Wikipedia:Templates for discussion: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:04, 21 April 2012

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Header Purge

Current discussions

September 30

Template:Theridomorpha

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

Unused navbox with almost all red links. Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this template has been created preemptively for an extinct clade of rodent genera, on the assumption that the group would eventually be worked upon in the near future, and is still pending for peer review, which is why it has not been approved yet. Larrayal (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In situations like this where articles don't exist yet, either the navbox shouldn't be created (as it offers no navigation) or created in your sandbox so you can work on it at your own pace. Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MCBdyk

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

Unused DYK related template. Probably replaced with a more general template. Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless to have a nav box with just 1 English entry. LibStar (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions of Somalia

Template:Diplomatic missions of Somalia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Contains no English entries. Pointless as a nav box. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions of Uganda

Template:Diplomatic missions of Uganda (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only has 2 English links. Pointless for a nav box to have 2 entries. LibStar (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kartvelian languages

Template:Kartvelian languages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Georgian language (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Kartvelian languages with Template:Georgian language.
I think Template:Kartvelian languages should be merged with Template:Georgian language and then the latter template moved to 'Template:Kartvelian languages', because I think the former template's too small to be separate, with only 10 strictly language-related links, including the link to the main article, two links to proto-languages, two links to language sub-families, four links to modern languages, and one link to a historical language, because there's a bit of overlap with the latter template, and because Georgian's the most widely known and spoken language of this family. PK2 (talk; contributions) 04:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions of Guinea

Template:Diplomatic missions of Guinea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only has 2 English entries, 1 of which (India) is a redirect. No point having a nav box for 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions of Kenya

Template:Diplomatic missions of Kenya (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless having a nav box with just 2 English entries. One of which is up for deletion. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 20

Template:Infobox classical composer

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 speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. You can not keep nominating an article until you get the result you want. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox classical composer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Contested speedy. Improperly recreated after deletion as unused. Single instance replacing {{Infobox musical artist}} for a bogus reason of "Replacing incorrect infobox" has been reverted (by me). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

This box was the result of massive discussion and eventual consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Infoboxes_RfC, so keeping the box is obviously the right thing to do. Previous deletion was improper -- no one informed the project of the deletion discussion -- and now we wish to use the box we designed. This was a compromise painfully achieved after a long and tedious debate. None of us want to start it again. The problems with the bigger infoboxes are explained in detail in the RFC and in the talk archives. Antandrus (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "now we wish to use the box we designed" So how come it was unused at the time of its last deletion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The appropriate content is so different that the templates should be kept separate. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is only different in being a subset of.... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Antandrus. Opus33 (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Antandrus. It is worth noting that the nominator's consistent efforts to delete this infobox, and his efforts to introduce other infoboxes into articles in complete disregard to an extensively discussed consensus, borders on the disruptive. --Ravpapa (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Antandrus. Nominator is clearly out of line, and trying to pull a fast one.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; even those opposed to infoboxes on principle recognize this box as the product of a workable compromise. If the nominator is upset that it has not been sufficiently used, he is free, with the blessing of the consensus, himself to apply it rather than trying to force all articles into an inappropriately worded procrustean bed. Drhoehl (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Disingenuous exercise of gamesmanship by nominator.--Smerus (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well-meaning, but having an infobox at all for composers is progress and it would be best not to upset what little compromise has been fought for until the composers project (which has been infamously hostile to them) gets used to the idea. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is an unused infobox a compromise? where have members of the projects concerned implemented it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is the fourth time that the nominator has attempted to delete this template: the first time when the template was first created, the second time a week ago, when he made the nomination without notifying the creators and deleted it almost without discussion, a third time when he nominated it for speedy delete after the deleting admin agreed that the deletion procedure was improper, and now this time. Is it possible to ask or compel the nominator to refrain from repeating this futile and time-wasting exercise again and again? --Ravpapa (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Apparent canvassing here and also here; and that many of the above comments do not address the fact that this template was at last deletion unused, and its redundancy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call that canvassing. The message does not explicitly state "please vote to keep". Maybe the wording could possible have been more neutral, but I wouldn't say the wording is excessively biased since it appears that this is in fact your fourth time trying to delete this template, this being the first time where discussion seems to have been asked for. Bramble claw x 19:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the decision made at the RFC mentioned by Antandrus. If you wish to dispute the conclusions of this RFC, I would suggest a discussion seeking consensus first, since these conclusions were designed to meet the opinions expressed by the (numerous) participants at the RFC. Bramble claw x 19:37, 21 April 2012 (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:Qrpedia-adverted

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) 22:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Qrpedia-adverted (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Good faith creation, but a bad idea. Such notices belong on talk pages, not in articles, and we already have {{QRpedia}} for that. "Adverted" is not an English word. I write as someone closely involved in QRpedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

agree with nomination - good idea but already done. Smallbones (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use ambox templates, or indeed any articlespace templates, for this purpose. For subjects with a specific link to QRpedia we already have the category system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2012 (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:Bururi Province

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 now that they have been expanded and cleaned up. It's amazing what a TfD nomination can do for progress. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bururi Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cankuzo Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cibitoke Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gitega Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Karuzi Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Kayanza Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Kirundo Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Makamba Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Muramvya Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Muyinga Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mwaro Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ngozi Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rutana Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ruyigi Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all empty and the author has no plan to expand them (see here). 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all All are now in use.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not whether or not they are in use, but the fact that they lack meaningful navigation. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the problem; the links down the left side are useful navigation. The problem is that they have raw "[[]]" in them, which should not be seen in articlespace. I would suggest that they be kept and the [[]] coding removed until such time as content is available to fill them up. Blofeld tends to know what he is doing. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The body is intended for articles on villages... Like Template:Bubanza Province♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the groups and made them all into simple lists (apart from the first one). Does this look better now? -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily yes. But the idea was to add the villages like in Template:Bururi Province.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy enough to go back to the other format when the village data is ready to be added. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2012 (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:Wormhole

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 Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

there is no way this is working since the template {{noinclude}} has not existed since 2006. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this were working or not, this template does not seem to actually fulfil a productive purpose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this also uses a helper template, {{Wormhole/core}} -- 70.49.124.147 (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of what it does, it is broken, and just has been forgotten. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't figure out what this is supposed to do, but since it relies on a decommissioned template, get rid of it. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:00, 21 Apr 2012 (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:GP2 Asia Series teams

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, as it is unused. If someone wants to create one for navigating 2011 team articles, then feel free to do so. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GP2 Asia Series teams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The GP2 Asia Series folded, so now template is useless. Cybervoron (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it can be converted to navigate all teams from the 4 seasons it existed. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2012 (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:Philippine Universities in QS Rankings

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) 22:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philippine Universities in QS Rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Tagging this template for deletion because of the following reasons (as per WP:TFD#REASONS, among others):

1. The template is not used...and has no likelihood of being used because the template subject in question (ranking of universities) changes every year and rank order is not reflected rendering the template being defeated of the very purpose it was created. 2. Notability. No substantive reason can justify why such template is needed. The template does not reflect rank order and if it does, why should such warrant a template? Xeltran (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a particularly useful (nor stable) way to navigate from university article to university article. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2012 (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:Ctitle

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) 22:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

If this ever worked, it seems to not anymore. Its documentation says it changes the page title, but it actually just inserts a second title below the actual one (at least in my Vector tests and another user's Monobook tests, see WP:VPT#Ctitle). I can't see this being of much if any use. Currently the only transclusion is on the author's user and user talk pages. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:11, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

PS. It appears the Vector issue may be due to my testing on user pages, when I have a script installed that adds user info to the page title. In article space this seems to work, though for people who might have scripts installed that do something similar in article space, they'll experience the same issue. Anyway, this template seems to work less reliably than {{DISPLAYTITLE}} (the monobook issue still stands and is apparently not the result of a script conflict), and the features it adds are of marginal/specialized use. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:45, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Seems to work okay here from my experiments, but this doesn't serve a productive purpose on the encyclopedia (another pointless userspace bauble) and in any case is redundant to the DISPLAYTITLE magic word. At any rate the author has forked it into userspace, which is the only place this is acceptable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; does not help appearance, and it's solely meant to enhance a page's appearance. Look at it on an old revision of reCAPTCHA, from just before it was removed: while the nominator says that it appears below the actual title in Vector, it appears above the actual title in Monobook. Note that the page has been edited only once after the diff I linked — the edit was to remove this template. Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; although it seems to work OK in Vector, it doesn't in Monobook, where it hides all tabs except the "article" one, and also hides all the links upper right such as "my contributions", etc. If this breaks the display in a popular skin (albeit not the default skin), it doesn't have a place in Wikipedia. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I admit I don't think this TFD was necessary or the best way to handle this. Since the template was only used on one article where it was quickly removed, but was also used on the user's user pages, it seems to me asking the user if they'd accept userfication and then if they did (which I suspect they would) moving it and deleting the redirect would have been the simplest option. But since the creator was the only substanial contributor and has evidentally forked the template now, it doesn't really matter I guess. Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2012 (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.

April 19

Item by US state category description

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) 01:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amusement parks by US state category description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Waterparks by US state category description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Waterfalls by US state category description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Zoos by US state category description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Astronomical observatories by US State category description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No real need to have a template for a single sentence. Should be substituted and then deleted. WOSlinker (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why should it be substituted and deleted? Jason Quinn (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just my oppinion, but doesn't seem worth having a template for a single line of text. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete and remove, don't subst. These descriptions replicate the category names and are redundant. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:15, 29 April 2012 (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:Kip Moore

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) 01:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kip Moore (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Premature. Artist just released debut album, so everything is easily navigable from the main artist page and template's transcluded articles. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a believer in a navbox on every page, I believe this should be kept. Additionally, "Mary Was the Marrying Kind" ranked 45 on "Hot Country Songs", therefore, this could become an article. I also added two related artists to the navbox.--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You may believe in "a navbox on every page", but views differ. This isn't a useful navigational tool at the moment: the important links are already included in the articles, and the unimportant ones aren't needed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NENAN, especially an artist with only one album and one notable single to date. Eric444 (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Civility Hammer, civility please. As I mentioned before, there are three links to related artists in the navbox.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no navigation when a.) the related articles don't have that template, and b.) Kip is not mentioned on the related articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Related articles do not mention the main subject of the template, leaving too few links to justify the navbox. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:12, 29 April 2012 (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:Early computer characteristics

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

The result of the discussion was delete after merging with History of computing hardware Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Early computer characteristics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This large, verbose data table is transcluded in its entirety onto over a dozen articles. There should never be a need to duplicate this material across so many different pages: it belongs in history of computing hardware alone, and need not be a separate page. Recommend removing all the other transclusions and then substituting the remaining one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't see the point of it in the various articles, at best I'd want it suppressed with a show button. It might be an idea to have a more specific article eventually by splitting off a bit of the history of computers but really I just find this template annoying as it is currently. Dmcq (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This gives the context of the development of the computers that are mentioned, and helps with the vexed question of "firsts" amongst these early machines. Without it, readers could easily become confused with the statements from the champions of particular machines that it was the "first" computer (with an appropriate set of modifying adjectives to justify that assertion). I have argued on the talk page for it to be made less verbose with fewer rows and columns, but have not had much respons from others. I would be happy to trim it down in this way, whilst retaining its essential context-giving nature. --TedColes (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the purpose of data templates to Right Great Wrongs on multiple articles. Specific issues can be mentioned in the prose, but we only need this data table once, on the general history overview. It is tangential at best and distracting, irrelevant and poorly placed (such as in the article footer) at worst. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and merge into article, or even create new stub - repeating the same info on separate pages is not the correct way to write an encyclopedia. The information seems viable. Something like List of early computing machines could be made from it, and linked to (using template:seealso or similar). Inclusion is the wrong way to go. Agree with nomination rational. There should never be a need to duplicate this material across so many different pages. Content good- implementation bad.
(2nd) Call it Comparison of early computing machines and link to but nor transclude, or merge into history of computing hardware as originally suggested. Oranjblud (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change to an article, as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- History of computing hardware is certainly heading for a periodic split, but I don't think it's needed right now. The table will certainly be included on the "early hardware" part of that split when it happens, though. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete and subst into History of computing hardware. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:10, 29 April 2012 (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:Late Anatolian Provinces

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 _―Œ^(talk) 03:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Late Anatolian Provinces (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-purpose template (grouping the late Roman provinces of Anatolia for the History of Anatolia article) that is essentially a contentfork of the {{Late Roman Provinces}}, and a mostly incorrect one at that: "Late Anatolian provinces" is a meaningless neologism, the Diocese of the East did not have territory in Anatolia proper, etc. Constantine ✍ 10:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments for and against are similar to those of Anatolian themata. If, as you say, there are that many inaccuracies, logically a lot of pages need correction. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally persuaded of the superior utility of much more generic boxes, given that the information that is sought is lost in a much broader context. I would think a higher priority would be correcting misinformation, as opposed to deletions, given the way that information tends to be disseminated within and without of Wikipedia. What exactly constitutes Anatolia opens another bag of worms that has been bitterly argued in the talk pages of History of Anatolia. My argument for a liberal geopolitical interpretation of the term is included in the leads to the pages in that project. The box was meant to update at the appropriate place the earlier provincial structure in a box earlier in the topic. As far as being "meaningless" it is by its title focussed on a specific era. Thanks for your input. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if context is what is needed, then simply include the links in the article text, in a short list or in a collapsible box embedded in the article itself, e.g. with {{Collapse}} or {{Hidden}}. Creating whole separate navboxes for a single article is an unnecessary encumberance on the article's loading time. Navboxes are meant to be included in each and every article contained therein, not to be used as a summary for a single article. On the inaccuracies, they result from an improperly carried out "extraction" of the new template from the original one: thus a change in the title from "late Roman" to "late Anatolian" has no meaning, the "history" section is largely meaningless within the new context, and the inclusion of Syria, Euphratensis, Osroene as well as the Armenian provinces beyond the Euphrates is simply wrong. The apparent conflation of Turkey with Anatolia/Asia Minor in this template. Anatolia is a geographical, not a political entity, and dates to long before modern Turkey was established. Its traditional boundaries roughly correspond to the area that is shown as Byzantine here, and that is pretty much the gist of our article on Anatolia as well. Constantine ✍ 16:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are alluding to is an issue I was just about to raise. There are plenty of single use template like infoboxes embedded in pages. Template is by definition for multiple use, so the utility comes down to whether an infobox is likely to be used for more than one page or not, in the former case it can be saved as a template and reused. So one way around this is to replace a template with an infobox. For now I think the issue of what should be in it, and the more complex meaning of the term Anatolia is a matter for another day. Suffice it to say that its use by various historians over the years suggests that while its boundaries may not be exactly defined, it has utility as a disputed area of land in a critical geographical juncture that has to varying degrees formed part of many states over the centuries. In a word, it has pragmatic utility. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2012 (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.

April 18

Template:Infobox Saudi Province

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) 23:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Saudi Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not in use in any articles, redundant to Template:Infobox settlement. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2012 (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:Syriac infobox

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) 23:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Syriac infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned - different infobox in use at Syriac people. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. e^xtra999 (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2012 (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 Swedish Parish

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) 23:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Swedish Parish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one use on the talk page of a redirected article; redundant to Template:Infobox settlement. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2012 (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:Anatolian themata

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 to delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anatolian themata (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-purpose template (grouping the themes of Anatolia for the History of Anatolia article) that is better covered by the more generic {{Byzantine themes in De Thematibus}}, which has an "Asian" section either way Constantine ✍ 15:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Naturally as the creator, I disagree. They are not the same - my template covers the themata that existed at that time and matches the map. Themata evolved over time and many rmperors tinkered with them, my template allows that evolution as it applies to Anatolia or if you like Asia Minor to be added. Just because at the moment it appears on only one page to the best of my knowledge, does not make it single purpose it could be used on a variety of of pages. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well, first of all, the map is wrong, as Optimatoi and Boukellarion did not exist in 650, and we are not sure about Thrakesion either (check the relevant articles). Second, the template can of course be adapted, but IMO it would be redundant as {{Byzantine themes in De Thematibus}} includes both the original themes and the later split-offs/additions. There were no new themes established after ca. 940 (the date of De Thematibus) in Anatolia proper (i.e. west of the Taurus-Antitaurus mountains) either way. Only in the Komnenian era did a couple of new provinces appear, but this couls again be easily covered in a more comprehensive navbox about the themes. I don't see a reason for the proliferation of region-specific templates ("themes in Greece/Bulgaria/Balkans/Italy") when a single comprehensive navbox suffices. Constantine ✍ 07:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some more general observations, see discussion on April 19 under Late Anatolian Provinces. That actually is one of several maps showing a similar structure. Thanks again. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Currently, the template has no transclusions. It doesn't look like it's supposed to be substituted, so why should we keep a template we're not using? --N Y Kevin @720, i.e. 16:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Constantine Plakidas removed them, I was going to use it on several pages --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep for now and continue discussion elsewhere. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2012 (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:1999 Westmeath Under 21 Team

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) 04:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1999 Westmeath Under 21 Team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Do we really need a navbox for an under 21 side? Jenks24 (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, too many red links. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2012 (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:Copypaste

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. Snow closure. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate of {{copyvio}} and {{cv-unsure}}. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? All three look different to me. But if you are correct, surely it would be best to redirect to one of those two templates? Jenks24 (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They all have different uses. This one is for manual placement where someone notices a blatant copy/paste situation, and not all copyvios are such situations. This template sees heavy use and is full-protected due to that. Seems like an obvious keep. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:18, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Strong keep an essential template for general use. I have used this on 100s of new and old articles, indicating they must have further checking that I am unable to perform at the moment. It indicates an unknown degree of dependence, (I use it for probable as well as blatant) and I usually apply it based on internal evidence or an experience-based hunch from having seen tens of thousands of new articles, Many of those I mark prove to be partially or wholly copyvio, some fixable, others not. Eliminating general problem templates makes it harder to indicate problems. for someone extensively checking many articles, I want to use my experience where it is most needed and helpful--if I had to limit it to where I could say something more specific, I could check many fewer articles. Much copyvio checking is fairly routine, once someone has raised the suspicion. Experience helps greatly in detecting the suspicious, and newcomers to NPP do not have it as much as the few experienced people who review these articles. Much better that they be marked even this superficially than not marked at all. The more experienced people here DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why cannot the templates I mentioned be used instead? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As per the answers below I use "copypaste" for minor (ie limited content) that needs cleanup, but doesnot really warrant the hammer that is "copvio". An example is Losh, Wilson and Bell - suing copyvio on this 80% good article that has issues with uneccessary quotations from sources would be counterproductive, and overkill.Oranjblud (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per WP:SNOW. Debresser (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - {{copypaste}} indicates that there may be text copied from another source but that the article may be salvageable (does not qualify for WP:G12) and it does not indicate that there is or is not a copyright violation (even free copied text can be problematic on WP). There are also some cases where my page patrol instincts tell me that the text is copied but I can't find a source. I can tell other editors that this is case with the copypaste template and they may find the source. {{copyvio}} indicates that there a portion of the text is a copyright violation. I think that template should be used sparingly and probably only when the user who added the copyrighted texts plans to grant permission to WP to use the text. {{cv-unsure}} is like {{copyvio}} but specifically for talk pages. I don't particularly see the use but it's not the template that was nominated. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I agree there is a lot of overlap between the templates and when different ones should be used is unclear. However I don't think bringing a single template here is the way to deal with it. What I think is needed is a rethink of all copyvio / copypaste / close paraphrase type templates and I think this needs to be done considering all templates together not one in isolation. Unfortunately we don't have enough editors working with copyvio at the moment to even keep up with current taggings so proposals may be a way off yet, but until such a discussion takes place I think this needs to be kept. Dpmuk (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I only count three for general use - one for "possibles" (cv-unsure), one for "nuke from space/total rewrite" (copvio), and one for "minor isses" (copypaste). The instructions need to be better. It's not obvious which one to pickfrom Category:Copyright maintenance templates. Keep as per my comment above.Oranjblud (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the nuke from space option is really {{db-copyvio}}, {{subst:copyvio}} is (supposed to be) used when there's a chance of the content being salvageable or donated. The other option you missed is {{Close paraphrasing}} which is for its own brand of fuzzy situations. ... Maybe I should draft up a chart of the different situations and which tag is most appropriate (and for good measure go into reposts, mirrors, duplicated articles, etc.). VernoWhitney (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As OlYeller21 pointed out, while this is often used in copyright situations it is also for cases where language may be copied directly from PD or otherwise usable sources but needs to be revised for one reason or another. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought of using it for that, but it makes sense, and I'll start doing it. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, oftentimes there are better cleanup templates if you can find the right one (when there's unambiguously no copyright issues), but this version of Losh, Wilson and Bell that Oranjblud tagged is a good example of overquoted PD text, and while {{over-quotation}} might have been appropriate, I'd probably have tagged it as a copypaste too. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2012 (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:Rtnews

