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.
Subst and delete, as it is used only once. The template ("message") namespace exists for transclusion, but this transclusion does not appear needed.
GracenotesT §
13:56, 28 May 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.
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.
Delete. It is better to use a single, standard infobox for settlements rather than having an individual infobox for each country. -- Black Falcon(
Talk)02:05, 28 May 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.
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.
Delete. It is better to use a single, standard infobox for settlements rather than having an individual infobox for each country. -- Black Falcon(
Talk)02:06, 28 May 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.
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.
Delete. It is better to use a single, standard infobox for settlements rather than having an individual infobox for each country. -- Black Falcon(
Talk)02:06, 28 May 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.
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.
Delete. It is better to use a single, standard infobox for settlements rather than having an individual infobox for each country. -- Black Falcon(
Talk)02:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete Infoboxes for distinct countries work if there is a single standard the country can agree on and the information provided as distinct from the global standard is useful and meaningful (the {{Infobox Australian Place}} is a great example of this). However, in this case, none of the above really applies.
Orderinchaos02:13, 28 May 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.
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. The classification of a list as "very incomplete" is unnecessary and unclear. The dichotomy between a complete and incomplete list is clear: either a list includes all persons, events, or objects that meet its inclusion criteria, or it does not. What is the definition of "very incomplete" (or, conversely, "very complete")? -- Black Falcon(
Talk)02:03, 28 May 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.
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.
Subst and delete, as it is used only once. The template ("message") namespace exists for transclusion, but this transclusion does not appear needed.
GracenotesT §
13:56, 28 May 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.
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.
Delete. It is better to use a single, standard infobox for settlements rather than having an individual infobox for each country. -- Black Falcon(
Talk)02:05, 28 May 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.
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.
Delete. It is better to use a single, standard infobox for settlements rather than having an individual infobox for each country. -- Black Falcon(
Talk)02:06, 28 May 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.
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.
Delete. It is better to use a single, standard infobox for settlements rather than having an individual infobox for each country. -- Black Falcon(
Talk)02:06, 28 May 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.
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.
Delete. It is better to use a single, standard infobox for settlements rather than having an individual infobox for each country. -- Black Falcon(
Talk)02:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete Infoboxes for distinct countries work if there is a single standard the country can agree on and the information provided as distinct from the global standard is useful and meaningful (the {{Infobox Australian Place}} is a great example of this). However, in this case, none of the above really applies.
Orderinchaos02:13, 28 May 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.
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. The classification of a list as "very incomplete" is unnecessary and unclear. The dichotomy between a complete and incomplete list is clear: either a list includes all persons, events, or objects that meet its inclusion criteria, or it does not. What is the definition of "very incomplete" (or, conversely, "very complete")? -- Black Falcon(
Talk)02:03, 28 May 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.