Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 21

< January 20	January 22 >

January 21[edit]

Template:W2[edit]

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. Ral315 (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this template is to make ordinary internal wikilinks. The syntax more complex and confusing than the standard syntax for links (compare {{w2|page}} or {{w2|page|displayed text}} to the simple [[page]] or [[page|displayed text]]. I suggest the template is substed and deleted. --130.237.205.80 12:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a template to perform the pipe trick. There's half a dozen others like it for other interwikis that should go too. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, because TfD doesn't have jurisdiction over Commons; subst/delete if deleted at Commons and Meta~~ As far as I can tell, it's a template to link to a particular page on Wikipedia, even if typed on Wikibooks or Commons, for instance; its only reason to exist here is to prevent breaking links if something's transwikied here. It's not clear whether this is sufficient justification to keep it. (N.B. The same effect could be achieved by writing [[w:Main_Page|Main_Page]], for instance, on the other wiki, but I don't think TfD has jurisdiction over other Wikimedia wikis). This template will therefore have to be substed and deleted at Commons as well as here if deleted here, because otherwise the automatic transclusion of image description pages (only about 4 at the moment, but Commons could use it in the future unless it's deleted there) could break. The same could apply to the Help namespace and Meta in theory (due to the Help-space transwikis), but I don't know whether it does in practice. --ais523 17:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- As an example: the image description Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png would break if this template were deleted, no matter how much substing you did here on Wikipedia (changing to [[w:...|]] on commons would sort it, but TfD doesn't have jurisdiction there). --ais523 17:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  - why would it break? The image and description page is hosted locally and contains no interwiki links. And what's the whole jurisdiction thing? Templates aren't used cross wiki. I think you're misintrepeting things. It links to commons not from commons; the description itself says that it's just a template to produce piped interwiki links. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems that the template is interpreted in the context of Commons, not of Wikipedia, on transcluded image pages, so there isn't a problem (the software allows for the different context automatically). There's still a potential problem with transwikied pages, but people can fix this easily enough (for instance, I've fixed a mistake of this sort on Meta, when neither {{W2}} nor any other template was being used). --ais523 17:48, 22 January 2007 (U T C)
~~Subst/Delete~~ My argument for keeping was incorrect. --ais523 17:48, 22 January 2007 (U T C)

