Merge all. If someone could get with me with the exact details, I can set my bot to work. ^demon[omg plz] 09:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge to more flexible single template, per TfD criterion 1 (not useful any longer as separate templates), except delete two as noted below.

Template to merge to
  • Template:User contrib (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (Will require a bot or huge AWB session, I imagine, to convert the numbering from old format to new in process of migrating users from the userboxes below to this one.) This template allows whatever number to be specified and even better allows whatever format the user wants (18000, 18,000, 18 000, 18K); please note that all of the /test items below are attempts to support a comma, leading to further redundant template proliferation. {{User contrib}} obviates all such needs. May need code upgrade to handle the Category:Wikepedians with more than X edits categories some of the ones below support (if this is considered important enough to preserve; perhaps more a matter for CfD).
Templates to be merged
  1. Template:User Custom edit count (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Note: Serves precisely same purpose as {{User contrib}} but harder to read.
  2. Template:User 10e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 50 users
  3. Template:User 25e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 40 users
  4. Template:User 50e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 20 users
  5. Template:User 100e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 30 users
  6. Template:User 150e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by 11 users
  7. Template:User 200e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by 20 users
  8. Template:User 250e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 40 users
  9. Template:User 300e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 60 users
  10. Template:User 400e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 60 users
  11. Template:User 500e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 150 users
  12. Template:User 600e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 30 users
  13. Template:User 700e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 30 users
  14. Template:User 800e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 30 users
  15. Template:User 900e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 30 users
  16. Template:User 1 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by ~210 users
  17. Template:User 1 000e/test (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by 1 user
  18. Template:User 1 100e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 40 users
  19. Template:User 1 200e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by 1 user
  20. Template:User 1 500e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 60 users
  21. Template:User 1 500e/test (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by no one
  22. Template:User 2 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by ~130 users
  23. Template:User 2 000e/test (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by 1 user
  24. Template:User 2 500e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by ~50 users
  25. Template:User 3 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by ~75 users
  26. Template:User 3 500e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by ~25 users
  27. Template:User 4 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by ~65 users
  28. Template:User 4 500e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 20 users
  29. Template:User 5 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by ~50 users
  30. Template:User 5 500e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 20 users
  31. Template:User 6 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 60 users
  32. Template:User 7 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 40 users
  33. Template:User 7 500e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by ~20 users
  34. Template:User 8 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 40 users
  35. Template:User 9 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by ~35 users
  36. Template:User 10 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by under 60 users
  37. Template:User 11 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - used by ~20 users
  38. Template:User 12 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  39. Template:User 13 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  40. Template:User 14 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  41. Template:User 15 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  42. Template:User 16 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  43. Template:User 17 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  44. Template:User 18 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  45. Template:User 19 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  46. Template:User 20 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  47. Template:User 21 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  48. Template:User 22 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  49. Template:User 23 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  50. Template:User 24 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  51. Template:User 25 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  52. Template:User 30 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  53. Template:User 35 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  54. Template:User 40 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  55. Template:User 45 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  56. Template:User 45 000e/test (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  57. Template:User 50 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  58. Template:User 50 000e/test (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  59. Template:User 55,000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  60. Template:User 60,000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  61. Template:User 65,000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  62. Template:User 70,000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  63. Template:User 75 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  64. Template:User 80,000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  65. Template:User 85,000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  66. Template:User 90,000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  67. Template:User 95,000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  68. Template:User 100 000e (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Note: Only two editors qualify per WP:WBE, so the funny extra comment in this one can probably just safely be ignored for merge purposes.
Templates to be deleted
Templates to leave alone
Further cleanup

PS: All the templates have been TfD tagged (as merge or delete as appropriate).

