Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 21



Template:Ancient Egyptians

 * 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. Garion96 (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ancient Egyptians

This appears to be an arbitrary listing of ancient Egyptians. There's no clear way to select certain persons to include or not to include. For instance, why Yuya but not Ramses II? Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Pharaohs are apparently left out because they have a very large footer template of their own. But the list is arbitrary even without considering the pharaohs. List of ancient Egyptians includes far more people than are in this box, and the template's only real use is to link to that more comprehensive list. A. Parrot (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment What pharaohs have been excluded?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a separate navbox for Pharaohs. I have proposed this template for deletion due to the fact that there seems to be no real rationale for/against including any non-Pharaoh. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Technical 13 (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. So we have random people separated by about 2500 years lumped together in a rather indiscriminate navbox?  This is not remotely a useful navigational aid. Resolute 19:50, 28 April 2013 (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:Isa

 * 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 with Template:Jesus. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Isa

The sidebar Template:Jesus already includes a list of articles related to the Muslim Jesus. eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * delete as redundant. Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep it is not redundant, it can be used in several pages such as al-Hawariyun, Injil, Mariam, Islamic View of Jesus' death, Masih ad-Dajjal,..., besides in template_talk:Isa we agreed to keep it (users: History2007, Toddy1, and Kathovo and me agreed on keeping this template). Its talk page will be used later for reference.Kiatdd (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete it would be much more useful to readers to use Template:Jesus.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Toddy1, template:jesus is not suitable for Islamic pages. For example have a look on page Gospel in Islam. The nominated template (template:Isa) can be used in at least 8 pages:
 * Disciples of Jesus in Islam
 * Gospel in Islam
 * Mary in Islam
 * Islamic view of Jesus' death
 * Masih ad-Dajjal
 * Christianity and Islam
 * Biblical narratives and the Quran
 * Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam
 * And its usage in 2 additonal pages is optional:
 * Islamic eschatology
 * Religious perspectives on Jesus
 * Using template:Jesus in these pages will introduce a lot of irrelevant links. Besides, template:Isa does not seem to violate any wikipedia guideline. Deletion has a criteria and you need to specify which criteria it violates? Kiatdd (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * the irrelevant links would be collapsed, and any missing relevant ones could be added. the suggested criteria for deletion are listed at the top of WP:TFD, which includes "2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template". Frietjes (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BALANCE, Wikipedia assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence.   Template:Jesus does that.  If some editors think that so-called "Islamic pages" on Wikipedia should only show an Islamic POV, they are mistaken.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no need to modify a template from wikiproject Christianity to make it fit for wikiproject Islam. template:Jesus consists of over 60 links which are irrelevant in wikiproject Islam. We are talking about two entirely different projects. The purpose of template:Isa is to help navigate between a handful of Islamic pages related to Jesus and perhaps using an appropriate image which in this case is a calligraphy (and not Hebrew letters). If we accept your argument then we can merge all the templates in page Jesus into one gigantic template and make all others redundant. Template:Isa might be redundant in wikiproject christianity but it is useful in wikiproject islam. Kiatdd (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the difference - one template has links to all points of view (i.e. NPOV). The other template does not.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously. Muslim views on Jesus are quite different than Christian views. I wouldn't object to similar templates for Judaism, or even Hindu or Buddhism or Atheism. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Largely redundant. Jesus should be modified so as to be suitable on all relevant articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – It would be useful to have a separate template for the Islamic viewpoint. Tanbircdq (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I'd have to agree that a template for the Islamic viewpoints would be helpful, with Jesus being a general, Christian-centric template. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge with Jesus. It's the same Jesus - just differing view points, the Jesus template can have sections on the Muslim views, Jewish views, Unitarian views, Scientology views, and whatever. To have separate templates looks like WP is endorsing varying views without providing template links to the other views. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, relevant to Islam articles; using Jesus would introduce a lot of irrelevant links. — Scott • talk 12:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge: Comments; Irrelevant links! A main goal of Wikipedia is to link articles. If someone is interested in articles on "Jesus" it seems logical to link to all aspects, views, and information on the subject. Let's see if logic prevails: Rationale: This is an English Wikipedia. Jesus, referred to in any other language, is still Jesus. Per Carlossuarez46's comments this "Isa" and the Jesus templates are both about the same related subject just from different perspectives. Either merge these two or merge this one into the Islam template in a collapsible section. Either way Merging and deleting this one is logical. Also, nine of the eleven articles given as examples by Kiatdd uses one, two, or all three of the Jesus, Islam, or Isa templates. It appears Ego White Tray feels that there should be eight or ten templates on every article. He might not have meant that but per WP:NPOV one article (like Religion) can have views from many perspectives so of interest to many portals. With his suggestion such an article could have a template for Judaism, Hindu, Buddhism, Atheism, among a host of others, and that certainly would be what some refer to as a slippery slope (bad article) or fait accompli. It seems to evade some that both Christianity and Islam follow God, list the same lineage down to Abraham, and thus are referred to as "Abrahamism". They also refer to the same Jesus. Why refer to a template as a Christianity template if, after modifications, it would be a multi-religious template? It is my opinion that articles don't need to be saddled with a bunch of templates (especially side-bar) because editors can't agree to some common ground. Otr500 (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge as it is redundant... Technical 13 (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2013 (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:CAC Small

