Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 19

[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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Urban areas in India by population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I request that if this template be deleted the template the info should be inserted into the main article so that it is not lost Bab-a-lot (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which article? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:14, 21 November 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Population of Jerusalem (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Population timeline of Dubai (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox population of Swansea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Population growth of Iceland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in one article, and hence, could be substituted and deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that if this template be deleted the template the info should be inserted into the main article so that it is not lost Bab-a-lot (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the meaning of "substitute and delete". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:15, 21 November 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lugo Province Population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bubi populations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Orense Province Population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Igbo populations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pontevedra Province population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in one article and, as such, could be substituted and deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The templates were created to condense article info on main article pages, and in anticipation upcoming expansion of these articles where the templates would eventually be used on multiple pages. Bab-a-lot (talk)
I suggest that if this template be deleted the template the info should be inserted into the main article so that it is not lost Bab-a-lot (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the meaning of "substitute and delete". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:16, 21 November 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Significant populations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template (appears to make a table) Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that if this template be deleted the template the info should be inserted into the main article so that it is not lost Bab-a-lot (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What information? The template makes a table, but has no content itself. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:16, 21 November 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Population of Miyagi municipalities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Japan population array (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in article space Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:26, 19 November 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Asian Population USA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Southeast Asian Population USA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Could be substituted into an article if the information is useful? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:25, 19 November 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Population pyramid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:23, 19 November 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:English populations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan. Could be substituted if needed for a particular article. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:22, 19 November 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Population dynamics topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sidebar. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:21, 19 November 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Galician Population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems like a good candidate to substitute and delete? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 19 November 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Toronto population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems like a good candidate to substitute and delete? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:17, 19 November 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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spanish comarca (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox comarca feeding off the standard template. Himalayan 22:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the comarca template is currently being used on close to 200 pages. You need to realize that most of the comarca pages on the english wiki are actually translated from the Spanish wiki, and the comarca template is very similar to the spanish wiki's comarca template, making the transition extremely simple. Additionally it contains just the field needed for a comarca, as opposed to settlement. Frankly I started writing my first comarca page on the english wiki, I took one look at the settlement template and was so daunted by the sheer complexity of the thing that I gave up on the idea and delayed writing for six months until I stumbled upon the comarca template. So on the one hand, it may be redundant, but are we really trying for a swiss army template?? And besides, Template:infobox settlement has no color whatsoever and is ugly; comarca is prettier. ^_^ --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 18:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Mukkakukaku is a significant contributor to the template.
Comment I would say the excessive use of color is actually a reason to delete it, considering the WP:MOS for color. This isn't Skittlepedia. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Skittlepedia it may not be, but the color adds emphasis. Look at infoboxes for other topics, like the {{Taxobox}}. Infobox settlement is plain old, butt-ugly. Not that any of this is important, since I just meant the color comment as an aside. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 04:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: complete mis-understanding by the nominator. A comarca is somewhat analogous to an English county. It is a unit of administration in Spain and this template as stated above matches the equivalent in the Spanish wiki precisely. A comarca is not a settlement and this template should be kept for use on artciles on Spain in Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't patronise me. I know exactly what a comarca is, We replace this with {{Infobox Administrative division}} or even {{Infobox comarca}}, now find an answer to that one.. Himalayan 17:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, then it's redundant to {{Infobox county}}? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually it's more of an administrative division than a county. The exact meaning of the division depends on which region of Spain you're in. For example, in Catalonia it's a local government area governed by a council, whereas in Valencia it's a historical regional representation that has no meaning in today's government. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 04:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's redundant to {{Infobox Administrative division}}? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(unindented) Infobox Administrative division is a redirect to Infobox settlement, which is what the original discussion was about. So is Infobox comarca, which is the current "candidate" for redundancy. IIRC, there are about 500 comarcas in Spain alone, which are different from comarcas in Portugal, Panama, etc -- and none of them are settlements. I'm sure it would be possible to create a swiss army template to encompass all forms of human-defined geographical divisions, but really I'm not sure it's necessary. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 20:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that this template could be moved to {{Infobox comarca}} and expanded so that it is not specific to Spain? I could see that as a reasonable compromise. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, tentatively -- yes that would be a fine solution. Frankly I don't know enough about Comacas in countries other than Spain to really be able to say that. In Brazil they're part of the judicial structure, and I have no idea what sort of information might be included in that case, and I know next to nothing about their use in France and Italy. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 22:03, 19 November 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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Container-cat with Template:Parent category.