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) 23:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a biased search on one certain news site. The results obtained from this are included in a search performed with the unbiased {{find sources}}, which gives you a complete list of news sources for this information. Also, sets a bad precedent, should we now include specific news search engines for America Today, Japan today and Toho Today? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Template for Russia Today. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with OP. I don't like the idea of users promoting their favorite news organizations at the top of talk pages. There's no reason to promote one news source when other templates such as the one above already exist which provide many news sources in their results.AerobicFox (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made the template and agree with it's deletion. It should be substituted into the discussion area of the few articles concerned, in the few cases where it is so useful. If you'd like to leave it a few days I'd like to do so, I can cut'n'paste, if I can't get it done by then, just delete it. Penyulap ☏ 05:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it should not be substituted, either it should not be there, or it should be a {{find sources}} - there is no reason to promote one news service specifically, whether it is in main space or in talkspace, that is a form of promotion per WP:SPAM. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with that. Do you think that if I collected a lot of trends pages in the future, it would be worthwhile ? It is spam if it's one, it's search if it's {{find sources}}, do you think it's worth investigating some {{Check trending news lists}} sort of thing, where the human-tagged articles from many news services are brought together, there is a significant difference between the automated search engine and the tagged lists, but if there was a broad enough, detailed enough list I wonder if it would have merit. Penyulap ☏ 14:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 . 70.49.124.147 (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made the template comment. I just opened up a lot of the talkpages figuring to simply delete the template, but then I thought twice as it has the RFC over the top, and so I thought possibly it's not polite to interrupt that, even though I wish to remove the template entirely (not subst). Is there any objection to my removing all traces of it's use ? Penyulap ☏ 13:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Serves no purpose other than to promote and generate search traffic for a single website. violates WP:SPAM, WP:NOT and WP:NPOV --Hu12 (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Author has requested deletion, I don't see any potential for significant objection, and it's not in heavy use. Penyulap's intentions were commendable but he sees now why it wasn't a good idea. Just close this and delete it. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:50, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Question, I wish to clean up instances of this template, is it fully manual, or is there already a bot for this purpose ? Penyulap ☏ 12:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure. I feel like there must be several general cleanup bots that do that, but I wouldn't worry about it. People tend to remove deleted templates since they're pretty visible, and there aren't that many uses of this one anyway. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:32, 19 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Delete per above. e^xtra999 (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template code and docs have been changed I've mopped up all of the pages where the template had been used. It still exists in a few archives though, but I think I killed it in all of the appropriate places. I adjusted the documentation and template to re-purpose it when there is time. I have 'backed up' the code to my userpage so that the assistance I had with coding is not lost either. I expect it'll take a while to find the trending news pages, although, come to think of it, that can't exactly be a difficult task. But deleting is still a good idea, rather than having it sit there for a few months or so, or however long, or short, it is. Penyulap ☏ 05:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't help that it is still a search template for only one site, making it borderline advertising. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Repeat my request to delete but this time I mean it, as mentioned above I have the code, and it's clearly causing confusion as is. Penyulap ☏ 20:25, 23 April 2012 (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.

April 17

Template:House of Stewart (Scotland)

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 rewrite. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:House of Stewart (Scotland) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template tries to do too much, and is far too busy to be useful. DrKiernan (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Comment - There is a use here, but it is lost in the expanse of information presented in one medium. I would propose exclusionary measures more than deletion as there is potential for use if trimmed. As it sits now it is useful to the researching reader, too much information in a single template however. Pros: Well constructed and thorough, functioning for the dedicated reader or researcher as mentioned prior. Cons: A bit long for a Template, exhaustive; approaches the level of a directory which is discouraged by WP:NOT. Deletion outright of dedicated work by many contributors would be a shame in the name of being too expansive. For those interested: Transclusions Judicatus | Talk 20:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "researching reader" can use the articles themselves to locate the links they need. They should all be present unless our articles on one of the most important royal dynasties in Western history are exceptionally inept. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that in the seven days that this is open a party interested in whittling this down to something sane (or indeed reconstructing this from scratch) should be able to find half an hour to do so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Precisely what I meant, it is excessive except for the researcher, which as you pointed out would find the material anyway. Again trimming would be very effective. Judicatus | Talk 22:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite. Delete the section called "Monarchs, their queens and issue". 70.49.124.147 (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree, far too much here to be useful. I would supporting looking at a streamlined version, which might be worth keeping.--SabreBD (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite - the question is what to exclude? I'd suggest deleting the numerous "issue" but keeping the individual monarchs and their spouses. See also the probably redundant Template:House of Stuart sidebar. Ben Mac Dui 09:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would also seem to duplicate Template:Children of Robert II of Scotland, Template:Children of Robert III of Scotland, and Template:Children of James I of Scotland. I think the function of the template is better served by the Category:House of Stuart (and sub-categories) and by the House of Stuart article. DrKiernan (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that much of the information is overload and duplicated in other nav boxes but this is the second time this has been nominated for deletion and from memory the agreed solution was for a greatly simplified version—this seems not to have been followed up on. So on the whole keep but not in present form. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2012 (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:Black days

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 per consensus and redundant to {{coloured dates}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Black days (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

If these were fundamentally related subjects then this would be a useful navigation tool, but they're disambiguation pages. The correct place for potentially interesting but tangential links is the see also section, not a navbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are unrelated like starfish, cuttlefish, jellyfish and microfiche. Here's where this list belongs. JIMp_talk·cont 04:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from dab pages, and delete if otherwise unused. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we don't use these on dab pages. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
mmmh, not sure, tending to keep since we could easily add to all disamb./list pages the links of the template into a see also section... mabdul 22:02, 26 April 2012 (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:Mozilla Firefox

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. WOSlinker (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mozilla Firefox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old Firefox template with only one transclusion, suspended by/redundant to {{Mozilla}}, {{Firefox TOC}}, and {{web browsers}}. mabdul 13:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom Judicatus | Talk 13:18, 18 April 2012 (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: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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seldom-used template which does the same thing as {{anchor}} only in a different way, presumably because someone could. {{Anchor}} is both massively more prevalent and more capable (as it accepts multiple arguments). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This template has been at TFD on 6 January 2011. Nothing has changed since; it's a lot less expensive than {{Anchor}} (that's why it makes sense to use it in large numbers in long lists – see Template talk:Section#Should be avoided?), and it can emit a second parameter which Anchor can't. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A low-participation TfD from over a year ago is mostly irrelevant. If list of Latin phrases (C) is what is deemed to be a pathological case here then I don't think there's anything to answer for, as using {{anchor}}s there would certainly not adversely affect the experiences of any readers and minor backed gains are not our problem to work around. TIMTOWTDI is not a good paradigm for encouraging maintainable code, nearly nobody uses this, and there is no sensible use case where {{anchor}} cannot be used to the same effect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That leaves {{Section}}'s feature to emit a visible text (|2=), much like {{Visible anchor}}. Is it possible to determine on which pages Section is used that way? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were all of them, that's less than a hundred in total. And all of them could be trivially converted to {{visible anchor}} or, even better, simply unlinked (Horus Heresy (novels) uses them for absolutely no reason, as the page contains no internal links to the anchor title, and if anchors were required then they could simply name the sections normally). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to understand that someone will inspect the articles and lists which use Section and determine its best replacement before it gets deleted? I think this is a lot of effort for very little gain. As for "absolutely no reason": the Section targets in the Lists of Latin phrases are created systematically for every entry; many correspond to an existing REDIRECT, others are used directly in piped links in articles, but some are probably orphaned targets, as it were. They are still useful should a REDIRECT into the list be desired. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is "a lot of effort for very little gain" is trying to preserve cross-article section anchors on a long term basis. We shouldn't be doing it by habit anyway, and the amount of additional markup (not to mention editor knowledge) required for it isn't really worth keeping around multiple overlapping implementations for. I trust that conversion from {{section}} to a more widespread format won't be difficult post-TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's the exact same thing as {{visible anchor}}, except it can only produce one anchor instead of up to ten. — Bility (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. mabdul 22:04, 26 April 2012 (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:Comment

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) 23:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

An alternative for plain HTML comment markup which hacks the parser (the comment is used as an argument to {{null}}, which does nothing). There is no reason that HTML comment markup cannot be used directly, and this is massively more prevalent. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this template is stupidly coded. Why does it call null? It shouldn't call null, that just adds processor strain. It should be completely blank and empty. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way it's at least one extra template call for absolutely no gain over plain HTML markup except that it won't show up when viewing the page source (and that is probably a bad idea in the first place). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete and replace with standard markup, which is included in the edittools below the edit window. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and inefficient. mabdul 22:11, 26 April 2012 (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:Films inspired by Mallammana Pavaada

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) 23:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Films inspired by Mallammana Pavaada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:KISS WP:LAZY. This could easily be integrated into the articles in a concise and beneficial manner compared to lazily slapping them into a template and repeatedly inserting it on articles. We need quality, not template clutter. Judicatus | Talk 13:23, 18 April 2012 (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:McClain Sisters

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) 23:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:McClain Sisters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Only has four links and is trancluded to two articles. I just don't think it needs a navbox quite yet. Purplewowies (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and my prior reasoning on this TFD. Judicatus | Talk 13:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 23 April 2012 (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:Comedy Night Done Right

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) 23:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comedy Night Done Right (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia is not a TV guide 91.10.46.102 (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Tate Brandley Stockwell 22:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violation of accepted policy WP:NOT, as no use is apparent for the template which is valid besides uselessly cluttering. Articles which use the template have it placed at the bottom of the page, with what is usually a whole pack of other templates thrown there. "For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera". If it had valid use I would be neutral, but as it stands it should be deleted. Judicatus | Talk 12:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Judicatus, who sums it up quite nicely. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not how we navigate, as Judicatus pointed out. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:02, 23 April 2012 (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.

April 16

Template:Porte class gate vessel

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 _―Œ^(talk) 04:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Porte class gate vessel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This fails as a navigation template since it contains only red links. Pichpich (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Template was just created on 24 March. Allow time for fills. Brad (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Links are being filled in, more to come, deletion rationale now invalid. Benea (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2012 (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 Hindu Monk

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 into {{Infobox Hindu leader}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hindu Monk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on ~10 articles, seems redundant to {{Infobox Hindu leader}} Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree it seems redundant. I felt that {{Infobox Hindu leader}} stood for a social or political leader and it was inadequate to describe the spiritual personalities. Not everybody is a leader. There are numerous people who spent their entire lives in spiritual pursuits, never had any direct involvement with the Hindu society or people. I created {{Infobox Hindu Monk}} to cover such people. In fact, I feel, I should have named the template Infobox Hindu spiritual figure rather than Infobox Hindu Monk. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant: Infobox Hindu leader has fields to cover any Hindu spiritual figure. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Infobox Christian leader has more fields than Infobox Hindu leader. I think we need to add more fields to the latter in order to meet all requirements. I'll be adding them soon. In that case, Infobox Hindu Monk is redundant. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2012 (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:Best Coast

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) 23:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Best Coast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With only two album articles and the main artist's article, navigating from one to the other remains rather simple without the need of a navigational box. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I like the group, but a navbox is not needed at this time with only two album articles beyond the band's page. I suspect enough significant coverage might exist for some of their songs ("When I'm With You", "Boyfriend", "The Only Place") to support individual articles, and if that should be the case the template can simply be recreated at that time. Gongshow ^Talk 04:44, 22 April 2012 (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:Pakistan Super 8 T20

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) 04:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pakistan Super 8 T20 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 2 blue links well connected to each other. Magioladitis (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nom, too few links to be a useful navbox. Jenks24 (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2012 (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:Computer death

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. There may be consensus if {{wikidepression}} and {{Computer death}} were relisted separately. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Computer death (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Out of town (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused ({{out of town}} has one transclusion on a banned user's talk); redundant to {{wikibreak}} with a message parameter. We don't need individual custom templates for every possible reason a person might not currently be participating. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom. I can see how this template can be used, and I doubt its completely redundant, but it's not very useful either. A message parameter is a good alternative. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 15:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 15:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{out of town}} - I don't know about the other two, but I find out of town really useful when I'm going away for a short time and want to let people know I won't be around. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 09:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{out of town}} and {{Wikidepression}} - "we don't need them" - this kind of thinking is fallacious and counter-productive. We don't need to do a lot of things and some might argue we don't really need an article about cunnilingus. But, this is not a credible rationale against the existence of the elements of wikipedia.
Wikipedia occasionally draws in really passionate editors who care about what they do and sometimes get depressed indeed albeit with a possibility of quick recovery from that also. So, what's the harm if a user wants to be cheered up by some of his associates. Nobody is obliged to visit any talk-page they don't want to visit. Anyway, if they delete the template it will only waste some few seconds of time of the depressed users because they can always just post what they feel like on their talk page. These template helps depressed users. It's useful and it's used by many.
The number of uses of this template itself is the proof of its validity. "DrYouMe"→"Mrt3366" ^(Talk?) 11:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the goal of {{wikidepression}} is to invite editors to cheer one up, then it is definitely counterproductive as it encourages feeding the divas. Editors should not use the threat of leaving to try to attract messages of support. Additionally, it is not used at all at present, so it isn't clear what you mean by "it's used by many.... The number of uses of this template itself is the proof of its validity". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created {{Computer death}} to convey a message that a user is unlikely to be able to edit/respond to discussion, but obviously may have sporadic access via other devices outside of their normal computer. The existing wikibreak and busy templates didn't accurately convey this. Sometimes specifics help editors with their interactions and expectations. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:25, 16 April 2012 (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:Japan Sevens

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) 23:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japan Sevens (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with only one item is pointless. Quest for Truth (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was the same with Template:Gold Coast Sevens and the result was keep. The event will be held every year so a template is useful. Kante4 (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That TfD is a pretty poor precedent (including the nom, only three editors participated). Jenks24 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until more of the events are held. There is currently no point in a template if it's only happened once… and it would take literally several years to meet the unofficial criteria of WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (^) Why delete and recreate? Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 16:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because we don't keep templates in the hope that they will be useful in a few years time. Jenks24 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The point of navboxes is to help people navigate to other related articles. With only one item there is nowhere else to go, hence making the navbox useless. Jenks24 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NENAN. --N Y Kevin @640, i.e. 14:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NENAN, there are not enough articles to warrant a navbox. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:05, 22 April 2012 (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.

April 15

Template:Batsmen who have scored 100 international centuries

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 Jimp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Template:Batsmen who have scored 100 international centuries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigational template with one entry, unlikely to expand to the second entry for another 5+ years. —SpacemanSpiff 19:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nom, pointless to have a navbox for only one article. Jenks24 (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Perhaps the most pointless template I have ever seen. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Nev1 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedily five years? That's optimistic. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:42, 17 April 2012 (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:Religion in South Park

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) 23:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Religion in South Park (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

basically WP:OR since there is no definitive source for the classification of South Park episodes based on per-religion themes. Frietjes (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:54, 16 April 2012 (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.

All-Ireland Senior Club Hurling Champions

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) 23:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1981 All-Ireland Senior Club Hurling Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1984 All-Ireland Senior Club Hurling Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1990 All-Ireland Senior Club Hurling Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox that doesn't navigate any articles, I assume because none of the 1981 All-Ireland Senior Club Hurling Champions have articles. Been like this since creation in 2009. Jenks24 (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've merged in the other nomination that was done and also added one more myself. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2012 (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.

April 14

Template:Infobox Calvinist Denomination

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) 23:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Calvinist Denomination (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, superseded by other infoboxes —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:25, 14 April 2012 (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 Wikipedia-version

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) 23:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Wikipedia-version (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one use--not clear why it exists. Subst and delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note The one use Koavf is referring to: User:UrSuS/test. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 03:11, 20 April 2012 (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.

Old discussions

April 12

Template:Campaignbox Salvadoran Civil War

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, as it is orphaned, and there appear to be no major objections. Can be recreated if there is a need for it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Salvadoran Civil War (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An incomplete nomination from December 16, 2010‎.

Navbox with only two items; WP:NENAN. (I know it's really a campaignbox, but I don't feel it is that useful now, since I have added sufficiently interlinking between the two articles.) Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that we treated campaign boxes differently from normal navboxes and thus they could be present even if they didn't link anywhere at all. In that case this should probably be retained even if has negligible actual navigational value. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So long as both the items in the campaign box are in the article, I have no problem with deleting it. It looks like one item is in there, but I didn't see the other.Publicus 15:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah; I'm not actually sure how much connection there is between the Zona Rosa attacks and the Civil War. I added a mention of the Civil War to the lead of the Zona Rosa article, but only to say that the attacks were "during" the Civil War, not that they were related. Unfortunately, WP:ELSALV seems to be dormant; is there anyone else who would know? — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2012 (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:Short filename

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 as T3 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Short filename (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template inserts files into Category:Files with short filenames which is a redundant category as here are never enough files in either category to have both that and Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming. I believe that we do not need this template. Also, with Template:Rename media for you can specify a reason, and that would be the appropriate place to list a rename because of a short name. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being short is not, in and of itself, an acceptable reason for renaming a file. See Wikipedia:Filemover#What files should be renamed?. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've also nominated the Category that this feeds into: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 12#Category:Files with short filenames-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:05, 12 April 2012 (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:The Wild Thornberrys

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) 04:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Wild Thornberrys (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links into four articles. Not a good navbox. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:56, 16 April 2012 (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.

April 11

Template:Infobox UK Election

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, although it's not redundant to {{Infobox election}}. The single article which was using it, United Kingdom general election, 1895, was using both this template and {{Infobox election}}. This template was generating a sidebar navigation panel, which was basically redundant to the navigation links already in the article and in other templates. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK Election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use; redundant to {{Infobox election}}. . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:33, 11 April 2012 (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:Rafał Ziemkiewicz

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 _―Œ^(talk) 04:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rafał Ziemkiewicz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The sheer number of redlinks doesn't make this a useful template. One of the bluelinks I have prodded, the other is a likely AfD candidate given it's general lack of sourcing. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 14:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 03:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (lecture) 17:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep if the articles are not deleted, but speedy delete if the are eventually deleted. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if all of the articles are kept, there's still only 5 of them (incl. the title). --N Y Kevin @724, i.e. 16:22, 19 April 2012 (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:The Chemistry Barnstar

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Chemistry Barnstar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Should be merged with Template:Chembarn using the |alt= similar to many other barnstars. mabdul 06:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

related wikiproject informed. mabdul 07:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support what Mabdul said. Rcsprinter (lecture) 17:50, 11 April 2012 (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:Our Lady of Mount Carmel Learning Center

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) 04:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Our Lady of Mount Carmel Learning Center (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I tagged this template for deletion because of a number of reasons (as per WP:TFD, among others), and are listed below:

1. The template is redundant to a better-designed template such as Template:DLSSS which serves a similar purpose. 2. The template is not used and has no likelihood of being used because several items in the template have no WP articles. Furthermore, the links in the template link back to the main article that the template refers to. No substantive amount of WP articles that only refer specifically to Our Lady of Mount Carmel Learning Center warrants a separate template that Template:DLSSS already serves for that purpose.

I wasn't sure if the template in question qualifies for criteria in WP:CSD so I put up a TfD to be safe. Xeltran (talk) 06:10, 11 April 2012 (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:Rolls yr Hendre, Family Tree

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 as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rolls yr Hendre, Family Tree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single use template Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not true: There are at least 5 or 6 related notable places for this template. This is a good use of the template model Victuallers (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean: by now, not true. When I nominated this oversized template last night, it was used on just one article. Half of the template (the first 6 generations) is - for encyclopedic use - useless and more fitting on a genealogical page. And in a proper family tree, the members of a generation are sorted in order of their birthdate. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your Nomination for Deletion tab on the above template, which you made because it's a single use template. As you now understand, it's now on 6 other page: members of the Rolls family. I did leave a note to you - to that effect: used on other page here. Can you confirm now please that your initial reason for deletion is NOT now valid? You now raise another 2 issues: firstly that, because of it's length, that it is "more fitting on a genealogical page" and secondly, that "the members of a generation are sorted in order of their birthdate." Please raise these "issues" on the Talk page, where they will immediately be addressed. Thanks for your help and quick response - too quick, perhaps, as I had noted that they were being developed further. There is a saying in Welsh: "Mam inni yw amynedd": Let our mother be patience. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please refrain from removing the template, mr. Llywelyn2000. Even in Welsh it is a no-go. I understand that you want to protect your template, but removing it twice... Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On placing your tfd tag on my template, you gave a reason: one reason in doing so. That reason was that at the time this Family Tree was on one page only, and should really be copied directly into the article, rather than be a Template. As you know, and as Victuallers told you, I was still working on this little project and within hours had placed the Template on other family members. I do think that you responded too quickly. You did so within 5 hours of my saving the Template and, indeed, was still working on it. I do think that you should have waited at least 48 hours before stamping your authority in such a way, as is usual good practice. I have given you a full explanation why I believe I have answered your ONE reason for the tag: the fact that it is used on other pages, therefore warrants a Template. Because I have done so I have "resolved the problem" and am therefore entitled to remove the tag. Your Tag instructions say: "When removing deletion tags, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to ." I resolved the problem and I informed you in the Edit Summary why I did so: "This template is used on more than one article; it is also on-going. Please leave any suggestions on further improvements - on the Talk Page." I asked you, "Can you confirm now please that your initial reason for deletion is NOT now valid?" You have NOT answered my reasonable request to you.