 * 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) 23:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * CAC Small

This navigation template lists all the businesses of the CAC Small, which is a catchall category for small-cap stocks listed on the Paris Bourse that haven't been put on one of their major stock indexes. That's an awful lot of redlinks that should remain red; hardly any of these businesses will ever be encyclopedia subjects. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

All or most of these companies have articles in the French WP, and we normally defer to the national WP for their country's institutions. This is not of course automatic. but the principle is that if something anywhere in the world is notable, it's notable in the enWP--we cover the world, limited only by our ability to make the articles. Standards of notability differ in the different WPs, but the FrWP has considerably stricter standards than we do, I've observed their AfD decisions, and I generally trust them.( Though not at issue right now,   I'd trust even more the decisions of the deWP for German topics--their standards are  probably the highest of any WP. There are other WPs I trust much less.) There mother factors includes article that the other WPs are in process of deleting, and those the violate one of our other rules which they might have, but most articles of translated articles challenged at AfD aare kept. Two or three of these have been challenged, and are now at AfD. The discussion there will be a guide. What these are are relatively small-cap companies, but significant enough among such companies to be used for their index at the principal level of the Paris stock exchange. An alternative to handling this material is cross-wiki redirects, so people will get the French article, The French articles on these companies are written a uniform standard, and they're the sort of content where Google Translate is useful, so we'd at least be able to provide some information, However, current feeling is against doing these sort of links. (After all. it's reasonable that someone who can read a little French would have the sense to go themselves to the frWP even without such assistance  for French culture-area topics they do not find here, DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and make the articles.


 * Delete. Whether the companies in this template are notable or not is not the discussion. But this template is overkill, linking these companies together with others that have nothing in common other than being listed on a particular stock exchange. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 22:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * delete, this is why we have categories. Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Attempts to join unrelated companies. That they are listed on the same stock index is trivial. Resolute 19:52, 28 April 2013 (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:Water and Power Ministers of Pakistan
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 no consensus Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Water and Power Ministers of Pakistan

Only 3 articles for now; not sure this subject is worthy of a template; template only used on one article. I vote to delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC) <hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep Template is significant, and it will be expanded. I vote to keep it.  Faizan Al-Badri   -  Let's talk!   05:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many examples of similar templates for ministerial positions throughout the encyclopedia. Systemic bias issues are not a reason *for* deletion. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 22:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * 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:Fast food restaurants
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 no consensus Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fast food restaurants

The articles in this navbox are only related very loosely, and the content is better organized by Category:Fast-food chains of the United States. Plus it is quite crowded and I doubt it is that helpful for nagivation. Per WP:NAV: "The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space." -- Atlantima  ~ 🌼 ~ ( talk )  18:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. --  Atlantima  ~ 🌼 ~ ( talk )  18:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Purge of US-only content, and only put in international chains. WP:Systematic bias -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I want to keep this on the Wiki. Put international chains. 166.147.120.155 (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I dont think an international focus will be truly helpful. If i am reading about a chain restaurant, why do i want to look at every other restaurant with the chain business model that operates at that scale? why not other international businesses? I dont think it helps readers navigate as much as some better focussed navboxes. But, if someone wants to try to create an international chain restaurant navbox from this list, and its not too huge, and works and is actually helpful, i wont object.(mercurywoodrose)76.254.34.67 (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Consider the following: "Navboxes not to be created ... A listing of articles for which there is no reasonable theoretical limit to the numbers of articles that can be included. Some examples are a list of people who are notable for the same reason but otherwise have no connections, or companies within the world or a country providing the same products or services [emphasis added]."