Comment on Purpose and development of these

—It was actually more correct than you know. I'm afraid Night Gyr is in error. Templates are being given scope across many sisters, albeit experimentally (and slowly, since I was wiki-missing for most of three months) pending a Meta-Project, where something must be in place for the interlingual concerns of the "Communications Committee". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. (Sic--they're interested in language portability issues. Nuff said!) See also this related sister template, with was presented with similar reasoning to the above. 'Not needed here'—a fine Parochial sentiment, but not in the Wikimedia Foundation's best interests—which pays for all our computing on all sister projects.
The main purposeful scope of these templates is for interwiki portability of text containing links code to any sister project, as is the essence of documentation for aiding other editors less knowledgeable in a topic. In the case of this one, it's main importance is linking back to pages here in a portable way, particularly where documentation text already exists with links (See below on global search and replace in a offline text editor). So please do not consider their effects just here on this one English sister project, for they are used extensively on all templates being shared between sister projects using the {{interwikitmp-grp}} tagging (pending Newer but unperfected appearance... needs some logic to omit inapplicable sisters for name collisions, etcetera). They are integral to many templates which need be kept as identical as possible on different sisters like this one.
Whilst of minimal utility here where such links do not need automatic pipetricking (Contrast with this and {{W2c}} where the sites don't accept their own prefix inside square brace pairs and so require an if statement—this was the solution to that very vexing problem!), this like several others is integral to the interwiki sharing of templates and cross connection of categories. In particular, it and this commons flavored one is a huge time saver when trying to export existing documentation in minimal time whether it be for templates, or cross connections of commons categories so people here can find things on the commons with essentially the same documentation on each. When doing that, one's focus should be on categories and the site and page being looked at now, not painstakingly going to each link and curing it with [ SITE COLON PAGENAME pipe PIPETRICK ] constructs versus a quick text editor global search and replace of ']]' by '}}', and the matching global replace of '[[' with {{W2| or '{{W2C'. In short, these are huge time multiplier and of immense use in such tasks. For example: Wikipedia:Commons categories took about three minutes to fix up so we could refer to it here. Doing that by hand would likely take closer to a half-hour, not counting the disclaimer and extra links to Wikipedia:Categorization. So while well intentioned, the nominator fails to appreciate the impact of these 'Macro' like templates, to borrow a word from programming languages. All our templates are in fact Macros, and their is no need to scorn a good tool for it's simplicity. // FrankB 01:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, it avoids breaking links when moving pages between wikis by wrapping them in similarly named templates? Why do we need a local copy of the commons categorization scheme in the first place? That's kind of a irrelevant question, but really, are we copying pages often enough that we should encourage the use of longer templates over simpler, direct pipetricking and linking? I egt the idea of improving interwiki relations, but should we really have people blindly copying content between wikis rather than making specific interwiki links when necessary?Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Um... what? Why do we have this template? It will always take two characters more to type a link using this. Why would you ever want that? -Amark moo! 05:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all sure whether to keep or not now I was aware of most of what Fabartus was talking about above, but it leaves many more questions unanswered. For one thing, it's not clear why there couldn't be a global replace of '[[' with '[[w:' (possibly using a regexp to avoid multiple prefixes), which would save on pre-include expand limits as well as on manual efforts; is it really desirable to pipe all relevant links after a move? (If I'm linking to wikt:Main Page, for example, I'm unlikely to pipe it to Main Page, because that would be misleading; are there situations in which misleading people in this way would be desirable?) If piping is desired, why not use a template similar to this one and subst it (it could be kept in userspace or projectspace, as a utility template in aiding in transwikiing). Besides, the search-and-replace trick will bork in the case of images (even Commons images) and categories. Even the page you gave as an example seems pretty awful at the moment, there's a link to a Wikipedia page written {{W2c|:en:Man}}, which is [[commons::en:Man|:en:Man]] (:en:Man) rather than the correct [[Man]] (Man), which is doubly confusing in this case as it doesn't refer to a page on Commons at all. This looks like a bad fix to a real problem; it might be better to fix it properly than to rely on this workaround. (By the way, this template might not do what you expect in all projects; v:Template:w2 will create a link to v:, not w:.) --ais523 13:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also, wikt:Template:w2 and q:Template:w2 don't exist. --ais523 09:50, 25 January 2007 (U T C)

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.

Template:Hannibal Lecter films[edit]

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 redirected. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete LARGELY obselete. The template Template:Hannibal features all the books, movies and characters in the Hannibal series. This one merely features the movie adaptations, and on top of that, isn't even consistently displayed on the relevant pages. --CyberGhostface 21:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a duplicate. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 05:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per CanadianCaesar. delldot | talk 19:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Islamicdress[edit]

