Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:TD)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText, Topic, or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
"WP:TD" redirects here. For TemplateData, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/TemplateData.

Closing instructions

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates, except as noted below, is discussed. To propose the renaming of a template or templates, use Wikipedia:Requested moves.

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

Shortcut:
  1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
  2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template
  3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
  4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing

Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Listing a template[edit]

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).

I Tag the template.
Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
  • If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the Tfd tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators.
  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    or
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].

Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code). Note that TTObot is available to tag templates en masse if you do not wish to do it manually.

Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the Tfd nomination, add {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the Tfd, this time replacing template name with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}} instead.)

II List the template at Tfd.
Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

Add this text at the top, just below the -->:

  • For deletion:
    {{subst:tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging:
    {{subst:tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

If the template has had previous Tfds, you can add {{Previous TfD|previous Tfd without brackets|result of previous Tfd}} directly after the Tfd2/Catfd2 template.

Use an edit summary such as
Adding [[Template:template name]].

Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:

{{subst:tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code after the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale:

{{subst:catfd2|category name}}
III Notify users.
Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:

to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects (look on the top of the template's talk page) that do not use Article alerts, so that they are aware of the discussion.

Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases.

Consider adding any templates you nominate for Tfd to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the Tfd tag is not removed.

Twinkle[edit]

Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the functions of notification automatically. However, at present, it does not notify the creator of the other template in the case of a merger, so this step has to be performed manually. Twinkle also does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.

Discussion[edit]

Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.

People will sometimes also recommend subst or Subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it before the template page is deleted.

Templates are rarely orphaned (made to not be in use) before the discussion is closed.

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

May 5[edit]


May 4[edit]

Template:Hello Baby[edit]

Template:Hello Baby (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

All seasons of the show were merged/redirected, so all the links in the template are redirects. Random86 (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Neg[edit]

Template:Neg (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The template produces a hidden -{{{1}}} (i.e. 1st parameter preceded by a hyphen) and displays &minus;{{{1}}} (i.e. 1st parameter preceded by a hyphen). The intention was for numbers to be sorted correctly. It may have been useful in 2008 when it was created but now it is not as "−" (a minus sign) is recognised by the sorting thing anyway. The code should be replaced by −{{{1}}}, all transclusions should be substituted then it should be deleted. Jimp 16:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Highways of the 1927 Arizona Highway Plan[edit]

Template:Highways of the 1927 Arizona Highway Plan (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This navbox does not appear to list all of the state highways in Arizona in 1927. Additionally, per past precedents, navboxes listing all of a state's highways have been deleted several times between 2005 and 2009. Imzadi 1979  04:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Can be better covered in a list. Dough4872 14:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • convert to a list article, if one doesn't already exist. Frietjes (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

May 3[edit]

Template:US Youth Soccer State Associations[edit]

Template:US Youth Soccer State Associations (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Youth soccer is not notable, so this template is not required JMHamo (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Correction: Youth soccer, as an activity, is clearly notable per WP:GNG, but the overwhelming majority of youth soccer associations, and virtually all youth soccer teams are not notable per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Therefore this mostly red link template of youth soccer associations should still be deleted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vast majority of subjects linked by this template are not notable. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, and connect articles by simple see-also links. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox YouTube personality[edit]

Template:Infobox YouTube personality (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

An infobox for people on the YouTube service, with too much emphasis on ever-changing numbers. Template:Infobox comedian and Template:Infobox person already accomodate this, and in a better way. Infoboxes are by occupation or type, not commercial service. JacktheHarry (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Seriously? How many truly notable "Youtube personalties" satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG? In the absence of the documented existence of a substantial number of notable "Youtube personalties", I agree with the nominator's rationale that these few cases may be better handled by Infobox person or one of the infobox templates suggested by the nominator. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • This many? PC78 (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • There are currently hundreds of pages on YouTube personalities, this is a widely used infobox. ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 19:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
      • It's not a "widely used infobox", it was only created less than 48 hours ago and is currently used in 14 main space articles. PC78 (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. The mere 26 transclusions can be replaced with {{Infobox person}}. 23:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
  • merge with {{infobox person/Internet info}} (i.e., make it a module). Frietjes (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per Frietjes. Seems like a sensible proposal. PC78 (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The template provides info regular userboxes do not. Being a well-known YouTube personality is an occupation, not a hobby or side-gig. If you're going to go by the logic that the "ever changing numbers" is too much of a hassle you're incorrect. The List of wikis page always needs to have its article count updated, subscriber/view count should be no different. ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 19:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:2010s controversial killings of African Americans[edit]