I'm also rather offended by the note you have left me on my home page: and that you are treating me as a newbie. "Welcome to Wikipedia" and again: "Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox." Why on earth do you welcome me to Wikipedia even though I have over 21,000 edits? I'm rather offended by your action. Please edit your little Tag so as not to offend fellow Wikipedians.

Not giving reasons for your actions, seem to me to contravene Wiki Guidelines: "it's useful to leave a short note on the talk page describing the issue, and suggesting an approach to fixing it if you know how." Please do so, and be accountable for your actions. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think Llywelyn2000 has addressed the original objection and this discussion should therefore end. There is no doubt that you did have adequate grounds for raising your request for deletion, but those grounds have now disappeared. Raising further editting advice can always be done on the article or templates talk page. Victuallers (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather reluctant to continue this debate - firstly because, as the original, legitimate, objection has been addressed, I think Victuallers's advice to continue any style discussions on the appropriate talk pages is very sensible; secondly, because I know next to nothing about Wiki Templates and their protocols. That said, I have contributed quite substantially to the Hendre article, and, to a lesser extent, to associated Rolls family articles, and here, I do think the template will be of considerable value. The Hendre talkpage has a suggestion that the Hendre should focus on the building and that other pages should be created for the history of the family, which they largely have been, and I think the template will add greatly to these. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes no sense to have this for an individual family. The general application of this principle would be absurd, and there seems no need forthis special case. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In cases where all, or nearly all, family members are notable and have articles (this mainly occurs for royal families), then I can accept the use of large family tree templates. Otherwise, they are just clutter: wP:IINFO. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for you constructive comments. Is it in order to use this format on the new Rolls Family article? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a guideline relating to genealogy and family trees. Since that is the case, here is my personal rule of thumb: so long as a "box-and-stick" style family tree (a) is not unnecessarily large and obtrusive; (b) contains a reasonable number of working links to other articles; and (c) is well-referenced, I personally am happy with it.
- Unfortunately I feel the family tree at User:Llywelyn2000/The_Rolls_Family,_Monmouth#Family_tree doesn't meet my standards, because (a) it is very tall, (b) very few family members have existing articles, and (c) I see no sources cited for the information. However, I stress this is my personal view. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks; at least now I have something to work on! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again - thanks to the other (talk) for outlining his reasons as to why a Template was not the correct way of presnting this information. I now accept deletion of this Template. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2012 (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.

Obsolete Eurovision and Junior Eurovision templates

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) 04:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Albanian Eurovision Representatives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Armenian Eurovision Representatives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Azerbaijani Eurovision Representatives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2003 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2004 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2012 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Czech Eurovision Representatives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Georgian Eurovision Representatives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Israeli Eurovision Representatives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Moldovan Eurovision Representatives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Montenegrin Eurovision Representatives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:San-Marinese Eurovision Representatives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Serbian Eurovision Representatives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Slovakia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1956 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1957 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1958 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1959 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1960 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1961 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1981 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1989 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1992 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1993 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1994 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1995 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1996 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1997 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1998 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1999 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2001 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2002 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2003 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2004 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1959 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1960 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1961 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1962 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1963 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1964 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1965 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1966 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1967 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1968 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1969 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1970 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1971 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1972 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1973 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1974 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1975 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1976 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1977 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1978 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1980 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1981 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1982 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1983 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1984 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1985 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1986 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1987 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1988 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1989 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1990 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1991 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1992 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1993 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1994 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1995 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1996 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1997 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1998 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2001 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2002 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2003 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2004 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

After a lengthy consensus exercise at WT:ESC the following templates are now redundant, and have been replaced by several all-in-one super-template designs, to cover everything easier. Wesley☀Mouse 00:21, 11 April 2012 (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.

April 9

Template:Non-administrator observation

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 _―Œ^(talk) 00:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Expanding my closing statement per request on my talk page) I felt as though there were two basic arguments (1) comments from administrators carry no more weight than non-administrators and (2) there are some places on WP where only administrators can carry out certain actions, and it may be helpful for someone to mark his/her own comment a "non-administrator observation". I felt as though both of these points were valid, and well argued. One of the key points central to the second argument was that the marking of a comment is voluntary and self-marked. Marking another editors comment could be construed as belittling. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-administrator observation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template serves no useful purpose. There is no where on Wikipedia where the observations of an administrator should count for more or less than the observations of a non-administrator. This template only serves to tag comments in ways that do not reflect how Wikipedia should work: there is no where and there are no comments that need to be flagged by this, as there should not be "classes" of Wikipedia users whose opinions count more or less than others. Jayron32 19:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I get involved in ANIs, and I choose to sometimes add [non-admin] at the end of my sig. so my comments aren't prejudged by me being a lowly editor, and I only do that when I'm making a strong statement, and feel there is a duty to be clear that my opinion isn't a binding decision. It takes no extra effort to tag my way vs. the template, and having an "official" template creates the impression that it 'should' be used, when that isn't true. Truth be told, the current template is distracting and only serves to present non-admin's opinions as "less than" administrators, as per the nom's observation. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I was thinking about this myself earlier today. The use of the template seems to be picking up over the last couple of days too (fad?), unfortunately. So: Delete.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A very bad thing to have. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the exact reasons that a few do want to delete it I see as reason to keep. When I am weighing in on what would be a contentious discussion that I want to explicitly signal that I'm not one with the magic washroom key to help point out that outside of the cabal of the mop there are editors who are keeping an eye on things. Hasteur (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are areas such as WP:RPP where only administrators can make useful decisions. Maintaining transparency on such pages is important. →Σ τ c. 19:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's important to distinguish non-admins from admins on pages such as WP:RPP and especially Requests for permissions where some new users may get confused.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 20:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...that's not true at all, though. Tools are required to actually change a user's permissions or protect a page, but "administrator" is not at all required to make the decision to actually use the tools in those situations. This has been the idea behind our consensus driven decision making model from the beginnings of Wikipedia, so if you're trying to provide a convincing argument with this then I think you're going to need to provide a more complete argument.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this is true, than why do think admins, that only they can make this decisions. See comments regarding RFPP and PERM. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 23:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That such things happen doesn't make them right (nevermind the issue of that sort of pissing on lamp posts to steak out turf is a bit... unbecoming). If push really came to shove those notices (warnings?) aren't likely to carry much weight. The discussion would likely revolve around the percentage of error made by the user, not whether or not their actually allowed to close discussions. It's never really come down to a "push comes to shove" situation though (that I'm aware of, at least), since everyone tends to back away from the debate for various reasons.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS.: Note also that Courcelles was talking abut the technical (or rather, procedural) matter of applying the template, not actually making the decision. He's actually correct, there.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above Liam987 20:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral. It has its useful applications, especially WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, and WP:UAA to signal that a user's comment about a report (for example, to say that an action is unnecessary) isn't an administrator final decision. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed from keep to neutral. My original arguments I still feel are valid but I also find the opposing arguments to have merit. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated this template for deletion a year ago for exactly the same reason. ElKevbo (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That brings up a point which I was wondering about, actually. This template was created @ 21:41, August 10, 2010, and I'd swear that this issue has come up before... are we sure that this isn't a moderately long standing recreation of an already deleted template?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is very, very wrong. Whether a person advancing a position is an administrator or not should have absolutely no bearing on how much weight to give to it. Well-intentioned but ill-advised. I don't see that any of the folk opining to keep have actually addressed this, and indeed the arguments made to support it basically reinforce that there are editors labouring under this misapprehension. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this has been used a lot, and so is useful. If non administrators want to use it they are welcome to, and the pages I see it on some do not have to use it, but do use it. They way I see it it actually draws more atention since it is a big prefix, and it looks as if something is so important to mention that a non administrator has put the effort into say it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is precisely because its use is increasing that it should be deleted. It reinforces the notion that non-admins are just peons chipping in from the sidelines while admins are the ones who make the decisions around here. That is harmful for admins and non-admins alike. The road down which we travel with this is one where people are chided for not using the template, or where well-meaning editors add it to comments made by others, or any other number of nasty unintended consequences. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete This template reinforces a perceived dichotomy between admins and non-admins. Admins are simply editors who have been entrusted with the rights to certain tools, but have no inherent power. In a discussion, it is the quality of the comments that count. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC) (Where is my magic washroom key? I only got the one to the janitor's closet.)[reply]
Delete – The comments of admins are not any more special than those of non-admins and should not be treated as such, and users should not have their posts tagged in such a way that seems to discount their comment because they are not an admin. Also, not every post by a non-admin is simply an "observation", and even if we were to support the use of this template, the wording would have to be changed or else new templates should be created for "Non-administrator conclusion", "Non-administrator compilation of evidence", etc. There is simply no good reason for this template and any situation where a comment must be tagged as not coming from an administrator is a situation that calls for more care than the simple slapping on of a template. Not only does this template not have a good use, it is harmful. —danhash (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty useful for non-admins to voice an opinion in admin area's. Mr little irish 15:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no areas of Wikipedia which are exclusive to admins, nor is there anywhere where the opinion of a non-admin counts for less, or more, than that of an admin. What use does it have. What is the manner of its usefulness? --Jayron32 17:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is exactly the impression that this template creates, that non-admins really don't belong at ANI other other discussions, and ironically, demonstrates why it causes more distraction than benefit. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I mean is, in area's where standard users (such as myself) can't make a closing decision, they can put their input. If I was to go and comment somewhere, and then somebody seen it, they could misunderstand me as an administrator, of which I am not. There is a difference in how much an opinions counts between admins and non-admins, or everybody could be an admin, or non-admin. If everybodies opinion is valued just the same on Wikipedia, then why are only certain people admin's? Why is there a huge mess if something turns nasty in an RFA. The template should stay because there is a difference between me and and admin. Note: This made sense to me. It might not to you. Ask for clarifaction. Mr little irish 10:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It makes sense: it's just wrong. In this community, it is only what you say which matters and not who you are so far as discussions go. Only admins can act in certain cases, but when it comes to simply stating an opinion the word of an admin does not inherently carry any more weight than anyone else's. This template carries the opposite connotation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - To reinforce your argument, many non-admins actually do admin work that doesn't require tools. Closing AFDs as Redirect or Keep. I've closed merge and noticeboard discussions, etc, to help reduce the load on admins by mopping up areas that don't need special tools. Admins get the (very powerful) tools because they have proven they understand policy and won't abuse them. What they don't get is 1.5x vote power. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the view that opinion of a non-admin does not count any less than that of an admin, however I am of the view at some locations, such as WP:RPP, WP:SPI and WP:3RR/N it's use to aid transparency is on the whole useful. Mt king ^(edits) 23:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete opinions of admins and non-admins should be treated the same, so there is no need to differentiate between them. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have absolutely no problem with non-admins commenting in admin areas...if someone has a good, convincing argument/rationale or merely a small, helpful note about something, it doesn't matter if they are an admin or not. If anything, I get concerned that when this template is used to highlight input by non-admins: it implies that their comments are "flagged" and should be given less weight...even though what they have to say is completely valid. Non-admins were having no problems with participating in places like RFPP, UAA, permissions, etc., before this template existed, so the potential deletion of the template should not serve as a discouragement for non-admins who do frequently comment in those areas. Acalamari 10:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's unevenly used (I'm not an admin and I don't use it), and it reinforces the view that admins are a special class of people. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Admins arn't the ones applying it to other people comments (that I've seen). If a user wants to self-identify their comments as a "non admin observation" then why is there even a controversy over it? The same users can still say "NAO" or "non admin comment" without the template. If you have a problem with it, address the behavior or culture.--v/r - TP 15:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is "address[ing] the behavior or culture". This reinforces the notion in question. People see it and get the wrong impression. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not exactly. This is removing the ease of use of a template to do something an abbreviation can still do (NAO). If you want to address the behavior, you should start an AN or VP thread about the systematic misunderstanding of administrator roles versus non administrators.--v/r - T P 17:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Irish. The point is not to enforce some kind of hierarchy, the point is for admins to be able to see at a glance, without further clicking, that someone may have commented at e.g. UAA, but will not have undertaken any actions: that is, that the case under discussion remains to be resolved. Because often the presence of any sort of response on that sort of page indicates that it has been dealt with, one way or the other. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 16:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We don't know if problems have been resolved in some cases" sounds like a separate issue that should be addressed in the appropriate venues; trying to rely on this template as one (poor) indicator that a problem has not been resolved sounds like a really bad idea (that apparently isn't working anyway). ElKevbo (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There are areas, as pointed out above, where the admin does count for more than the non-admin. Maybe the template isn't necessary for ANI, but for other areas it is, and, in any case, is useful in maintaining transparency and clarity of communication for those who choose to use it (for an example, some people hang out at admin's boards enough that you'd think they were admins, etc.). It helps having it, is necessary on some pages, and does no harm. Removing it can only cause harm. Keep it. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 18:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to ratify the idea that some boards are admin-only or on some boards non-admins' comments are of less value, let's do so transparently and with the consensus of the community instead of doing it in a roundabout and opaque manner such as having some people use this template. Please note that I am not asserting that having admin-only boards or boards with strict rules about who can comment where and with what weight is inappropriate; in some cases, it's entirely appropriate and useful (e.g. ArbCom). I am arguing against creating such boards and enforcing such rules without transparency and consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This template fulfills its purpose very well --Kangaroopowah 19:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ohms law. Also, there is a handy tool that makes it easy to determine what groups an editor belongs to. —DoRD (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Popups can be slow to load, it won't work without js and newbies wont know how to activate it. As well as that some editors may not like popups even if they know how to use it. Best, --Kangaroopowah 22:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This a templete that can be used to politely inform other users that the opinion of the user posting is not one of a Admin. Phearson (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needed at requests for rollback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilderien (talk • contribs)
- Why, do you suppose, is it needed there? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I does not seem to make much difference-just seems to be wasting space.--Deathlaser (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete waste of space and non-admins comments tend to count less then admin's comment. We do not need to know if an admin/non-admin made that comment.--Deathlaser (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This defeats even the nominator's rationale. Non-admin's can still report they are non-admin by saying [non-admin]. Non-admin comments are to be treated the same way as admin's. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 02:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Keep. Needed. ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 16:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you elaborate on this? This isn't just a vote, as you know, and just saying "it's needed" doesn't add anything when there has already been a good deal of discussion regarding whether it is, and dealing with the arguments on both sides. Kansan (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete; we know that "adminship is no big deal" isn't something that the community has been able to live up to, but I believe it is an ideal to strive for, and the result of seeing this template go would outweigh any very minor inconvenience that might be caused (and really, it isn't at all difficult to see if somebody is an admin). Kansan (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Regardless of admins' supposed status compared to others, this template is useful for non-admin comments in request processes where admins are usually the ones expected to respond initially, especially AIV and RPP.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, a non-administrator's comment weighs the same as an administrators, however, it's sometimes technically impossible for non-administrators to do certain actions, like protect an article or block an editor. This template will make administrator jobs easier because it help provides details that some might skip over, like in RfPP or AIV. -- Luke (Talk) 20:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is to my agreement that non-admin comments are the same as an administrators, but this template's purpose is to distinguish them to be non-admins. This is particularly useful in WP:RFPP. Of course, yes, non-admins can still distinguish themselves by placing [non-admin] at the end of their comment, but that's all simplified with this template, is it not? This template should be used volunarily, as stated in the documentation: "Can be optionally employed where the commentator feels a need to clarify that one is making an opinion or observation, but is not in the position to make any actions." --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 01:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above: its use is not to distinguish "less important" comments, but just to point out in pages such as RPP and PERM that the comment is made by someone that actually cannot physically make the decision in the end. I think it is important to distinguish that, especially for new editors who might be approaching those type of pages for the first time.--Mark91it's my world 08:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sometimes non-admins do make useful observations and in some cases, like WP:Changing username, they can notice things before admins get around to it, making the admin's job quicker (though my example only applies to bureaucrats). AndieM (Am I behaving?) 19:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and discourage non-admins from making irrelevant or useless comments at venues where an admin must make the final decision regardless of any non-admin comments (e.g., PERM). Such comments are generally more suited for a talk page or simply should not be made at all; they clutter the page with often the same thing an admin will have to say, and as this isn't Facebook, there's no need to comment on everything for the sake of commenting. /ƒETCH COMMS / 20:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template encourages stratification. But the biggest issue is that since it is not mandatory, any admin who cares about the status of a given editor would need to find out through some other means anyway to be certain (popups is useful for this). I would be more inclined to keep it if it were mandatory on pages where it is truly useful to make the distinction. But since it is not, what's the point? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are relatively few places that only admins should be discussing things, if any, to the best of my knowledge, let alone any place where a user (such as myself) would have less merit in their points when contributing. In keeping with community standards, when discussing in group discussions, considering an argument less valid because the arguer doesn't have the notional "admin keys" leads to stratification - Orange Suede Sofa made this point, above, in not so many words. I do point out that there are certain non-administrative tasks we engage in at my level (see non-admin closure of AFDs and such, for instance), but that's just a maintenance thing for when admins don't catch those details - but note that we don't use templates for that, instead relying on the well-understood abbreviation NAC - and such a closure is frequently as valid as if an admin closed it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's nothing wrong with a non-admin noting his status, and deletion would only make it harder for people to say what they want to say. Many people find it useful, and we don't prohibit them from saying that they're non-admins, so deletion wouldn't help a thing. Mark91 hits the nail on the head. Nyttend (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From some of the above votes, it seems as if some people have gotten the impression that they must use this template if it exists because of some metaphorical gun pointed at their heads, and for that reason it should be deleted. However, this is not the case, and it is helpful in some corners of the project; on request pages (such as WP:CHU and WT:AWB/CP, where I came from to participate in this discussion) the requester might hound a non-admin trying to get them to look at the request if they are not explicitly stated as a non-admin. Clay^Clay _Clay 22:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete against policy; the opinions of all users get consideration on their individual merits. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which policy does this template violate?--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete against WP:ADMIN, desysop all keep voters with bits (part of policy this violates - "Stated simply, while the correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct should be considered important, merely "being an administrator" should not be.") Hipocrite (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There should be a simple and decent script to mark admins (and other ranks), like: de:Wikipedia:Helferlein/markAdmins. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Adiistrator" is not a rank. Being an administrator confers no seniority. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - o.k., that's not my point, call it "function", doesn't make a difference to the script. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closure, OK so as this discussion will close today, here are some things to keep in mind:

Total:43 Delete:18/43 Neutral:1/43 Keep:24/43 But please don't just make a judgement just on this, as learnt adoption school: 10 valid comments are way better then 100 in-valid comment.--Deathlaser (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to {{clerk note}} in some cases, useless in others. --N Y Kevin @677, i.e. 15:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as MisterGugaruz. This script is really simple and decent. --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- while there's no reason to use this template, it's been used enough so that deleting it will be confusing to people reading archives (which is where I came across this discussion in the first place). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you mean? I would expect that to be resolved by simply deleting all of the transclusions. It's already been established that this is a totally process-free template and as such is worthless, so where would the confusion come from in reading archived pages with the template removed from them? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If someone thought it necessary to state that they weren't speaking as an admin, for whatever reason, it would be improper to delete part of their comment like that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it useful to see who a commenter is - an admin I've perhaps not come across before or a non-admin helper in 'admin areas'. There's no compulsion to use it, and it isn't a caste label. Peridon (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - helpful on certain pages, and perfectly harmless as long as its use remains voluntary (that is, non-admins are free to choose whether or not to use this tag; and their edits are not tagged as such by other editors). Robofish (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2012 (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:Mylo Xyloto