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, lean keep. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is pernicious. It says that particular forms of clothing are "Islamic", when in fact the Islamic texts and the jurisprudence based upon them stress what areas of the body must be covered up, and have no concern at all with what covers them. The form of covering is purely dictated by culture and has varied enormously from place to place and from time to time. Furthermore, the identification of turbans with Islam can lead to murder, as it has led to the murder of several turban-wearing Sikhs in the U.S.. --Zora 21:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to whatever you consider more appropriate (Arabic?), but keep. The articles of clothing listed are most definitely related. -Amark moo! 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They happen to be worn by some Muslims in some countries, but they are also worn by non-Muslims. If the template included only items of clothing worn by Muslims, all it would have is some items of women's hijab -- but then, those items could number in the hundreds (see Fatima Mernissi's book on veiling). If it included all items of clothing worn by Muslims, it would have to include thousands of items, including Skirt and dress, Trousers, Underwear, Brassiere, Girdle, etc. At present, the template seems to favor items of clothing used by an ignorant public to pick someone out of a crowd and say, "He/she is Muslim!". As such, it's an incitement to murder. See the Turban article for references to the killing of Sikhs in the U.S. As for the reference to Arabic -- are you making assumptions about me based on my username? Is that a slur? Look at my userpage. Zora 22:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um... what exactly did you read from my comment? What I said was that the clothing listed here is definitely related, although Arabic might be a better adjective for it. -Amark moo! 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess you did not know that Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world, with Pakistan at #2 ... or that there are more Muslims in Nigeria than there are in Saudi Arabia ... "Arabic" indeed! —72.75.126.37 (talk · contribs) 01:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - ...what is your point? I said the clothing in this template was Arabic. How is which countries have more Muslims relevant? -Amark moo! 01:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Point may be that this style of dress is not exclusively Arabic. It's worn in Iran, for example, but most Iranians are Persians and not Arabs. Anyway, see my suggestion below. — coelacan talk — 01:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, so I have absolutely no knowledge of what it really should be called. I'll leave that to someone else. -Amark moo! 01:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps rename to something more precise. Amark is correct, there's definitely a relation here, that a template can express. What precisely is the nature of that relation? Should the template say "Clothing worn to comply with Islamic jurisprudence" instead of "Significant forms of dress in Muslim countries"? — coelacan talk — 01:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs don't wear turbans now, except in Oman. Some Salafis believe that the Qur'an specifies particular forms of dress (the jilbab and khimar) but that view is not held by most Muslims. Islamic jurisprudence, as contained in the four madhabs, does not require any particular form of clothing! It specifies which areas of the body must be covered, and there's a great deal of controversy about that, since the Qur'anic references are sparse and the hadith references aren't universally accepted. The only possible way to salvage this template would be to call it hijab (the term for modesty of clothing and demeanour) and leave off all references to any clothing other than that worn by Muslims and Muslims only. I think that would leave you with chador, burqa, abaya, niqab, etc. All women's clothing. Definitely leave off turban (that incites to murder, and it's worn by millions of non-Muslims), salwar kameez (millions of non-Muslims, including me, wear salwar kameez), etc. But what exactly is the point of having the template? What good does it do? All the hijab-related articles are already linked to each other. Zora 02:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Plus, there is no official dress in Islam, hence putting this template in Islam-related articles cannot be understood by me. Even if such a template survives, it should be on the pages of countries like Pakistan etc. and not on Islam related articles. TruthSpreader^reply 04:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Dress in the Islamic World? The clothes are culturally related to islam, though not dictated by the religion. Trouble is, there are muslim countries that don't wear these kinds of things, and places where these are common that aren't islamic. What happens with this template depends on what it's supposed to be. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- No, because there is no Islamic world; Muslims are found in all countries, and unless they are recent immigrants, they wear what other people in the country wear, and perhaps tweak it for more coverage. If you reading this live in UK/US/Canada/Europe/wherever -- there are Muslims among you and you don't know it! They look just like you! (Leaving aside the odd behavior of converts to various extremist sects who defiantly wear unusual clothing -- this isn't traditional behavior, this is more like sporting tats and piercings.) Whoever designed that template seemed to be picking items of dress worn by South Asians, perhaps assuming that any South Asian immigrants he/she saw on the street were Muslims. From an Islamic standpoint, it's grossly ignorant and misleading template. Zora 03:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Traditional Dress in Southwest and South-central Asia. That bypasses the cultural aspects for the most part, and these are clearly common modes of dress within that geographical region. // FrankB 05:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not exactly sure what areas you're including in those names. The usual terms are South Asia or Central Asia -- those are the names used for academic programs, etc. We do have a bunch of categories for Indian dress, Pakistani dress, Bangladeshi dress, etc. I suppose that we could have a template for Clothing of South Asia but ... having found myself in the thick of online Indo-Pak wars all too often, I would guess that the proposed template would immediately become the scene of edit wars and struggle for control. The very name would be controversial, as some Indian editors reject the term "South Asia" and prefer "Indian sub-continent", thereby claiming the whole area for India. I would be OK with renaming to Traditional dress of South Asia, and dropping any references to Islam, only if anyone pushing for this solution were willing to help deal with the consequences. I should perhaps point out that I wrote large chunks of the Sari, Salwar kameez, and Turban articles, so I believe I have some grasp of the issues involved. Of course, I may also be much too pessimistic and the anticipated edit wars may not occur if the proposed renaming were done. Zora 06:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If they want to rename it to indian subcontinent kick their ass and point out it includes middle east too. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gyr, there's no ass-kicking in WP, if it's me against a bunch of nationalists I won't prevail, and South Asia doesn't include the Middle East. Zora 19:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I mean the template, not the region. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not pernicious, useful. To be sure, many Islamic nations share dress code: you'll see the hijab anywhere from Morocco to Indonesia. 64.178.98.65 16:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anon, the problem is just what you mean by hijab. There are hundreds of varieties of traditional women's hijab; see Fatima Mernissi's book on veiling for a very brief list. Recently some Salafis have claimed that the jilbab (based on the Egyptian galabia) and a scarf are the very garments specified by the Qur'an. So yes, you'll see women who follow this Salafi trend of thought wearing the same thing worldwide. But not even Salafis agree entirely on clothing. Here's a link to site that sells "Islamic" clothing to people living in the West and hey, it looks just like a very conservative Sears catalog except for the men's thobes and galabias [1]. Please don't make claims that can so easily be shown to be wrong. Zora 19:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Amark. There appears to be no basis whatsoever for Zora's charge that, "the template seems to favor items of clothing used by an ignorant public to pick someone out of a crowd and say, "He/she is Muslim!" besides Zora's characteristic assumption of bad faith.Proabivouac 06:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:NYCS 1[edit]

