Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 7



Template:User Wikipedia financing ads

 * 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. If the images are tagged incorrectly, that should be adjusted at the image pages, not taken up on the template using them. JPG-GR (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)



A userbox with not one, but six non-free images on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep All six are marked with or  -- John of Reading (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would argue that they shouldn't be marked that way. Look at File:Bayer Logo.svg. Yes, the font is bland, but there is obviously an original design incorporated into it. Several of them are confusingly also marked as possibly being subject to trademark. And the Nokia logo is up for deletion at Commons because of the same issue. If this was a matter of using these in an article I'm sure a WP:FUR would get us around that, but to use them in a userbox is gratuitous. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't an argument for deleting the userbox. If any of these images are challenged and declared to be non-free, then the userbox can be edited to use different images. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The images were selected taking into consideration their or  status. Mouramoor (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What seems problematic to me is the appearance that for the most part nobody is sure if they are PD or not. The multiple tags make it terribly unclear, and on matters of copyright we normally err on the side of caution. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:UGAcats

 * 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. Template:W&Jcats was not tagged and is therefore not eligible for deletion via this discussion. JPG-GR (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)



This template adds a lot of clutter at the top of category pages and its function could be more efficiently executed with use of Template:Category tree. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also adding W&Jcats to nomination for same reasons. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nomCurb Chain (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cascade volcanoes

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)



A completely useless template. I have had several problems with this template in the past, such as what is a major volcano and what isn't a major volcano. Sources on what is a major Cascade volcano vary with conflicting results. Most of the Cascade volcanoes I add in the template eventually get deleted just because someone dosen't agree it's major. This template is better off to be deleted.  Volcano guy  15:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep --- it's just as useful as any other other navbox. Deleting the template because of an edit war with User:Seattle Skier does not seem to help our readers. If the dispute is over "major", how about taking it out of the template header? —hike395 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because if the title were just Cascade Volcanoes then that would mean all Cascade volcanoes should be in the template, which would grow huge. There is hundreds of vents in the Cascade Arc that do not have articles. But if it's not problematic to rename the header to "Cascade Volcanoes" then I guess that could be done. In a seconed point, why have a template for all Cascade volcanoes while there is already a list of them? I don't want to delete it because of an edit war with User:Seattle Skier, it's because the original and current meaning of this template is a bit "questionable". It's quite obvious there is no universal terminology for what is a major volcano.  Volcano guy  21:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but helps the navigation; it's ok. Major could mean just the biggest Wikipedia articles, I think this is allowed. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep --- agree, if just major is the matter of dispute than it should get deleted. I personally would prefer "erupted during the last 10,000 years" and "didn't erupt during the last 10,000 years". --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is a valid template and simple differences about what is major should be resolvable on the talk page. A simple dispute is not reason for deletion. Vsmith (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or Change There are 2 options: Delete or Change this template
 * There's no reason to list only major volcanoes, as that is subjective, and because there are hundreds of volcanoes per Volcanoguy, but only certain volcanoes in the Cascade Range have articles on-Wikipedia. This is the Change.
 * The other option is to Delete this template, because as List of Cascade volcanoes shows, there are MANY volcanoes, and to include all of them may be too much.Curb Chain (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: no need to limit the navigation list to only the so-called major volcanoes (whatever that means).  Just list them all and organize them well.  The volcano list article has only 82 entries; even if it were doubled, it would still be less than Protected areas of Oregon at 374. —EncMstr (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said I don't have a problem with including all of the Cascade Arc volcanoes in the template. However, if that were to be done the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt template would be somewhat redundant because that includes all of the Cascade Arc volcanoes on the Canadian side.  Volcano guy  17:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Globalize/Greece

 * 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) 21:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)



Similar to the nomination immediately below, but nominating separately because people might have different viewpoints on this template. Also unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Globalize/Netherlands

 * 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) 21:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)



I honestly cannot imagine that there are going to be enough articles with viewpoints specific to these countries to merit separate templates, since the countries are so small. In the unlikely event that we do find such an article, the general globalize template should be sufficient. None of these templates have any transclusions. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:CBA Arenas

 * 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) 21:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)



The Continental Basketball Association no longer exists, thus there are no current CBA arenas. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and only one entryCurb Chain (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if the league was still going strong, if there's only one entry, there's no need for a template. -fuzzy510 (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Caste Groups of India (Kamma)

 * 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) 21:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)



Previously, this page was transcluded on only one page (Kamma (caste). Yesterday, another editor manually recreated the infobox on that page (to deal with some formatting errors). As such, there is no longer any need for this template.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It's no longer used.Curb Chain (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Western Sahara lists of positions

 * 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 remove from use. As this content page (not a template at all) has a rather lengthy edit history, I have redirected it to the main article to preserve said history. JPG-GR (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)



Well this is an article really not a template, that was created so its lengthy content could be used in two different articles Legal status of Western Sahara and Foreign relations of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. I think this is neither appropriate nor standard practice: The two articles are supposed to cover different subjects not to have 90% of their content concealed into this template. IMHO, it was created to avoid edits from inexperienced users on the aforementioned articles. Templates are ment to link together related topics not to have entire articles inside them. Tachfin (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and remove from Foreign relations of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic This template is article-information in templatespace.  It should also not be duplicated, on more than one article.Curb Chain (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's not really needed on the foreign relations page.  Night w   19:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully agree and support the deletion from SADR foreign relations article. Zambitious (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WikiProject Sheffield Wednesday

 * 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, after updating transclusions of WikiProject Football to use y. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Sheffield Wednesday has now been converted into a task force, with the assessment of its articles to be covered by WP:FOOTY via Template:WikiProject Football. Therefore, Template:WikiProject Sheffield Wednesday is now redundant and should be deleted. – PeeJay 00:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete since it is no longer usedCurb Chain (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant template. Argyle 4 Life  talk  18:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep; the deletion breaks edit histories of talk pages under the Task Force's purview, and the same effect can be accomplished just by redirecting the template to WikiProject Football. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 21:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, if an article has the WP:Sheffield Wednesday banner on it, it should already have the WP:Football banner too, so redirecting would create two instances of the same template on the talk pages in question. – PeeJay 21:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.