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) 00:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mylo Xyloto (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's redundant and not need. All information can be found on the album article and discography article. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering your argument is a valid excuse, wouldn't that mean ALL templates dedicated to albums and their themes should be removed? According to your argument, Templates like Template:The Dark Side of the Moon, Template:A Girl like Me (Rihanna album), Template:Bad (album) and Template:Abbey Road should be deleted because all the information is on a single page or two pages. It just doesn't work that way, i'm afraid, because of the nature of Wikipedia, navigation assistance is more than necessary to, quite literally, assist navigation. RazorEyeEdits (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need this kind of templates people. Why having everything twice, despite already being present in {{Coldplay}} and {{Coldplay singles}}. It's totally useless. — Tomica (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, completely overlapped with the Coldplay templates. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Tomica. To respond to RazorEyeEdits, WP:OSE. Those templates should probably be nominated as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RazorEyeEdits Liam987 20:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So much wrong here. The idea with navboxes is that you're supposed to add them to the bottom of all the articles linked within. This plainly isn't appropriate here as most of the linked subjects have only a tenuous connection to the subject (if we added a navbox for every song a person had contributed guest vocals to, articles on certain artists would have fifty or more navboxes. The less said about producers the better). The only article upon which all of these links are appropriate is the album's itself, and in that case they should already be present within the article body. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Statυs (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the proliferation of these types of templates will end up making articles very unwieldy. Kansan (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2012 (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:TV network logos

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) 00:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TV network logos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not how navboxes work. Outside the Big Three, this navigates not articles, but sections of articles. I see no point in a navbox that jumps only to sections of articles — since only two of the networks actually have "logos" articles (dubious ones), this is technically WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entire thing has been a vandalism magnet for the usual cadre of IP vandals to justify fair-use violating logo galleries for minor networks and throw them in this template; I'm ready to see it go. If readers need information about a logo, they generally just check the network's article, not look for a history template. Nate • (chatter) 19:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, navboxes should link related articles together, not sections of articles. Otherwise, I could make a template linking all the "plot sections of David Fincher movies", to take a bad example. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above Liam987 20:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although perhaps just removing the fair-use violations might be easier, then the template is redundant anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom and above. Tate Brandley Stockwell 02:11, 12 April 2012 (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 conference

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) 03:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Purpose unclear (no response to my query about that, on its talk page, a month ago). Its mere 25 transclusions are used for a mishmash of schools conferences, sports/ athletics conferences, and business conferences. Some instances are redundant to {{Infobox Sports conference}} and {{Infobox summit}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with one of the two templates mentioned above due to confusion over what it's supposed to be for. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:20, 9 April 2012 (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:Nowiki

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) 00:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Using #tag:nowiki in a template has so many limitations that it is not worth using. The most egregious is exposing strip markers if you include a <ref> tag; see the template doc for examples. Current uses are mostly redundant: the ice hockey articles use it to escape asterisks that are not at the beginning of a line and don't need to be nowikied. Articles like Great West Conference use it for an asterisk at the beginning of a line, but a singular <nowiki /> before the asterisk will fix that. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if a nowiki is needed, just used the markup. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Just use the native tags. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to wiki-markup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like that the tag encloses the item that's not wiki-fied: keep. But whatever is decided, please due it quickly: the flag for deletion is screwing up table formatting. Hooperswim (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What table? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Liam987 20:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep i use it often. it presents info differently from both {{cnw}} and from non-wiki (html) markup, i don't find it redundant. as for the exposed strip marker problem, 1. is there proof that the problem is with the template and not with cite.php? and 2. if the problem is with the template, why not just fix it? 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in the meantime, the notification tag for this discussion, is causing both presentation and context problems: example in body; example in footnote. i've embedded the template often within citation templates, so there's probably a problem there too. not nice. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use in Horus Heresy (novels) is a result of misuse of the ; markup for list definition used to bold a line; {{nowiki}} is being used here to prevent the colon from parsing and creating the definition— this uses twelve characters where the six apostrophes would would do the job just nicely and more clearly. I can't figure the use inside the {{worldcat}} note (it isn't a citation).

If you want to disable the appearance in articles, then we can revert the announcement and no one else will participate in the discussion. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there is no misuse of code in the article. it was an editorial decision in order to avoid section overcrowding which would have then neccessitated more complicated editing in the toc ({{toc limit}} etc.) {{nowiki}} is used inside {{worldcat}} to avoid rendering problems when there are brackets [] in the url's display text. the pertinent target is the name of a record at worldcat, and therefore has to be used verbatim (w. the brackets).

don't revert any announcements. just put an {{ambox}} or similar at the top of the page, so it doesn't disrupt readers, most of whom, i wager, couldn't care less about this discussion. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

edit: i'm in the process of editing Horus Heresy (novels) to remove the list def. code. imo, this makes the article less editor-friendly, as the markup was used to specify that the paras. following are indeed part of a listing. the reason the more formal section listing was not used i've explained above. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by the uses left like {{italic|Mechanicum: {{nowiki|[knowledge is power]}} The {{nowiki}} there interacts with {{italic}} in some odd manner and just ends up wrapping the included content in <code />. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here is a clue: since the wrapping appeared after {{nowiki}} was tagged for deletion, the culprit may be the notify tag. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. That obviously inserts the TfD markup. I tested by replacing it with {{nowiki/sandbox}}, resulting in Mechanicum: [knowledge is power] (the funky w is the giveaway here). Why the nowiki inside italics? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no, dig deeper. the "funky w" is there because {{nowiki/sandbox}} inserts <code>...</code>, as {{cnw}} does:

{{worldcat}} with {{nowiki}} renders Mechanicum: [knowledge is power] in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
{{worldcat}} with {{nowiki/sandbox}} renders Mechanicum: [knowledge is power] in libraries (WorldCat catalog) – which is the same as below:
{{worldcat}} with {{cnw}} renders Mechanicum: [knowledge is power] in libraries (WorldCat catalog) – notice the "funky w"
more:

Markup	Renders as
{{italic\|Mechanicum: {{nowiki\|[knowledge is power]}}}}	Mechanicum: [knowledge is power]

notice that the tfd notice is entirely in italics, while the txt within {{nowiki}} is not. i think the problem may be with <span>...</span> and/or the use of italics within the tfd notice, as in:

Markup	Renders as
<i>Mechanicum: [knowledge is power]</i>	Mechanicum: [knowledge is power]

without italics:

Markup	Renders as
Mechanicum: {{nowiki\|[knowledge is power]}}	Mechanicum: [knowledge is power]

as you see above, only Nowiki is italicized in the tfd notice, per code.
as was said before, this is italicized because it is a book title+sub title. also, it is the name of a worldcat record. url display text that ends in brackets renders incorrectly; therefore {{nowiki}} has to be applied. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

addition: in case you missed it, the notice also exposes the naked url. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, replacing <span>...</span> with <div>...</div> resolved the span/italics problem. however removing |type=inline from {{tfd}} is actually making things worse. and, something still must be adding a bracket somewhere. it is interpreted as wikicode and results in exposing the worldcat url (|oclc= in {{worldcat}}). 65.88.88.126 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are only sixteen articles using this utility template. I dare say that if it were actually necessary, it would have been more broadly deployed in the last six years. Endless minor utility templates confuse casual editors and make articles inconsistent. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was being used in a bunch of ice hockey season articles, but as I noted above, this use was completely redundant. A concerned editor must have cleaned those up. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i beg to differ. no encyclopedia, not even a free one of uneven quality like this, deserves casual editors. casual readers are ok (readers are paramount anyway). drive-by proof-readers are probably ok, yet some articles employ specialized nomenclature that would result in incorrect proofing by casual proof-readers. even casual content-providers can be ok, provided they are knowledgeable. however imo editors do not have the luxury. they must be willing to dedicate time and effort, and must be knowledgeable about the subject.

just for the sake of argument, i contend that it is as likely a "casual editor" will be confused by the code as by the template. where is the proof either way?

a non-casual editor should be able to recognize that 1. this is a template 2. its function is self explanatory 3. the presence of a template rather than code may be consistent with the markup practices of the article as input by other non-drive-by editors.

i'd prefer minor utility templates to be left alone. unless they break something else that cannot be fixed, they represent work done that someone may find useful. they are one more tool for editors. maybe their usefulness is not apparent to someone. it's ok, it may be apparent to someone else. why the nit-picking, fussing about and constant limiting of editor choice? 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Making it easier to edit is of paramount importance to its continuing development. TIMTOWDI is a hostile paradigm for learning a new language as it leads to wholly unnecessary confusion and divergence between different deployments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

great, let's start talking in slogans. in my understanding, wales didn't start wikipedia to give wannabe editors and the chattering classes a hobby. his concern was speed and timeliness. widening the editor pool is the natural outcome of this philosophy. that is why in wikipedia (unlike other encyclopedias) accuracy and reliability is a statistic, not an expectation. people wouldn't want to pay for that... but the fact that it is free has become another slogan. with this in mind, what is of paramount importance are readers using it and whether they are served. i'm not saying that anyone must not edit – my opinion is that "anyone" should not, at least not when the editor's indulgence is the main reason.

actually you are saying that anyone must not use some templates. if you don't want to use them, fine, just ignore them. but you are restricting everybody else. that is not hostile? templates are wikipedia's own native language, they are not "a new language". what is foreign is html or html-style markup. and again, why is {{nowiki}} more confusing than <nowiki>...</nowiki>? 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary, confusing, and redundant to wikicode. —danhash (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, see above. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2012 (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:Expand

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 per this discussion and previous discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that any of the deletion discussions for this template suggested that it should be tagged as historical and retained. After all the existing transclusions were removed, User:TenPoundHammer tagged it as speedy G6, and it was deleted. User:Rich Farmbrough restored the template in February 2011 as a test case for Wikipedia:Soft deletion, a proposal which has since failed. User:MickMacNee seems to have invented the reasoning that it should be retained to preserve old article revisions here. I am nominating this deprecated template for full deletion here because I believe the previous deletion discussions endorsed full deletion and now that soft deletion has failed, its test case should be deleted along with it. This was suggested a while ago but not carried out. I also don't think there's any value in keeping this template as historical; we've never worried about breaking templates in past revisions of articles before and I don't think we should start now. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge {{expand further}} here. (or rather, overwrite by moving "expand further" on top of this location) -- if there are no transclusions, there is no problem with doing this. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to do here. I'm suggesting that this deleted template be actually deleted. If you'd like to suggest merging (or as far as I can tell, replacing) expand further to this location, I think that's a separate discussion which should be carried out on the talk page of that template. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Expand" itself was totally a vague template, like Template:very long, which is still under discussion per WP:RFC; also, it was used in sections, as well. "Expand further (or article)", nonetheless, tends to go for articles that need expansion for general readers. If we merge this template into "expand further", then other editors will use rather "expand" than "expand article" because of... "convenience", which is hardly a strong point to use. In other words, maybe editors would deliberately type "expand" on sections rather than top of an article. --George Ho (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{expand further}}. I agree there is no reason to mark as historical, but a redirect makes sense. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't make sense to me, but I see that points you make are not bad. However, as said above, this would lead to others misusing both templates, as "expand" was misused before. "expand" was also used in sections previously, and I haven't seen one argument about how "expand" was used. Instead, I see people voting merge or delete by pointing out what it already is: a historic monument, which people here oppose. --George Ho (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tbe compromise of keeping it for historical revisions was a test case for a failed proposal. Past AFDs have built up a consensus for it to be deleted and no longer used, so we should go with that. Redirecting to {{expand further}} will only confuse the matter. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that merging into "expand further" could make things complicated, but is historical suppression and its historical value the strong rationale for deletion? Under this logic, WT:spoiler/old template may not be historical and should be deleted, correct? Or "spoiler" and "expand" are two different cases, right? I know that "spoiler" template is currently a historical monument of influence. Why can't "expand"? --George Ho (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am neutral on whether to delete the actual page history. However, I would still like to keep some sort warning message on that location, similar to {{Non-free restricted use}}, that instructs users to use a more specific tag like {{expand further}} or {{expand section}}. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't such a pressing concern that we need keep it for historical revisions. The less said about redirecting it to {{expand further}} the better, as that would be a rather flagrant circumvention of the TfD in which is was deleted in the first place (and in fact I'm prone to considering the very existence of {{expand further}} to be similarly troublesome). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'redirect to "expand further". A sensible compromise solution. An alternative, would be to bring the original decision back to Del Rev, as a decision in opposition to the general policy that articles should be improved when possible. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comments above. --George Ho (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without a redirect. {{expand further}} has a significantly different meaning and should not be confused with {{expand}}. --N Y Kevin @680, i.e. 15:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is moving to "Wikipedia talk" namespace not suggested? Why is Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/old template not used as an example for this discussion? --George Ho (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What point would that do? That shouldn't be there either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you think the "spoiler/old" is pointless, why not nominating it for deletion? Besides, "spoiler" and "expand" should be treated as historical to improve the minds of editors to make better decisions. They can learn that "spoiler" used to exist; even though the spoiler is down, it's still viewable, in case they wanted to tag any plot for ruining a surprise. Look at "expand": "Expand" is still viewable, in spite of its deprecated status. Why do you think they typed that for? --George Ho (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - If "spoiler/old" is still being used to "tag any plot for ruining a surprise", then that is a direct violation of the deletion discussion for that template and is a reason we SHOULDN'T keep "old" versions of it around as historical. What benefit does maintaining this edit history serve? It's not like Expand or Spoiler were particularly intricate templates whose code are worth emulating. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        True, if it were used as a template "{{WT:Spoiler/old template}}", then that's a violation. Same as "{{Template:expand}}". Nevertheless, to me, that's a flimsy reason to delete it. Deleting this template and that page for possibility of violating deletion consensus or its "stale" historical value... is it really strong enough to get rid of this template and that miscellaneous page? What's the point of deleting them if they're going to be re-created again or re-evaluated? What's the point of deleting them if they have been kept for years? What's the point of deleting them if people are pleased to see them gone? What's the point of deleting them if "expand article" was created, while "expand" was still active until its fall? --George Ho (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think any of those rhetorical questions really gets to the point of why this is debate is happening. Things are deleted because they are being misused, or not appropriate for Wikipedia. Things shouldn't be recreated without going through the WP:DRV process because presumably they were deleted for a reason. We have a speedy deletion criterion for just this occasion: WP:CSD#G4. This is a special case because it was revived for a village pump proposal, but now that it has failed, the recreation reason no longer exists and so this should be deleted again. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, spoiler is spoiler. Expand is expand. I don't know. I won't change my vote just because of "valid" reasoning. However in fact, I'm speechless about what you said: its value as historical is too "stale" for Wikipedia. Nevertheless, why not merging spoiler and expand to one non-Template namespace? --George Ho (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename it to WT:Expand/old template, just like Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/old template (the way we did Template:Spoiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), or WT:General disclaimer/Expand old template, or move to somewhere that belongs to "Wikipedia (or Wikipedia talk)" namespace. I always think about this template as a historical reference and an influence to inexperienced minds. While risky and "Template:expand" is losing its punch, renaming is better than redirect and delete, as neither of those solve anything. However, That is for WP:RM to decide, as this discussion is no substitute for that. --George Ho (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- ~~Also, rename titles of talk pages (or move to "Wikipedia talk" namespace) to "Wikipedia talk:Expand". --George Ho (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete it is not used in any articles, there is no need to retain it. Mtking^(edits) 19:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I disagree. It is an influencial "template", but it has the wrong namespace: "Template". People should learn about how this template was used in the past; erasing history of this template is detrimental to knowing how we must use templates in the future. I am beginning to see some historical suppression here. Either "Template:expand/old" or somewhere else, but I guess "renaming" is not in people's minds. --George Ho (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was determined in a prior discussion that this would be deleted, and it is not normal practice to keep around "deprecated" copies of deleted templates (and I can't see how that would possibly be useful here). If someone wants to learn about the history of Wikipedia, they can visit the old deletion discussion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if keeping "deprecated" copies of deleted templates is a "not normal practice", I don't see how this helps the reason to get rid of old deprecated messages. I've changed my vote to merge to another page (e.g. WP:ALTEXPAND or WT:ALTEXPAND that makes this deprecated template more visible before deleting this template. What does anyone here think? --George Ho (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I still don't see the educational value of keeping any record of this template, beyond the deletion discussion, which will explain why it was unnecessary and deleted. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - ....... What if you can rename (move) ONLY Template talk:Expand to ~~WP:ALTEXPAND~~ (sorry, wrong namespace) WT:Alternatives to the "Expand" template and then delete this template WITHOUT DELETING VALUABLE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS TEMPLATE? Well, what do you think? --George Ho (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that is too much to ask, what about renaming talk page to WT:Alternatives to the "Expand" template/Old expand talk before deleting this template? --George Ho (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Talk messages help us how to NEVER TO REVIVE THIS TEMPLATE EVER AGAIN. Keeping them is very valuable because they influences us how to never ever make that generic one like that again and teach us how much of the mistake and vague this template was. We have "expand article" and "expand section" already. If not deleting the message within template box, what about putting that on top of historical talk page. --George Ho (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - See WT:Spoiler/old template talk]. --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This one's come to a standstill in the past week, so I say close as delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:09, 1 May 2012 (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.

It is a shame that the nominator did not inform me of this TfD. I may take this to DRV. Rich Farmbrough, 11:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Template:The Wrong Version

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) 00:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Wrong Version (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Move to BJAODN. MichealJS (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly doesn't belong in templatespace: it's just an image. I'd just subst it on the user pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2012 (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.

April 8

Template:Ester Dean

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) 00:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ester Dean (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NENAN and it should be yellow anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Tomica (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep — Ester Dean is a recording artist as well as a singer-songwriter, therefore a recording artist qualifies for a Template:Navbox musical artist like any other recording artists on Wikipedia. MarkMysoe (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2012 (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:This is a redirect

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. No consensus to delete at this time. So, let's wait at least until problems with {{Redirect template}} are resolved. Ruslik_Zero 19:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:This is a redirect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is unnecessary when we already have {{redirect template}}. The two are designed to be used together, but it's not at all clear that this template does any more than {{redirect template}} on its own. It has an order of magnitude fewer transclusions too. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This template is transcluded in a number of other Redirect Templates. Can you please elucidate exactly how the two templates are supposed to be used together, so that we can make an informed judgment? Bwrs (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This template provides an {{ambox}}-style wrapper around other redirect templates. The explanatory text is contained within the templates it wraps (which outnumber it by ~20:1), and thus this is superfluous. This template dates back to 2008, but has never had much uptake. We do need to properly standardise how we present explanatory text on redirects, but this doesn't seem to be the way to do it, nor even a basis for doing so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is really annoying is that the software does not display the explanatory text even when you put “redirect=no” as part of the URL. Bwrs (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Chris. Redundant to a more popular template. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I use this template frequently to add RCATs to redirects. I consider it a step in the right direction toward improved category notation. The fact that it cannot yet be seen on a redirect page, but only on the diff pages, is a MediaWiki issue that is still ongoing and has nothing to do with the use of templates to categorize redirects. One fault of this template derives from the use of the pipe symbol (|) in some Rcats, e.g., {{Redirect from plural}}. This Rcat normally categorizes a redirect in the Redirects from plurals and Unprintworthy redirects cats. When a pipe separator is used, in this case {{R from plural|printworthy}}, the Unprintworthy cat is subdued, and the redirect populates the Printworthy redirects category. Since the {{This is a redirect}} template also uses pipe separators, one cannot use it when one wants to categorize with an Rcat and its own piped parameter. So this is an area that needs improvement. There are other minor items in this template that need improvement; however, when the MediaWiki bug is fixed, this template with any future improvements will be an even more useful tool than it is now. And I consider it a very useful shortcut to use when I add Rcats to a redirect! – p i e (Climax!) 16:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compare:

#REDIRECT [[(target page)]] {{R protected}} {{move}} {{R mod}} {{R nick}} {{R printworthy}}

to:

#REDIRECT [[(target page)]]
(blank line)
{{Redr|protected|move|mod|nick|printworthy}}

({{Redr}} is a shortcut for the {{This is a redirect}} template) – p i e (Climax!) 17:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. This template is linked extensively on Rcat /doc pages!