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template has been superceded by {{NYCS service}}, a universal template that is designed to replace other templates like this one that have became redundant, and thus no longer needed. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 20:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible speedy as well, as deprecated. -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I don't understand this - isn't it easier to type {{NYCS 1}} than {{NYCS service|1}}? Why don't we modify Template:NYCS, so we can type {{NYCS|1}}? ~~Keep~~ for now as a useful template that can be bot-substed every once in a while if deemed necessary. --NE2 23:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Turns out template:NYCS isn't in use, so I redirected it to template:NYCS service. Now you can type {{NYCS|1}}: 1. --NE2 10:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep, since Imdanumber1 has undone the redirection of template:NYCS. --NE2 23:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the template is needed in the future for a bot, it can be added back. As for typing a few extra characters as part of the name of a template, that is not a big deal if the template is used by a relatively few, dedicated editors or if there are relatively few - say, under 100 - articles needing such a template added in any given year, which I'm confident will be the case. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 23:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Bolehall Swifts F.C. Squad[edit]

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A navigation template that doesn't provide any navigation, and given the lowly nature of the club, is never likely to. --ArtVandelay13 19:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Punkmorten 22:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 01:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as all the articles it links to would almost certainly fail WP:BIO. Qwghlm 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:WWIIBritishAFVs2[edit]

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this template has now been incorporated into Template:WWIIBritishAFVs. It is no longer in use--Raoulduke47 19:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:No Merge[edit]

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, was created as a one-off polemical statement during an edit dispute in 2004, unusable elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's unusable now, but I really wish that we could have deleted it before. You can't tell people that they are never allowed to merge something without enacting an official policy change. -Amark moo! 21:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, contrary to the Wikipedia:Consensus can change policy. Picaroon 03:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems more than a bit WP:POINT to me. Superm401 - Talk 09:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Picaroon and others. delldot | talk 19:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Template is not in wikipedia policy nor agenda Lord Metroid 18:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

All templates in Category:110th United States Congressional delegation navigation boxes[edit]

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates were created following the 2006 elections but have now become deprecated. They are redundant to pre-existing templates that serve the same purpose and that cover all the states; these only cover 30 or so (see templates in Category:United States Congressional delegation navigation boxes). The above listed templates should be deleted and replaced with the pre-existing templates. --tomf688 (talk - email) 16:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these were created so the elections would be represented (the states not represented here simply had no change in membership between the 109th and 110th Congress). But, consider that having templates specific to a particular congress might be the way to go in the future. Otherwise, past members of Congress will have no navigation template at all. Granted, I haven't much support for this idea and I'll concede to shortcomings (e.g., should past members of 12 congresses have 12 different templates?!), but it might be worth some discussion.

