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

The result of the discussion was Delete --Magioladitis (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Settlement (Serbia) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Incredibly redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. It use the same code (copied & pasted) expect it demotes the English name to optional and moves it to the center of the list of names instead of on top and gives prominence to the native name by making it required and placing it on top. That seems like that would violate some part of Wikipedia's guide lines. Maybe someone knows which one. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 19:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is right. In English Wikipedia the English name is more important. I would like to see an example of how to switch to {{Infobox Settlement}} and then I can do the rest. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would literally just drop the "(Serbia)" part, but I've taken care of those. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 15:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - standardise on {{Infobox Settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete --Magioladitis (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brazil Squad 1991 FIFA World Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A squad list of a youth competition. It is not a good way to show the honor that way. Per discussion such youth TP should be deleted. Matthew_hk tc 14:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per I think its only suppose to be, World Cup, top conference national competitions (Euro, Copa America) and(?) the Olympics — CHANDLER^#10 — 15:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - teammates in a single tournament is not a defining characteristic even at the World Cup, imo. It most certainly is not defining or notable for a youth player. Resolute 01:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Both are hardcoded, single-use templates that violate the usage guidelines of the template namespace. JPG-GR (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jammu and Kashmir state assembly election, 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Karnataka state assembly elections, 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Contains detail data of 1 election in 1 state. It was used in 1 page, into which this template has been substituted. Hence no longer used and inappropriate content as well. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 08:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added second similar template. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 08:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm the creator of the first template (but not the second) and several like it for other countries. Election results templates seem fairly standard - although this one was only used when it was TfD'd, it means it is easy to link in the future to other articles like "Politics of ..." and "Elections in..." articles. By way of example I've linked it into Politics of Jammu and Kashmir. Your comment on "inappropriate content" hasn't been raised on the talk page - please could you raise it there so we can discuss. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete single use templates. Attempting to crowbar them into one other article does not prove a need for such a template. Resolute 01:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In fact, as part of earlier delete discussions on similar election results templates on 9th and 10th December 2008, an admin had suggested the use of <onlyinclude>data</onlyinlcude> for the results information in 1 article and then transclude the article in others. Note that this is different from <includeonly>. Hence in this case, if the Main page for this data has onlyinclude tag around the results table, then the article can be transcluded into Politics of Jammu and Kashmir. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm inclined towards keeping these templates and putting them back into the articles they were removed from. Firstly I am struggling to see what policy or guideline they are violating - unless someone can point me towards one I am missing? Secondly I fail to see the "inappropriate content" that the nominator suggests is there or anywhere where this has been explained. The general practice has generally been to put election results in templates as can be seen in the hundreds of templates in the subcategories of Category:Election and referendum result templates. Before the nominator removed the templates these were being used the same as any of the other templates in the above category. Having the results in a template makes the editing of the article easier - rather than having a big clunk of template text in the middle it makes editing the article more straightforward for those who have less experience of wikipedia while still having a clear link to the template if that requires editing. The nominators above argument about using (etc.) could be applied to most templates and only again makes the editing interface more complex as editors try and work out why that is in the original article. As AndrewRT says having the election result in a template is the best way so it can be included in "Elections in" articles as takes place for many election articles. In summary having the full election results in a template seems so much superior for me than substituting the text into these articles in these cases. Davewild (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Guidelines state clearly Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article. Detail results of any election fall into category of article content. Hence they should be included in the article. As mentioned above in earlier comment, and how it has already been implemented for Politics of Jammu and Kashmir, is one of the simple options that can satisfy queries on ease of editing. By the way, though it is good to have editing features, the reader is more important than the editor. Also see December 9 nominations and results, along with December 10 nomination and results. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 03:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are not text but are, in effect, infoboxes of the results which are allowed per the guidelines, if they were text then I would agree but they are not. Those previous nominations are for a particular consituency results not for the result of a whole election, which, as I have said above, it is standard practice to have the results in a template, as can be seen by the subcategories of Category:Election and referendum result templates. If you think this is wrong then there should be a general discussion to reach a conclusion for all election results rather than just picking one or two and deleting them. The way you have done it leaves in the original article which, if you were not aware of the other article, has no purpose. Having it in a template in no way makes the experience worse for the reader but does improve things for the editor which the foundation is trying to do. Davewild (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Davewild, I see no reason at all to delete them. —Nightstallion 08:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete --Magioladitis (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

No longer in use, has been made redundant by a broader template. DMighton (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, template has been replaced by a different template. -Pparazorback (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, its depricated. -Djsasso (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Template has become redundant, no longer needed. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The sole function of this template seems to be disambiguation, which is not an appropriate purpose for a navbox template. These are unrelated cemeteries in different cities that happen to have the same name. There seems to be no significance to the shared name (the cemeteries were not, for example, all established by a mysterious organization called the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre); the shared name is a coincidence. The disambiguation page Holy Sepulchre Cemetery serves the purpose of disambiguating these cemeteries. Per WP:Template namespace, "Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category or a See also list can perform the same function." Moreover, I think that a navigation template that helps people navigate between articles about unrelated places that happen to share the same name is essentially the kind of directory that WP:NOTDIRECTORY says that "WP is not." The template creator says it was created not for disambiguation but because it's interesting and fun, but this is not by itself a valid argument for retaining an item here. The template creator has acquiesced to the deletion after discussion (see talk page, but isn't likely to go so far as to request deletion. Orlady (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Templates are meant for articles related by more than just name. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI to admins handling this item: The talk page for this template now has a fairly long conversation that would deserve to be preserved if the template is deleted. --Orlady (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I oppose deletion, but I won't stand in the way, because my opposition is based on an alternate vision for WP that is divergent from the conventional viewpoint. My fundamental difference is that I don't believe that templates or categories should necessarily be barred for the reason of "name only" correlation. I see it as a relative contraindication, whereas others see it as an absolute contraindication. See my comments on the template talk page for more detail. But I recognize that others disagree with that philosophy. So I won't complain if the template goes away. — ¾-10 18:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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