- A navbox on every page


 * Just get rid of it. Adding international chains will make this navbox even more bloated and cumbersome than it already is. There's no use trying to improve this navbox; it's flawed in its inception. Better to capture this stuff with categories and links. Ibadibam (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep - This is for major American industry that is worth billions of dollars. Rework it to use the navbox template with collapsible sections. And in response to the commentary, there is a defined set of parameters to meet for inclusion in the list that keep it from ballooning to immense size which has been ignored. I will pare down the smaller regional chains that should not be included. --<span style="font-family:lucida sans, sans-serif;">Jeremy <small style="font-size:85%;">(blah blah • I did it!) 05:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep To delete this Template would be absolutely ridiculous. I do not know what absolute imbecile even bloody considered to delete this. No on deletion, this template in one of the most important templates on this site. Coolboygcp (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 22:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * keep it is currently of excessive size, so it must be trimmed down - but keep nonetheless.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep on condition that it is trimmed down or split into separate navboxes. If this is found to be impossible, it should be brought back here for more discussion. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep What happened to Pizza and Chicken chains. Trimming is not possible. Either split each section as its own template or keep and I say keep. We may eventually have to split each section into its own template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or at very least trim out all of the stuff that isn't a chain across all of the country and move to Template:US Fast-food restaurants as the current name implies internationalism and the template itself declares it is US only. Technical 13 (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename to Fast food restaurants in the United States first, then think about chopping it up. — Scott • talk 12:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOTDUP and WP:LISTPURP. WP:NOTDUP states, in part: "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Also, per WP:LISTPURP, these are useful lists for navigational purposes. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What you have said is completely true; the content of the navbox is useful. So is the list article List of fast food restaurant chains, which is a much more suitable format for presenting this information. It is impossible to ignore the sheer size of this navbox – it has grown far too big (did it eat too much fast food?) and is practically useless for navigation in its present state, which is why it needs to be trimmed or split, or deleted if this cannot be achieved. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I used the template to check out some articles just today, and it worked fine for me; its size wasn't a hindrance whatsoever. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - useful template that organizes a lot of articles very well. Renaming to fix US-focus might be necessary.  Marlith  (Talk)   19:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename and keep The template title should be clear that this relates to fast food restaurants in the US. The argument that they're only loosely related is baseless.  Northamerica lays out the argument that I would have laid out. Ryan Vesey 19:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. With 232 article links and two more to other templates, this is utterly and compeltely worthless as a navbox.  Leaving as is, this is a fine example of US-centrism. Expand to include international chains, and this bloated monstrosity becomes even less useful than it is now.  Creating more templates for other nations would leave articles like McDonalds completely littered with pointless templates.   In the end, the only thing this does is spam useless links across unrelated articles.   There is no significant link between Tim Hortons or Carls Jr. or Taco Tico or Red Lobster.  At some point, people need to realize that navboxes exist to aid navigation between closely linked articles.  This one is a massive failure. Resolute 20:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CLN. The content is not suitable for a navbox. --Izno (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2013 (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:ACAZ aircraft
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ACAZ aircraft

With only 3 links (1 of which is red, and the 2nd has been nominated for deletion.), this navbox is unnecessary. Technical 13 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Actually it has four links, including the company link, which is a blue link, with an existing article. Because WikiProject Aircraft members are in the middle of creating articles on every aircraft type ever flown, the redlinks will get slowly filled and even if the nav box is deleted it will need to be re-created again later, thus negating any need to spend time on deleting it here. - Ahunt (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Notification of this discussion has been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE; assuming the links will never be filled is crystal-balling (and inaccurate); in addition, the article that has been nominated for deletion in the template is clearly notable and will (likely) be kept. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no assumption links will never be filled, the fact is per WP:NENAN 4 links does not justify a navbox. Technical 13 (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That essay reflects a rather controversial view and does not reflect consensus. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment(s) - the navbox is in keeping with a consistent style across aircraft articles. Aircraft design sequences used to be under see also but that drew flak as I recall and they ended up in the navbox area. NENAN seems to be concerned with creating navboxes when there are other ways of crosslinking. There is a counter-essay to WP:NENAN WP:NBFILL - essays are opinions not guidance though Ignore All Rules can also be invoked in either direction. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Nothing really to add to previous keep comments this is a standard navbox type used in all aircraft articles so it would be daft to delete just one. MilborneOne (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2013 (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:Ro-Kyu-Bu!
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. --BDD (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ro-Kyu-Bu!

This template has too few entries for inclusion, and is sufficiently narrow that it's doubtful it will grow larger in time. The main article Ro-Kyu-Bu! already links to the two branch articles, too.  十  八  20:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — Scott • talk 12:46, 26 April 2013 (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:Municipal Councilor Rohtak
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. --BDD (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Municipal Councilor Rohtak

Unused and unlikely to be used. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — Scott • talk 12:46, 26 April 2013 (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:Disputed title
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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, but remove from articles where the discussion is stale. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 13:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Disputed title