On a different note, it might be easier to simply redirect all of these templates to the corresponding XX-FedRep templates just so links don't have to be changed in every article where these are transcluded. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would result in a huge amount of templates being placed on many representatives' pages, since most are re-elected quite a few times and elections are every other year. There is a possibility that we could go in the direction that Supreme Court justices have with their templates (see William Rehnquist for example), but that argument is for another day. --tomf688 (talk - email) 21:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep when there isn't a change, I think a redirect is fine though, and the title can be "delegation to the 110th and 111th or what have you. Many times there aren't any changes to a delegation after a Congressional election.Just H 02:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think the template looks fine and serves a useful purpose. Smee 16:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Yet these templates serve the same purpose as pre-existing templates. --tomf688 (talk - email) 18:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The category system appears to defeat the purpose of these templates. A system that allows easier navigation of them would be nice though. Tinus 23:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the notice on the pages where the templates are used, and on the templates, do not point to this discussion, making it hard to find. Tinus 23:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I updated all (I believe) of the XX-FedRep templates (the "current delegation" ones) the other day, so they (the "current" ones) are ready to replace these ones where they still exist. I also agree that specific templates for past/future Congressess are not needed. Bridger 03:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - interesting an encyclopedic. I wish there could be this kind of template for all congresses - one could look back to 1846 and see who people served with (infomation very much helping the encyclopedic nature of an article). 64.178.98.65 16:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Distinct lists for each congress can be done better using categories and ... drumroll ... lists! Robert A.West (Talk) 17:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary and confusing given the existence of pre-existing templates. Eusebeus 16:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above Keep comments. --Daysleeper47 19:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Districts of Turkey[edit]

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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a big, useless space-hogging template with garish colors. It is redundant in that it duplicates maps already included in another infobox. It is a nasty template adding numerous categories, most of which are already there without it. But it adds them using the default article name for sorting purposes, and as a result articles previously sorted correctly are now often missorted in their categories, and the categories have become useless, out-of-order messes. It is of limited utility for navigation, but it does render the "What links here" useless because it includes all those articles with nothing in common other than sharing this template, it renders the "Related changes" useless because any time any one of those marginally related articles changes it shows up there. The inclusion of all the districts of a different region, which have no relationship to the particular articles in which this template appears, makes this especially bad in comparison to other navigation templates, and greatly increases the number of articles cluttering up the "What links here" and the "Related changes". We might be able to do something about the ugliness of the colors, but with the other problems there is nothing worth salvaging. Delete. --Gene Nygaard 12:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Administrative divisions" is a common place template, that exist in every nation, see {{Armenia}}, {{Province of Venice}} {{Regions of France}}. The same arguments can be used for each. This template is part of the improvement drive of Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey, see the Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey/Templates. The aim of the template is clear and adds many important functions such as classification of articles and making sure that they are located in project category tree. The template is part of improvement drive of the Turkish related categories. The classification based on Provinces · Districts · Cities, which all of them are established under the WikiProject Turkey. The pages are slowly replaced, by human effort. Gene Nygaard has observed the slow replacement which aims to prevent any mistakes. He points additional categories, and replacement of old templates, which is byproduct of the process. The other arguments, such as "space-hogging template with garish colors" are POV issues. I did not find any reference in the project pages by Gene Nygaard that he voiced his position. I hope, based on the good intentions of Gene Nygaard, he would consider his position. PS: the template has a standard Hide-Show option (like other nav temp), which can be used by the Gene Nygaard if the colors bathers him that much. --OttomanReference 16:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hide/Show does nothing to help the fact that the hundreds of articles cluttering the "What links here" and "Related changes" (more than in previous templates it replaces, too) are now useless, for all practical purposes.

You didn't even address the missorting of previously properly sorted articles created by the addition of this template. Gene Nygaard 16:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From your response, I gather that this is a problem of communication. I hope you will pursue solving your position through Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey, which you would have find that there were many open channels. Adf is not an improvement drive. Thanks.--OttomanReference 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bad faith nomination. Template is needed, it can be only made more handy and pretty. - Darwinek 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here my message to Gene Nygaard and his reply. Dear Gene Nygaard, Related with your TfD nomination;