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Procedural point: The statement that nobody qualifies for 200k or higher isn't correct, because the edit counts list excludes bots. Kingbotk (talk · contribs) has over 200,000 edits and my bot is by no means the one with the highest edit count. --kingboyk 11:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • For a previous discussion about the related user categories, see: Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/March 2007#Edit count categories. The result was that for over 10000 edits, they should be grouped by increments of 5000. - jc37 17:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
      Presuming, based on the templates above, that for under 10000, they should be grouped by 500, and for under 1000 they should be grouped by 100, and for under 300, they should be grouped by 50. 10e and 25e should probably be deleted. (Nominations are here and here.) - jc37 17:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Bot Work
  • I can get ^demonBot2 to do all of the work, provided it comes out as delete/merge. ^demon[omg plz] 09:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Discussion
  • Merge/delete per nomination — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC) (as nominator)
  • Delete all; they encourage editcountitis, which is a terrible affliction. --Cyde Weys 01:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. --tjstrf talk 01:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 01:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. The only way we're truly going to defeat edit counts is by getting rid of all the edit counters, which simply isn't going to happen. Sean William 01:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge redundant and a lot less flexible than {{User contrib}}. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Do listed in nom - while editcountitis may afflict some RFAs (I don't see it that much), deleting all these userboxes isn't going to do a thing to affect that. So keep them, but in an efficient manner, as the nom described. GracenotesT § 01:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge plus 1/Delete Actions listed per nom. Add {{Template:user Custom edit count}}, which does the same thing as Template:User Contrib. Michael Greiner 02:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Update: Added to merge (not delete) list, so that users using it are migrated, don't just lose an infobox. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- "more flexible" and "allows whatever format" means that the user has to figure out how to use it. Waste of time that could be better spent by just letting them use the current array of boxes. Especially as users who want the flexibility can certainly use the more flexible box. Goldfritha 02:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment It isn't like the flexible one is complicated to use. It could easily be described how to use it on the userbox page. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: that you would have to explain it is sufficient proof that it is complicated. Goldfritha 04:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: See my note two below; the fact that they're not even consistently named means either someone still has to explain it, or in absence of an explanation users interested in them still have to do some research. Six of one, half-dozen of the other, and we'll compress 70+ templates into one. I'd call that a "yay!". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment How hard is it to figure out a template by looking at the example? This isn't rocket science. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Hm. Wikipedia is not MySpace. If a user is dedicated enough, he/she can learn the ability to pass a single parameter through a template. You may be interested in this: Occam's razor. I think that finding the correct template out of the dozens listed there should take longer than finding one and using it. GracenotesT § 02:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: What Gracenotes and Malevious said, plus also note that the separate boxes are not consistently named, so they are not in fact easier to find and use at all, and enforce a particular (strange) numbering habit. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. I don't see a problem. Dr.K. 02:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • [double edit conflict] Merge all parameters are not that hard to pass. Because of the new template, the multiple old templates will be obsolete. Wikipedia does not need obsolete templates. I will be willing to set up a bot request to convert all of the usages of the old templates that have not been changed over. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 02:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Keen. Do note that some of them have commas in the names, and so on; they're not very consistent! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per well put nom. JPG-GR 03:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Sephiroth BCR 03:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. As to the arguments about editcountitis...to say that these userboxen are exclusively used by edit count freaks is totally unverifiable. Also, the use of them would be a symptom of editcountitis not a cause. VanTucky 04:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all per nom. I see no reason for this not to happen. Now I've just got to figure out how to use the new box... -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 05:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Giant instruction manual: {{User contrib|1234}} where "1234" is the edit count in question. Still working on the Japanese and Portuguese editions. ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)  ;-)
  • Merge One size fits all is A-OK. Merging redundant templates is OK too. Editors' philosophies are patently irrelevant. 05:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Can someone explain what the issue is? I created some of the templates because the existing ones had no comma, but I can't follow what merge means. Sorry if I'm being dense. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Explanation: Merge means: convert users of the to-be-merged templates to the modern template, don't just delete them all and leave people with redlinked templates on their userpages, which would certainly be on the rude side. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. Let me know if you'd like Alphachimpbot and AWB to get involved in the (massive) cleanup. I'd be more than willing to assist. alphachimp 06:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Enlistment reply: Probably a great idea; see above at comments of Vishwin60 (talk · contribs) for addl. volunteer. Coordination probably in order. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge cut down on the red tape and junk that isn't used. Jmlk17 08:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, yep sounds like a good idea, esp. the comma seperation part. Lugnuts 09:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 10:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Sure. I just changed mine manually. It took a full five seconds.--Anthony.bradbury 13:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom - Morphh (talk) 13:45, 06 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As the categories in Category:Wikipedians by number of edits are primarily populated by the templates, before this is closed consideration should be given to the following options:
    1. have the bots add the users to the proper categories when the templates are removed
    2. delete the cats
    3. leave the cats there but have users place themselves in manually without a template to assist.
IMHO, not addressing this would result in only half of a solution. --After Midnight 0001 14:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:CSD#C3 may apply, or at least the logic therein. There still are sortkeys; we could do
[[Category:Wikipedians by number of edits|{{#expr:{{{1}}} round -4}}]]
That groups by 10000s, which the category seems to approximately currently do. Or then again, allowing Wikipedians with more than 100,000 edits,
[[Category:Wikipedians by number of edits|{{#ifexpr:{{{1}}} >= 100000|!|{{#expr:{{{1}}} round -4}}}}]]
Or to prevent passing, for example, "ZOMGZ 400!!!!!!!" through the template instead of "400",
[[Category:Wikipedians by number of edits|{{#ifeq:{{#expr:{{{1}}}}}|{{{1}}}|{{#ifexpr:{{{1}}} >= 100000|!|{{#expr:{{{1}}} round -4}}}}|?}}]]