Redundant to Requested moves. This should either be deleted, or should always be accompanied with Requested move on the talk page so we are always resolving the issue when this template gets placed. Ryan Vesey 17:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This tag invites to discuss the title. Requested move is relevant only after a new title has been proposed (and consensus established). Debresser (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The documentation for the requested move template allows for an undefined new article name, so it can be used before a new article name is approved upon. This is when the disputed title template would otherwise have a use. I agree on the deletion of the template. rdococ... (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep you can dispute the title for extended discussions prior to requesting a move. That extended discussion material can be referenced by the move request to support the proposal (or be used to oppose the request) -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is, we've got articles that have had the tag from September 2012 and August 2010. It is fine for maintenance templates to sit on a page because somebody can come across it and fix it; however, it isn't fine when those maintenance templates are ones that require discussion and not simple fixes.  In most instances, the editor disputing the title should move the article to a new title.  If that move is reverted, or there is a situation where it is clear that a bold move would be a bad decision, discussion occurs on the talk page through the requested move process.  It is unnecessary to dispute the title and have extended discussion if you are not requesting a move. Ryan Vesey 00:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We can have a bot detag articles that have been tagged for over a year. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, since first we should check if there is still discussion. Debresser (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Dispute tags are not meant to be permanent: they are temporary notices of ongoing discussion. As such, transclusions from 2010 (and even from siz months ago) should be removed unless there is still an active discussion on talk. Taking the examples specified: Kurdish separatism in Iran is stale (the last comment is from November), Battle of Drava River (925) is stale (the last comment is from September) and Abenobashi Terminal Building should never have been tagged as there is no discussion at all. There's nothing inherently wrong with this as a dispute tag (though it needs cleaned up), but it should follow the same rules as any other such tag. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. If a tag was added and discussion became stale, then the tag could (and should, I guess) be removed. In any case, that this has not always been done is not a reason not to have this tag. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge per nomination. Technical 13 (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Of all the useless templates I can not see where ideas of "putting the horse before the buggy" is logical. If someone disputes a title, like I have recently run into that went on for a long time, the end result could very likely (as was the case) be determined by consensus to be keep, then a move request would be moot. If a title is disputed, and consensus determines a change, then why would there need for a requested move tag to be added? As far as I know an editor can perform this boldly (likely reverted) but certainly after consensus and a move is the Wikipedia solution to change the title right? Otr500 (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It would not be widely available unless one were to watch that page, so that's why a followup RM request should be filed, to not fall afoul of having too small a viewership in determining consensus. (especially likely when multiple different subject areas can share the same name, and the dispute discussion only involves the people from one of the subject areas) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The requested move tag is the tag that invites editors to discuss the issue, not this one.15:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean we have to let others know? Man! there are always rules. You would think some Wikwizard would think of a better name than a title to request a move when we haven't gotten to that zone yet. I have to do that several times then. You could look at my last several edits and do the requests for me. Now that we solved the "let everyone know" problem, what is your opinion on this particular matter? Otr500 (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * keep - useful to inform editors who don't go to the talk page that a discussion is underway. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2013 (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:Velina Hasu Houston Literary Works
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 move to Velina Hasu Houston bibliography Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 14:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Velina Hasu Houston Literary Works

There are no articles on works by this writer, so this navbox isn't needed. The two links are to a play by Aaron Sorkin and an article on flower arrangement. INeverCry  16:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep The articles simply need to be created, but shes is a highly relevant author and play right. Her work has high cultural significance. I think, instead, a group of wiki editors could organize to create those articles. Bab-a-lot (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Navboxes are designed for navigating between a group of articles. If/when articles on this writer's works are created, the navbox can be restored or re-created. Until then it's useless. See Navigation templates.  INeverCry   21:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * delete, but make sure the list is in the article, or repurpose as a 'List of literary works by' article. Frietjes (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Listify as Velina Hasu Houston bibliography. Too few blue links to work as a navbox for now. --BDD (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2013 (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:Will Hay
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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, but no objection if someone wants to recreate this as a 'films directed by' navigational box. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 14:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Will Hay

The template seems to be an overblown filmography. It is supplemented by associated artists rather than creative efforts. There are no directing/producing/writing credits presented. It is as if by adding associated artists we can cover up for presenting a filmography. We don't want to go down that road. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete: Everything in there except for the studios is either Stub Class or Unassessed which in my book agrees with what he says about being supplemented by people with a COI. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Acts of Valour) 13:13, 22 April 2013 (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:Editnotices/Page/User:NE Ent/sandbox
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Editnotices/Page/User:NE Ent/sandbox

User request in own userspace NE Ent 13:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Should be speedied then. Use . Debresser (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Tried that first, CSD was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AEditnotices%2FPage%2FUser%3ANE_Ent%2Fsandbox&diff=551451425&oldid=551451088 rejected]. NE Ent 20:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedied. Remembering how to close a TFD is left as an exercise for the reader. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2013 (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:Google RS
<div class="boilerplate vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 14:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Google RS
 * Google RGSE
 * Google RSVP

Hard coding a list of sites to search in a template is extremely problematic lacking any sitewide consensus on what sites are or are not reliable enough to be included. NE Ent 11:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your rationale suggests that documentation and content could be improved, does it not? Does a User need pre-clearance to create what might be an arguably helpful, if imperfect (or necessarily arguably incomplete) thing such as this? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