I understand that your motivation is a better wikipedia, mine is the same.
I think something is wrong with your knowledge about this template and Wikiproject Turkey.Let me explain some points on our works(related with this template);
- Categorization of articles related places in Turkey is poor and out of standarts. Articles are categorized in different manners. There must be a common-standart categorization for smilar articles.
- There are many different Templates was produced allready; Template:Regions of Turkey,Template:Provinces of Turkeyand one different template for each Province; Template:Districts of X province.
  - So every article was have at least 3 Templates.
  - Also articles about Provinces have Template:Infobox Province TR and articles about Towns have another type Template:Infobox Town TR.
Now Template:Districts of Turkey was created /developed to cover many templates functions in one template.
- There will be only one template for each place-article not three. There will be a huge memory saving in wiki (consider that; Number of articles multiply by two-minus template).
- There will be a standart categorization for articles(Please see Template talk page),independent from user interference. Of course another categories can be add by any user for any spesific purposes.
- Categorization;missorted.. There is no any missorted articles in generated articles. Any province is in Provinces in Turkey category in sorted order by name of article, Any districts in correct category and so on. I think, You aware that position when we try to make test of this template.Please check again.
- What links here;..Also the same. There is nothing wrong.
- Colours; You are right about colors of lines but these colors was used due to the colors of regional map of Turkey. X region in map and related line in template are in same colors. It is possible to modify colors in template and then modify map relatedly.
As you can see from my contributions, I am continuing to delete dublicated maps, categories in Turkish-places' articles one by one. I will finish all article-this is my wiki project.
Infobox templates; they will carry another functions and info's in article.No need to dublicate maps in these templates, only photo and logo(if any) will take place in these templates.

Please let me some logical time to finish my work on these templates and articles. I, kindly request from you to draw your nomination back . Regards Must ^TC 16:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not as long as you show a complete lack of understanding of the missorting issue. Go read Wikipedia:Categorization—or just go look at how the articles are missorted in their categories. Then come back and try again. Gene Nygaard 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

( Copied from User Talk:Gene Nygaard here by me)Must ^TC 17:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gene Nygaard; Please show me a sample missorted article due to this template. I coundnt see any. If this template create any wrong generating of categorization, this mistake will be corrected immediately.

Please keep in mind that this is not finished work/project. Everybody can check my and OttomanReference's last two day contribution.

Must ^TC 17:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the examples you requested:

In Category:Districts of Istanbul, Beşiktaş appears after Beyoğlu
In Category:Provinces of Turkey, Kırşehir Province appears after Konya Province with a whole slew of other missorted ones between (well, three anyway, only one of which should be after Konya)
In Category:Provinces of Turkey, the article Şırnak Province appears under the header of a character that is not among the 26 letters by which we sort things in English. It improperly appears after Z, rather than before T as it should.
In Category:Şırnak the article Şırnak not only appears under an improper initial letter, but it should conventionally be indexed with an initial space (or asterisk) so that it appears at the top of the category listing, before the alphabetical listing starts.

Need more? Like I implied in making the nomination, there are a zillion of these newly missorted articles. The really bad thing is, most of these were properly sorted before this template was added. Gene Nygaard 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of wiev. Inconvenients above; all solved by the help of sortkey. Others; in process. It is very hard to understand for me of your behaviour/style in wiki. Let me explain; You reverted Çorum province page with a reason stated as: a table include "non-english numbers". It was much easier to replace these numbers with "english style"(needs only 10 characters to edit) than to revert it with an edit summary with more than 10 letters. Regards.Must ^TC 11:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's this "all solved by the help of sortkey" nonsense? Sure, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has probably made it possible for you to solve the problem. But, damn it, it doesn't just happen by itself. You need to go add those sortkeys to fix the problem. Gene Nygaard 15:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Çatalca uses Template:Districts of Turkey. Yet it remains missorted in both of its categories. No, the problem is not yet "solved".

LAST REPLY. I dont want to lost my time in this "useles" discussion. I think there is a understanding/non-understanding problem.

Missorting Problem was solved technically..Remaining is an edit work in necessary articles.It needs time. See above; Unfinished work, In process.
Wikis' first rule; " not belong to any body", "belong to everybody". Your statements; User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has probably made it possible for you , You need to go add those sortkeys to fix the problem are meaningless and are not convey Good Faith here. Thanks to FPaS for his contributions, as expected from a Good Faith User. Please try to add some positive contribution to the related articles also.
Missorted articles were exist in categories before this template also. They were not created firstly by this template. Now we are trying to cleanup all these inconviniency in all related articles and categories.
Note:I changed non-English numbers by English ones in Çorum Province article. Regards.Must ^TC 17:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was exactly the point. It might be a "work in progress", but the problem clearly has not been "solved". Furthermore, we had no assurances that anybody would actually try to resolve the problem.