I maybe wasn't clear enough as to the point of the nomination. There is no reason this functionality cannot be baked directly into {{redirect template}}, which has the added advantage that it actually works already. Redirect categories are typically discouraged anyway, so there's little reason to go creating a whole wrapper template just to make adding them easier. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were clear enough, Chris, we simply disagree. First, there are over 3300 transclusions of this template, and while there are over 57000 transclusions of {{Redirect template}}, it is used twice with a parser function each time it's rendered, so this template's usage is nearly 12% the usage of {{Redirect template}}, and that's growing. Secondly, both templates work well together, as noted on the /doc page of {{Redirect template}}. Redirect cats are no longer discouraged. The MediaWiki software's been upgraded several times since that was so. If you doubt this, just check out the growing list at Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages of Rcats that are designed specifically to categorize redirects. This "wrapper template" is, in my opinion, an enhancement to the process of categorizing redirects. It really should be kept and improved! – p i e (Climax!) 16:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Most redirects should not be categorized" (emphasis in the original) is incongruous with "redirect cats are no longer discouraged". And no technical (or otherwise) arguments have been put forward to explain why a wrapper is needed here rather than just directly improving {{redirect template}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, with all due respect, that "guideline" is outdated. In several years, now, I have not come across a redirect that did not need some type of categorization. It might be from a move or a merge, it might be a x-namespace redirect or a shortcut, a protected or semi-protected redirect, indeed all Main namespace redirects require at the very least to be categorized as printworthy or unprintworthy so that Jimbo's wish for a hardcopy Wikipedia will be easier to implement. Forgive me if my arguments in favor of this template do not meet your standards. When you look closely at the {{Redirect template}} template, you will find that it has been designed to utilize the {{This is a redirect}} template, so in a sense, they are already "baked in" to each other. Every transclusion of the {{This is a redirect}} template may include up to five embedded transclusions of {{Redirect template}}. So in addition to making an editor's job easier and quicker, which becomes important when one finds a category full of redirects that require further categorization, the {{This is a redirect}} template will be a more professional rendering of redirect categories on redirect pages when the enhancement to the WikiMedia software is made than the simple text rendering of the {{Redirect template}} template. I honestly feel that keeping and improving this template is the way to improve Wikipedia. Maybe it would help for you to see the initial explanations of the code that were removed about a year ago, which are found on this edit screen. – p i e (Climax!) 10:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Redirect template}} is vastly more complicated than it needs to be right now, but that's a different issue. There is no compelling argument for there being an entirely separate template which is only called by it which is documented elsewhere: even if the current use case were to be kept, the best thing would be for the implementation to be rolled into the parent template. As for the "simple text rendering", this has been the predominant way of formatting redirect text on Wikipedia for many years now, and the relatively minor use of an ambox-type layout should not be enforced in its stead without central consensus to do so. But even if it were to be enforced, doing so directly in {{redirect template}} would mean that all redirects would benefit from this style rather than just those which had been manually tweaked to call some external template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you call {{Redirect template}} vastly more complicated than it needs to be, then say that's a different issue. And you would have {{This is a redirect}}'s functionality included within {{Redirect template}} thereby making it still more complicated? {{Redirect template}} already has issues as shown on its Talk page. {{This is a redirect}} has its own set of issues as shown on its Talk page and in its documentation. I fail to see what good it would do to merge these two templates. It would be better to leave them separate and improve both of them. There are many templates like these on Wikipedia, templates that call other templates and templates that are called by other templates. There is no compelling reason to either delete this template or to combine it with the other template. They are both functional just as they are, and both can stand improvement. Let us be clear: The {{This is a redirect}} template calls up to five redirect category templates, each of which in turn may call the {{Redirect template}} template. This is one reason why there are a lot more transclusions of {{Redirect template}} than there are of the {{This is a redirect}} template. – p i e (Climax!) 03:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion count lists the number of pages a template is transcluded on, not the total number of times a template is transcluded. Even if it is transcluded five times on one page that only counts for one in the transclusion count. {{redirect template}} simply has ~15 times as many transclusions, and that number will increase when I convert various hand-hacked redirect notes to use it. Truth be told the entire domain of redirect templates is a complete mess and has been in desperate need of cleanup for some time: the first step in that process is to make sure {{redirect template}} is used consistently, and that requires merging a comparatively seldom-used sub-template into it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you say that the transclusion count is limited to the page count rather than the actual number count of transclusions. May I ask how you came across that info? This leads me to suspect the "transclusion count" to be misnamed. We definitely agree that there are still many, many redirect category templates that need improvement. I know this to be true because I have worked to improve them for a very long time. We definitely disagree on the facility of merging {{This is a redirect}} and {{Redirect template}}. I would be interested to know how that would be done while achieving the same functionality that both templates now possess working together. I'm not sure why you call it a "sub-template", because {{This is a redirect}} is presently a master template that calls redirect category templates, some of which in turn call the {{Redirect template}} template. To be concise, {{Redirect template}} is a subtemplate of several master templates (the redirect category templates), which are in turn subtemplates of the master template, {{This is a redirect}}. In my opinion, the first step to achieve consistency of usage of {{Redirect template}} would be to add it to the many (protected) redirect category templates that still do not use it. Most if not all of the redirect category templates that do not require editors to call the {{Editprotected}} template to edit are presently equipped with the {{Redirect template}} subtemplate. – p i e (Climax!) 12:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 20:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait – There are a lot of problems with Template:Redirect template, which I've noted on its documentation page. If they can be fixed, then I'd support merging the templates. But most of the problems are due to Wikimedia software problems, not template coding problems. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We agree that there are problems with {{Redirect template}}. There is also a problem or two with the {{This is a redirect}} template. It's difficult for me to see how these could be merged even if there were no problems. One, the {{Redirect template}} template, is called by some redirect category templates, and the other, the {{This is a redirect}} template, calls one, two or even up to five of those redirect category templates. The two templates seem to have completely different functionalities—they do a similar job, but they do that job in very different ways. How could they be merged? Wouldn't it be better to keep them separate and continue to improve them? Also, do you know of any open bug reports that deal with {{Redirect template}}'s problems? – p i e (Climax!) 21:16, 12 April 2012 (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:Buriram United F.C.

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. Now it does not contain only links to one article. Ruslik_Zero 18:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Buriram United F.C. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't seem to require a template, non-standard use of link to current season, link to section on main page, plus two related links. Cloudz 679 17:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this should be deleted at all, it's a pretty standard part of a club with multiple articles to have a navigational box linking those interconnected articles.Borgarde (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But in this case the links are all in the main article, templates like this are generally helpful for bigger clubs with many different pages. Stadium and current season isn't enough IMO. Cloudz 679 07:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 20:02, 8 April 2012 (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:Music of the Sun track listing

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) 02:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Music of the Sun track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is barely useless. From twelve songs, only 2 of them have their own article, the third one is a covered song, that mentions only one sentence about covering the song by Rihanna. By my opinion it should be deleted. — Tomica (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only two songs linked. Not needed. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nomination, this template is not necessary. Lucas S. ^msg 11:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely useless. And a waste of space. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 19:43, 14 April 2012 (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:2011 USL PRO International Division table

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 Speedy Delete. Meets Speedy criteria T3: Unused, redundant template --Trödel 17:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 USL PRO International Division table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and defunct. 64.134.156.208 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2012 (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:Fb si header2

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) 02:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb si header2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb si player2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

forks of template:fb si header and template:fb si player. 64.134.156.208 (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2012 (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:Talk That Talk

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) 02:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talk That Talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template based off an entire album? Not worthy at all. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although all the songs on the album have their own articles, the template is generally useless. Everything can be find in {{Rihanna singles}}. — Tomica (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, and delete all the others (like Template:Music of the Sun). 64.134.156.208 (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. — Statυs (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment - Why are the Coldplay ones allowed to stay??? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You in January: The same templates have been created and deleted for Rihanna, Beyonce and Kanye West who had a lot more articles in their templates — Statυs (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment - Yes, songs/singles are easily linked by singles template, but the context of an album navbox matters. It refers viewers to album contributors or key players (who are not templatable as far as an album navbox is concerned) in a way that artist and singles navboxes can't. Plus, a likely tour for promotion should also be included in context, as is the case for other albums. --RayneVanDunem (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and unnecessary. Till I Go Home (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template has 1000x more information and navigation purpose than Template:Rated R (Rihanna album) ever had. Justified. People should stop hating on album templates. I'm about to nominate The Dark Side of the Moon If you really want that, in which you look like you do.RazorEyeEdits (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same information that can be written in Template:Rihanna, Template:Rihanna singles and in the article "Talk That Talk". Lucas S. ^msg 10:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary, information could just be in other templates. Candy o32 14:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful and satisfies the template function. The information cannot be merged into Template:Rihanna and Template:Rihanna singles, as suggested, as they are about songs/albums and not people who worked in the album. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, as well as any related album templates for Rihanna. They're unnecessary, and you already have the singles template, so I don't see the need for this template at all. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 19:41, 14 April 2012 (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.

April 4

Template:Infobox National Invitation Tournament

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) 02:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox National Invitation Tournament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

this is a fork of Template:Infobox NCAA Basketball Tournament, which is being used on about 75 pages. I added a "Type" parameter to the general NCAA box, so this template is now redundant (see the version using generic NCAA box vs. the version using Infobox National Invitation Tournament, and the edit to convert the template in a tournament article). we could, of course, use a more generic name for the merged template (say Template:Infobox college basketball tournament) Frietjes (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2012 (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 CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament

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) 02:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox College Basketball Invitational Tournament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

these are forks of Template:Infobox NCAA Basketball Tournament, which were only being used on four pages each (see Category:CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament and Category:College Basketball Invitational). I added a "Type" parameter to the general NCAA box, so this template is now redundant. I will obviously revert my edits if the decision is to keep this template (very simple change like this). we could, of course, use a more generic name for the merged template (say Template:Infobox college basketball tournament) Frietjes (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2012 (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 theologian

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 to delete. Closing this as it has been open for far too long. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant duplicate of {{infobox person}}. Its only unique fields are:

|tradition_movement=
|main_interests=
|notable_ideas=

which are redundant to |genre= and |known_for=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 10:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why not add more fields??--WickerGuy (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per:

1. tags are not synonyms, tag names are for ease of use,

2. harder to maintain immense lists of tags in generalized infoboxen to take care of all possibilities of a "person"

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I struggle to understand what I'd put under "genre" for a theologian. The three specific fields cited all seem appropriate for theologians and are not redundant in the person infobox. For example, the Pope may be "known for" wearing white, riding round in a funny car and living in Rome, but those aren't features of his "ideas" about religion. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This infobox is not used for popes; for whom a separate infobox exists. If you have an example which actually uses this infobox, I'd be happy to advise as to how it could be converted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genre doesn't seem to be used to describe the ideas related to theology or religion. For examples of why the elimination of the fields above might be problematic see theologian infoboxes for Paul Tillich, Jacobus Arminius, James Haldane, Emanuel Swedenborg, Karl Barth.
SBaker43 (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Of the three unique fields, "notable ideas" may be replaceable by "known for"; the other two don't seem to have anything obvious. SBaker43 (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's needed and not redundant. "Tradition" is of ultimate importance for a theologian (I should know, being one: as a Roman Catholic (Thomistic) theologian, my entire view is going to be completely different from a Reformed theologian, enough that the notable ideas will not only be different, but come from a completely different set of assumptions). A 300-variable general person infobox is incredibly unwieldy and hard to use. If you get rid of this, Template:Philosopher and similar have to go by the same logic. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 10:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC
- The philosopher template may indeed have to go; but that's for another day; meanwhile, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Why will a prepared pro-forma copy of {{Infobox person}} not suffice? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace by Infobox person I think the arguments of the nominator are satisfying. We need to reduce number of human infoboxes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we "need to reduce the number of human infoboxes"? --Dweller (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons summarise in this FAQ. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some elements of that essay, including the part that mentions "genre-specific detail". That applies here, as has been demonstrated by the participants. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Modify {{infobox person}} - Why don't we delete {{Infobox theologian}} and add the unique fields that it has to {{infobox person}} with a description on how to use the fields? --Pavithran (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the wrong way round. Make the infobox person work for theologians and then we can assess it. Deleting what isn't broken and then trying to fix something else that isn't broken in order to accommodate it is illogical. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It isn't redundant, it's for a separate class of people. It is analogous to saying delete the musician infobox. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Infobox musical artist}} is very different to {{Infobox person}}; the nominated template is redundant to the latter because it is virtually the same, with only three different parameters, which are either replaceable with existing 'person parameters, or which can easily be added to the 'person template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to talk of parameters, but how the boxes are used for separate groups of people. I say keep the theologian infobox and tweak the parameters, the three you speak of are important for theologians but would clutter the already hopelessly long list of parameters on the person infobox. "genre" does not equal "tradition or movement" TuckerResearch (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems reasonable. "Notable ideas" is equivalent to "Known for". -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - "Notable Ideas" is not equivalent to "Known For." For example, John Calvin is known for being a 16th century Swiss Reformer. His notable ideas include various types of Church Governance, Decretal Theology, A particular biblical hermeneutic, and many other ideas. Beyond that, it is vital to have a note for what tradition they come from, as both Mormons and Trinitarian Christians use similar language, but mean very different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Magioladitis. --eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Marikafragen (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we vote already? The stupid warning is uglying up all the theologian pages I'm working on.ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2012 (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.

March 25

Template:Infobox former F1 team

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 No consensus at all for deletion. Seems like it could use some discussion and sandboxing on the template's talk page. Anomie ⚔ 00:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox former F1 team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Near-duplicate of {{Infobox F1 team}}, which just needs |last_race= adding. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. 65.92.181.184 (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination. Jared Preston (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The two templates have two clearly defined purposes. The {{Infobox F1 team}} for current teams is worded for current staff and then uses a separate section for 2012 information, while {{Infobox former F1 team}} has separate driver/staff/engine fields for the main drivers/staff/engines over the course of their life. It's not really a near-duplicate and it's not just a case of adding |last_race=, they are structured differently for different purposes. QueenCake (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't benefit the encyclopedia. Current teams should not be treated like current news to the detriment of their historic achievements. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As QueenCake points out, the two infoboxes have very different internal structures, directly relating to the fact that one deals with dominantly current events and the other to historical data. The difference is made as most people looking at a current team's page want the current data given priority, and to include the same quantity of historical data as is included in the former teams' box would start to push the practical limits of what is supposed to be a succinct summary of the essential points of an article's subject. Pyrop e 00:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Treating current and historical subjects differently is a fairly blatant case of WP:RECENTISM. A merge would not demand that more data be included in either case, though it may require the documentation for these templates to be improved to explain which fields were appropriate in which cases. But that's something which should be left to editorial discretion rather than enforced by some technical trick which increases the burden of maintenance on both the templates and the articles that use them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously how we internally name a template is not related to WP:RECENTISM, which is a content issue. --hydrox (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This appears to miss the point being made. It is recentism to have different infoboxes for current and defunct teams, just as it would be recentism to have different infoboxes for living and dead people. This is indeed a content issue, and one which should be addressed socially through discussion and documentation rather than technically through redundant and overlapping templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - What a very odd comment. On the one hand you have an article subject that exists solely as a historical entity, whose involvement in the current sport is zero, and for whom notability of various pieces of information has to be judged and presented in the context of their entire career. On the other, you have an entity that is a current and evolving presence, and for whom their present structure and involvement in the sport is very likely to be the first piece of information that a casual reader, arriving on a page, is likely to want. Historical data is not excluded from the current team infobox, far from it, but it is presented in such a way that it is not the dominant feature. Far from missing the point made, I think you are missing the meaning of the WP:RECENTISM page. The page certainly does not argue that recently relevant subject cannot be presented in a different manner to purely historically relevant ones, just that recent history should not be presented to the exclusion of the historical. As far as having "redundant and overlapping templates" go, that's just one point of view. A counter argument could easily be made that the current Wikipedia fashion for bloated, overly complex, behemoth templates is a trend to be avoided, and where enough pages likely to use a certain template exist it is far better to construct an operationally elegant, simple, straightforward infobox that can be easily understood, implemented, edited and modified by a casual editor and not just by those with PhDs in structural logic. Pyrop e 14:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That "current Wikipedia fashion" is known as "consensus". There's nothing in your comment which wouldn't equally apply to any other subject which had a past and present status, and yet overwhelmingly Wikipedia uses the same infobox for both in order not to unduly weight present subjects towards their immediate actions as opposed to their overall influence in the world. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Consensus means a general agreement on the way forward, not simple majority voting. As you will see, this issue is far from consensus here, and where consensus cannot be reached the status quo is retained. As ever on Wikipedia, "other stuff exists" is a pretty thin argument. Your assumption that the present structure results in undue weight to recent events is still odd, as by my eyes the present team box is split about 50:50 recent and historical, which seems about right given the nature of the subjects. Try judging an argument on its specifics instead of defaulting to a generic response. Pyrop e 16:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per Queencake and Pyrope. DH85868993 (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 21:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose How we call the template internally is not a WP:RECENTISM issue. And if there was a point to merging the two templates, I think the above comments show it is not so trivial after all. --hydrox (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking as the person who actually converted the templates into their current format, I feel I've some degree of authority when it comes to dissecting their implementation. A merge would take in the order of minutes to accomplish. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is not the name of an individual template, but the fact that we have two similar templates, thereby increasing confusion for editors and workload for template maintainers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not just template maintainers. Editors should not need to worry about which infobox to use in a given situation, or why the present infobox wasn't working when intuitively updated to match similar articles, especially as the vast majority of the encyclopedia's infoboxes do not have this past/present dichotomy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you can construct an infobox that maintains the current balance between historical and recent information, that doesn't give undue prominence to the historical data in the case of a recent team, doesn't expand to run for metres down a page, and doesn't require implementation documentation that needs a good 10-15 minutes to read and understand before you can use the infobox, then I'd be interested in seeing it in your sandbox. This is not a simple case of just adding one field to the current team template; there are perfectly justified structural, presentational, and logical differences between the two templates that would have to be maintained for a merge to be appropriate. Pyrop e 14:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've already addressed this above. The argument that a merge would result in articles on current teams being filled with historical trivia is a straw man: nobody is compelled to fill in every single available field on an infobox, and it is the place of the template's documentation (and the associated WikiProject, who are certainly diligent enough in turning up at TfDs) to ensure that editors are aware of what information is appropriate in what context. The "structural differences" between the templates are minimal. I'm happy to knock up a sandbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        ...and so we have to go through that argument again, and again, and again, with every new implementation of the infobox, every alteration to an existing infobox, and with every trivia junkie who has just bought the Big Book of F1 Facts. The attitude that "well, there's a field there so I might as well/should populate it" is extremely common, and although you rightly point out that not all fields must be populated, by providing them you very strongly imply that filling them would be appropriate and justified. This is far from a "straw man" argument, so please don't trivialise it in such a way, and actually address how you would solve it. I'd point out that in the dim and distant past we did indeed have only one infobox, but even with its then fairly simple format this problem cropped up so many times that a wholly separate infobox was created so that time and effort was not wasted on endless trivia reversions and the subsequent arguments about each single occasion. Having the infoboxes kept simple and pertinent to the article they are within focuses attention and prevents confusion, and makes life a lot more simple when addition of a new field can be discussed solely at the infobox page rather than wherever the addition happens to crop up. You are very astute in noticing that WP:F1 is a lively, enthused and engaged bunch, that's why I like being a part of it, but to foist upon us the responsibility for monitoring multiple implementations of a badly constructed, overly broad, poorly thought out infobox is a bit rich. Why not just have one infobox for every article possible? Why do buildings require different infoboxes from people? Why should countries be treated any differently than animals? Surely you could construct a form of syntax with enough features that any conceivable subject can be addressed? Why wouldn't you want to do that? Because it would be stupidly large and cumbersome. Why make an infobox any more complex than it has to be? Pyrop e 16:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I find it odd that above you accuse me of boilerplate responses while making a textbook "slippery slope to one infobox for everything" argument here. Documenting what is and is not appropriate to add to an infobox in a certain context works perfectly well for other infoboxes (and not, that is not an OTHERSTUFF argument: it's a simple rebuttal to your assertion that doing so wouldn't be practical), including the box for football player biographies (which is, at present, the third-most deployed infobox on the project, and the core infobox for a Wikiproject even more active than the F1 project). As for "foist[ing] upon us the responsibility for monitoring multiple implementations of a badly constructed, overly broad, poorly thought out infobox", the person currently maintaining F1's infoboxes for the most part is me, and if you've any concerns over my technical ability then I'd hear them made directly instead of sneakily implied. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Which sneaky implication, I think you are reading more there than there is. As for my "slippery slope" argument, you've managed to read that wrongly as well. My point was that we do not have a single infobox, for very good reasons. The football template example is a poor one, as that template's structure is essentially additive. Data for former players, players who became managers, and so on, are not presented in any different form, just that sections which do not apply are left out. This is exactly my point regarding the Formula One infobox. By this model you would have to ungroup some historical data (such as a team's location history, staff history, etc.) from the historical data in general in order to present it with the present data. Or would you leave out some historical data from the former team box? Or would you have to put historical data in one field for a current team but in a different field for a former team? How do you cope with the different title? How do you cope with teams that at some points ran their own chassis, as true constructors, and at others were customers of another constructor? What I was asking from you was some tangible, precise solutions to the various questions that would be thrown up by integrating the two boxes. Note that I am not intrinsically opposed to integrating the boxes if it can be proven that these issues can be overcome (as I said above) but that I tend toward the "if it aint broke, don't fix it" approach. You haven't yet shown that either of these boxes are broken, just that your sense of tidyness and order doesn't like them being separate. Offer some proper solutions. Pyrop e 13:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said, I'm happy to knock up a sandbox. Ordinarily, were I to propose merging two templates like this, I would do that in advance, but this isn't actually my nomination and as such I had no such opportunity. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close My take on above is that this template can not be merged right now. If and when it can be, it should be re-nominated (or maybe even replaced outright per WP:BOLD if the change is only technical). --hydrox (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per Queencake and Pyrope. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment {{Infobox former country}}. Krhm... Precedent, anyone? ;) --hydrox (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples could be shown with the opposite precedent. That's one of the reasons we don't consider random examples to be strong arguments. Nevertheless, I'm not opposed to closing on the grounds that the work hasn't been done, to be revisited if and when that happens. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2012 (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 floorball club