Gets complicated quickly, though. GracenotesT § 15:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support to merge - Each userbox has its own color associated with it. One common userbox would become boring, since there would be no variation in colors. Also, some colors in the userbox might not fit in with a user's userpage, especially if the colors are not compatible with the page's background. Therefore, I will support a merge only if an extra parameter is inserted to allow someone to change the colors to fit their needs.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 16:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    Someone added 2 parameters for colours (id-bg and info-bg, which are actually for the opposites that you would guess they're for). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    Are they? Damn. Well, I'm not that familiar with userboxen, feel free to fix it if you want. GracenotesT § 17:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    Question - Would it be possible to include a list of colors for each number of edits on the discussion page of {{User contrib}}? Before they are deleted it would be nice to record the historic color schemes so that users may include them in the parameters. --LEKI (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Totally Unrelated Question I seriously gotta ask, why in the world did you link to the judo article for the list of colors? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per nomination, proposal makes sense. I do kinda agree with the condition suggested by Ed above, but that's going to take one hell of a lot of work, when there's already going to be a lot going into this. Hersfold (talk/work) 16:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Does anyone else think that documentation should be split off into Template:User contrib/doc? This template (while not widely used now) will soon become used by hundreds of users. I think that splitting the /doc off now is the best course of action. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 16:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and commence mass introduction of {{User contrib}}. Set a parameter that allows for different colours if so desired. --Phoenix (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment See here for two links that gives the entire wikitext of all the non-redirect templates across two pages. In a different format (say, JSON or XML), this can be used to make it so that the colors don't change; they can be customized in the new template. GracenotesT § 17:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all to Template:User contrib, and rewrite that if nescescary so it continues to work. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • As far as I can tell, nothing needs to be changed. I threw the template on my page today and all parameters work fine, incluiding the colours. --Phoenix (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I like having these. It's nice that everyone who has the same amount of edits has the same color. It's easy to look. - hmwithtalk 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment i like it isn't a valid reason to keep these :| Plus, you can change the colors on the new one to anything you want. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Response I meant that I like the organizational color standards. And yes, one can change the colors, but everyone with the same amount of edits wouldn't have the same color userbox. - hmwithtalk 18:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment At User:Gracenotes/Sandbox 2 is the complete list of templates and their corresponding colors, generated by a script I wrote. If this could be implemented with the bot replacements, that would be great. GracenotesT § 18:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, as per Gracenotes… colors should remain, with the option for the user to change it if he/she desires. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • merge allows for intermediate numbers as well.--Sefringle 20:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge the userboxes and delete all of the categories I don't see any positive use for the categories. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What the nom said Unnecessary to have all these different ones when there is a more flexible one. GDonato (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. While I like the way that the current series of templates has a predefined set of colors, I see the advantage of having one flexible template to serve everyone's needs. I like having an edit count userbox so I can get a rough idea how experienced someone is. Royalbroil 22:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge The templates are useful - but it would be good to have one template with all of these built in, like {{User edits|1000}}. — Wenli 01:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ideally, all of these and {{user contrib}} as well would be deleted, but this is about the best we can hope for, I suppose – Gurch 04:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Merge I would be ok with a merger as long as there was a color parameter included in the new userbox. It would be nice if there was some kind of standardization according to edit counts, but that wouldn't be necessary. --74.192.33.254 06:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: For the record, the above comment was me, i just forgot to log in last night...--Entoaggie09 02:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Nuke from orbit. Encouraging editcountitis essentially evades effectivity, ergo erase. >Radiant< 11:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I politely disagree with the opinion that edit counters cause editcountitis. Some of us are simply proud of the fact that we have contributed to wikipedia at a certain level. While I know that I haven't got all that many edits, it's just kind of fun to see how increases. Also, they can give people a quick idea of the extent of your contributions without having to dig through contribution history or use any tools. While I agree that edit counts should not be given too much importance, especially with rfa's, there is no reason to get rid of edit counters entirely. --Entoaggie09 02:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and include a copy of the table at User:Gracenotes/Sandbox 2 so users can keep with the current colour scheme if they wish. --Geniac 12:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per above, just throwing my vote on the pile --WikiSlasher 13:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, they don't encourage editcountitis, edit counters encourage editcountitis. Might as well delete service awards. - Thekittybomb 14:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • And without edit counters, we wouldn't be having this discussion. --Phoenix (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge because it only makes sense. Why use many pages when you could just have one? Make sure you include the color changes though... I like those... they make me happy... and keep me motivated. --Triadian 00:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well I think it would be best to have a customizable box that lets you change the color and edit count if you want but unless that happens Strong Keep. DBZROCKS 01:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 00:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Uhh, {{User contrib}} has that exact capability the last time I checked, so I guess you're in luck. --Phoenix (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - can be custommade...and delete extra space on the mainserver. Real96 04:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge the templates, and UCFD to determine what to do with the categories. (By the way, deleting things doesn't free up server space for years, as the information has to be stored until the next time deleted items are cleared out (which is hardly ever done), and actually increases disk space usage because the action has to be logged; but the amount is negligible anyway.) --ais523 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe we can request oversight for the templates :) GracenotesT § 19:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom, as long as a bot does the converting over.BeckyAnne 17:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all as per the nomination. --PaxEquilibrium 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all having all the userboxes as one template make far more sense than having lots of userboxes with different amounts. I've changed my edit count userbox. Acalamari 19:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge/deprecate all, per the above. Saying that "these userboxes are not useful, so they should be deleted" is a minority opinion that, while respectable, remains a minority opinion. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all, as per above. I have a bot that can do all the converting with a little work. It runs under AWB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nol888 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Merge all, as per above. A bot would be great to convert it though. Tim.bounceback(talk | contribs | ubxen) 22:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all on the condition that the current default colours are maintained, will make it much easier to gain user acceptance if it looks basically the same. Orderinchaos 07:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. I didn't quite understand the whole thing, but the current profusion of templates is ridiculous. 129.98.212.73 01:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If the different colors for the different numbers will be lost, then keep as is. Otherwise, merge.
Oh and I love the "insane" comment on 100,000! ;_; Don't get rid of it!Toastypk 01:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Changed to merge. Thanks to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_contrib the original colors have stayed intact in one form or another.
  • Keep All They have a right to be there as different choices. I mean, they don't vandalise do they? --Pupster21 Talk To Me 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Vandalism is bad, so anything other than vandalism is fine? I am dubious of the inverse. GracenotesT § 02:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge All per nom - why have all those userboxes? Easier to track-em with the one 8) master_son 01:02, 17 May 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.