None of which, of course, does anything about the hundred useless links cluttering up the "What links here" of every article using this template, and making "Related changes" useless as well. ~!Gene Nygaard

Gene Nygaard and his deletion request on "What links here":> It is really hard to decode what you are against? "Administrative divisions" is a common place template, which seems your arguments are so general that can be applied to all these templates. Your objections can not be solved by the people who wants to have the same type of template (valid position) for the Republic of Turkey. These people are working hard, try to bring solutions as much as possible. As a good faith, you should peruse solutions with other means, I advise you to continue to express your position to the "wikimedia software designers" so that links in navigational bars will not be included in the "What links here". As I have not seen you retracting your position; It gets harder to understand the reasons behind why you ask deletion of this template. Especially, this community worked hard (solved) to cover most of the valid points that you voiced. Thanks. --OttomanReference 19:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that links in these navigation tools do show up in "What links here". We need to deal with the current state of Wikipedia, not some speculative pie-in-the-sky dreamwork, some change that you have not even shown to be feasible, let alone likely to be implemented in our lifetimes.

Is is also a fact that most of these links are totally useless as navigation aids.

That I haven't yet pointed out this problem in every navigation template which has the problem is no excuse. Gene Nygaard 20:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all templates force many articles to show up in "what links here" - {{Turkey topics}}. What is going on? I really cannot see the point behind this template. It is useful, makes sense and is relevant (the contrary of which is not a criteria for deletion anyhow. This is useless: {{Aegean Sea}} - not this. Baristarim 21:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It can be bettered in the Template's talk page, and there is a discussion going on since some time on various ways for developping it. Cretanforever 17:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bad faith nomination. It is a useful template and many editors put a lot of time into it. You could have raised these points in the talk page of WPTR and/or contacted the users who put work into it. Use the talk page of the template. "Not useful", "doesn't make sense" is not a criteria for deletion - in any case there is no doubt that the template makes sense and is useful. Baristarim 19:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get your facts straight. What's this "many editors put a lot of time into it"? It's predecessors, maybe, but this seems to be a one-man dog and pony show. Gene Nygaard 19:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think that it is bad and useless. It is detailed and can be modified to become better. It is a promising template for understanding the structure of Turkey. I looked at it and I didn't see any wrong material. Deliogul 19:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. It's far too big, make it much smaller. Cut out all the lower part with the lists of all the other provinces, for instance. (Just links to the seven main regions might be okay instead.) The sorting problem Gene describes could perhaps be tackled if it accepted another optional parameter, "sortkey", to be used whenever the article name contains one of the Turkish characters? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would help reduce the clutter which makes those other pages useless, and it is about the limit of the utility as a navigation tool. Otherwise, the purposes of this template are much better served with the category listings which it needlessly duplicates. Gene Nygaard 19:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented a "sortkey" parameter. See Çanakkale Province ([2]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should look into the new magic word DEFAULTSORT just added this month, see Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Would that work better? Would it work at all? Could you use it in conjunction with the template, yet make it visible on the edit page to that subsequent editors who may add other categories will know that it exists, and so that it will work with other already existing categories as well? Gene Nygaard 20:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that what you have done will ot fix the problem in the fourth example I listed above. How would you suggest dealing with that problem? There is one non-obvious manual solution; do you have any better ideas? Gene Nygaard 20:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, the DEFAULTSORT trick is nifty, I didn't know that. Seems to work. Which exactly is the "fourth example" you mean? Sorry but this discussion is a bit garbled now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you mean the thing about the asterisk in the main article of the category? Heheh, now you've made me curious ... Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nonobvious solution is that you need to manually, explicitly add the category to the article, outside the template, then add a sort key to it. This probably also has to appear below the template which would otherwise add the category with the article name or the DEFAULTSORT (or your earlier workaround) sort key. Gene Nygaard 21:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Doktor Gonzo 19:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very useful template. —dima/s-ko/ 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is totally unnecessary - The only people in Turkey that use these regions are meteorologists. The "census-defined" label that has been put on this template makes it appear that these are commonly used official titles for the regions. They are not. There is no government body with jurisdiction over the Black sea Region or Central Anatolia for example. Each of the 80 or so provinces Adana, Afyon have their own governor, and each has a separate administration. There is no larger grouping of provinces. The only way to ensure that Turkey is covered systematicallyt by wikipedia is to keep to the official list of provinces. Inventing new categories and groups will only confuse people. Turkish wikipedia doesn't have these census-defined regions. It has a simple alphabetical list of provinces. Istanbuljohnm 20:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbuljohnm's argument is covered with the change in the wording of the title of the template.OttomanReference 04:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iam sorry guys but my problem with the template is not with the wording, and only partly with the design although it is large and confusing. My real complaint is that these "regions" are not official classifications, there is no government of the 'Aegean region' for example. Turkey is administered ate national, provincial and district levels. I would be happy if the entry for each province contained a) a list of the districts in the province b) a list of the 81 provinces and then c) your list of regions, which can link to an entry listing the provinces within the region and a geographical description. However I do think it is great that the Turkish content on wikipedia is growing and congratulations to Mustafa Akalp and everyone else writing about Turkey here.