Template:2010s controversial killings of African Americans (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This navbox does not include a parent article. How are these subjects connected and what is the defined scope? There should be an article that ties these individuals together. Otherwise, this is cherry picking. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator's rationale. This will be a controversy magnet, with no stand-alone article per WP:NAVBOX, and no well-defined criteria for inclusion within the navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Airreg[edit]

Template:Airreg (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Generates an inline external link to registration entries at various aviation registration authorities based on aircraft registration, it provides no added value to the article and ignores the fact that aircraft registrations are not unique so it can also generate the wrong information. On the rare occassions it needs to be used as a reference then normal cite web templates can be used. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This has been nominated for deletion before -[1] and kept.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment: It has been suggested that this would be far better formated as a reference citation rather than creating an external link, I dont have a problem with using these sites as a reference but creating an external link in the middle of an article doesnt really add anything. MilborneOne (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve: aviation authorities' registries are the primary source of information with regard to aircraft type, age, owner etc. of any given registered aircraft (even for old, reused registration numbers, the relevant information about previous registrations is still there, at least for the FAA registry), so this template definitely serves a purpose. However, I think it should be improved as follows:
    • Airreg's scope should be restricted to aviation authorities' registries only, roughly in line with the Principle of Least Astonishment. By clicking specifically on an aircraft registration, I would expect to be taken to a source regarding the aircraft registration itself, not e.g. to a file on Aviation Safety Network about the accident involving the registered aircraft, even if the article itself is about the accident (this is also where confusion can arise, in case a reg number is reassigned after a crash to another aircraft, which in turn is involved in a notable accident later on; i.e. there's no 1-to-1 correspondence between aircraft registrations and notable accidents).
    • Airreg should generate a {cite web} inline reference, instead of an external link, just like any other reference to a source; there is no reason to resort to an external link, in this case.
I'm happy to give it a go at modifying the template, if I manage to. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:EMedicineDictionary[edit]

Template:EMedicineDictionary (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

I have never found a useful link from eMedicine dictionary. What these links link to are a one or two line description of something in a website that's saturated with advertising. There's no encyclopedic value in these links, they do not help readers, and there is no reason we should be providing these en masse to users over other dictionaries. These links never provide more information that a stub article provide. Therefore I am proposing deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is an attempt at content-removal-by-template-deletion. Show consensus to never link to the site concerned, in a more relevant venue (e.g. the spam blacklist), and then propose deleting this template only if and when it is no longer used. Otherwise, the links will be added anyway, and you'll have removed the best method of monitoring them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment not a very good template. Even for cases like Cytology where it could provide useful information, the template only goes to a search page and not to the exact match article page. looks like it shouldn't ever be used for for references as it lacks author information.  —Chris Capoccia TC 11:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2[edit]

Template:Ibis Aviation aircraft[edit]