Template:Container-cat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Parent category (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These two templates, and their respective categories, accomplish the same thing. There is no need to have two separate templates for this purpose. See related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_30#Category:Wikipedia_categories_that_should_contain_only_sub-categories. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 07:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. I agree that these essentially duplicate the same function, and should be merged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I said in that discussion, I see no justification for this idea, and even if a justification were to be found, I see no need for this template and the category that goes with it. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the template is very useful, moreso than the category. I do use this to perform clean-up of categories, so I would want at least one of the templates kept. The corresponding category is not necessary to perform the clean-up, but the template is crucial to it. I know this won't be convincing to someone who won't consider a justification, but some of us have used this and continue to do so ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 22:02, 19 November 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I fail to see why this particular roster is notable. They weren't members of a championship team —Chris!c/t 00:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But many other teams do not have such template? And why is the first year team notable?—Chris!c/t 05:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 21:58, 19 November 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 keep and expand Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saudi Arabian political parties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is only used once, on one of the very pages it links to Politics of Saudi Arabia. Only has one entry, which has been merged to that article too. Fences&Windows 03:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 21:54, 19 November 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 all. I love the idea personally, but consensus is very clear here. Wizardman 19:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/11 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/12 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/13 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/14 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

New user has created a string of 14 templates, the only content being in each case a photograph of a person, presumably a past student of the college. It is difficult to conceive of a good use for such templates. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the 14 templates have been created using the {{Random subpage}} template. It is used in the St. Xavier's College, Mumbai#Alumni and popular culture section to display random images of Alumni. It is of encyclopedic use. I know I am the first person to use {{Random subpage}} templates in articles as per [1]. This doesn't deserve deletion at all. Xavier449 (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go on Purging the page for random Images. Xavier449 (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Random images on articles is a bad idea. Garion96 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Randomly displaying one of several applicable photos on an article is an interesting idea and I don't know of any previous consensus against it. Xavier449 is correct that this is the only article using {{Random subpage}}, but novelty doesn't make something bad. If someone has a good argument for why the idea is bad, I'd be happy to consider that. But at least in this particular case I don't see anything obviously harmful about it. The images being used all seem to be equally applicable as illustrations within the article, all fit in the allotted space, and I don't see any licensing problems for the images. --RL0919 (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Random images within the project is not appropriate. --Blargh29 (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you be willing to explain why you think they are inappropriate? --RL0919 (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes: It makes the pages unstable because each individual view is different. Also, if there is vandalism and one of the images and is replaced by something inappropriate, the vandalism will likely persist longer, because it will only appear 1/14th of the time. The formatting is liable to be altered by different-sized images. Wikipedia encourages mirrors of its content (which is why we're under the GDFL and CC), a goal that is made difficult by these templates, because a data dump might not catch the syntax of the code right. There also might be copyright problems with a random element in the page, because, per the licensing documents, each and every contribution must be attached to a unique user. Something this avant-garde makes the page almost impossible to get through featured article review, which is supposed to be the theoretical goal of every article. It's unencyclopedic and more appropriate for an alumni magagine than a serious encyclopedia. In its defense, it is a pretty creative template, but I don't think it is good for the project.--Blargh29 (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for explaining. I think some of the concerns you mention are not significant problems. I don't see any licensing issue as long as the individual pictures and templates are appropriately licensed. Images are already included on pages via templates in many cases without issue; the randomness of the display doesn't affect this. Similarly, mirror sites already need to pull numerous transcluded templates and images if they want to display pages in the same format that we have them, so there is nothing new on that front. "Unencyclopedic" is a difficult concern to pin down: This is something a paper encyclopedia couldn't do, but there are many others ways WP differs from traditional encyclopedias. FA review standards move with consensus, but if we require pre-existing consensus for an innovation then we would rule out almost all new ideas. Not every change is an improvement, but every improvement is a change, so we need to be open to a degree of experimentation. So all those concerns seem to be non-issues to me. The user experience and vandalism concerns are the most troubling to me, especially