With that in mind could you change the design so that a) the top line just contains the title e.g. The province of Amasya in the blue bar with the Turkish flag. b) then comes a sub heading district c) then the list of districts with the merkez ilcesi in bold or if there is a buyuksehir then separate lists of buyuksehir ilceleri' and others (the previous district listing style was fine) then d) a list of the 81 provinces in alphabetical order. and finally e) a list of your 7 regions,

The maps can sit on the right as they are at the moment but you need to put the district map at the top, then the province map of Turkey, then the regional map. Istanbuljohnm 10:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I tried to get the title line to just contain the name of the province - with horrible effects - My apologies, this is wiki-editing beyond my capability. :( Istanbuljohnm 10:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just the thing about the regions.. It is not only meteorologists that use them.. They are not administrative regions because Turkey is a centralized country, however these regions are referred to in the state's budget, state's discourse etc. They are commonly used by the government, even if they do not hold an administrative value. + They are used by geographers as well. Baristarim 15:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here a test sample of a Template;

Must ^TC 11:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a useful template. E104421 08:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete long an not particularly useful. I'd prefer the template that linked to other towns in the province, or even in the region, but that my town's page now links to other provinces. Let the provinces link to each other and town to other towns. It would be like the New York City article linked to the page on Oklahoma. If we don't delete it, it'll still need work, especially those images.--Patrickneil 05:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - how is this not useful? If it's not useful, we might as well get rid of every navigation template on Wikipedia. We might as well get rid of {{United States}}. 64.178.98.65 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is incredibly creative, useful, and encyclopedic in nature to be able to see so much reference in one place. I also agree with anon user above, let's start looking at every template, right? Rarelibra 04:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:User Alison[edit]

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 userfy and delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one person uses this userbox and its pretty obscure in its criteria. KazakhPol 08:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Created and used solely by a user whose contributions have been consistently reverted by others (see User talk:Mahdi7) and who appears to have stopped participating in Wikipedia ... should probably delete the image as well, which only seems to be referenced from user pages. —72.75.126.37 (talk · contribs) 16:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst into User:Mahdi7, then delete. User might not be around any longer, but could return. Let's be charitable and let them keep their userbox just in case. — coelacan talk — 01:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete image, then subst template. Superm401 - Talk 09:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or userify What's obscure about claiming to be descended from Ali? That's pretty specific; actual descent is often unverifiable, but it's not being asserted. The image is unsourced, and will doubtless go; I see the article doesn't have one, which is a pity. If userified, I would rename it Alid or Fatimid; the present name is seriously misleading with the English girl's name Alison. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it says
  This user believes to be a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad (S.W.T) and Imam Ali - Shiite Muslims' First Imam
  which, in spite of its broken English, seems to be exactly what is being asserted. --72.75.126.37 05:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I would support moving it ot userspace as well, I guess, but I just figured it might as well be subst'd because this is the only person using it, and it's not advertised anywhere so I doubt anyone else will ever use it. But putting it into that user's userspace would do no harm, sure. — coelacan talk — 10:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/substitute and Delete -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - exact reason we have WP:UM. It's a userpage; why can't he claim this? I'm honestly not understanding the other anon's reasoning here. As for the image: no reason to delete, except for perhaps a bad license on it. 64.178.98.65 16:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and either fix the license on the image or delete it. A bad license is a pretty strong reason to delete. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete image. Xiner (talk, email) 02:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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