At my invitation the LittleBenW emailed me the following comments: NE Ent 01:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've BOLDly combined these requests. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Everything has to be improved. That's what Wiki is all about. It's not a reason to delete something that is useful, or at least potentially usefully. The templates should be set up to search categories like "encyclopedias", "media", "sports", or "music." But that's version 2.0. If we delete 1.0, we never get 2.0. Kauffner (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My argument is that it's highly unlikely there will ever be a final consensus on what sites should be listed in the templates. NE Ent 20:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support/Delete and I've BOLDly added Google RSVP. I see a pattern emerging that is too specific. Technical 13 (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - The definition of a reliable source is highly subject-specific. It ought never to be pre-judged by this kind of mechanism. These templates have largely been used for a covert attempt to enshrine one preferred answer to the vexed question of diacritics into WP policy without adequate discussion. I believe they should be scrapped outright. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I honestly have a hard time understanding what a "support" or "oppose" vote is supporting or opposing. While I use google a lot, I have never had any desire to have a template that I could use for that purpose. Apteva (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's funny, I hadn't even noticed your confusion until after I clarified. Support is supporting the nomination for deletion whereas as opposed would be opposing the nomination for deletion. Technical 13 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Urgh. No. WP:ELNO #9: links to search results pages. End of discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you believe that, why do we have a google template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kauffner (talk • contribs) 16:03, 22 April 2013‎
 * That template is explicitly noted as not for use in mainspace. At the time of my previous comment, I was not aware that this template was created for non-mainspace use: however, given that current discussion makes it obvious that its uses are still unsavoury that would make it deleteable anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that the Vietnam RS template has been added to the list. This one was put together based on my recommendations, and I use it in writing Vietnam-related articles. Those who don't write about Vietnam don't need to use it. I checked WP:Template_Deletion, but I didn't notice a reason that would apply here. The objection that we cannot know what is RS and what is not represents relativism gone mad. Kauffner (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom that there is no consensus on what sites should be on the template and at this point it is highly unlikely that there ever will be. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Several of the Google templates that have been around for a long time, and that I didn't create, are prewired with places to search -- to make it trivially easy for people to research reliable sources. Such templates include Template:Google_books, the Template:Search for family of templates, Template:Find_sources, and Template:Google_scholar.

Are you proposing to delete all these templates as well -- because they are also "prewired", so as to make it trivially easy to research what reliable sources say? I believe that they should be linked from WP:RS, as should WP:SET, because knowledge of research techniques and sources is not just a valuable way of improving Wikipedia, it's a useful job skill in today's world.

The reasons why Template:Google RS is so valuable are clearly stated here: The sources for the templates are all listed; they are widely considered to be the most trustworthy and politically neutral sources in English on the web, e.g. Encyclopedias like Britannica, magazines like the Economist, newspapers like the New York Times, broadcast sites like the BBC. If you're aware of any better sites then they can easily be added (Google permits 32 max. to be searched, Google RS currently includes ten sources as listed). It is easy to clone this template and change the sources or add others, it is based on earlier templates like Template:Find_sources. If you think that these ten are not reliable sources, and should always be disregarded, then you should argue this at the WP:RS Talk Page. Likewise, if you think that Wikipedia's "Verifiability in Reliable Sources" criteria is irrelevant—and should be replaced by, "Truth depends on how many people you can bring to an RfC", then this should be discussed at the WP:V talk page.

The reasons why Template:Google RGSE is so valuable and unique are also clearly stated: you can search major official Government and Government tourist web sites for most of the major countries in Europe simultaneously (but Google limits searches to a maximum of 32 sites simultaneously, and I couldn't find official Government political and travel sites that are searchable exclusively in English for some countries).

Of course Wikipedia NPOV and accessibility policies say to cite both English and foreign name equivalents together, so researching reliable sources in English is not about excluding foreign names from Wikipedia. There are local-language and English versions of most Government travel sites, for example, (the English version is usually a translation of the local language version), so if it's shown in English then the local language version will also be there. Clones of the templates could easily be modified to search only the corresponding non-English Government sites.

Thus there is surely no excuse for not doing real-world research in reliable and neutral sources; I believe that this is preferable to warring, and preferable to doing "original research" to find one or two minor and dated sources that support one's POV—out of zillions than don't—and claiming that only those that support one's own utopian viewpoint are reliable. Or trying to decide things based on who can canvass and bring the biggest mob to an RfC—rather than based on up-to-date, verifiable, and objective real-world facts. These template search results are repeatable.

But nobody is forcing you or anybody else to use Template:Google RS or Template:Google RGSE, so surely there is no reason to delete them--or to delete the related Template:Google_books, Template:Google_scholar, or Template:Find_sources templates either. Is it that you feel threatened by objective and repeatable search results? To hell with reliable sources and verifiability, are you saying? Is Wikipedia to be a trustworthy, NPOV source or not?

"I don't like people researching facts" or "I do not recognize any sources except the ones that support my personal viewpoint" are NOT shown as valid reasons for deleting templates at Template_Deletion

