Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 10

August 10

Template:Phoenicians

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

Apparently unused. Looks rather rudimentary. GregorB (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Pointless. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete TenPoundHammer said it best: "pointless". Imzadi 1979 → 10:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete — Non-sandard format, not enough links to be useful. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 04:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete works well as a category. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Digimon

Template:WikiProject Digimon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as orphaned. Template:WikiProject DIGI is the redirect, BTW. Airplaneman ✈ 19:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as orphaned. Imzadi 1979 → 10:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Stars

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

Redundant to {{Rating}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant. Airplaneman ✈ 18:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: redundant and unneeded. Imzadi 1979 → 10:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Brisbane City Council ferry routes

Template:Brisbane City Council ferry routes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. d'oh! _talk 12:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - used where ;)? I see that it is orphaned, so… Airplaneman ✈ 18:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats why you don't edit while tried. :P d'oh! _talk 05:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete: orphaned. Imzadi 1979 → 10:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:HSC Merit List Mentions

Template:HSC Merit List Mentions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Un-sourced academic data, that even the creator accepts he does not know the source for. Codf1977 (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. Airplaneman ✈ 18:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: violates core policies like WP:OR or WP:V. Imzadi 1979 → 10:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Templates Infobox song + Infobox single

Template:Infobox song (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox single (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox song with Template:Infobox single.
There is clear overlap between these two infoboxes; they are used interchangeably and there is no clear guideline as to when one should be used over the other. Previous discussions asking for these two infoboxes to be merged have elicited general support. However, no subsequent action has been taken. I'm therefore listing them here to elicit wider discussion of how they should be merged and what features we want in the final template; and to ensure that it actually happens. I'm particularly taken with this proposal. It may be that the best solution is to create a brand new infobox (bearing in mind that not all popular pieces of music are songs; some are instrumentals), then replace all instances of the old boxes with that. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agree they need rationalizing - and the conversation Andy cites has now gone further in a subsequent discussion at WikiProject Songs, resulting in a mock-up of a Song infobox that incorporates zero or more Song Release infoboxes. Crude mock-up only, to explore the principle; cosmetics not yet addressed, pending further discussion in that thread. PL290 (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That looks promising, but I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned on the two template talk pages (at least, not visibly, under the prior discussion). I'll be happy to close this TfM if that's done, and discussion continues on the project page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The discussion seems to come up from time to time in different places, initially provoking interest and support but then fizzling out each time. When it came up on the wikiproject page I was pleased to see it appear again, but there's been very little input there. I hope your post here will help generate wider awareness. This has failed to get off the ground for quite a while now, and something needs to happen to change that, since there's no opposition as far as I know. PL290 (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support This should have happened a long time ago; this is a perennial proposal. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional support It is very important to differentiate between a single, a physical release destined for Singles chart (regardless whether successful in hitting the charts or not) and a song on an album or CD never released as a single. We can unify the contents of the infobox, but there should be a box in this unified form (an obligatory choice that the editor has to tick for the infobox to appear) where the editor should tick "single" or "song". Or else the infobox edit reminds him to do so.... We don't want a single to be generalised as a song, and we don't want an album song to be dubbed "a single". The bottom of the matter is a single should not be watered down to a "song". If this will be the result of the unified infobox, I would be against and let us keep both "single infobox" and "song infobox" werldwayd (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional Support, I strongly agree with Werldwayd. Singles and songs are two different things and should be indicated as such on their respective articles and boxes. If the infoboxes are merged, there should still be a way to distinguish between the two. Perhaps create a field similar to WP:ALBUM#Type? Fezmar9 (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I have notified the Music, Albums, and Songs projects of this discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Fezmar9, basically. Airplaneman ✈ 18:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above, logical solution to avoid confusion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional support as per werldwayd and Fezmar9 (see above). If the two are to be merged, we still need some way of differentiating between a song that was released as a single, with the intention/possibility of reaching the singles charts, and an album track that has become notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. The terms "single" and "song" should not be interchangeable on Wikipedia and if this is what is being proposed with this combined infobox, then I oppose the merge. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment, I think rather than unite the two templates. you should combine the singles template with the albums template, anyway a "single" is an album or a discography or a release. a song is only part of it. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• A single is not actually a whole album. —fetch·comms 20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Forgive me if I'm oversimplfying it, but just add a param to a combined infobox asking song or single, and then have the params work the same. —fetch·comms 20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support I feel sure I commented on this months/years ago and my feelings have not changed. As mentioned above, one infobox, but being able to easily distinguish therein between album track, song, instrumental, whatever and a genuine single release. Also, to save me commenting again in the future, can this seemingly groundswell of goodwill actually effect a change, before the well meaning and surely all embracing Wiki committee turns the racehorse into a camel - again. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support and questioning why they were ever seperate in the first place. A single is always a song but a song is never always a single. Song should be the default template. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  "A single is always a song" <-- but what about the fact that "singles" are often embodied in a disc containing several songs (B-sides, bonus tracks, etc. - see Boom Boom Pow#Track listing for example) –xeno^talk 13:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Strongly agree with the points above. Never understood seperate ones for the reasons that were given.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 23:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—This nomination requires clarification, per Lil-unique1's statement. I would support merging single into song, but non vice versa. The wording of the nomination implies the final template will be called Infobox single.—RJH (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No such meaning is implied or intended. The proposal says "merging with" not "merging into". The name of the final template is one of the items open for discussion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support only if the single template is merged to the song template. Lil-unique1's comments make much sense. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, not all songs were recorded as "singles". What about the folk songs? Are they now would be qualified as singles? What about military cadences? Are they also being categorized as singles? I agree with Legolas to merge single into song. Single is a technical term for recorded songs (as oppose to albums) and very ambiguous. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The proposal is for one box, for songs, with an optional component if that song has been released as a single. How does this not meet your requirements? What is your alternative proposal; or how do you think the existing infoboxes should be used? Furthermore, by saying "I agree… to merge single into song", you are supporting, not opposing, the proposal. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • This confusion may be borne of the way the nom was worded "Propose merging Template:Infobox song with Template:Infobox single." <-- It may be read as suggesting song should be folded into single. It should probably be more explicit and say "Proposed merging of Infobox single into Infobox song, leaving the former as a redirect" (if that is what is proposed, or "...into one template with the name to be determined"). –xeno^talk 13:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support conditionally as per werldwayd's suggestion for single/song parameter. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support merger in whatever form is decided as best. Addressing a comment above, when I think of a "single" I usually thing of a small compilation of 2-4 songs, most of which are variations and remixes of the same song placed together in one package. "Don't Cry For Me, Argentina" was released as a single by Madonna with a full length dance mix, two shorter version dance mixes (English and "Splanglish") and the original album version. I have other singles named for a title song with 2-3 different songs on the disc, usually alternate versions of other songs from the album. In that context, the "single" is just a smaller version of an album, albeit with a more limited focus. If a "single" is one song released in a separate format from its album, then it's no different than a song in any other context. I suppose under both lines of thinking, Infobox single could be merged to either Infobox album or Infobox song, based on the premise of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 10:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • In which case, we would have, say, {{Infobox record}} (as a merger of {{Infobox album}} and {{Infobox single}}) and {{Infobox song}}. Which would still leave us with the dilemma of when to use one, and when to use the other, for a song which has been released as a single. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support the merge as presented. J04n(talk page) 11:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support per werldwayd and Fezmar9 above. Cavie78 (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support per PL290's proposal mentioned by the nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose It will be very hard to differentiate between singles and songs anymore with this? What about the info in the single template? will that just be "merged" into the regular song template as well?--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 15:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Please explain how the current situation where the two infoboxes are used interchangeably, allows us to "differentiate between singles and songs ". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per White Shadows' comment. Also it seems as though generally, articles with a "Single" infobox contain a "Track listing" section, while "Song" infoboxes do not. I don't see a point in doing it anyway... CrowzRSA 23:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional support The merged template should have a "type" field like the album infobox or a "single=y" value.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional support Another matter that should be tackled is full accomodataton for "double A side" singles, singles with two successful songs at the same time. A "song" doesn't have this complexity as in "songs" we would have had two separate pages for the two songs concerned, whereas in "double A side singles" pages, we would have one infobox for the two songs concurrently. werldwayd (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Do we have any articles about double A side singles? Can you give an example, please, so we can see what might be involved? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Here is one for example. Bonnie Raitte released a song in 1991 called I Can't Make You Love Me. In 1997, George Michael released the double A side single Older / I Can't Make You Love Me where the B side was the same song as that of Bonnie Raitte. Thus the need for a new joint infobox despite the song already having an infobox. Of course, it may happen that both songs are originals and yet they will get one infobox rather than two separate infoboxes as songs. E.g. S Club 7 Two in a Million/You're My Number One I believe we should give consideration to Double A Side singles within the unified infobox form, and whether they will get two separate "infobox song"s or just one unified "double A side infobox" treatment and how to fill in the info in such a casewerldwayd (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Thank you. I agree that there is a need to cater for this in one way or another. The infobox on Two in a Million/You're My Number One is a bit of a kludge, though. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support and comment: is there ever going to be an infobox/parameter for orchestral pieces (viz. classical music)? Evidently there's no need for one, but I don't see why there can't be. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Nay No Nopes Nada Colour difference between song and single, track listing vs singles chronology, none vs option for cover art, none vs format of release, and well once could list off other variations that if all combined would result in one massive template with so many options. Should the template for all the variations of albums (studio, live, greatest hits, soundtrack, etc.) be merged into one big template for all musical releases? That would be the next step in this logic. They do not exist to be used interchangeably. Those that do so really should not be editing such articles. All singles are songs. Dah. All songs are not released as singles. This isn't difficult, complicated, or hard to comprehend. A charting non-single is still a song and calls for such infobox. Careless misuse of templates at random has created a mess here and there. Changing the template in use where it is wrong is what is called for, not this nonsense. Thanks for putting the tag on scores of thousands of pages though, as that makes it really hard to miss this foolish proposal. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • A number of editors, including myself, are supporting the merge conditionally providing there is a parameter to indicate whether the subject is a song or a single. Similarly, Template:Infobox musical artist has a number of fields that only apply to individual musicians (birth, death, occupation, notable instruments, birth name) however the same infobox is also used for groups and bands. Would you still oppose if such system were implemented to a unified song/single infobox? Fezmar9 (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Good for you and another optional paramater or six. I think you have hit on my reason for oppose and at the same time completely missed my point. Have you found many instances of the birth and death being used for the formation and break up of the band -- "birth of the band" -- and not thought that it was an amusing but completely wrong use of the field? If you think it is bad with song & single to the point of proposing song/single just wait until it ends up being song/single/album/ep because it will be proposed. I might do so in contempt. It is more likely that someone else will do so in seriousness before i think to do it in protest. People will argue that there is not much difference between a single and an EP and so they should be merged. Then you end up with one massive template that is so cumbersome to use that misuse runs rampant, even among those who swear they used to know how it worked and never had issue with it two years ago.
      If you think it is bad now, with some people using the wrong infoxbox then wait until people can't tell the difference between singles chronology and album track listing and list in the wrong fields. Unlike all of the other now-merged music release infboxes these two do have some significant differences that are not so compatible. It would really be better to fix the misuses and probably clean up the likely poorly written documentation. Now there are people all over this section supporting a proposal to to cater to the lowest common denominator of intelligent thought while not really realising some of the most obvious issues that will be created are actually just as if not worse than what they are seeking to guard against. People here claiming to not know what is a single and what is a song are either ill-informed or making poor attempts at devil's advocating. This is a really simple case of some better instructions being written and fixing a relative handful of articles but noone wants to do that; instead people want to further break what is easily fixed for something that is more breakable than what now is. I would honestly rather drop all music from my watchlist and entirely abandon what brought me to WP in the first place, indie music, than ever deal with the fallout from this foolish proposal. Oppose per nom and most every other comment. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
      • You can't "oppose per nom"; the nomination is to merge. If you think "this is a really simple case of some better instructions being written", why haven't you, or why don't you do so? Why has no-one else? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Methinks i did "oppose per nom" so i guess one can do so, just as many will vote the other way with the like statement. It isn't the first time i have voted as such. It is a statement of sheer, absolute rejection of the proposal. Considering the proposal states that there is no proper use for either (just plain wrong and ignorant) and assumes merge/creation of new overriding template to be a forgone conclusion i most certainly oppose per nom.
          If you think misuse is a problem now just wait until people type in the wrong word into the proposed template and then fill it out making hack use of the wrong fields. Cleaning up those messes won't be any easier than dealing with those currently in a state of misuse. The proposed merge actually makes it easier to make mistakes. The most obvious hint to anyone unsure if they have the correct template is the lack/presense of a singles chronology field or cover art. Then there is the simple matter that in all of my reading of new music releases in the last year or so i have not found one instance of needing to switch to the correct template. If this really is a problem then it is being resolved quite promptly and this is just unnecessary. If this were the merging of variations of albums being discussed (it already is so) then i would be most in favour of that for the overwhelming commonalities. Such is not the case with these templates and their subject matter. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
          • You did indeed say that you "oppose per nom"; but you cannot do so, because "per" means "in agreement with". You offer no evidence or reasoning to support your assertion that "people [will] type in the wrong word into the proposed template and then fill it out making hack use of the wrong fields"; and you have not answered my questions about writing clearer guidelines. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Well we have a very different understanding of "per". You say "in agreement with" and i say "because of" or "according to". I still oppose per your nomination. My only assertion is that you proposed this because you claim there is evidence of misuse of the two individual templates and the proposal actually makes it easier to be uncertain which to use.
              Another reason for opposing is that if anything the single template should be merged into the other release formats' template and leave song on its own. This proposal has at its core the perpetuation of the concern you claim exists.
              As to clearer guidelines, i really feel they are not necessary. One should know enough about that which they wish to contribute to not need to be instructed in such base things. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