the latter. But at this stage they seem hypothetical (there do not appear to be any actual layout or vandalism issues on the affected article), and I would rather risk the possibility of minor disturbances in order to see how an interesting experiment turns out. --RL0919 (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unused, and of no obvious purpose. Robofish (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No obvious purpose, creator seems to be content to deride other opinions instead of providing one about why this is useful or encyclopedic. Blargh29 also brings up some valid concerns. GlassCobra 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we're going another round, I'll take the opportunity to add a few points: First, there is a purpose being served by the templates, contrary to the nomination and some subsequent comments. By displaying a selection of different images, we are exposing free-use images that might otherwise go unused. We can also forestall possible disputes about which image should be used to illustrate the section, by giving several different images an equal shot. Second, in order to see this unusual presentation of images preserved long enough to see how it works out, I am willing to take extra measures to help address concerns raised above. In order to make the usage of the templates clear, if they are kept I will create a documentation page to be displayed at the currently unused parent page Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni. This will also provide a single location for editors to access all the sub-pages to verify their content in case there are questions about whether the images are all of similar size and content, and in case of any concerns about vandalism. I am also willing to watchlist all the templates and associated files to help monitor for any potential vandalism. Finally, I note that I had no prior involvement with these templates or the associated article prior to this discussion. I simply don't think that a novel idea should be quashed based on unsubstantiated concerns or any impolitic comments that an editor might have made during this discussion. There's no policy or standing consensus being contravened here, so I'd like to see this idea play out. Xavier449 only created these on November 1, and they were nominated for deletion the next day, without even a full understanding of how they were being used, much less a chance to evaluate the results. If this setup is on the article for a few months and it doesn't work well (repeatedly vandalized, draws complaints, etc.), I'll come back here and nominate it myself with an explanation of how it failed. --RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for all the reasoned arguments provided above. I'm surprised that a proposal with opposition only from the template creator has needed a second relist. I don't buy the "equal airtime" argument for mainspace - articles should be (reasonably) stable. I don't feel the "exposure" argument has merit - we choose images for their suitability, and that is binary. There is still the very real possibility of sneaky vandalism - you can watchlist the pages, but you can't watchlist all possible pages that have yet to be created, and (most importantly) you would not be able to reproduce the scenario easily ("Hey, I spotted a dick on this page!" "I can't see it. Are you sure?"). There's an important usability issue here - don't give people random content in mainspace unless they specifically ask for it. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but only because of the vandalism issue. Being able to display a range of images is a great idea, but unless we could ensure that it wouldn't be open to vandalism as noted by other editors, this could be a major security problem. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are so much concerned about vandalism, why not protect the templates. Xavier449 (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't feel the "exposure" argument has merit - we choose images for their suitability, and that is binary. - All Images of notable alumni are suitable for the Alumni section. Hence, displaying Random images is a great idea. This is not a Featured picture competition. If vandalism is a major issue, then the templates can be protected. The templates are anyway not supposed to be modified. Xavier449 (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if I don't completely like the idea of random images, I understand why people may find it good for displaying for examples photos from a place or something like that. I find the idea of displaying random photos of a colleges' alumni completely inappropriate since it gives undue weight to random people. Wikipedia is not a photogallery and photos should not be used solely for cosmetic purposes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 as unnecessary duplicates which is putting undue weight on particular alumni for no particular reason. Merge or delete the rest. If someone can point to some prior consensus, where this practice is deemed to be deprecated (e.g., WP:MOS), then delete. Otherwise, merge into one template, as I have already done, which should help reduce the fears of vandalism. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:36, 30 November 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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Louisiana State University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LSU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Louisiana State University with Template:LSU.
The template is redundant to a better-designed template, plus Template:LSU is older and therefore Template:Louisiana State University should not have been created in the first place. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:09, 19 November 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_Zero 20:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request box created in 2006 by an editor who was working to add climate sections to articles about geographical regions. That editor is no longer active and this template is unused outside his own user pages. Willing to withdraw nom if there is someone else who wants to take up the use of this. RL0919 (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might check with WikiProject Cities and WikiProject U.S. counties to see if they are interested in taking over the template. Ks0stm (TCG) 06:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cant see any point to the template.Jason Rees (talk) 04:49, 19 November 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.