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 and redirect. Go to it. Anomie ⚔ 00:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox floorball club (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox hockey team}} (Floorball is a variety of hockey). Only 23 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 21:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect. Frietjes (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2012 (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 garden

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 You'd do better to discuss these on the templates' talk pages and have a plan for merging the dissimilar templates. Anomie ⚔ 00:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox park}} (which, despite its name, also covers gardens), with no clear deliniation of subjects. Some fields will need to be copied across and given the name issue, a redirect should be created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger—per redundancies. Imzadi 1979 → 12:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the reason this was created was because the park template was not designed to list what a garden infobox should have (thus why many garden articles lacked infoboxes), which the nominator implicitly concedes. There are many redundancies, but this is fairly common amongst all infoboxes (say name, location, picture, start/established/foundation, etc.). I also find it rather humorous that simply because someone wrote in the documentation that the park template also covers gardens that that somehow means it does (which was added after the garden infobox was created). So, if we write that the garden one also covers restaurants (many duplicative fields) that we should merge it into the garden one, and then both into the park template? Anyway, if the template cabal was to continue its march towards a universal infobox (perhaps merge {{Infobox protected area}} into the park one as well), so be it. Just please include a garden example in the sample uses, and obviously the fields specific to gardens. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not merely what the documentation says, but how the template is actually used. Your "universal infobox" comments are a straw man; TINC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually no. Sorry. But your response was a straw man (as in trying to pretty much dismiss my entire comment by saying it is a straw man, props for the balls on that man). You see, I laid out exactly why the template was created and explained that there were differences and properly attacked your assertion that somehow they were "redundant". I even pointed out the hypocrisy of calling it redundant, yet you implicitly admit they are not. That argument, which is the main argument, is not a straw man.
  - As to your TINC comment, that was merely a parting shot, and even taking the time to address it only reinforces why people think there are cabals. The thing is, a cabal is not necessarily an organized thing that you even really know exists, but where you have a group of editors with a history of trying to do the same thing, then you have a cabal. Again, you may not recognize it, but that does not mean it does not exist. The fact that you have a history of trying to reduce the number of templates, and there are more editors with the same like mindedness, shows there is a cabal in part dedicated to reducing the number of templates. I'm not opposed to reducing the number, as there are too many. But if you drop down to say 10 infoboxes, you tend to dilute what the purpose of infoboxes is, which is to provide some fairly standardized bits of key info across similar articles. Otherwise, really, just use the generic infobox. But please, lets keep this off-topic and we can go on for days about the cabal, straw men (how about burning man too), logic arguments in general (red herrings anyone), and even the finer points of template documentation. Anything but addressing the differences between the park and garden infoboxes, right? Aboutmovies (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't try to dismiss your entire comment by saying it is a straw man; I said that your "universal infobox" comments are a straw man. Just as your hyperbolic "10 infoboxes" is a straw man. And I have never admitted that the nominated template is redundant to the other, implicitly or not. there is no hypocrisy in pointing out the redundancy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, you did, to both. First, since your only response related to redundancies was your straw man bit, that means you're only argument concerning redundancies was a straw man. You did not try to refute that these are not redundant, except to claim straw man.
      - My 10 infoboxes is hyperbole, but not a straw man. Again, that is part of the argument that infoboxes that merely overlap does not mean we should combine them all into a limited number of infoboxes. Please actually address my argument instead of throwing out claims of straw man. If that's your only argument, well ...
      - As to an implicit admission, perhaps you don't quite get what redundant is, which is problematic given your propensity for nominating templates for deletion based on that contention. Redundant would be where the infoboxes are in essence identical, not simialar, and not just overlapping. But identical in content coverage. Maybe the field names may differ a bit (location instead of place, or opened instead of established), but they cover the same information. Here, we do not have that, and it is that part that you admitted: "Some fields will need to be copied across". As in, you recognize that some fields are different. Specifically, "plants", "species", and "collections" do not exist in the parks infobox, because frankly parks don't need those fields. Instead, those are the key fields for a garden. Thus, these are not redundant. Do they overlap a lot, yes, but as stated above, most infoboxes do. Again, delete if you must, as that is what you are known for, but please, do not kid yourself that these are redundant. I've shown they are not. Now, copy those fields to the park infobox and then they are, but as I've said before, you could do that into a few infoboxes. But, again (another argument you have not actually addressed) having only a few infboxes defeats the reason we have infoboxes. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good concept, such as for notable palace gardens, estates or sites which have large gardens (not considered "parks" but castle or estate gardens, or multiple gardens inside a park). The {{Infobox garden}} might be used within the lower parts of an article, to describe the less-notable garden section(s) of a site, as to area, slope, indoor/outdoor, trees, flowers, seasons, waterfalls/ponds, statues, etc. Perhaps this {Infobox garden} needs more parameters. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't say why you believe that {{Infobox garden}} is not suitable for such cases. Please do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 4 April 2012 (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 cadet college

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 redirect to {{infobox school}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox cadet college (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{infobox school}} (or possibly {{Infobox university}}. Only 26 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacing with template:infobox school. Frietjes (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2012 (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:Fifteenth Lok Sabha summary

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 Speedy. My and other editors contribs were not significant, so passes G7. Rich Farmbrough, 16:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Fifteenth Lok Sabha summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Indian general elections results by alliance 2009}} - Chandan Guha (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2012 (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:Districts of Punjab

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) 03:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Districts of Punjab (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, unused and unlikely to be used. A district will either need a navbox to the India one or the Pakistan one, never both. Muhandes (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put it on the disambiguation page, but some of the disambiguation lawyers know where I live. Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 25 March 2012 (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:Fifteenth Lok Sabha West Bengal summary

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 Speedy. Other editors contribs were not significant, so passes G7. Rich Farmbrough, 16:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Fifteenth Lok Sabha West Bengal summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{West Bengal 2009 election summary}} - Chandan Guha (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G7 was wrongly declined here. the only other edits were a disambiguation and cliche replaced with a template. Rich Farmbrough, 16:03, 25 March 2012 (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.

March 23

Template:Infobox UK ward

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 No one seems to care enough to continue commenting. Anomie ⚔ 00:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK ward (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox UK place}}, to which its unique parameters should be added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support for merge. Only 117 transclusions out of around 10,000 UK wards; and wards fit neatly into the higher administrative areas in {{Infobox UK place}}. Also, the current template is a mix of old and new parameter schemes which is confusing for new editors. But needs feedback from users of the other template, in case they object to making it even more complicated than it already is or to extending it to include names of individual politicians (which might well cause maintenance difficulty and notability/NPOV disputes). Merging might mislead editors into thinking they are supposed to include details of multiple wards and councillors for places which cover more than one ward, such as all the councillors in a town. Also, need to clarify whether the existing or merged parameters should cover (in addition to district/borough wards) parish/community wards (which sometimes have over a dozen councillors); county electoral divisions (similar to wards and, in unitary counties, equivalent to wards in all respects); Scottish STV wards (3 or 4 councillors); Welsh electoral divisions (1 to 5 councillors); and NI wards (which are amalgamated into district electoral areas for local STV elections). (I've left a message seeking comment from UK place editors.) — Richardguk (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: last January {{UK ward}} was merged into this one. Hence the multiple options per parameter. To simplify the template, one could make {{UK ward}} and its parameter names obsolete (57 transclusions). -DePiep (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And many pages using this template still have the location map outside of the template. See Bingley Rural for example. -DePiep (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 20:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is styled as an infobox, while {{Infobox UK place}} is an HTML table. Infobox UK places should be revamped first, or we'd loose good class styling in this one. -DePiep (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's easily resolved, and can be done as part of the same process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Turn {{Infobox UK place}} into a full dressed infobox: not "easy" and not in the merge process. But yes, it can be done, preferably beforethe merge. -DePiep (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with {{Infobox UK place}}. Frietjes (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on style, I wonder? Last time we met, you had. -DePiep (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: While there is weakly a consensus to merge, others have raised major questions about the feasibility of doing so. I'd suggest someone in the pro-merge faction sandbox a merged version.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anomie ⚔ 21:01, 23 March 2012 (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:Notablewarn

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 for now The only current use of this template is in the Requested Articles process. I'd have no objection to someone renaming the category to reflect the fact that this shouldn't be used on articles. I'd also not be opposed to a renomination if the Requested Articles process is revised to remove the use of this template. Anomie ⚔ 00:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Serves little to no purpose. All it does is clutter up the Requested Articles queue with "verify notability". Oddly, it places stuff in Category:Articles with non-notable red links, despite the docs saying it should NOT be used on articles. I honestly don't see any use for this template since its purpose is so narrow. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used as per instructions and the documentation makes it clear that use on lists is a valid use. And there's really no reason it can't be used on articles, except that I would hope people would get a rough idea of notability before creating a red-linked article. Rich Farmbrough, 15:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: this should maybe discussed also at WT:RA in the related RFC. mabdul 17:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My gut reaction is delete - if an article falls within its stated purpose of being some sort of warning sign on creating non-notable articles then it is superfluous to the "a page by this name has already been created and deleted" message that will appear when they try to do just that... If that doesn't give them a clue then the template is unlikely to enlighten them either. Also makes for messy articles - please deleted this pre-emptive template. Sets a poor precedent etc etc.
If the template is restricted to being used only within non-article space then I have no opininon. Should not be used in article space.Oranjblud (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2012 (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 V8 Supercar driver

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox V8 Supercar driver (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox racing driver}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For technical reasons relating to V8 Supercar statistics. Essentially it is not redundant. Data featured in the V8 Supercar driver infobox is specific to the series and not able to be presented in the Infobox racing driver. It is similar to a number of series specific racing driver boxes like NASCAR. Indycar, Formula One etc. Primary point of difference is the difference between Round Wins and Race Wins, an important clarifier as the organising body of V8 Supercar has changed the definition of how wins are recorded a few years ago. End result is that without the clarifier between the two statistics (a stat no allowed for in Infobox Racing Driver) is it could encourage edit warring over the statistic is it does not clarify wither it means Round wins or Race wins. This isn't this first time this has been suggested. This move was suggested a couple of years ago (as a merger) at the Infoboxes previous location Template:V8 Supercar driver. --Falcadore (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would two parameters in one template not resolve that Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete—add the missing parameters to the other template and then merge/orphan/redirect as needed. Imzadi 1979 → 04:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "missing" parameter is not in use elsewhere in motorsport and would then create further confusion surrounding its use in the racing driver infobox. --Falcadore (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's why we have template documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would we really have a critera for only one series in a very widely used infobox? It would likely be deleted on that basis, then the data is lost. Documentation would not help. --Falcadore (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, and we have plenty of other instances where infoboxes have parameters in such circumstances. There is no evidence to support your assertion that "it would likely be deleted". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Falcadore. DH85868993 (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or wrap obviously. Rich Farmbrough, 14:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Merge the last few fields, "update" the existing documentation (not really a good one, should get a few minutes of work), and then redirect. mabdul 14:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 03:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2012 (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:Incomplete table

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 _―Œ^(talk) 01:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Incomplete table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to {{incomplete list}} ({{expand list}}) since an incomplete table is just an incomplete list. 70.49.126.147 (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is just silly. Someone might be quite happy to work on lists, but not have table wrangling skills. And tables are not "just lists" in a useful sense, they are lists with systematic descriptions of properties, at the very least, and some are far more complex than that allowing construction of mappings. By this token a graph is a list, and a picture is a a list of pixels. Rich Farmbrough, 14:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Furthermore it is historical best practice for people to have the liberty to use either "<Template>|<what>" or "<Template> <what> partly because the community preferences swings from one to the other as some bright spark "invents" the one-size-fits-all template or comes up with have-separate-templates-so-people-don't-have-to-remember-parameters. Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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) 03:45, 23 March 2012 (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:Monica singles

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 Redirected, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Monica singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Emptied template that was replaced with Template:Monica_songs J36miles (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Should just go back to the 23 April 2010‎ version which was a redirect to Monica songs. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The blanking should have just been reverted back to its redirect state from before. — Status {^talk_contribs 19:45, 24 March 2012 (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.

Completed discussions

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Tools

There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.

Template linking and transclusion check – Toolforge tool to see which pages are transcluded but not linked from or to a template
WhatLinksHereSnippets.js – user script that allows for template use to be viewed from the Special:WhatLinksHere page
AutoWikiBrowser – semi-automatic editor that can replace or modify templates using regular expressions
Bots – robots editing automatically. All tasks have to be approved before operating. There are currently five bots with general approval to assist with implementing TfD outcomes:
- AnomieBOT – substituting templates via User:AnomieBOT/TFDTemplateSubster
- SporkBot – general TfD implementation run by Plastikspork
- PrimeBOT – general TfD implementation run by Primefac
- BsherrAWBBOT – general TfD implementation run by Bsherr
- PearBOT II – general TfD implementation run by Trialpears

Closing discussions

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.

To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

Template:Infobox_tropical_cyclone2024 March 10 – Infobox_tropical_cyclone ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Infobox_storm2024 March 10 – Infobox_storm ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

Merge into the singular {{infobox ship}} (currently a redirect):
- Template:Infobox_ship_begin2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_begin ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_ship_career2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_career ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_ship_characteristics2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_characteristics ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_ship_class_overview2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_class_overview ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_ship_image2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_image ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_service_record2022 April 30 – Infobox_service_record ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  I have hacked Module:Infobox ship which implements ship infoboxen without the external wikitable that the above templates require. Uses Module:Infobox; {{infobox ship begin}} is no longer required; parameter names are changed from sentence- to snake-case; section header height for career, characteristics, service record sections is normalized; custom fields are supported. I chose to retain the individual section templates as subtemplates:
  - {{Infobox ship/image}}
  - {{Infobox ship/career}}
  - {{Infobox ship/characteristic}}
  - {{Infobox ship/class}}
  - {{Infobox ship/service record}} – Module:Infobox ship implements only the 'ship' portion of {{Infobox service record}}
  In the main infobox these subtemplates are called with the |section<n>= parameters (aliases of |data<n>=).
  
  Comparisons between wikitable infoboxen and Module:Infobox ship infoboxen can bee seen at my sandbox (permalink).
  
  —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Since the intent is to use Module:Infobox directly, why is Module:Infobox ship being used to generate the infobox? I can understand if there is need for a backend module to validate a value or something, but is there really a reason to have this unique code? Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The original complaint was that the ship infoboxen templates are table templates masquerading as infobox templates. None of those templates use Module:Infobox. Module:Infobox ship answers that complaint. Yeah, we still have subtemplates, but, in my opinion, that is a good thing because the appropriate parameters and their data are contained in each particular subtemplate. The container subtemplates make it relatively easy for an editor reading an article's wikitext to understand. The current ship infobox system allows sections in any order (except for the position of {{infobox ship begin}} – not needed with Module:Infobox ship); whatever the final outcome of this mess, that facility must not be lost.
  
  Module:Infobox ship does do some error checking (synonymous parameters |ship_armor= / |ship_armour=, |ship_draft= / |ship_draught=, |ship_honors= / |ship_honours=, and |ship_stricken= / |ship_struck=). Whether {{infobox ship}} directly calls Module:Infobox or whether {{infobox ship}} calls Module:Infobox ship which then calls Module:Infobox is really immaterial so long as the final rendered result is a correctly formatted infobox.
  
  —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Trappist the monk are you still interested in working on this Module? If not, I'd like to try to get it finished myself. The massive deviation I had in mind was to make one invocation of the module do everything. Each page will require individual attention to complete the merge into a proper infobox anyway, so I reason to go the extra mile to make it nicer in general. Repeatable parameters will have the normal n number appended to the end of the parameter. An alternative would be to have subboxes for repeating sections, which would be easier in general to replace and implement. SWinxy (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure, but I don't think that this page is the proper place to discuss. Choose some place more proper and let me know where that is?
  
  —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replacement with {{Infobox aircraft}}:
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_type2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_type ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_career2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_career ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_program2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_program ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_begin2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_begin ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) → {{Infobox aircraft}}
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_engine2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_engine ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) → {{Infobox aircraft}}
  - For {{Infobox aircraft engine}}, There is an ongoing discussion about whether the aircraft engine Infobox should be merged with the Infobox aircraft or not. Except for the engine Infobox, other Infoboxes can be orphaned and there are no objection for that. Prarambh20 (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - This discussion is still ongoing, so I have moved it back to the "to merge" list with the others. Primefac (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - The discussion has now ended (diff), with the consensus NOT TO MERGE {{Infobox aircraft engine}} with the others. However {{infobox aircraft begin}} may or may not end up being merged into {{Infobox aircraft engine}}. The template pages should be updated accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox_climber2024 June 29 – Infobox_climber ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Infobox_mountaineer2024 June 29 – Infobox_mountaineer ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

Navigation templates

Template:1860_railway_accidents2024 September 18 – 1860_railway_accidents ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

Link templates

Template:Lx2023 October 1 – Lx ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Pagelinks2023 October 1 – Pagelinks ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Because Lx has the option to hide certain links and PageLinks itself doesn't, a direct merge is impossible. The next best thing would be to convert the transclusions to invocations of Module:PageLinks. Doesn't look too impossible at first glance. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Problem: Lx's 20,000 transclusions are kinda fake, because almost all of them are transclusions of transclusions.
  Even if we restrict it to the template namespace, most of those are transclusions of transclusions of transclusions in the doc subpage. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The more I look at this, the more it appears technically infeasible. Lx has some really bizarre arguments like tag and label which can't be replicated by Module:PageLinks. When Lx was used to link to a normal page, namespace is usually Talk and label is usually talk, but when it's used to link to a talk page, either could be anything. Also, the recursive transclusion issue means the only way to get our pages would be an insource search, which means we'd also have to deal with pages like this.
  Replacing all uses of the format \{\{[Ll]x\|1=\|2=(.*)\|3=Talk\|4=talk\}\} with {{Pagelinks|$1}} could be a start. From there, I'm totally lost. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  What if we only replaced uses matching an insource search in the template namespace, and then substed everything else? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Template:Football_squad_player22020 February 1 – Football_squad_player2 ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) and Template:Football_squad_player2020 February 1 – Football_squad_player ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Note Pending Redesign RfC robertsky (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've closed the RfC. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point this is ready for large scale replacement. I said a while ago that I could do it but due to me being quite busy IRL this seems unlikely to get done in a timely manner. If you feel like doing a large scale replacement job feel free to take this one. --Trialpears (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Trialpears, what large-scale replacement? I (foolishly?) jumped into this rabbit hole, and have been in it for over a day now. This is a very complex merge; I've got the documentation diff to show fewer differences, but there's still more to be done. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Auto_compact_TOC2023 March 6 – Auto_compact_TOC ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Compact_TOC2023 March 6 – Compact_TOC ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Wikisource author2023 July 5 – Wikisource author ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Wikisourcelang2023 July 5 – Wikisourcelang ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Hi now that {{Wikisourcelang}} is being merged, how do I use the merge target template to point to sister language Wikisources? All the links keep incorrectly pointing to the English version and the documentation of {{Wikisource}} has not been updated about this. Folly Mox (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Folly Mox, the merge has not yet been completed, so you should use the appropriate currently-existing template to do whatever it is you are planning until the merge is complete. The existing uses will be converted appropriately at that time. Primefac (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oops, I forgot I had posted here. My assertion was incorrectly based on the first instance I had tested, which had been misusing parameters in such a way that it worked prior to the start of the merge process but not afterwards. The links to en.s/lang:page do properly redirect if the parameters are used correctly, but I didn't initially follow the links to check. It was quite an embarrassing hour or so of my contribution history. Folly Mox (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Wikisourcehas2023 July 5 – Wikisourcehas ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

I see I am not supposed to use {{Wikisourcehas}} on "additional pages" so I have had to move to using {{Sister project}} because {{Wikisource}} does not have the required functionality. I shall look out for further developments because some very clever coding will be needed. Thincat (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For over a year now we have been instructed not to use {{Wikisource author}}, {{Wikisourcelang}} and {{Wikisourcehas}} and this is a nuisance because avoiding their use is not at all trivial. Can we have a report on progress with the merge, please, or permission to again use these templates? Thincat (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Primefac's note above. Just keep using the existing templates. They will be converted for you during the merge process, whenever it happens (these merges sometimes take a while, as you can see above). When the conversion is done, the merged template will support the features that you need. That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's helpful. Is there a change that could be usefully made to the display text in {{being deleted}}? Or maybe the assumption is that no one reads beyond the first line anyway. Thincat (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Facebook_page2024 February 21 – Facebook_page ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Facebook2024 February 21 – Facebook ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- While the result was "merge" it seems that this should be moved to "convert" as looking at Craig Kilborn, the ID used there is "The-Kilborn-File/107748632605752", while the new one is at https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100082874612029. The number is different. Unless I'm missing something else there is nothing here to merge. --Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Image_template_notice12024 September 7 – Image_template_notice1 ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:File_template_notice2024 September 7 – File_template_notice ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:R_fully_protected2024 September 17 – R_fully_protected ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:R_template-protected2024 September 17 – R_template-protected ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:R_extended-protected2024 September 17 – R_extended-protected ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:R_semi-protected2024 September 17 – R_semi-protected ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:R_protected2024 September 17 – R_protected ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

2023 October 25
- Template:R to related2023 October 25 – R to related ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) - convert to {{R from related word}} or {{R to related topic}} as appropriate
- Adding this from RfD as it's template related. --Gonnym (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Started toying with this and came to the conclusion that I was very the wrong person because there are definitely cases where the appropriate template is neither of the two of interest. We need to leave this refinement on the user talk pages of some people who know what they're doing. Izno (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2024 April 25 – S-line/IT-Eurostar_left/Frecciabianca ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
2024 April 25 – S-line/IT-Eurostar_right/Frecciabianca ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Module:Adjacent_stations/Trenitalia2024 April 25 – Module:Adjacent_stations/Trenitalia ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

None currently

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted.