[edit] Template:Auton stories

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 ^demon[omg plz] 20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Auton stories (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I don't think that three stories in nearly a 190 qualifies for a template - we wouldn't have one for the Macra, so I don't see why we should have one for the Autons. — Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 14:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Picaroon (Talk) 19:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Having an Auton appearance appears to be a minor, non-defining characteristic for these articles. There are too few of them and they can link to each other if truly connected. –Pomte 02:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Pomte pretty much summed up my opinion. Autons on a general Dr. Who template would be fine, but this is just too specific. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:59, 18 May 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.

[edit] Template:User vandalized

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 Withdrawn by nominator. It's as lovely as ever to see people assuming that by nominating it I was attempting to run something through the processes as many times as possible until I got a result I wanted. Perhaps people forgot that not everybody is aware of every single TfD that has ever been created? Either way, the consensus here is clear. Don't assume that I was actually trying to do something constructive, just bash me. --Deskana (AFK 47) 02:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:User vandalized (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:User talk vandalized (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:Bot vandalized (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:User vandalized lots (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These templates serve no purpose other than to encourage people to vandalise the page. I have seen an instance of someone directly vandalising the template. I would think this is a bit of a waste of space, and that WP:DENY (although only an essay) would apply. I am wondering whether the community agrees with this assessment? Note I did not nominate User:Ace Class Shadow/vandalized, as it is not strictly a template, but I would ask that anyone voting here considers this template too. Deskana (AFK 47) 19:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:DENY. It makes vandalizing user pages like a game or something for vandals and give them more attention than they really deserve. We don't need to encourage such disruptive behavior. --Aude (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I use this template. I personally don't think it harms anything (but will not use that for an argument against deletion). I do want to observe that even if we delete this, people can easily enough just include textual versions on their userpages (as I do at HRWiki), so I'm not sure it's really worthwhile to delete it. Another thought: is userfying it a possible solution? Heimstern Läufer 19:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of this deletion nomination, but I'm also not a fan of the reasons being given for keeping it. It seems to me that reasons like "lots of people use it" aren't really very useful (rather ILIKEITish, and I wouldn't necessarily give much consideration to these reasons if I were closing this debate. Only a few users here seem to be actually responding to Deskana's concerns and reasons for nominating. Heimstern Läufer 22:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:DENY is an essay I use this template, and as a recent changes patroller, and anti-vandalism patrol member, I know that whatever can fuel vandals is bad. However, if a vandal is checking a userpage, he is probably already vandalising heavily. Flubeca 19:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I use this template. And, honestly, it doesn't really encourage people to vandalize the page. If they're there to vandalise, they'll do it regardless. If not, chances are they're not going to. Besides, vandalism is reverted immediately on userpages, and it's really not a big deal. If you delete the template, I'll just use the source code. (Unless there's something against that, which I don't think there is.) Cool Bluetalk to me 20:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: While I do not think that this template encourages vandalism I do not see what good deleting this template would do. Users still might just include another version of the count or might even copy the code. As this template isn't used on articles but only user pages I don't see much harm in keeping it as vandals will continue to vandalize.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I truly see no necessity (or purpose, for that matter) in deleting the Userbox. It doesn't appear to encourage any form of vandalism. As Cool Blue stated, if it were up to a Vandal, he or she would blank or cause various other havoc, regardless of this minor hindrance. NSR77 (Talk|Contribs) 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the aforementioned reasons. If someone comes to vandalise another one's page s/he wouldn't pay attention to little userboxes on it as a rule imho. Alaexis 20:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but Userfy. (edit conflict) By checking what links to the template, over 1,000 users are using this template. The template was created by Azatoth, the creator of the TWINKLE anti-vandalism tool. The template does not specifically note any vandals in particular, it only serves as a count of all vandal edits. WP:DENY is not an official policy or even a guideline; while I do recognize that denying recognition is a good idea in general, I do not believe that is the intent of the template. The template was created in a effort to catalog the sacrifices made by frequent RC and NP patrollers, who are willing to continue their work despite the various threats and attacks they receive from vandals. I agree with Heimstern in that the template should be userfyed in accordance with the Userbox Migration. Hersfold (talk/work) 20:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per WP:SNOW & the last two times this template has been listed here. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Most users who vandalize userpages are allready die-hard vandals, and it is better for them to vandalize a userpage then an article. -Mschel 20:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Many users use and enjoy these userboxes. - hmwithtalk 20:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no basis in fact to delete this template.--Fahrenheit451 20:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Argument for deletion based on original research. It is patently impossible to say that all uses of the template are for that purpose, and even if it was there are far more useless userboxes floating around. VanTucky 21:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per Nick. This is the third time this UBX has been put up for deletion. Most users like this box and want to keep it! Chris 21:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep as lots of users use it. No need for it to be deleted. Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 21:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: This issue shouldn't of even come up as per WP:SNOW, but just to repeat, there is no real reason to delete this template. Now, if no one was using this template, then I would be all for deleting it. But the fact is that many, many users use this template, and vandals wouldn't be motivated by this template as it would be like going to McDonald's and buying somthing so that the customers served amount would go up. As for the spaced used, it's not important as stated in WP:DWAP. --Andrew Hampe Talk 22:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be snowballing a bit but I wanted to reiterate the rational arguments as some of the votes being tacked on are just "because so many people use it", which, as the nominator notes, is not an acceptable one really. WP:DENY is only an essay, and, whether or not it applies, it is not grounds to delete the template. There is no reason to believe it actually motivates vandals, and if it does, only to the page on which it is displayed. If an editor wishes to promote vandalism to his or her own userpage, to each his own. GoodnightmushTalk 22:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The template does no harm, and I have seen it said o.k., written, that it may have a value in flushing out vandals who can then be actioned against. I do accept that the supply of vandals appears inexaustible.--Anthony.bradbury 22:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I use the template in its displayed state. Per the above, it does no harm. --Phoenix (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per the last two times this has already been speedy kept. Alternatively keep and close now per WP:SNOWBALL. There is no way this is going to be anything but keep, meanwhile the TfD notice is having way-ugly results everwhere this template is being used. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep These are not shrines for vandals or reputation for vandals. They are shrines for the victims of vandals. I respond to userpage vandalism by the revert, increment, block, ignore rule. If people vandalize my userpage it means two things: 1) they are vandals and 2) I did something to make them angry (like warning or reverting them). This template is my way of saying, "your vandalism of my page is not a feather in your cap; it's a feather in my cap." For this reason, I believe these counters discourage rather than encourage vandalism. I would like to argue in the alternative, that even if it increases vandalism on userpages, it means that the vandal is attacking userpages rather than mainspace pages. I consider this an improvement also. I assume, nobody has done a study of whether users who have these templates are vandalized more than ones who don't, especially while controlling for things like number of blocks or warnings given out. --Selket Talk 23:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Selket- where are the figures that show that the template encourages vandalism? Heck, if that was in article there'd be a big fat fact tag after it. The fact remains that the userbox merely states how many times a page has been vandalised. As per some previous comments about it making vandalism a game? gives vandals more attention? This userbox doesn't not list vandals, nor does it appear to condone vandalism. I would suggest to Keep the userbox. Cheers, Jonomacdrones (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Even if it is encouraging people who are predisposed to vandalism anyway to vandalize certain userpages, the use of the template at least keeps the vandals entertained in userspace with the pages of those editors willing to "play along," with is preferable to the vandals getting bored and, say, adding "poop" to every article in the category "Lounge Chairs" or something of that nature. --Dynaflow 00:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I appreciate the reasoning of the person who suggests the deletion, but I believe that each user should be permitted to judge the effect on his or her own userpage. Countering the nominator, I would say that the template provides a relatively quiet way to vent frustration at vandalism, and that jointly the barometers are a vector of “barometers” which could be used to inform policy. —SlamDiego 00:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. per all the above. Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 00:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and close per User:SMcCandlish . —Ocatecir Talk 00:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Selket --Mini-Geek (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep-again -- how many times do we have to do this? Akradecki 00:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The only evidence I've ever seen of it encouraging vandalism, was quite clever and funny. An IP came along and simply incremented the count on my copy of the userbox, with an edit summary that his/her incidence of vandalism was a paradox (more like it resulted in one: I couldn't revert it, because it was true!) That amused me so much, I didn't even bother uw-tagging the funny person. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Probably Epimenides. That guy has too much free time. —SlamDiego 01:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It may be useful to understand the logic of WP:DENY. It's not like a policy; its purpose is not enforcement. If a troll sees what attention a certain vandal gets, it may also want that attention and a place in culture. This userbox is a nod to vandalism, not to specific vandals. While creating a paramilitary attitute can be harmful, this doesn't do that. I also disagree with WP:DENY for other reasons, anyway. Of this TFD: the informal definition of a certain word (which I conveniently forgot) is "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results". GracenotesT § 01:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep... Whatever happened to the idea that putting a thing up for deletion again and again until the desired result is got was patronising?--It's-is-not-a-genitive 02:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    What ever happened to the idea that someone that makes a TfD nomination doesn't necessarily read TfD every single day and might not know that it's been nominated before? Uhhhh... --Deskana (AFK 47) 02:23, 6 May 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.
  • Edit-conflicted response, and there's nothing against editing outside archived sections: WP:AFDCLOSE was created for a reason. Perhaps not everyone assumed good faith, but I'm imagine they're tired of this one being TFD'd. GracenotesT § 02:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    That's fine, whatever. I love being bashed regardless. It gives me a tingle. I don't mind people saying "Hey, did you realise this was nominated before?". I do mind people saying "omg stfu with the nominations". --Deskana (AFK 47) 02:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    Understandable; sorry if my vote was a bit rough. [Gracenotes gives Deskana a wikihug] Wikipedia: one big happy sadomasochistic family! GracenotesT § 02:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    Cheers. --Deskana (AFK 47) 02:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I just want to second Selket's position above. It is absolutely right. Abeg92contribs 03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Airreg