The argument that, "I don't approve of *any* sites being coded into these templates" is also bogus. There is no WP requirement for any of these templates to have your personal approval -- you (and anybody else) are free to use them or not, as you wish. via email.
 * The existence of a template in the Template: space implies an official imprimatur. Individual templates should be in userspace e.g.  NE Ent 11:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Some interesting points have come up here. I didn't realize the widespread array of these types of templates when I submitted my delete vote.  While agreeing that these templates still do not belong in Template:, wouldn't it be more proper to allow them to be moved to the appropriate WP:WikiProject's space for which an individual template is used? Technical 13 (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They are fantastic, but not widely known. Find sources is intended to be shown to newbies to help them learn to research stuff, and WP:SET (that I have enhanced quite a lot) is full of resources—everybody should know about it.
 * It is simple to run script templates from the Template: namespace, and more clumsy to run templates from the User: namespace. They are not supposed to "belong" to a project; by putting them in the Template: namespace you are giving other people permission to use them, they don't "belong" to you exclusively (of course they shouldn't belong to any WikiProject either, they should be shared commons for everyone's benefit, and they would also be clumsy to run from WikiProject space. Another user could accidentally scramble or delete the template code, messing up WP wherever the template is used). Even WikiProject specific templates—e.g. project-specific barnstars like WPJ-Barnsensu—tend to be stored in Template namespace as shared commons that other people can clone and modify. You are free to make your own kittens, cookies, or whatever to give people.
 * If you try to post any User: namespace template on a Wikipedia talk or Article talk page, to discuss the results with others, you will probably be told off by an Admin: I was told by an Admin that User: namespace templates should not be used on Wikipedia talk or Article talk pages, and that I should move the templates to Template: namespace. I haven't found any WP rules on this, but I think that the reason for his opinion is that it's not nice to mess with another user's space (which would be necessary if there were a problem with a template in User: namespace that is used on a Wikipedia talk or Article talk page).
 * Anybody can create and share a template in Template: namespace, just as anybody can create articles in Article: namespace (you won't find any "Approved by" stamps on articles or templates), but you should thoroughly test complex script templates (as opposed to text templates) in your User: space before publishing them (and documenting them) in Template: namespace if they have the potential to run amok—as other users are free to run script templates that are in Template: namespace.
 * The main advantage of using templates over pasting a link is that the results of clicking a pasted Google search link can be quite different on different people's computers, as Google remembers individual search preferences (and people often paste links that have lots of personalized stuff embedded in them). (I discovered this in discussions here and  here). But template results seem quite repeatable and free from such bias.
 * Does that help? Sorry if this sounds a bit long-winded to those who are not interested in such geek stuff. Feel free to ask if you have further questions. We can move these techie discussions elsewhere if they annoy other people. Many clued-up template geeks hang out at User talk:TheDJ. LittleBen (talk)
 * I'm afraid that your comments here only reinforce my original Delete nomination because I agree with NE Ent that the existence of a template in the Template: space implies an official imprimatur, which I think is inappropriate per nom that there is no consensus on what sites should be in such a template and it would appear highly improbable that there ever will be. Technical 13 (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you did not read my explanation: "Anybody can create and share a template in Template: namespace, just as anybody can create articles in Article: namespace (you won't find any "Approved by Jimbo" stamps on articles or templates)". If you think otherwise, please show me where guidelines say that approval is required. Text templates are deleted when two templates are merged, or when there is agreement on a new and better text box to be shared by several articles. But it would be purely malicious to delete somebody else's search or award template because you don't want to use it, or you don't like it. You don't have to use it or like it, your approval is not required. You are free to create a better one yourself, if you so wish. LittleBen (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I started editing under this new account 5 days ago, and since then I've spent most of my time hunting down diffs. I'm tired now. But anyone who wishes to can look up how LBW has used his template to see the problems. He is trying to enforce an anti-diacritic POV, contrary to the TBAN that has seen him got blocked at least three times already. It almost always comes up in accompaniment with some sort of diacritic issue. Konjakupoet (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict: LBW, learn to use the goddamn SHOW PREVIEW button!!! NOW!!! Konjakupoet (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC) )
 * As per the several messages on your talk page, you'd be wise to avoid personal attacks and nasty comments. LittleBen (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Shut up. You know full well, as you did last time, that I have consistently been in the right. The talk page remarks are a good-faith misunderstanding. Please bear in mind that the last user who picked a fight with me just got blocked a few hours ago, and he probably would have gotten off had he not insulted me as you are doing. Konjakupoet (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you like a gravedancing barnstar? LittleBen (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you? Konjakupoet (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong delete LBW created this template in order to cherry-pick "reliable sources" (news sources and general encyclopedias) and undermine Wikipedia style guidelines by removing diacritics. He has been under a TBAN that makes his continued use of the template questionable since December. He has been blocked twice for violating the TBAN and once for canvassing in an attempt to avoid getting blocked a third time for violating the TBAN. He continues to try to unilaterally alter Wikipedia policies with the use of this template (see his fairly recent edits to WP:RS). We don't need this kind of abuse of the system, and we don't need LBW to tell us which sources are reliable. (Specific types of Shinto shrines and the like are unlikely to be covered in any depth in any of the sources LBW's template prescribes.) Konjakupoet (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I get the impression that you haven't read any of the above: it's explained above that "I don't like people researching facts" or "I do not recognize any sources except the ones that support my personal viewpoint" are NOT shown as valid reasons for deleting templates at Template_Deletion. LittleBen (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, no, I am fine with all of your sources being cited. I just don't like you saying that only your sources are valid, or weighing them more heavily than more specialist sources. Why does Britannica giving a passing reference to Natsume Sōseki and not spelling his name with a macron mean we should give Britannica more weight than a more popular reference devoted to the subject like something like Donald Keene? Konjakupoet (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether you like it, or agree with the contents or not, you'd be wise to read the WP:SS essay. This was created to justify the claim that MOS styles override the styles used in specialist sources (I think there was quite a ruckus over bird names, and I believe that the author of WP:SS was topic-banned for a month not because of what WP:SS says, but because of abusive behavior towards other users in pushing it—and he doesn't seem to have returned to WP). This (WP:SS) idea is based on WP:COMMONNAME, I believe. Funnily enough, the writer of WP:SS seemed to think that a minor Tennis names RfC overrides the MOS. ;-)
 * There was a recent civil discussion about sentence case vs. title case that was shut down rather abruptly. Personally I don't think there's any harm in civilly discussing new ideas for MOS; there's no requirement to adopt them. LittleBen (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But you're the one who is rejecting specialist sources in favour of encyclopedias for general consumption and newspapers... Konjakupoet (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are not listening: I said that I believe that WP:SS (or "reject specialist sources' styling") is based on WP:COMMONNAME. LittleBen (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, so you are in favour of MOS styles now? That's fresh... Konjakupoet (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete all - for two reasons.
 * Firstly as has already been stated, per WP:TBAN and ANI "LittleBenW is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia... -Jayron32 19:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously if someone is topic banned from "Weather" then expending 1000s of bytes busily constructing "Weather" templates and repeatedly inserting Weather template as a link into WP:RS constitutes a breach of Weather TBAN.
 * Secondly, these templates call themselves "RS" but they are the exact opposite of the definition of "reliable" in WP:RS:


 * The templates set out to do the exact opposite of what WP:RS states. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also concurring with NE Ent "extremely problematic lacking any sitewide consensus on what sites are or are not reliable enough to be included" In ictu oculi (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The templates themselves do not have any naughty topic-banned words like "Weather" embedded in them. This discussion is about the templates, not about the examples in the template documentation. Also the Google RS template has been around since November. Template_Deletion do not contain any statement to the effect that "any templates—such as Template:Google books, the Template:Search for family of templates, Template:Find sources, Template:Google scholar, Template:Google RS (and friends)—that use Google to find Reliable Sources are illegal, have been banned by the Wikipedia Inquisition or the Wikipedia Thought Police, and may be deleted, because Google searches occasionally turn up naughty topic-banned words". You are free to delete examples from the template documentation (because you are afraid of people seeing the search results), and anybody else is free to revert the examples. If you want to order Google to suppress results that you don't like then maybe you should confer with representatives of certain Asian countries. Censorship of Google maybe does not align with WMF policies. LittleBen (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC) LittleBen (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * LittleBenW, 15 December 2012 is 14 days after your TBAN. The template examples consist almost entirely of examples such as Lech Wałęsa, Franjo Tuđman, etc. Can you name 1 admin who has confirmed this is not a breach of your TBAN. Have you checked with the admins who have previously blocked User talk:Jayron32, User talk:SarekOfVulcan, User talk:Ched, for example? It is not for the User under a TBAN you to decide the terms of their TBAN. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The same Walesa template example that you are having repeatedly stripped out of WP:SET was added there on 25th Nov. This template, which is in template space as Google RS, was created in November. Your motive for stripping it out is surely POV-pushing spite? LittleBen (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop making WP:personal attacks on other users. Template history shows 15 December 2012 In ictu oculi (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This template Google RS is merely a template-space copy of the userspace version of November. I am disturbed by the obsessive censorship of WP:SET. WP:SET is mainly about teaching the extreme usefulness of using Google site: search to learn what reliable sources say about a famous person or place—and one of the most reliable sources for information about a famous person or famous place is usually the corresponding official government site. One of the most reliable sources for information about Walesa is the English-language Polish government web site. One of the most reliable sources for information about Medjugorje is the Bosnian Government web site. (Such searches are easy to do with Google RGSE, as per the examples). These would be good examples for me to add to WP:SET. They don't involve any topic-banned d-words—even though I'd personally prefer to present both sides of the picture fairly, and show results for both English and foreign words. WP is supposed to be about NPOV fairness, and not about rewriting history and rolling back the clock (I would sincerely hope that we've come a long way since the Spanish Inquisition). Presenting both sides of the story fairly is not "warring against the d-word"; but stripping out all the feelthy English versions of names from the body of articles and then doing mass moves "for consistency with the body"—or refusing to fairly research and report neutral sources—is warring against Wikipedia's "proper NPOV and reliable-source" guidelines, and destroys WP's accuracy and trustworthiness. LittleBen (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete all WP does not endorse certain sources are always reliable whilst others never are. I would say that the local Waco papers are a reliable source about the explosion nearby, a campus paper about student issues at the university, a science journal about topics within its purview, and even Hollywood gossip rags about who won Oscars and who didn't. WP:RS reflects this diversity; these templates are to the contrary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody is suggesting that any of the Google templates—including Template:Google books, the Template:Search for family of templates, Template:Find sources, Template:Google scholar—is 100% reliable for every possible topic. Nothing is 100% reliable. Wikipedia is not 100% reliable, but that is not an acceptable argument for deleting it. Wikipedia is merely reliable and trustworthy enough to be at the top of many Google searches.
 * Well-known places, and BLP names, are widely and independently reported on the Internet, particularly in reliable Government sources and reliable and neutral media like the BBC. LittleBen (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. There's a difference between templates which links to different top level searches (e.g. books.google.com instead of www.google.com) and the templates under discussion, which restrict the scope of searches to a list of sites that have not been agreed upon via a community process. NE Ent 12:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are repeatedly implying that all the sites in search templates "have to be agreed upon via a community process", which you surely know—by now—is not the case. Show us that all the sites that are searched by the Template:Search for family of templates, Template:Find_sources, and Template:Google_scholar have been "agreed upon via a community process". Show us that there is a requirement for templates to be "approved by the community". Show us—in the list of acceptable reasons for deleting templates—that there is a valid reason for deleting these ones. LittleBen (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete all: Attempt to give undue weight to cherry-picked sources against consensus, and already used by Tbanned creator to attempt to evade Tban. These templates are fundamentally flawed, and cannot be improved. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Google ranking, usefulness and trustworthiness: I wrote a mini essay on Finding sources in Japanese. I said, "Relevance, authority, and trustworthiness are a life-or-death matter for search engines... So the algorithms that Google uses to rank items in the search results are a life-or-death matter". If you use the Google RGSE template to search for a Polish place or person (BLP), a Polish source will be at or near the top in the rankings. And so on, for other names of people and places in the countries covered by the template.