None currently

Archive and Indices

Purge

Current discussions

September 30

Template:Theridomorpha

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

Unused navbox with almost all red links. Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this template has been created preemptively for an extinct clade of rodent genera, on the assumption that the group would eventually be worked upon in the near future, and is still pending for peer review, which is why it has not been approved yet. Larrayal (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In situations like this where articles don't exist yet, either the navbox shouldn't be created (as it offers no navigation) or created in your sandbox so you can work on it at your own pace. Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MCBdyk

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

Unused DYK related template. Probably replaced with a more general template. Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AUTOPATRightPlace

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

Unused banner-looking navbox. Gonnym (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:APA pulmonic consonants table

Template:APA pulmonic consonants table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused language table. Gonnym (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Template:Diplomatic missions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless to have a nav box with just 1 English entry. LibStar (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions of Somalia

Template:Diplomatic missions of Somalia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Contains no English entries. Pointless as a nav box. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions of Uganda

Template:Diplomatic missions of Uganda (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only has 2 English links. Pointless for a nav box to have 2 entries. LibStar (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kartvelian languages

Template:Kartvelian languages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Georgian language (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Kartvelian languages with Template:Georgian language.
I think Template:Kartvelian languages should be merged with Template:Georgian language and then the latter template moved to 'Template:Kartvelian languages', because I think the former template's too small to be separate, with only 10 strictly language-related links, including the link to the main article, two links to proto-languages, two links to language sub-families, four links to modern languages, and one link to a historical language, because there's a bit of overlap with the latter template, and because Georgian's the most widely known and spoken language of this family. PK2 (talk; contributions) 04:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions of Guinea

Template:Diplomatic missions of Guinea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only has 2 English entries, 1 of which (India) is a redirect. No point having a nav box for 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions of Kenya

Template:Diplomatic missions of Kenya (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless having a nav box with just 2 English entries. One of which is up for deletion. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 20

Template:Infobox classical composer

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 speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. You can not keep nominating an article until you get the result you want. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox classical composer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Contested speedy. Improperly recreated after deletion as unused. Single instance replacing {{Infobox musical artist}} for a bogus reason of "Replacing incorrect infobox" has been reverted (by me). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

This box was the result of massive discussion and eventual consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Infoboxes_RfC, so keeping the box is obviously the right thing to do. Previous deletion was improper -- no one informed the project of the deletion discussion -- and now we wish to use the box we designed. This was a compromise painfully achieved after a long and tedious debate. None of us want to start it again. The problems with the bigger infoboxes are explained in detail in the RFC and in the talk archives. Antandrus (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "now we wish to use the box we designed" So how come it was unused at the time of its last deletion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The appropriate content is so different that the templates should be kept separate. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is only different in being a subset of.... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Antandrus. Opus33 (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Antandrus. It is worth noting that the nominator's consistent efforts to delete this infobox, and his efforts to introduce other infoboxes into articles in complete disregard to an extensively discussed consensus, borders on the disruptive. --Ravpapa (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Antandrus. Nominator is clearly out of line, and trying to pull a fast one.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; even those opposed to infoboxes on principle recognize this box as the product of a workable compromise. If the nominator is upset that it has not been sufficiently used, he is free, with the blessing of the consensus, himself to apply it rather than trying to force all articles into an inappropriately worded procrustean bed. Drhoehl (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Disingenuous exercise of gamesmanship by nominator.--Smerus (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well-meaning, but having an infobox at all for composers is progress and it would be best not to upset what little compromise has been fought for until the composers project (which has been infamously hostile to them) gets used to the idea. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is an unused infobox a compromise? where have members of the projects concerned implemented it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is the fourth time that the nominator has attempted to delete this template: the first time when the template was first created, the second time a week ago, when he made the nomination without notifying the creators and deleted it almost without discussion, a third time when he nominated it for speedy delete after the deleting admin agreed that the deletion procedure was improper, and now this time. Is it possible to ask or compel the nominator to refrain from repeating this futile and time-wasting exercise again and again? --Ravpapa (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Apparent canvassing here and also here; and that many of the above comments do not address the fact that this template was at last deletion unused, and its redundancy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call that canvassing. The message does not explicitly state "please vote to keep". Maybe the wording could possible have been more neutral, but I wouldn't say the wording is excessively biased since it appears that this is in fact your fourth time trying to delete this template, this being the first time where discussion seems to have been asked for. Bramble claw x 19:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the decision made at the RFC mentioned by Antandrus. If you wish to dispute the conclusions of this RFC, I would suggest a discussion seeking consensus first, since these conclusions were designed to meet the opinions expressed by the (numerous) participants at the RFC. Bramble claw x 19:37, 21 April 2012 (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:Qrpedia-adverted

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) 22:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Qrpedia-adverted (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Good faith creation, but a bad idea. Such notices belong on talk pages, not in articles, and we already have {{QRpedia}} for that. "Adverted" is not an English word. I write as someone closely involved in QRpedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

agree with nomination - good idea but already done. Smallbones (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use ambox templates, or indeed any articlespace templates, for this purpose. For subjects with a specific link to QRpedia we already have the category system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2012 (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:Bururi Province

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 now that they have been expanded and cleaned up. It's amazing what a TfD nomination can do for progress. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bururi Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cankuzo Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cibitoke Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gitega Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Karuzi Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Kayanza Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Kirundo Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Makamba Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Muramvya Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Muyinga Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mwaro Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ngozi Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rutana Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ruyigi Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all empty and the author has no plan to expand them (see here). 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all All are now in use.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not whether or not they are in use, but the fact that they lack meaningful navigation. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the problem; the links down the left side are useful navigation. The problem is that they have raw "[[]]" in them, which should not be seen in articlespace. I would suggest that they be kept and the [[]] coding removed until such time as content is available to fill them up. Blofeld tends to know what he is doing. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The body is intended for articles on villages... Like Template:Bubanza Province♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the groups and made them all into simple lists (apart from the first one). Does this look better now? -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily yes. But the idea was to add the villages like in Template:Bururi Province.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy enough to go back to the other format when the village data is ready to be added. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2012 (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:Wormhole

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 Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

there is no way this is working since the template {{noinclude}} has not existed since 2006. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this were working or not, this template does not seem to actually fulfil a productive purpose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this also uses a helper template, {{Wormhole/core}} -- 70.49.124.147 (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of what it does, it is broken, and just has been forgotten. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't figure out what this is supposed to do, but since it relies on a decommissioned template, get rid of it. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:00, 21 Apr 2012 (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:GP2 Asia Series teams

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, as it is unused. If someone wants to create one for navigating 2011 team articles, then feel free to do so. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GP2 Asia Series teams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The GP2 Asia Series folded, so now template is useless. Cybervoron (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it can be converted to navigate all teams from the 4 seasons it existed. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2012 (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:Philippine Universities in QS Rankings

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) 22:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philippine Universities in QS Rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Tagging this template for deletion because of the following reasons (as per WP:TFD#REASONS, among others):

1. The template is not used...and has no likelihood of being used because the template subject in question (ranking of universities) changes every year and rank order is not reflected rendering the template being defeated of the very purpose it was created. 2. Notability. No substantive reason can justify why such template is needed. The template does not reflect rank order and if it does, why should such warrant a template? Xeltran (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a particularly useful (nor stable) way to navigate from university article to university article. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2012 (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:Ctitle

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) 22:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

If this ever worked, it seems to not anymore. Its documentation says it changes the page title, but it actually just inserts a second title below the actual one (at least in my Vector tests and another user's Monobook tests, see WP:VPT#Ctitle). I can't see this being of much if any use. Currently the only transclusion is on the author's user and user talk pages. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:11, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

PS. It appears the Vector issue may be due to my testing on user pages, when I have a script installed that adds user info to the page title. In article space this seems to work, though for people who might have scripts installed that do something similar in article space, they'll experience the same issue. Anyway, this template seems to work less reliably than {{DISPLAYTITLE}} (the monobook issue still stands and is apparently not the result of a script conflict), and the features it adds are of marginal/specialized use. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:45, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Seems to work okay here from my experiments, but this doesn't serve a productive purpose on the encyclopedia (another pointless userspace bauble) and in any case is redundant to the DISPLAYTITLE magic word. At any rate the author has forked it into userspace, which is the only place this is acceptable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; does not help appearance, and it's solely meant to enhance a page's appearance. Look at it on an old revision of reCAPTCHA, from just before it was removed: while the nominator says that it appears below the actual title in Vector, it appears above the actual title in Monobook. Note that the page has been edited only once after the diff I linked — the edit was to remove this template. Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; although it seems to work OK in Vector, it doesn't in Monobook, where it hides all tabs except the "article" one, and also hides all the links upper right such as "my contributions", etc. If this breaks the display in a popular skin (albeit not the default skin), it doesn't have a place in Wikipedia. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I admit I don't think this TFD was necessary or the best way to handle this. Since the template was only used on one article where it was quickly removed, but was also used on the user's user pages, it seems to me asking the user if they'd accept userfication and then if they did (which I suspect they would) moving it and deleting the redirect would have been the simplest option. But since the creator was the only substanial contributor and has evidentally forked the template now, it doesn't really matter I guess. Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2012 (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.

April 19

Item by US state category description

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) 01:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amusement parks by US state category description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Waterparks by US state category description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Waterfalls by US state category description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Zoos by US state category description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Astronomical observatories by US State category description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No real need to have a template for a single sentence. Should be substituted and then deleted. WOSlinker (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why should it be substituted and deleted? Jason Quinn (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just my oppinion, but doesn't seem worth having a template for a single line of text. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete and remove, don't subst. These descriptions replicate the category names and are redundant. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:15, 29 April 2012 (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:Kip Moore

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) 01:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kip Moore (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Premature. Artist just released debut album, so everything is easily navigable from the main artist page and template's transcluded articles. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a believer in a navbox on every page, I believe this should be kept. Additionally, "Mary Was the Marrying Kind" ranked 45 on "Hot Country Songs", therefore, this could become an article. I also added two related artists to the navbox.--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You may believe in "a navbox on every page", but views differ. This isn't a useful navigational tool at the moment: the important links are already included in the articles, and the unimportant ones aren't needed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NENAN, especially an artist with only one album and one notable single to date. Eric444 (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Civility Hammer, civility please. As I mentioned before, there are three links to related artists in the navbox.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no navigation when a.) the related articles don't have that template, and b.) Kip is not mentioned on the related articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Related articles do not mention the main subject of the template, leaving too few links to justify the navbox. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:12, 29 April 2012 (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:Early computer characteristics

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

The result of the discussion was delete after merging with History of computing hardware Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Early computer characteristics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This large, verbose data table is transcluded in its entirety onto over a dozen articles. There should never be a need to duplicate this material across so many different pages: it belongs in history of computing hardware alone, and need not be a separate page. Recommend removing all the other transclusions and then substituting the remaining one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't see the point of it in the various articles, at best I'd want it suppressed with a show button. It might be an idea to have a more specific article eventually by splitting off a bit of the history of computers but really I just find this template annoying as it is currently. Dmcq (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This gives the context of the development of the computers that are mentioned, and helps with the vexed question of "firsts" amongst these early machines. Without it, readers could easily become confused with the statements from the champions of particular machines that it was the "first" computer (with an appropriate set of modifying adjectives to justify that assertion). I have argued on the talk page for it to be made less verbose with fewer rows and columns, but have not had much respons from others. I would be happy to trim it down in this way, whilst retaining its essential context-giving nature. --TedColes (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the purpose of data templates to Right Great Wrongs on multiple articles. Specific issues can be mentioned in the prose, but we only need this data table once, on the general history overview. It is tangential at best and distracting, irrelevant and poorly placed (such as in the article footer) at worst. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and merge into article, or even create new stub - repeating the same info on separate pages is not the correct way to write an encyclopedia. The information seems viable. Something like List of early computing machines could be made from it, and linked to (using template:seealso or similar). Inclusion is the wrong way to go. Agree with nomination rational. There should never be a need to duplicate this material across so many different pages. Content good- implementation bad.
(2nd) Call it Comparison of early computing machines and link to but nor transclude, or merge into history of computing hardware as originally suggested. Oranjblud (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change to an article, as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- History of computing hardware is certainly heading for a periodic split, but I don't think it's needed right now. The table will certainly be included on the "early hardware" part of that split when it happens, though. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete and subst into History of computing hardware. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:10, 29 April 2012 (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:Late Anatolian Provinces

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 _―Œ^(talk) 03:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Late Anatolian Provinces (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-purpose template (grouping the late Roman provinces of Anatolia for the History of Anatolia article) that is essentially a contentfork of the {{Late Roman Provinces}}, and a mostly incorrect one at that: "Late Anatolian provinces" is a meaningless neologism, the Diocese of the East did not have territory in Anatolia proper, etc. Constantine ✍ 10:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments for and against are similar to those of Anatolian themata. If, as you say, there are that many inaccuracies, logically a lot of pages need correction. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally persuaded of the superior utility of much more generic boxes, given that the information that is sought is lost in a much broader context. I would think a higher priority would be correcting misinformation, as opposed to deletions, given the way that information tends to be disseminated within and without of Wikipedia. What exactly constitutes Anatolia opens another bag of worms that has been bitterly argued in the talk pages of History of Anatolia. My argument for a liberal geopolitical interpretation of the term is included in the leads to the pages in that project. The box was meant to update at the appropriate place the earlier provincial structure in a box earlier in the topic. As far as being "meaningless" it is by its title focussed on a specific era. Thanks for your input. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if context is what is needed, then simply include the links in the article text, in a short list or in a collapsible box embedded in the article itself, e.g. with {{Collapse}} or {{Hidden}}. Creating whole separate navboxes for a single article is an unnecessary encumberance on the article's loading time. Navboxes are meant to be included in each and every article contained therein, not to be used as a summary for a single article. On the inaccuracies, they result from an improperly carried out "extraction" of the new template from the original one: thus a change in the title from "late Roman" to "late Anatolian" has no meaning, the "history" section is largely meaningless within the new context, and the inclusion of Syria, Euphratensis, Osroene as well as the Armenian provinces beyond the Euphrates is simply wrong. The apparent conflation of Turkey with Anatolia/Asia Minor in this template. Anatolia is a geographical, not a political entity, and dates to long before modern Turkey was established. Its traditional boundaries roughly correspond to the area that is shown as Byzantine here, and that is pretty much the gist of our article on Anatolia as well. Constantine ✍ 16:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are alluding to is an issue I was just about to raise. There are plenty of single use template like infoboxes embedded in pages. Template is by definition for multiple use, so the utility comes down to whether an infobox is likely to be used for more than one page or not, in the former case it can be saved as a template and reused. So one way around this is to replace a template with an infobox. For now I think the issue of what should be in it, and the more complex meaning of the term Anatolia is a matter for another day. Suffice it to say that its use by various historians over the years suggests that while its boundaries may not be exactly defined, it has utility as a disputed area of land in a critical geographical juncture that has to varying degrees formed part of many states over the centuries. In a word, it has pragmatic utility. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2012 (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.

April 18

Template:Infobox Saudi Province

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) 23:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Saudi Province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not in use in any articles, redundant to Template:Infobox settlement. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2012 (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:Syriac infobox

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) 23:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Syriac infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned - different infobox in use at Syriac people. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. e^xtra999 (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2012 (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 Swedish Parish

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) 23:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Swedish Parish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one use on the talk page of a redirected article; redundant to Template:Infobox settlement. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2012 (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:Anatolian themata

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 to delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anatolian themata (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-purpose template (grouping the themes of Anatolia for the History of Anatolia article) that is better covered by the more generic {{Byzantine themes in De Thematibus}}, which has an "Asian" section either way Constantine ✍ 15:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Naturally as the creator, I disagree. They are not the same - my template covers the themata that existed at that time and matches the map. Themata evolved over time and many rmperors tinkered with them, my template allows that evolution as it applies to Anatolia or if you like Asia Minor to be added. Just because at the moment it appears on only one page to the best of my knowledge, does not make it single purpose it could be used on a variety of of pages. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well, first of all, the map is wrong, as Optimatoi and Boukellarion did not exist in 650, and we are not sure about Thrakesion either (check the relevant articles). Second, the template can of course be adapted, but IMO it would be redundant as {{Byzantine themes in De Thematibus}} includes both the original themes and the later split-offs/additions. There were no new themes established after ca. 940 (the date of De Thematibus) in Anatolia proper (i.e. west of the Taurus-Antitaurus mountains) either way. Only in the Komnenian era did a couple of new provinces appear, but this couls again be easily covered in a more comprehensive navbox about the themes. I don't see a reason for the proliferation of region-specific templates ("themes in Greece/Bulgaria/Balkans/Italy") when a single comprehensive navbox suffices. Constantine ✍ 07:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some more general observations, see discussion on April 19 under Late Anatolian Provinces. That actually is one of several maps showing a similar structure. Thanks again. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Currently, the template has no transclusions. It doesn't look like it's supposed to be substituted, so why should we keep a template we're not using? --N Y Kevin @720, i.e. 16:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Constantine Plakidas removed them, I was going to use it on several pages --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep for now and continue discussion elsewhere. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2012 (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:1999 Westmeath Under 21 Team

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) 04:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1999 Westmeath Under 21 Team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Do we really need a navbox for an under 21 side? Jenks24 (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, too many red links. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2012 (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:Copypaste