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 Keep ^demon[omg plz] 20:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This template is used mainly to provide inline external links to airdisaster.com, wherever there is an aircraft ID number within body/text of an article. Airdisaster.com has extensive advertising (big annoying banner advertisement and the google ads) and not that much useful content to justify this type of link from Wikipedia. The template does have some esoteric features allowing the links to go to the FAA, or other sites. But the vast majority of links are to airdisaster.com. See American Airlines Flight 965 as an example of the template in use -- it's used both in the infobox and in the body of the article (second paragraph). If you don't mind some pop ads (though pop-up blocker may catch them), try the link and see how paltry the information provided is. There may be other parts of airdisaster.com that are useful, but not these ID searches which provide very little information, accompanied by large amounts of advertising. I don't think there should be any such inline external links facilitated with this template. The infobox links don't give Wikipedia users much benefit either. For ISBN book id numbers, we don't directly link them to Amazon or any other particular site. Same principle should apply, though we don't have any Specialpages for aircraft ID numbers like we do with Special:Booksources. --Aude (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This was previously nominated for deletion last August. --Aude (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --BozMo talk 19:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep useful way of referencing info on individual aircraft - particularly from regulatory authorotys such as FAA and CAA -just because some people don't like one of the options - i.e. air disaster, because it has some pop-up ads, shouldn't mean that all other uses are stopped as well. Fix it - don't just delete it!! Nigel Ish 19:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Aviation-safety.net seems like a more suitable alternative to airdisaster.com, but doesn't support links the way they are set-up in this template. We can have links without the template. --Aude (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep per Nigel Ish, deleting the airdisaster.com feature. I also note that the template's creator, N328KF, is one of the most-prolific (19,000+ edits) aviation editors. --A. B. (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to make the template link to aviation-safety.net or some alternative that provides more information? FAA, CAA, and other authorities don't cover all aircraft, but only those in their jurisdictions. --Aude (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What about http://www.airfleets.net? --A. B. (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
When I search there, I get an url like this: http://www.airfleets.net/recherche/index.php?file=rechregis In order to make the template work for that site, it would need to somehow incorporate the id number into the url. The FAA database does that - see the "644AA" in the URL: http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=644AA&cmndfind.x=0&cmndfind.y=0 Linking to the FAA seems okay, as it's an "official" site. It's registry has some problems too, such as cases where it "retires" ID numbers after an aircraft is destroyed in a crash and later reassigns the number to some other aircraft. Because of variations in how sites set-up the urls, the template will only work for some sites and not others. Simple links with brackets would work just as well. --Aude (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
No matter what we do, I think we'll need a bot to fix the links on all the pages. There are a lot of links, and I never had the time nor patience to fix them all manually. And, I'm not sure we need the links inline in paragraphs, but I don't mind them as much in the infobox. --Aude (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - It's been months since the user proposing the deletion has even discussed changes on the template's talk page, yet he wants to ask about changes now in the TfD. The TfD seems a bit extreme, more so since the same user also proposed its deletion 9 months ago. - BillCJ 20:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking at Template talk:Airreg, I'm apparently not the only user that has problems with the template. Sending Wikipedia users to a site with lots of pop up ads is something we shouldn't do. It's not possible with the template to send users to alternative sites that don't have the ID number incorporated into the URL. --Aude (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep we should simply stop using that one inapropriate site. I yake it we can just take it out the template and thus prevent it's usage, yeah? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I looked at several of the articles listed on your userpage. They don't use this template, and altogether do not make an external link out of the aircraft registration number. Why do you do it that way in articles you work on? --Aude (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess I just never got into the habit. It's more of an oversight on my part, although this discusion has reminded me to get off my ass and implement it. Once this mess here is cleared up first, that is. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I think your articles look cleaner without the links. Though, it I think it would be good to reference the registration number in the way we normally cite things. As for removing airdisaster as an option, I don't know if it's so simple as removing airdisaster from the template, because it's a "default" option. We need something to replace it. The airfleet site is a possibility, but is also heavy on advertising. I don't know of a good way to "fix" the template. If it's not fixable (as I think), then we should find some alternative to using this template. --Aude (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. My issue is that the aircraft registration numbers are not encyclopedic in most cases. When it might be is after a disaster which is the link that most everyone has a problem with. I'd like to see the disaster case as the only one left in the template. However that position is tempered by the valid advert issues raised. I'm not sure how often we need to actually include an encyclopedic registration number. In those cases a template might be handy. But if this leads to every airline article including registration number, I think we have a problem. And if you are wondering, at least two articles already include all registration numbers, the last time I looked anyway. Vegaswikian 21:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. You're back, Aude? This template seems to stick in your craw for some reason. Why don't you offer suggestions on fixing things rather than simply doing a TfD? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I joined Wikipedia in late Aug 06, and began working with WP:AIR in Sep. I find it odd that the first TfD was in Aug 06, and this is the first I'm hearing of problems with the template. One would think that some of the users who objected to the template, or at least its use of certain sites, would have brought it to the Project's attention between then and now. THere are alot of good editors involved with the project, of whom N328KF is just one of the better editors. Collectivley, the Project could have solved some of the objector's problems with the template long ago. Instead, knowledge of the obections have been limited to just a few users. At least one editor has let the project know about it this time, and perhaps the issues can be settled permanently this time, or at least to the Porject's saticfaction. - BillCJ 00:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Another point: How many aircraft are covered by the FAA, CAA, EAA, and the other official sites? How many are not? I honestly don't know the figures of how many of the world's aircraft are registered in these countries, but I would imagine it's a sizable portion. Even if we limited the template to only official, or at least non-commercial, sites, I think we would cover a majority of the world's aircraft. If some are left out, that's no reason not to have a template in the fisrt place, esp as the nations covered have most of the major English-speaking populations. - BillCJ 00:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • For the U.S., is the FAA the best place to link for air disasters? I'm not entirely impressed with the amount of information they provide, compared to what NTSB provides in its reports. I just noticed that the FAA registry doesn't even mention the flight number of the aircraft that crashed. [1] The NTSB reports provide that and more. But, there's no automatic way of linking to these with the tail numbers, but you can query here or link to the reports without the template [2]. Basically, the template restricts us in which sites we can link to. (only to ones that allow you to include the tail