Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 1

< August 31	September 2 >

September 1

Template:Unreferenced

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and clear consensus. — Edokter • Talk • 00:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the purposes of this template?

"It aids the editors of Wikipedia in finding unreferenced articles."
1. Wikipedia is written for the readers, not the editors. If we need this to find unreferenced articles, we can add it to talk pages instead. Also, this is a self-reference.
"It warns the reader that an article may not be reliable."
1. Every Wikipedia article is not 100% reliable because it can be edited by anyone. This is essentially a disclaimer template, which are explicitly prohibited by WP:NDT. The "Disclaimers" link at the bottom already says WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY.
2. We shouldn't pollute articles by adding ugly templates to them. Those are distracting from the real content, and you wouldn't find them in an ordinary encyclopaedia. Instead, we should try to improve the articles or explain our concerns on the talk page.

Delete. Genokutos 20:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or put on talk pages only. In the worst case, put only at the bottom of articles, not on top. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Perhaps speedily. Valuable cleanup tag that denotes a specific problem with the article to both readers and editors. Tag encourage readers and editors to improve the article by correcting the specific problem, which is a good thing. We also shouldn't be hiding cleanup tags by putting them on the talk pages either. --Farix (Talk) 21:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagreed. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and we shouldn't add ugly tags in articles just so they can be improved; articles serve to provide information. Those tags can be added to the talk page. Wikipedia is written for the reader. Genokutos 22:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The nominator's own talk page admits that he/she is a sockpuppet created just for the TfD, therefore I change my comments to speedy keep as a WP:POINT nomination. --Farix (Talk) 21:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please assume good faith. This account is completely allowed by WP:SOCK, as my user page notes, and I gave valid arguments for deletion. Have you actually read the page you're pointing at? It is about "disruption to illustrate a point", and this isn't disruptive, I am trying to start a productive discussion here. Genokutos 22:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because you admit to being a sock puppet purely to make a point in starting this TfD — and I do think that sending a commonly used cleanup template to TfD is disruptive — it is very difficult for me to assume good faith. Also TfD is the wrong place to have a discussion about the proper use and placement of cleanup tags. Such discussions belong at the Village Pump or in a RFC. --Farix (Talk) 22:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indeed, I created this sock puppet to start this TfD, which is completely allowed. I did not do so to make a point (what point could I be trying to make?), but because I genuinely believe that a template like this should not be used on articles. TfD'ing a commonly used cleanup template is not disruptive, the fact that the template is commonly used doesn't mean that there aren't any valid arguments for deleting it. Now let's discuss the deletion, rather than wasting our time by discussing my motives for this TfD nomination. Genokutos 22:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template itself is not tagged with the TfD template. --Bduke 22:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, because it is protected as a high-risk template. I added an {{editprotected}} tag on the talk page after I nominated it, but so far nobody has tagged the template yet. Genokutos 22:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This account could be used to avoid scrutiny (though, as the page itself notes, this can be legitimate as well). Who is the real person behind this opposition the templating on article pages? hbdragon88 22:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm not avoiding scrunity, that would mean causing disruption so that my main account would not be criticised. Instead, I'm keeping heated issues in one small area, which is explicitly allowed. I do not engage in this discussion with my main account. Now, let's comment on the actual deletion of the template, shall we? :) Genokutos 22:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swift, speedy keep. The template serves a fairly obvious maintenance purpose, categorizing literally thousands of articles that cite no references, and this is perhaps the most important cleanup issue we have on Wikipedia. It is also not a disclaimer, simply a statement of fact, and as noted above should encourage editors and readers alike to address the problem. The notion that we should restrict cleanup templates to talk pages is merely the nominators POV, and is really a larger issue that should be discussed elsewhere, since it applies to all such templates and not just this one. PC78 22:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This template is obviously intended for use on articles, and is worded as such. Articles should contain encyclopedic content, and they should not contain tags that can only serve to encourage editing (we're an encyclopedia, written for the readers, not the editors) or as a disclaimer (the disclaimer link at the bottom says WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY). Genokutos 22:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I read what you wrote the first time, and I maintain that this template is not a disclaimer. Sorry, but I'm inclined to think that you are making a POINT here. Your main concern seems to be the use of cleanup tags on articles, and this is not the way to go about it. The distinction you make between editors and readers is a false one - we are all editors, and all readers of Wikipedia. PC78 22:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PC78. Genokutos, I respect your reason for having a sock to propose this, but I hope you are not going to be one of those irritating nominators who argues with everyone who disagrees with you. We have read your nomination and understand it. --Bduke 22:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is a bad faith nomination, since it is premised not on a disagreement with the template itself but the way it is used. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but unlike any other encyclopedia it features a plethora of articles without reliable references. mgekelly 22:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This template is explicitly worded so that it must be used on articles, so if this were to be used on talk pages only, we would need another template. Genokutos 22:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The template carries no such explicit wording, and in any case it would be simple enough to change it if necessary. PC78 22:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because of its importance, in-your-face is exactly the right place to put this notice. It also helps new editors remember that adding new articles without references is NOT considered Wikipedia good practice. --Alvestrand 22:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I sympathize with and understand the arguments presented by the nominator, we must have some self-references and tools/templates aimed primarily at editors. We aim to minimize them but we can not and should not eliminate them as that is simply not practical or possible as long as this remains a living project. I also assert that the arguments used by the nominator for deletion are "straw men". --ElKevbo 22:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not need them, we can use them on talk pages or try to improve the articles instead. Many Wikipedias in other languages don't use them or rarely use them, and those do fine without them. Also, could you please elaborate on why my arguments are straw men? Genokutos 22:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep probably Speedy keep - Important template. Same templates I think belong better on talk pages, but this one serves, besides as message to editors also as an extra warning to readers. Garion96 (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly what I mean. We shouldn't have templates directed at editors in encyclopedia articles, and we shouldn't have disclaimers or warnings to the reader in articles because the disclaimer link at the bottom says that we don't guarantee validity. Genokutos 22:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Difference of opinion. I think, in some cases, we should do exactly that. Garion96 (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 22:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Just a vote? Genokutos 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid warning. Phil Sandifer 22:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We shouldn't warn readers in articles, see WP:NDT and the disclaimer link at the bottom. Care to explain why it's valid? Genokutos 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a valid warning in the same sense as NPOV, the factual accuracy templates, and other such templates. NDT is about templates in the vein of "This article contains profanity," not "this article may suck ass." Phil Sandifer 00:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted, Wikipedia is written for the reader. And also, to a great extent written by people who started as 'readers', whose contributions to fix missing information is greatly sought. This and similar templates both advise of a significant quality issue with an article, and also draw attention to readers and editors who might be inclined or knowledgable to get involved and fix it. The latter is a very desirable function, since if no editors have rectified the article yet, readers of article X (who have some interest) are logically the most likely to do so. Wikipedia has historically grown by promoting its role as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", and by suggesting small obvious ways lay-readers might do so (redirects, links, adding facts, etc). Templates that both inform and encourage specific involvement have a positive value to the project. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an important warning like {{POV}} and {{disputed}} indicating that an article ought to have references and indicating both to readers and editors (and every reader is a potential editor) that the article has an obvious path for improvement. Improper placement is to be solved by discussion and a note somewhere, not deletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but speak to the devs and see if this and other templates that appear at the top of pages can't be somehow automagically made invisible on the most recently flagged version of a page when flagged revisions lands. Nick 22:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - some code that can be included in a template, to specify how it should interact with flagged revisions, would be helpful. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Alvestrand. Accounting4Taste 22:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A vital part of the clean-up process. --Fredrick day 22:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The clean-up process works just as well if we create a template to use on the talk page of an article. Genokutos 22:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I disagree as does virtually everyone else !voting. --Fredrick day 23:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain why? Genokutos 23:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - even as an editor rather than a reader, the number of pages I see the page rather than the talk page is maybe 10:1. usually the talk page isn't visited unless I already have reason to edit or comment. I'm a lot more likely to not just read an article, but to consider working on it, if it's got a visible "fix me!" on it. can't speak for others though. But most of my fixing is not based on category:unreferenced, but on articles that I visit. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apparently work the same was at FT2 - IE I browse through articles I"m reading, and if I see a tag at the top, I try to fix what I can. Arthurrh 23:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - helps editors know quickly which articles need to be worked on. If it's too prominent, then it could be restricted to the References section, but I ALWAYS notice it when it's at the top. Arthurrh 23:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at most move to talk page. As a free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, the template encourages readers and/or editors to help fix, as PC78 said, one of the biggest issues in Wikipedia. Further, though we are to avoid self-references, according to WP:SELFREF#Examples_of_self-references, self-references should "not necessarily be deleted as they serve their purpose here on Wikipedia". Also, not all readers and editors know about the disclaimer (especially since it's at the very bottom of the page).Psyche825 (^T/_C) 23:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, BUT perhaps alter the instructions of the template to more strongly suggest its placement in the existing 'References' section (or a new, empty 'References' section). Having it right at the top of articles is generally unnecessary (and the cause of constant complaints from readers and editors alike). Just as "move-section" templates should be in their appropriate section, this one should be in the 'References' section. However I quite strongly disagree with moving it to the talkpage, per comments above by FT2. Also, according to the clearer, more intuitive Wikipedia:Template standardisation proposal, this will probably soon become an orange-colored "content issue" template style, which will help give it appropriate visual impact. If there are more serious issues with an article, then a more serious tag should be at the top of the article (e.g. Template:Original research). --Quiddity 23:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest keep possible/Speedy keep. Readers should be notified if the article is potentially dubious (well, even more than usual). There should be more such templates, certainly not less. — JyriL ^talk 23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commnet How much longer are we going to keep this WP:SNOWBALL in the furnace? --Farix (Talk) 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think putting the template to the bottom of the page is a good idea. You read over the whole article, THEN you saw the article's information may not be reliable. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 23:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep obviously. --Isis 4563 23:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep HUGE part of WP policy. - Presidentman 23:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I spend a lot of time fact-checking and adding citations, and my heart lept up when I saw the deletion notification...then it sank when I saw this discussion. I understand and do not disagree with most of the arguments above, but before the snowball is done with, can I say this? Without specific fact tags or a talk-page discussion, this tag looks to a fact-checker like "I sense something wrong with this article--someone else please figure out what I think and fix the problem for me." (And there is never a talk page discussion.) Jlittlet 23:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, this template is a form to warning users that X article or section contain major or all statements as unreferenced. And not to warning about original research, hoax or even "Wikipedia is not truth", "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY". Carlosguitar 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, no brainer - thank you Astuishin (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, a wonderfully useful template. When featured prominently at the top of your article gives you strong motivation to knock off that damn original research and find sources.--Loodog 00:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep my most used template when marking issues with articles. An integral part of wikipedia's self-improvement. Arguments that it is ugly, or that there is no reason for marking articles for improvement, seem daft to me. SGGH ^speak! 00:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change the way it is used, or maybe make a "referenced" template for the two or three that have references!!?? Right now it really should appear on just about every article I go to, but it is so ugly I am hesitant to deface the article with the template. I do not agree that it is only for the editors, because at one point every editor was a reader, so it does not hurt to let readers know that Wiki could use their help, but I really would like to see something less intrusive, see it moved down or to the talk page.--Tinned Elk 00:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly believe that the template should be used as it now usually is, at the head of pages. It incentivises editors concerned with the topic to add references so as to get rid of the ugly warning at the top there. However, as I understand it, the usage of the template is not an area for discussion on TfD, right? mgekelly 00:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per e.g. PC78. Oli Filth 00:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm not really liking the usage of this template in articles. But still, we can not delete this template. Deleting the Unreferenced template would result in red links in thousands of articles, thus severely damaging the structure of Wikipedia and the progress of pages. If we do keep it, then it should be:

placed in the references section of the article or the talk page,
slightly rewritten
certain guidelines and rules about using this template

Many new users willing to contribute would not know what to do to the article. Some bots would become obsolete, and the truthfulness of articles would drop. There would be a huge impact on Wikipedia, for many, many, many articles have this template stitched onto them.

This may not be the best template on Wikipedia, but it is EXTREMELY important. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 00:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:LBT backlink

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe such a navigation template adds value to a list, as it connects vastly different topics, for example, List of basic communication topics and List of agriculture topics. It is also non-standard and rather distracting on top of so many pages. I would argue that Category:Basic topic lists is enough for grouping the basic topics lists. — Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed completely. In addition, it's also redundant to Template:List resources, which already appears at the bottom (standard navbox location) of all the articles. --Quiddity 22:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed as well. there is such a thing as too many "navigation aids". --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Regions of Seo-gu, Daejeon

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template has only one transclusion and is made up entirely of red links. — PC78 16:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No good use for it. - Presidentman 23:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've moved the content of this template into the article. PC78 23:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Useless now. Dfrg.msc 10:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anime and manga character infoboxes (Round 2)

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

The result of the debate was Gotta delet'em all! Circeus 04:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the above templates have been orphaned since August 20, 2007 as part of an overall cleanup and merger of over 60 character infoboxes towards a general anime and manga character infobox, Template:Infobox animanga character. Since there have been no known complaints since these templates were replaced, they are now ready for deletion. --Farix (Talk) 15:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since I have restored all of the templates to their pre-transition states before they were switched over to Template:Infobox animanga character so that other editors can what the original templates looked like and render a better judgement. --Farix (Talk) 15:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: If deleted, the talk page of Template:Infobox Naruto character should be moved as an archive of Template:Infobox animanga character. This was suggested in WP:ANIME about templates that had significant discussions about their development. --Farix (Talk) 15:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If any code from these templates was used in the new one, we'll need to cite the authors or we'll violate the copyright under the GFDL. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main template that was referenced was Template:Infobox character and the layout was referenced on some of the other templates to determine what were common fields, but the code itself came from my previous work on Template:Infobox Anime convention, Template:WikiProject Anime and manga and Template:WikiProject Japan. --Farix (Talk) 00:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. No remaining transclusions, and no good reason to keep. Standardization is good! :) PC78 00:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or archive in some way, for some as minor as it might be, I'd be a bit interested in keeping some of these just to see how they developed. I can understand deleting them to discourage their use, but I'm not sure if that will be an issue. Also, if Wikipedia ever obtains the ability to show old versions of articles with old versions of transcluded templates, this would help that. Even with that all said, it would not really bother me if these templates were deleted, so if anyone does have a strong reason, then fine by me. -- Ned Scott 02:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you clarify which ones you think should be kept for "historical inquiry". --Farix (Talk) 20:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox Church

Template:Infobox church

Template:Infobox churches and cathedrals

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

The result of the debate was no consensus Circeus 04:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that {{Infobox Church}} be deleted, as there is a better designed template, {{Infobox church2}}. After {{Infobox Church}} is deleted, {{Infobox church2}} can be renamed {{Infobox church}} (note the small "c"). Although {{Infobox church}} currently exists, it may be better to delete this template, along with {{Infobox churches and cathedrals}}, as there already exists a template called {{Infobox religious building}} which is more widely used. Bit of a mess! — Jacklee 08:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC), modified 08:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Merge/delete all. In general, the idea of merging all three of these templates into one looks good. Is there any major difference in the focus of these infoboxes, or in the list of fields included? It might be a bit of a complex merge, but it's better to have one infobox than two or three. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As far as I can tell, the main difference between "{{Infobox Church}}" and "{{Infobox church2}}" on the one hand, and "{{Infobox church}}" and "{{Infobox churches and cathedrals}} on the other, is that the first two deal more with the life and activities of a church, while the second two deal with its architectural features. Combining all the templates into one infobox might be possible, but it might be a very long infobox and it's probably a task beyond my capabilities. Cheers, Jacklee 16:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - To distinguish them, might it be better to move them to, say, Infobox Church Building and Infobox Church Organization, with the former taking over for architecture and articles about buildings that have church and churches and cathedrals on them and the latter for articles about organizations that have Church and church2 on them? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: My suggestion, which I mentioned on "Template talk:Infobox churches and cathedrals#Merger proposal", was to rename one "{{Infobox church and cathedral building}}" (but "{{Infobox church building}}" is fine too, and shorter) and the other simply "{{Infobox church}}" (but again, "{{Infobox church organization}}" is fine and perhaps clearer). Cheers, Jacklee 17:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just noticed that there's a {{Infobox religious building}} template out there, which seems to have a lot more usage (about 217 pages, give or take). How about just using that one? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think that makes a lot of sense, as that resolves the issue about merging "{{Infobox church}}" and "{{Infobox churches and cathedrals}}". Now what needs to be done? Do we simply wait for an administrator to delete "{{Infobox church}}" and "{{Infobox churches and cathedrals}}"? Since those templates have been used in certain articles, do any warnings need to be given? And if there are no objections to "{{Infobox Church}}" being deleted, can an administrator go ahead and do so? Cheers, Jacklee 10:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused succession elements

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

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 04:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A pair of elements intended for the genealogical extension of the Succession Boxes (Who are still a right mess, by the way). Depsite having been around for over two years, they do not appear to be in use, and are of dubious usefulness. Circeus 00:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I have actually worked on these and while yes, they have been around for a while, I have been looking around for appropriate template devices to use to actually get these moving. The versions out there are not in use, surely, but I intend in the near future to release them as a functional template series to replace the space-hogging tables that current are taking over many of the dynasty pages. I would request these not to be deleted for the mere fact that they will be republished shortly either way once I finish the coding. I have had other things that I have been working on but since this proposal is about, I think it is time I work on this again.
–Whale y land ( Talk • Contributions ) 21:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 04:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please take into consideration this related discussion at WT:WAF. —AldeBaer 13:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the connection here. What do these templates have to do with family listing.
–Whale y land ( Talk • Contributions ) 00:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe others will see the connection. —AldeBaer 19:44, 8 September 2007 (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.