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. Snow closure. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate of {{copyvio}} and {{cv-unsure}}. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? All three look different to me. But if you are correct, surely it would be best to redirect to one of those two templates? Jenks24 (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They all have different uses. This one is for manual placement where someone notices a blatant copy/paste situation, and not all copyvios are such situations. This template sees heavy use and is full-protected due to that. Seems like an obvious keep. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:18, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Strong keep an essential template for general use. I have used this on 100s of new and old articles, indicating they must have further checking that I am unable to perform at the moment. It indicates an unknown degree of dependence, (I use it for probable as well as blatant) and I usually apply it based on internal evidence or an experience-based hunch from having seen tens of thousands of new articles, Many of those I mark prove to be partially or wholly copyvio, some fixable, others not. Eliminating general problem templates makes it harder to indicate problems. for someone extensively checking many articles, I want to use my experience where it is most needed and helpful--if I had to limit it to where I could say something more specific, I could check many fewer articles. Much copyvio checking is fairly routine, once someone has raised the suspicion. Experience helps greatly in detecting the suspicious, and newcomers to NPP do not have it as much as the few experienced people who review these articles. Much better that they be marked even this superficially than not marked at all. The more experienced people here DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why cannot the templates I mentioned be used instead? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As per the answers below I use "copypaste" for minor (ie limited content) that needs cleanup, but doesnot really warrant the hammer that is "copvio". An example is Losh, Wilson and Bell - suing copyvio on this 80% good article that has issues with uneccessary quotations from sources would be counterproductive, and overkill.Oranjblud (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per WP:SNOW. Debresser (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - {{copypaste}} indicates that there may be text copied from another source but that the article may be salvageable (does not qualify for WP:G12) and it does not indicate that there is or is not a copyright violation (even free copied text can be problematic on WP). There are also some cases where my page patrol instincts tell me that the text is copied but I can't find a source. I can tell other editors that this is case with the copypaste template and they may find the source. {{copyvio}} indicates that there a portion of the text is a copyright violation. I think that template should be used sparingly and probably only when the user who added the copyrighted texts plans to grant permission to WP to use the text. {{cv-unsure}} is like {{copyvio}} but specifically for talk pages. I don't particularly see the use but it's not the template that was nominated. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I agree there is a lot of overlap between the templates and when different ones should be used is unclear. However I don't think bringing a single template here is the way to deal with it. What I think is needed is a rethink of all copyvio / copypaste / close paraphrase type templates and I think this needs to be done considering all templates together not one in isolation. Unfortunately we don't have enough editors working with copyvio at the moment to even keep up with current taggings so proposals may be a way off yet, but until such a discussion takes place I think this needs to be kept. Dpmuk (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I only count three for general use - one for "possibles" (cv-unsure), one for "nuke from space/total rewrite" (copvio), and one for "minor isses" (copypaste). The instructions need to be better. It's not obvious which one to pickfrom Category:Copyright maintenance templates. Keep as per my comment above.Oranjblud (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the nuke from space option is really {{db-copyvio}}, {{subst:copyvio}} is (supposed to be) used when there's a chance of the content being salvageable or donated. The other option you missed is {{Close paraphrasing}} which is for its own brand of fuzzy situations. ... Maybe I should draft up a chart of the different situations and which tag is most appropriate (and for good measure go into reposts, mirrors, duplicated articles, etc.). VernoWhitney (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As OlYeller21 pointed out, while this is often used in copyright situations it is also for cases where language may be copied directly from PD or otherwise usable sources but needs to be revised for one reason or another. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought of using it for that, but it makes sense, and I'll start doing it. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, oftentimes there are better cleanup templates if you can find the right one (when there's unambiguously no copyright issues), but this version of Losh, Wilson and Bell that Oranjblud tagged is a good example of overquoted PD text, and while {{over-quotation}} might have been appropriate, I'd probably have tagged it as a copypaste too. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2012 (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:Rtnews

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) 23:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a biased search on one certain news site. The results obtained from this are included in a search performed with the unbiased {{find sources}}, which gives you a complete list of news sources for this information. Also, sets a bad precedent, should we now include specific news search engines for America Today, Japan today and Toho Today? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Template for Russia Today. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with OP. I don't like the idea of users promoting their favorite news organizations at the top of talk pages. There's no reason to promote one news source when other templates such as the one above already exist which provide many news sources in their results.AerobicFox (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made the template and agree with it's deletion. It should be substituted into the discussion area of the few articles concerned, in the few cases where it is so useful. If you'd like to leave it a few days I'd like to do so, I can cut'n'paste, if I can't get it done by then, just delete it. Penyulap ☏ 05:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it should not be substituted, either it should not be there, or it should be a {{find sources}} - there is no reason to promote one news service specifically, whether it is in main space or in talkspace, that is a form of promotion per WP:SPAM. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with that. Do you think that if I collected a lot of trends pages in the future, it would be worthwhile ? It is spam if it's one, it's search if it's {{find sources}}, do you think it's worth investigating some {{Check trending news lists}} sort of thing, where the human-tagged articles from many news services are brought together, there is a significant difference between the automated search engine and the tagged lists, but if there was a broad enough, detailed enough list I wonder if it would have merit. Penyulap ☏ 14:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 . 70.49.124.147 (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made the template comment. I just opened up a lot of the talkpages figuring to simply delete the template, but then I thought twice as it has the RFC over the top, and so I thought possibly it's not polite to interrupt that, even though I wish to remove the template entirely (not subst). Is there any objection to my removing all traces of it's use ? Penyulap ☏ 13:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Serves no purpose other than to promote and generate search traffic for a single website. violates WP:SPAM, WP:NOT and WP:NPOV --Hu12 (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Author has requested deletion, I don't see any potential for significant objection, and it's not in heavy use. Penyulap's intentions were commendable but he sees now why it wasn't a good idea. Just close this and delete it. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:50, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Question, I wish to clean up instances of this template, is it fully manual, or is there already a bot for this purpose ? Penyulap ☏ 12:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure. I feel like there must be several general cleanup bots that do that, but I wouldn't worry about it. People tend to remove deleted templates since they're pretty visible, and there aren't that many uses of this one anyway. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:32, 19 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Delete per above. e^xtra999 (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template code and docs have been changed I've mopped up all of the pages where the template had been used. It still exists in a few archives though, but I think I killed it in all of the appropriate places. I adjusted the documentation and template to re-purpose it when there is time. I have 'backed up' the code to my userpage so that the assistance I had with coding is not lost either. I expect it'll take a while to find the trending news pages, although, come to think of it, that can't exactly be a difficult task. But deleting is still a good idea, rather than having it sit there for a few months or so, or however long, or short, it is. Penyulap ☏ 05:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't help that it is still a search template for only one site, making it borderline advertising. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Repeat my request to delete but this time I mean it, as mentioned above I have the code, and it's clearly causing confusion as is. Penyulap ☏ 20:25, 23 April 2012 (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.

April 17

Template:House of Stewart (Scotland)

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 rewrite. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:House of Stewart (Scotland) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template tries to do too much, and is far too busy to be useful. DrKiernan (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Comment - There is a use here, but it is lost in the expanse of information presented in one medium. I would propose exclusionary measures more than deletion as there is potential for use if trimmed. As it sits now it is useful to the researching reader, too much information in a single template however. Pros: Well constructed and thorough, functioning for the dedicated reader or researcher as mentioned prior. Cons: A bit long for a Template, exhaustive; approaches the level of a directory which is discouraged by WP:NOT. Deletion outright of dedicated work by many contributors would be a shame in the name of being too expansive. For those interested: Transclusions Judicatus | Talk 20:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "researching reader" can use the articles themselves to locate the links they need. They should all be present unless our articles on one of the most important royal dynasties in Western history are exceptionally inept. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that in the seven days that this is open a party interested in whittling this down to something sane (or indeed reconstructing this from scratch) should be able to find half an hour to do so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Precisely what I meant, it is excessive except for the researcher, which as you pointed out would find the material anyway. Again trimming would be very effective. Judicatus | Talk 22:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite. Delete the section called "Monarchs, their queens and issue". 70.49.124.147 (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree, far too much here to be useful. I would supporting looking at a streamlined version, which might be worth keeping.--SabreBD (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite - the question is what to exclude? I'd suggest deleting the numerous "issue" but keeping the individual monarchs and their spouses. See also the probably redundant Template:House of Stuart sidebar. Ben Mac Dui 09:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would also seem to duplicate Template:Children of Robert II of Scotland, Template:Children of Robert III of Scotland, and Template:Children of James I of Scotland. I think the function of the template is better served by the Category:House of Stuart (and sub-categories) and by the House of Stuart article. DrKiernan (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that much of the information is overload and duplicated in other nav boxes but this is the second time this has been nominated for deletion and from memory the agreed solution was for a greatly simplified version—this seems not to have been followed up on. So on the whole keep but not in present form. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2012 (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:Black days

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 per consensus and redundant to {{coloured dates}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Black days (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

If these were fundamentally related subjects then this would be a useful navigation tool, but they're disambiguation pages. The correct place for potentially interesting but tangential links is the see also section, not a navbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are unrelated like starfish, cuttlefish, jellyfish and microfiche. Here's where this list belongs. JIMp_talk·cont 04:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from dab pages, and delete if otherwise unused. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we don't use these on dab pages. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
mmmh, not sure, tending to keep since we could easily add to all disamb./list pages the links of the template into a see also section... mabdul 22:02, 26 April 2012 (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:Mozilla Firefox

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. WOSlinker (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mozilla Firefox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old Firefox template with only one transclusion, suspended by/redundant to {{Mozilla}}, {{Firefox TOC}}, and {{web browsers}}. mabdul 13:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom Judicatus | Talk 13:18, 18 April 2012 (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: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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seldom-used template which does the same thing as {{anchor}} only in a different way, presumably because someone could. {{Anchor}} is both massively more prevalent and more capable (as it accepts multiple arguments). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This template has been at TFD on 6 January 2011. Nothing has changed since; it's a lot less expensive than {{Anchor}} (that's why it makes sense to use it in large numbers in long lists – see Template talk:Section#Should be avoided?), and it can emit a second parameter which Anchor can't. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A low-participation TfD from over a year ago is mostly irrelevant. If list of Latin phrases (C) is what is deemed to be a pathological case here then I don't think there's anything to answer for, as using {{anchor}}s there would certainly not adversely affect the experiences of any readers and minor backed gains are not our problem to work around. TIMTOWTDI is not a good paradigm for encouraging maintainable code, nearly nobody uses this, and there is no sensible use case where {{anchor}} cannot be used to the same effect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That leaves {{Section}}'s feature to emit a visible text (|2=), much like {{Visible anchor}}. Is it possible to determine on which pages Section is used that way? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were all of them, that's less than a hundred in total. And all of them could be trivially converted to {{visible anchor}} or, even better, simply unlinked (Horus Heresy (novels) uses them for absolutely no reason, as the page contains no internal links to the anchor title, and if anchors were required then they could simply name the sections normally). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to understand that someone will inspect the articles and lists which use Section and determine its best replacement before it gets deleted? I think this is a lot of effort for very little gain. As for "absolutely no reason": the Section targets in the Lists of Latin phrases are created systematically for every entry; many correspond to an existing REDIRECT, others are used directly in piped links in articles, but some are probably orphaned targets, as it were. They are still useful should a REDIRECT into the list be desired. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is "a lot of effort for very little gain" is trying to preserve cross-article section anchors on a long term basis. We shouldn't be doing it by habit anyway, and the amount of additional markup (not to mention editor knowledge) required for it isn't really worth keeping around multiple overlapping implementations for. I trust that conversion from {{section}} to a more widespread format won't be difficult post-TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's the exact same thing as {{visible anchor}}, except it can only produce one anchor instead of up to ten. — Bility (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. mabdul 22:04, 26 April 2012 (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:Comment

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) 23:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

An alternative for plain HTML comment markup which hacks the parser (the comment is used as an argument to {{null}}, which does nothing). There is no reason that HTML comment markup cannot be used directly, and this is massively more prevalent. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this template is stupidly coded. Why does it call null? It shouldn't call null, that just adds processor strain. It should be completely blank and empty. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way it's at least one extra template call for absolutely no gain over plain HTML markup except that it won't show up when viewing the page source (and that is probably a bad idea in the first place). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete and replace with standard markup, which is included in the edittools below the edit window. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and inefficient. mabdul 22:11, 26 April 2012 (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:Films inspired by Mallammana Pavaada

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) 23:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Films inspired by Mallammana Pavaada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:KISS WP:LAZY. This could easily be integrated into the articles in a concise and beneficial manner compared to lazily slapping them into a template and repeatedly inserting it on articles. We need quality, not template clutter. Judicatus | Talk 13:23, 18 April 2012 (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:McClain Sisters

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) 23:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:McClain Sisters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Only has four links and is trancluded to two articles. I just don't think it needs a navbox quite yet. Purplewowies (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and my prior reasoning on this TFD. Judicatus | Talk 13:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 23 April 2012 (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:Comedy Night Done Right

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) 23:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comedy Night Done Right (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia is not a TV guide 91.10.46.102 (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Tate Brandley Stockwell 22:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violation of accepted policy WP:NOT, as no use is apparent for the template which is valid besides uselessly cluttering. Articles which use the template have it placed at the bottom of the page, with what is usually a whole pack of other templates thrown there. "For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera". If it had valid use I would be neutral, but as it stands it should be deleted. Judicatus | Talk 12:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Judicatus, who sums it up quite nicely. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not how we navigate, as Judicatus pointed out. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:02, 23 April 2012 (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.

April 16

Template:Porte class gate vessel

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 _―Œ^(talk) 04:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Porte class gate vessel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This fails as a navigation template since it contains only red links. Pichpich (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Template was just created on 24 March. Allow time for fills. Brad (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Links are being filled in, more to come, deletion rationale now invalid. Benea (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2012 (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 Hindu Monk

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 into {{Infobox Hindu leader}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hindu Monk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on ~10 articles, seems redundant to {{Infobox Hindu leader}} Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree it seems redundant. I felt that {{Infobox Hindu leader}} stood for a social or political leader and it was inadequate to describe the spiritual personalities. Not everybody is a leader. There are numerous people who spent their entire lives in spiritual pursuits, never had any direct involvement with the Hindu society or people. I created {{Infobox Hindu Monk}} to cover such people. In fact, I feel, I should have named the template Infobox Hindu spiritual figure rather than Infobox Hindu Monk. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant: Infobox Hindu leader has fields to cover any Hindu spiritual figure. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Infobox Christian leader has more fields than Infobox Hindu leader. I think we need to add more fields to the latter in order to meet all requirements. I'll be adding them soon. In that case, Infobox Hindu Monk is redundant. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2012 (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:Best Coast

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) 23:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Best Coast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With only two album articles and the main artist's article, navigating from one to the other remains rather simple without the need of a navigational box. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I like the group, but a navbox is not needed at this time with only two album articles beyond the band's page. I suspect enough significant coverage might exist for some of their songs ("When I'm With You", "Boyfriend", "The Only Place") to support individual articles, and if that should be the case the template can simply be recreated at that time. Gongshow ^Talk 04:44, 22 April 2012 (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:Pakistan Super 8 T20

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) 04:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pakistan Super 8 T20 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 2 blue links well connected to each other. Magioladitis (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nom, too few links to be a useful navbox. Jenks24 (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2012 (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:Computer death

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. There may be consensus if {{wikidepression}} and {{Computer death}} were relisted separately. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Computer death (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Out of town (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused ({{out of town}} has one transclusion on a banned user's talk); redundant to {{wikibreak}} with a message parameter. We don't need individual custom templates for every possible reason a person might not currently be participating. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom. I can see how this template can be used, and I doubt its completely redundant, but it's not very useful either. A message parameter is a good alternative. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 15:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 15:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{out of town}} - I don't know about the other two, but I find out of town really useful when I'm going away for a short time and want to let people know I won't be around. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 09:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{out of town}} and {{Wikidepression}} - "we don't need them" - this kind of thinking is fallacious and counter-productive. We don't need to do a lot of things and some might argue we don't really need an article about cunnilingus. But, this is not a credible rationale against the existence of the elements of wikipedia.
Wikipedia occasionally draws in really passionate editors who care about what they do and sometimes get depressed indeed albeit with a possibility of quick recovery from that also. So, what's the harm if a user wants to be cheered up by some of his associates. Nobody is obliged to visit any talk-page they don't want to visit. Anyway, if they delete the template it will only waste some few seconds of time of the depressed users because they can always just post what they feel like on their talk page. These template helps depressed users. It's useful and it's used by many.
The number of uses of this template itself is the proof of its validity. "DrYouMe"→"Mrt3366" ^(Talk?) 11:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the goal of {{wikidepression}} is to invite editors to cheer one up, then it is definitely counterproductive as it encourages feeding the divas. Editors should not use the threat of leaving to try to attract messages of support. Additionally, it is not used at all at present, so it isn't clear what you mean by "it's used by many.... The number of uses of this template itself is the proof of its validity". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created {{Computer death}} to convey a message that a user is unlikely to be able to edit/respond to discussion, but obviously may have sporadic access via other devices outside of their normal computer. The existing wikibreak and busy templates didn't accurately convey this. Sometimes specifics help editors with their interactions and expectations. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:25, 16 April 2012 (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:Japan Sevens

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) 23:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japan Sevens (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with only one item is pointless. Quest for Truth (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was the same with Template:Gold Coast Sevens and the result was keep. The event will be held every year so a template is useful. Kante4 (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That TfD is a pretty poor precedent (including the nom, only three editors participated). Jenks24 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until more of the events are held. There is currently no point in a template if it's only happened once… and it would take literally several years to meet the unofficial criteria of WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (^) Why delete and recreate? Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 16:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because we don't keep templates in the hope that they will be useful in a few years time. Jenks24 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The point of navboxes is to help people navigate to other related articles. With only one item there is nowhere else to go, hence making the navbox useless. Jenks24 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NENAN. --N Y Kevin @640, i.e. 14:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NENAN, there are not enough articles to warrant a navbox. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:05, 22 April 2012 (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.

April 15

Template:Batsmen who have scored 100 international centuries

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 Jimp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Template:Batsmen who have scored 100 international centuries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigational template with one entry, unlikely to expand to the second entry for another 5+ years. —SpacemanSpiff 19:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nom, pointless to have a navbox for only one article. Jenks24 (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Perhaps the most pointless template I have ever seen. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Nev1 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedily five years? That's optimistic. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:42, 17 April 2012 (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:Religion in South Park

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) 23:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Religion in South Park (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

basically WP:OR since there is no definitive source for the classification of South Park episodes based on per-religion themes. Frietjes (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:54, 16 April 2012 (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.

All-Ireland Senior Club Hurling Champions

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) 23:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1981 All-Ireland Senior Club Hurling Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1984 All-Ireland Senior Club Hurling Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1990 All-Ireland Senior Club Hurling Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox that doesn't navigate any articles, I assume because none of the 1981 All-Ireland Senior Club Hurling Champions have articles. Been like this since creation in 2009. Jenks24 (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've merged in the other nomination that was done and also added one more myself. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2012 (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.

April 14

Template:Infobox Calvinist Denomination

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) 23:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Calvinist Denomination (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, superseded by other infoboxes —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:25, 14 April 2012 (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 Wikipedia-version

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) 23:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Wikipedia-version (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one use--not clear why it exists. Subst and delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note The one use Koavf is referring to: User:UrSuS/test. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 03:11, 20 April 2012 (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.

Old discussions

April 12

Template:Campaignbox Salvadoran Civil War

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, as it is orphaned, and there appear to be no major objections. Can be recreated if there is a need for it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Salvadoran Civil War (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An incomplete nomination from December 16, 2010‎.

Navbox with only two items; WP:NENAN. (I know it's really a campaignbox, but I don't feel it is that useful now, since I have added sufficiently interlinking between the two articles.) Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that we treated campaign boxes differently from normal navboxes and thus they could be present even if they didn't link anywhere at all. In that case this should probably be retained even if has negligible actual navigational value. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So long as both the items in the campaign box are in the article, I have no problem with deleting it. It looks like one item is in there, but I didn't see the other.Publicus 15:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah; I'm not actually sure how much connection there is between the Zona Rosa attacks and the Civil War. I added a mention of the Civil War to the lead of the Zona Rosa article, but only to say that the attacks were "during" the Civil War, not that they were related. Unfortunately, WP:ELSALV seems to be dormant; is there anyone else who would know? — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2012 (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:Short filename

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 as T3 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Short filename (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template inserts files into Category:Files with short filenames which is a redundant category as here are never enough files in either category to have both that and Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming. I believe that we do not need this template. Also, with Template:Rename media for you can specify a reason, and that would be the appropriate place to list a rename because of a short name. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being short is not, in and of itself, an acceptable reason for renaming a file. See Wikipedia:Filemover#What files should be renamed?. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've also nominated the Category that this feeds into: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 12#Category:Files with short filenames-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:05, 12 April 2012 (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:The Wild Thornberrys

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) 04:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Wild Thornberrys (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links into four articles. Not a good navbox. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:56, 16 April 2012 (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.

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 11 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 9 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 8 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 4 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 25 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 23

Completed discussions

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell

Archive and Indices

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 == Old discussions ==
 <!-- Before 7 days from yesterday, awaiting closing -->
-{{Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 13}}
 {{Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 12}}
 {{Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 11}}

Revision as of 02:04, 21 April 2012

Current discussions

April 20

April 19

Item by US state category description

April 18

April 17

April 16

April 15

All-Ireland Senior Club Hurling Champions

April 14

Old discussions

April 12

April 11

Obsolete Eurovision and Junior Eurovision templates

April 9

April 8

April 4

March 25

March 23

Completed discussions

Tools

Closing discussions

To review

To merge

Infoboxes

Navigation templates

Link templates

Other

Meta

To convert

To substitute

To orphan

Ready for deletion

Current discussions

April 20

April 19

Item by US state category description

April 18