number as part of the url - the web address link) The aviation-safety site also seems useful, but has the same problem that you can't link to it through this template. I don't think there is any way to resolve that problem by "fixing" the template. For that reason, I think we need to come up with some other way of referencing the tail numbers. --Aude (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - this TfD confuses this old wikipedian! Emoscopes Talk 01:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In articles, wherever we mention the tail number, this template can make that number into a link to some database website like airdisaster.com, the FAA, CAA, etc. For all these sites, the urls (web addresses) have the tail number somewhere in them, such as this: http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=644AA&cmndfind.x=0&cmndfind.y=0 (see the 644AA). This number is what makes it possible for the template to work. The problem is that it restricts what sites we can link to (only those websites that can do links that way). The template cannot provide links to sites like the NTSB and aviation-safety.net which have very detailed information but without advertising. I don't think we can fix the template. If we/I could, I would have done so a while ago. --Aude (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have been leaning towards some form of keep. However it is issues like this that may say delete is the correct choice. After all, the tail number is not something that does not change on the aircraft, so why use it as a fixed reference point? Another reason why this information is not encyclopedic. Vegaswikian 02:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Assuming what you say is correct, wouldn't the best thing to do be to develop suitable alternatives first? If there is a better way to do this, then work with the editors to come up with it, and then there would be no problem deleting this one. Or is is 9 months not a long enough time to have suggested even discussing an alternative? - BillCJ 03:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, you did make some suggestions early on, but none recently. - BillCJ 04:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm confused. Is this template only for linking to disaster information, or is it for gejneral information on aircraft with a given registration number. (Aude, please don't answer this question, as it is not directed to you, though you may comment on responses.) - BillCJ 04:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Not just for disaster information, but that is one supported option. In the other cases, it provides links to sites that provide information based on a tail number. In the case of Canada and the UK, it also provides a link to their aircraft authorities. At least this is my understanding. Vegaswikian 05:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • FYI, here's a complete list of 194 places the template is used: [3] --Aude (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - No problem with the air disaster link but the link to aviation authorities may be troublesome as aircraft registrations are not unique and can be re-used particularly american N-numbers. MilborneOne 07:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The air disaster link gives you a date and location of the crash, the type of aircraft, the tail number, number of fatalties, and that's it, except for a large banner ad, and a pop-up ad. All that information (and more) is already provided directly in the Wikipedia article in the infobox, as well as the article text. I don't know how the airdisaster link is acceptable under WP:EL, which describes links "normally to be avoided" to include "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." and "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." --Aude (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per lack of rational/consensus in this entire discussion. Jmlk17 10:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, like IMDB links, it provides a useful link to sites that catalog a level of detail that we wouldn't cover ourselves. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Our infoboxes do provide that level of detail, as airdisaster.com. --Aude (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
As said above, Airdisaster.com isn't the only place it points. Just make sure it points at good sites. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The FAA registry is not all that informative either, though I'm not sure about Transport Canada, CAA, and others. In order to "fix" the template, we need some comprehensive website that can be an alternative for airdisaster.com. aviation-safety.net seems to have more extensive details, and is a non-commercial site. The NTSB database is also highly informative, though it's not an international database. How do we make the template link to aviation-safety.net? I haven't been able to figure it out, because I'm pretty sure it's not possible. I've been repeatedly told to "fix" the template. I'm unable to "fix" it. Do you or anyone have ideas on how to "fix" it and make it link to something like aviation-safety.net instead? --Aude (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The best way to "fix" a template is to engage in conversation on the template's talk page on what changes need to be made, and the creator or other experienced editors can then make changes. If you don't get any response there, then posting a question on Talk:WP:AIR will get the attention of many other editors who may be able to help. But post the template for deletions several months after any discussion on it is not really an effective method. However, because someone else brought the template to the Project's attention, we now have a good chance of at least addressing some of your issues. At least we will, after the AfD process is over. Honestly, you seem to be hung up on the airdisaster aspect of the template, and the link to airdisaster.com, but are ignoring the other useful aspects of the template. It may not link to every possible aircraft in the world, but what it does link to covers a sizeable portion of the world's aircraft. Having that capability is a good thing, but we shouldn't toss it out because it doesn't wash the dishes too. - BillCJ 17:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This was discussed last August, but nothing changed with the template. What makes me think it can and will be "fixed" this time? The template is overwhelmingly used for the airdisaster links, which may be why I "seem to be hung up on the airdisaster aspect of the template". Those links are not consistent with WP:EL. Others expressed concerns about this on the template talk page, and I saw that nothing has changed. The FAA links are better, but not quite adequate because they don't reference the flight number and thus don't serve as valid references. This time, if you and others in the relevant WikiProjects find a way to fix the template, to include options like NTSB and aviation-safety, that would be good. BTW, I did leave notes about this tfd on WikiProject Aviation and others in order to bring it to your attention. --Aude (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, you did leave a note on WP:Aviation on May 5. I missed that, as I only saw the one on WP:AIR. {WP:AIR is an odler project, and so its talk page gets a lot more traffic than the talk page of its newer parent project, WP:Aviation. But I don't see anything there or on WP:AIR recently regarding the template in recent months. In addtion, you left no comments on Template talk:Airreg between 15 Aug 1006 and 5 May 2006. Hopefully the fact that this template will be kept from deletion by an overwhelming consensus will keep you from waiting nine more months to try to do anything to "fix" the template, and that your first effort to "fix" it in another nine months won't be another TfD. If you really want to "fix" aircraft-related templates and other items, a TfD is not the best way to proceed, unless you just really do just want to delete it and not have it fixed at all. - BillCJ 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like it fixed and made workable, as I have said previously. How do you propose to make it work? I'm quite sure it can't be made to work with sites like aviation-safety.net. If it can't be, then what do you suggest as an alternative? To keep airdisaster.com links? or what? --Aude (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what would work best at this point, esp as I'm not experienced with template design and fuction. Anyway, details of how to fix it would be better discussed on the talk page, where hopefully the editors who have responed here will chime in, and we'll get some good options to chose from. - BillCJ 19:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I have more than enough experience with templates to be skeptical that it can't be fixed easily if at all. But I'm still watching the template talk page, and willing to discuss things there should anyone be interested. --Aude (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