              Actually, there are two proofs of confusion about the two templates. The first that you proposed merging them when they are different. A song is just that. A single is a type of release, just like a greatest hits album or a soundtrack or an EP. The second is that you have so many supporting the proposal. In short this proposal itself is the proof of the confusion. Merge single into the other release formats instead of into song and the confusion would be resolved. However that would require the renaming of the template if one wants to be really picky since a single is not an album but otherwise contains the same template formatting for the infobox. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
          • If the two templates were merged and had one unified article documenting their intended use and explicitly stating what a song and single are, how would that have a negative impact on this situation from where it is now? The editors with new accounts and the IPs will still indiscriminately copy and paste the infobox around just like before, but more active and experienced editors would now have a more clear guideline. And there would be a place to point out fault to editors that are unfamiliar with the difference. Also, in response to your earlier comment, in my 3+ years of editing I have never once encountered a musician infobox with inappropriate fields being used. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
            • If someone editing here needs to be explicitly told what a song is versus what a single is then they really need to gain some basic understanding of that which they wish to edit, be they otherwise experienced contributors or probies. You propose a situation where consensus will determine what constitutes a single. WP using consensus to dictate to the real world what is and what isn't something should never be the case.
              That is part of my point. I don't see the misuse of the templates as they presently exist. This appears to be nothing more than a manufactured concern. As such it warrants nothing more than hypothetical counter evidence of equal believability. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nom --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 21:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support --Admachina (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment If this is promoted or whatever, how will we change the THOUSANDS of song articles from infobox single/song to how you have proposed? CrowzRSA 00:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • By making the old templates call the new one; or more likely by a BOTREQ. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: A single and a song are conceptually different things. A single is form of release, often with multiple tracks, while a song is a single composition. They are simply not the same thing. - BalthCat (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment But the article would be about the single's song. The track list for the single would be included in the article. So the infobox would just be about the song. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose (, but)... Although I think this is a solution in search of a problem (a single is a single, everything else is a song), if the merge is going to be done, it should be done right since, as User:Deliriousandlost notes above "these two do have some significant differences that are not so compatible". The experiment at User:PL290's "You've Really Got a Hold on Me" article is a start but care needs to be taken that singles and non-singles are clearly differentiated. The sub-templates should not all read "Song release by..." as this is a bit vague. And I worry the result of all of this will be a massive, bloated template that scares off all but a small circle of editors. — AjaxSmack 03:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The problem has already been clearly identified. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Per White Shadows' comments. Candyo32 03:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• General comment to any opposing - Some of those giving reasons to oppose appear not to have read and understood the proposal. It is not the "merge" it might be assumed to be on the surface. Please ensure your response addresses the proposal rather than reacting to the word "merge". Thanks. PL290 (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed - and will those opposing please state how else they think the current confusion and duplication between the two templates can be resolved? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - the overlapping usage of the two existing infoboxes just causes confusion for folks who are actively involved in The Albums Project and Songs Project. A song is a song and if it one happened to be released as a single, that can be noted in the article text. If there is a problem with a singles release chronology, that is another thing that tends to overlap with yet a third type of infobox - the Album infobox. However, the "conditional supporters" here have an excellent point that should definitely be considered. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose- im going to oppose because it really isnt that hard of a concept to grasp. Song template is a song that became notable but wasnt released as a single (no radio release or digital download/physical release). Single is used when its a single. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose; Straight, No Chaser- As per Lakeshade's comment. Just no point in it. -Leodmacleod (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:ZoosexualityLaws

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

This is just a collection of tables, not a template. Doesn't belong in the template namespace. There are no links to this template. Since it appears that a lot of work has been put into these tables, userfication might be appropriate. SnottyWong ^confess 04:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Userfy per nom. In the wrong namespace. Airplaneman ✈ 04:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy per nom, with the added comment that the table has no sources and should not be returned to mainspace as an article or list without verifiability. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - unreferenced, and not really a suitable subject for a table in any case, given that 'zoosexuality' is illegal almost everywhere. I have a feeling this was based on a template about homosexuality laws, which would be more appropriate (as there's much more worldwide diversity in that area), but this one should be deleted. Robofish (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: it's an "article" in the wrong namespace. As an article, it fails on several accounts. Imzadi 1979 → 10:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: It is supposed to be an article. Farjad0322 (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:IMac

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

This template is redundant to the iMac listings in {{Apple hardware since 1998}}, which is also included on iMac pages. {{Apple hardware since 1998}} is preferred because it is more comprehensive, as well as being a standard navbox. Airplaneman ✈ 00:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mostly redundant; has more "related articles" than iMac listings. —fetch·comms 20:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: as redundant. The extra content here isn't appropriate there. Imzadi 1979 → 10:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant.  ℳono  01:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)