 * I created Responsive Web Design in Jan. 2012—and it's up to about 120,000 page views per month in Mar. 2013, and has been top of Google search results for some time. Since I cleaned up the Computer virus article in November, it has jumped from about 300,000 page views per month to nearly 500,000 page views per month now (and, of course, top of Google search results). I mention this to show that I'm passionate about creating stuff that makes a real difference, and that (Google tells me, objectively) is highly rated by many readers as easy-to-read, wide-ranging, useful, authoritative, and trustworthy.
 * I'm curious: do any of the POV pushers here have articles that readers value so highly in terms of pageviews and ranking? Or is the objective to make articles that are so difficult for most English speakers to read that few people are bothering? LittleBen (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * LittleBenW, is the comment "Or is the objective to make articles that are so difficult for most English speakers to read that few people are bothering?" related to diacritics? If not what is it related to? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete all per reasoning presented in comments before the wall of text above. —  Scott  •  talk  12:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To sum up: Proposals to delete templates need a rationale as per Template Deletion. No such rationale has been provided. LittleBen (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * LittleBenW, you are in no position to be the one summing up. Besides NE Ent gave the rationale in the first sentence as "extremely problematic lacking any sitewide consensus on what sites are or are not reliable enough to be included." In ictu oculi (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep'. These seem like excellent tools for finding high-quality most-reliable sources. All tools have limitations, but these seem to be a fair sample of the best sources. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  14:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above comments. Cherry picks sources the template creator prefers, and by implication, attempts to argue such sources are more reliable than others.  And it just so happens that the template will return null results for searches with diacritics, which coupled with the noted implication, creates a commentary that LittleBen has been pushing for so long and so disruptively that it resulted in a topic ban.  These templates are little more than blatant POV pushing. Resolute 15:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * delete per above. Frietjes (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll say to delete. I would support a narrowly-focused template for topics where most of the information is only in a handful of places (for example, a template to search Instituto Cervantes, Dialnet and other Spanish language scholar institutions for the sole purpose of finding papers about Spanish medieval history.). And only as a complement to normal searches. This template here intends to replace normal searches and become the final voice for decisions. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * delete all because:
 * Practicing search skills, then following up with WP:Reliable sources develops core skills. I notice the audience of the templates are those who have undeveloped search skills: the hatnote mentions a tutorial. This seems counter-productive to me, as the templates would supervene on the learning curve. We do ourselves well to strengthen our critical thinking skills by a continuous openness to hearing disparate sides. The day for such templates as supervene on WP:RS for search skills, and on WP:V for NPOV sources might come when a template can surpasses human abilities, but without the disconnect of a SUBST: of course. &mdash;  Cp i r al  Cpiral  02:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if blind reliance was wise, the three recommend SUBST:, which means the wikilink is impoverished when the managed list of reliable sites changes. Even though Google search word1 word2 site:1, site:2, site:3...site:10 certainly increase reliability, they decrease neutrality. The egoic characteristics of big media (there are significant ethical criticisms concerning big media politics), blunt diversity. There are far more than ten reliable sources on the web. Finding real disagreement amongst a concentration of media ownership would, no matter how reliable they really are, be less savory than doing the same "hunt for disagreement" amongst the items on a default web-search, which prioritize on the relevance to word1 word2 each of its items have. (These three templates are an apprentice's automation, which drifted into clever evangelism.)&mdash;  Cp i r al  Cpiral  02:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would draw these three lines: 1) Templates are for other things, like rendering a stylistic environment, or accomplishing mundane keystrokes or calculations. 2) Help pages at most may list the most-reliable sites where they are more public and open and debatable by the cognizanti. (We don't often debate such matters on template talk pages.) 3) Using only Google is not in the spirit of WP:SET.&mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  02:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If it still means anything, LBW already admitted back in February that the original purpose of this template is to win disputes over diacritic use. Totally forgot about that. Brain-fart on my part, and I apologize. But if this template only exists to violate a TBAN for a user who has already been indeffed for similar violations, what further use could it possibly have? Konjakupoet (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2013 (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.