People here seem interested in keeping the template, but with concerns about airdisaster.com and other links? The airdisaster.com links were removed from four articles I'm working on, back in August, so I somewhat forgot about the template. But noticed the concerns on the template talk page. When the articles are about the death of thousands (in my case), or hundreds, we should adhere to higher standards and avoid linking in this manner to overly commercial sites which seem to be about the site operator making money more than providing useful information. I tend to be very appalled at this sort of thing, and have a strong reaction. Again, I'm doubtful the template can be made to work with other sites, but am seeking suggestions on Template talk:Airreg. --Aude (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Close discussion. I suggest that this discussion be closed since the issues with the template do not concern its deletion rather its function. Those issues need to be discussed on the template talk page or in one of the projects. Vegaswikian 20:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm watching Template talk:Airreg. If users join discussion there, and start working towards some solution, then I'm okay with closing this tfd. If people are silent there and nothing is done to fix the template, then I think deleting it is the better option than status quo. Please join the discussion and let's resolve this. --Aude (talk) 21:24, 7 May 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.

[edit] Template:Philippine quasi-legislatures

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 Keep ^demon[omg plz] 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Philippine quasi-legislatures (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Comment Why is this listed here for deletion? --Aude (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Where should it be listed? --Phoenix (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • He means that there are no reasons given for why it should be deleted. Is it not objective? Does it invite OR? It is ugly? Does it smell badly? - BillCJ 00:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Understood. One can only hope a web document doesn't smell badly. Keep in any event, for said lack of a reason to delete. --Phoenix (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Quasi" doesn't sound objective. Perhaps merge to {{Philippine legislatures}} with an explicit statement that these are drafts or unofficial or whatever it is I fail to understand about legislatures. One of the articles happens to be in both templates. –Pomte 03:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless (per Aude's succinct version) some actual delete rationale is presented. There's been all kinds of stuff going on in the Philippines for a long time. There are many cultures there, and plenty of culture clashes. I wouldn't want WP to wade into deciding which of them have "valid" political power. The concept might be better named something other than "Quasi...", though, but I think it may take some editors more versed in that topic to say what that should be ("provisional" or "rebel" or "opposition" or "local empowerment" or whatever, in place of "quasi-"). Ergo I !vote for "keep" until there is a clear consenus for a rename. Or to be more explicit, I vote strongly for "keep" because despite the questionable naming, I believe that the description in question likely describes something real and of encyclopedic value; I furthermore suspect that this is more a matter for CfD than TfD unless there are no underlying categories. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per lack of any reason to delete from nomination. Jmlk17 10:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - No reason given for deletion, so we are left to guess why. I would support discussion to merge this with {{Philippine legislatures}}. That template is very large already, so a few more links wouldn't hurt, and some are there already. In addition, these should probably be separated in to Constitutional convetnions and another category. - BillCJ 01:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Through out Philippine history there has been only 1 quasi-legislature which was the Batasang Bayan, which acted as advisory body to Pres. Ferdinand Marcos when he declared martial law and promulgated laws by decree. The Batasang Bayan assisted him in drafting some of the laws. All the rest there were constitutional assemblies which drafted the Philippine Constitution, thus they don't belong. The template {{Philippine legislatures}} will also be undergoing a change, which will only have the legislative bodies and not the legislative periods in Philippine History, as per discussion in the template. Keeping this template on the other hand is irrelevant since there is only 1 quasi-legislature which is now more appropriately referred to as Legislative Advisory Councils. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 03:56, 7 May 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.

[edit] Template:Tab Quebec 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dekimasuよ! 04:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Tab Quebec City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete. This is a single use template that was only used for Quebec City. Also, instructions/parameters are in French only. It was replaced with {{Infobox City}} which gives Quebec City the same look as Montreal and many other Canadian cities. — MJCdetroit 04:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete unused template, no longer needed. --Aude (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Phoenix (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per it being an orphaned and useless template. Jmlk17 10:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well I think it would be best to have a customizable box that lets you change the color and edit count if you want but unless that happens Strong Keep. 24.233.184.10 00:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Huh? I think this user meant to comment about the edit count templates far above this TfD. —MJCdetroit 03:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's orphaned and useless. Tim.bounceback(talk | contribs | ubxen) 22:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Qyd 15:25, 10 May 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.

[edit] Template:MexTlatoque

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. Dekimasuよ! 04:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Not used in any articles. The tlatoque are already listed in Template:Aztec, as well as in infoboxes and succession boxes. — Ptcamn 02:11, 5 May 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.

[edit] Template:Melbourne rolling stock

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, redundant. Orderinchaos 11:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Melbourne rolling stock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Now redundant template, has been merged into Template:MelbournePublicTransport. — Thewinchester (talk) 01:12, 5 May 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.