Template:Ibis Aviation aircraft (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Navigation templates are supposed to make navigation between articles easy. But this template only has one subject to navigate between. So, not useful. The Banner talk 21:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - As has been noted on many of these previous discussions before, these aircraft nav boxes are part of WikiProject Aircraft and we have a solid consensus to create them so as to provide a uniform experience for readers across all aircraft type articles. The key objection here seems to be that the box contains redlinks. As also noted before, the members of WikiProject Aircraft are in the process of a multi-year project to complete articles on all aircraft types and manufacturers, so these will get completed in the future. See WP:NODEADLINE. If this box is deleted then it will just have to be recreated as more refs are found and the missing articles are written. In the meantime it clearly spells out to readers what other aircraft the manufacturer also made and which articles are not yet written, see WP:REDLINK. The time spent by editors constantly nominating aircraft project nav boxes for deletion and the time needed to constantly debate over their usefulness would be better spent writing the missing articles. That way the encyclopedia would be constantly improved day-by-day instead of constantly degraded by deleting nav boxes. - Ahunt (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, mostly as a deterrent against bringing any more of these at TfD; they do not clutter the page (they're the only one or one of two navboxes), and can visibly be expanded. Simply, not worth the acrimony these nominations lead to. Alakzi (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as has been explained before per Ahunt above, to keep nominating these type of navboxes to have the same discussion is getting tiresome. MilborneOne (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep – Maybe someday these should all be changed into side menus below the infobox, like the WP:MILHIST {{Campaignbox}} series of templates. Go ahead and propose something like that if you feel the need (and are willing to pitch in and help with the conversion), but continually nominating these type of navboxes is becoming POINTY to the level of non-trivial disruption. @The Banner:, are you cruisin' for another topic ban? Mojoworker (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • LOL, no arguments so attacking the nominator? The local consensus is by now a rather pointy defence that time and time again is swept aside by administrators. Just play is by the Wikip[edia-rules, a project is no independent thingy. The Banner talk 15:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • NOTE: This template now has two aircraft links, not one, plus the manufacturer link for a total of three, so the original deletion rationale is no longer applicable. - Ahunt (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Okay, we have a real problem here. I could not give a rodent's furry little butt less whether we keep this particular navbox or not, and I certainly don't have an axe to grind with WikiProject Aircraft. Here's what I see -- an identifiable WikiProject believes that it is being singled out by a one editor for special treatment of its navboxes. They may have a point, in that a single editor has repeatedly nominated that WikiProject's templates for deletion. On the other hand, WikiProject Aircraft is under the horribly mistaken impression that its navboxes are not subject to the same precedents as the navboxes of every other WikiProject on Wikipedia. There should be only one standard for the navboxes of all WikiProjects, not a separate standard for WikiProject Aircraft. It's time to stop fighting these mostly red links aircraft navbox TfDs to an effective "no consensus" draw with the same half dozen editors participating. It's time that a Request for Comment be prepared and the wider Wikipedia community be asked to participate in a community-wide decision regarding single-link and mostly red-link navboxes. Seriously, folks, there should be one standard for the treatment of all navboxes based the number of links, with no special exception for WikiProject Aircraft or anyone else -- it is unfair to every other WikiProject which are being held to a different standard. Unless WP Aircraft and the nominator are willing to strike some sort of temporary/intermediate compromise -- perhaps giving WikiProject Aircraft a set time to create stub articles for all of its templates -- then I am prepared to file that RfC, and I can assure all parties, with proper community-wide notice on community-wide notice boards, WikiProject talk pages, etc., that RfC will attract dozens of editors interested in maintaining a single standard, not the same handful who have participated in The Banner's nominations over the past month or so. I suggest you work it out elsewhere, and I would be happy to mediate, but it's time for both parties to stop the squabbling, and bring this running spat to a conclusion. Otherwise, I will request that a formal, binding decision be made for you by the wider community, and by many editors who are amply familiar with the long-established precedents regarding red links and navboxes and to whom a single standard will have great intellectual appeal. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I would be in favour of that, or any other solution, that would result in an end to these endless time-wasting nominations of navboxes for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ahunt: Would WikiProject Aircraft accept a four-month moratorium on navbox TfDs to give the project time to create stub articles for its navboxes? Do we have any idea how many mostly red-link navboxes for aircraft exist? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't presume to speak for the rest of the project members and I am not sure how many redlinks there are in all the existing nav boxes today. We embarked on a project to write articles on all the outstanding aircraft types and all their manufacturers about six years ago and have been writing steadily since then. After the first round of navbox noms last August I started in on filling in the missing company articles from the nav boxes I had created and have written hundreds of them in the ensuing months, finishing those just recently. My best guess on the total number of aircraft types left to do is about 10,000, but I have no idea how many are redlinked already, nor how many manufacturers are left to be done. As per WP:NODEADLINE I am not sure it is possible to nail down a time frame. As far as this particular nav box goes there are now two redlinks. If I can make it to my central library this week I can probably find the refs to turn those blue, but all this nominating nav boxes has to stop. We can't all run off to to the library every time someone takes an exception to a redlink and dealing with these TfDs is taking up the time I have to write articles and address the problem. That is why this particular nominator ended up with a topic ban on nominating project nav boxes last summer, because these noms are stopping work on building the encyclopedia. I think we need a count on how many redlinks there are to be filled, if someone knows how to get those. - Ahunt (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I really am not concerned about one or two mostly red-link navboxes, but it is apparent from the frequency of TfDs for aircraft navboxes that WP Aircraft has more than a few. My concern here is not this or any other particular navbox, but the horrible precedent this sets, the unproductive waste of TfD time with no-consensus outcomes, as well as the unequal/unfair treatment of different WikiProjects. Can you please start a discussion among WP Aircraft members regarding a TfD moratorium, how much time would be required to create two and three-sentence stub articles for more than half of the existing red links in all aircraft navboxes, and then we can start to negotiate our way out of the weeds? Otherwise, I believe the inevitable outcome of a community-wide RfC on point -- after much drama, many recriminations, and a lot of name-calling -- is going to be the mass nomination and deletion of most of the navboxes that fall into this category. I'm offering you a way out of that. Please take it to your fellow project members, and get the requested feedback regarding the scope of the red link navbox problem and the number of weeks required to stub out the articles; if these topics are notable, there should be sufficient online sources to create stubs and that will resolve the red link issue. What I'm looking for is a commitment of project members to address the problem in a defined time period in exchange for a TfD moratorium during that time. And please remind your fellow project members that WP:NODEADLINE is an essay, not policy or a guideline, and its argument only applies to article build-out, not template red links. You may continue this discussion on my user talk page if you like; with added links for newly created stubs this particular template is now likely to be kept. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer1, it's certainly not a "horribly mistaken impression that (WikiProject Aircraft's) navboxes are not subject to the same precedents as the navboxes of every other WikiProject on Wikipedia." As I mentioned above, the entire WP:MILHIST {{Campaignbox}} series of templates, are navboxes, even though they act more like a modular Infobox extension. Many of these have few links (I even had an example of a valid use case where a campaignbox had no links (I can dig it up if anyone's interested). Perhaps because they are side menus they are viewed differently than are other navboxes. In any case, he's also been nominating articles with no redlinks, but rather few bluelinks. I'd like to see WikiProject Aircraft move to a sidebar model for aviation manufacturer templates following WP:MILHIST's style, if that's deemed more acceptable. An additional benefit would be the ability to add an optional image (logo, map, etc). Mojoworker (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
"horribly mistaken impression that (WikiProject Aircraft's) navboxes are not subject to the same precedents as the navboxes of every other WikiProject on Wikipedia." You're a damn fool if you don't accept reality, and I'm offering you way out. Otherwise you risk the mass deletion of all mostly red-link aircraft templates after a community-wide RfC. I am a member of a half dozen different WikiProjects and these are the standards to which our navboxes are held, and to which we hold the navboxes within the scope of those WikiProjects. WP Aircraft will not get a free pass when the larger community looks at this. Please consider carefully. It's your choice, and I won't lose any sleep over it if you chose wrongly. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good proposal. The Banner talk 00:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer, I am not a member of Wikiproject Aircraft. I've helped with a few articles and edits, but it's not really an area I'm familiar with, nor overly interested in. However I wouldn't mind helping them out from time to time, and you know, actually work on building an encyclopedia. I am a member of WP:MILHIST however and I would encourage Wikiproject Aircraft to consider a campaignbox analogue for aircraft manufacturers as in this example. That way, when/if the larger community looks at this, I'd wager there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the WP:MILHIST type of usage will be overturned, since it's being used in over 15,000 articles, many of which have few links. Mojoworker (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I am certainly happy to start a discussion as you have suggested and see if we can identify how many boxes have redlinks and how long the project members would think is needed to create articles for them all. I'll try to start that at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft quickly, as soon as I can phrase the questions that we need answers to. One issue is that all the easy and obvious aircraft type articles were long ago created, including most that have on-line refs. At this point in the project we are mostly down to tracking down old paper references and so each aircraft article can take considerable time and research to create. One question that will quickly come up is "what is the problem with having redlinks in infoboxes?", so if you can point out the policies against this, that would speed the discussion. One other suggestion that may come up is just removing the redlinks from nav boxes. Would that be a useful solution or not? - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The main problem is that navigation templates are supposed to aid navigating between related articles. A template with just one item just does not do that. And with two or three items it can just as easy be done by normal wikilinking instead of a navigation template. The Banner talk 23:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You put that argument forward in our previous discussion about the minimum number of links that a nav box should have. As you will recall WP:NENAN had suggested five, but the consensus there was that was not appropriate, WP:NENAN was thrown out and the consensus concluded that there was no hard minimum number of links for a nav box. If you have a concrete proposal here I would be happy to hear it. - Ahunt (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I did not see the argument NENAN here. And you remember it incorrectly: the discussion ended with the conclusion that the essay was not a valid argument, not the number of five. By the way: NENAN is still in use as deletion argument. You better start hunting that down. The Banner talk 00:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
If you have a concrete proposal here I would still be happy to hear it. - Ahunt (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal of Dirtlawyer1. And to add to that: I would suggest to upgrade the templates so they have links to at least three items in the actual box itself. So not counting a backlink to the manufacturer, in this case Ibis Aircraft and not counting the link to the type of plane/motor, usually also outside the actual box, in this case Fixed-wing aircraft. I do not mind when you add key people of the manufacturer to the template to make up the number. And to keep it peaceful: a period without nominations (at least from my part, I have no influence on others) so that you and your comrades can bring up the templates to standard from now till Christmas? The Banner talk 08:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Just for information all the boxes can be seen by following the links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Templates/Manufacturer-based aircraft navigational boxes, currently 762 in the category but I have not looked at the blue/red link count yet. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for that, that is helpful. I am just waiting to hear back from User:Dirtlawyer1 to my two questions and I will start the discussion at WikiProject Aircraft and see what we can come up with. One thing we need to do at the project is try to figure out how many nav boxes would need articles filled in and therefore the size and scope of the job, but need to agree on some sort of standard first as to which nav boxes are okay and which ones aren't. Two questions for you: 1. Since the requirement seems to be to "navigate between articles", why "three" articles linked and not "two"? How about two aircraft types, regardless of other links, like people, aircraft general types and the manufacturer (which is in the box heading normally)? 2. Are redlinks in nav boxes an issue? - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Because for two articles it is still easier to connect them through normal wikilinking then through a navigation template. About the link of the manufacturer: that should be always there. A navigation box of a manufacturer without an article about the manufacturer should not even exist. Regard the content of the actual navigation box: I do not have a real preference as long as it has at least three relevant blue links (what is already a lowering of my previous stance of five). See also links are usually not considered relevant links. The Banner talk 12:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay thanks for clarifying your thoughts on those points. As soon as I get a response from Dirtlawyer1 on his thoughts on the two questions I posed, I should have enough information to start the project discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The problem here is not merely redlinks, and, although the three bluelinks threshold seems workable (implying 2 aircraft and a manufacturer), slavishly counting links misses the broader picture that sometimes a "navigational template" is more than merely a navigational template, presenting more information, context, and consistent display of information and navigational links across a broad series of articles. This for example – is it merely a navigational template? Sometimes these will have fewer than 3 links. For a couple of WP:MILHIST examples see {{Campaignbox Mine Run Campaign}} and {{Campaignbox Fredericksburg Campaign}} – those campaigns have 2 entries, but to remove the campaignboxes from the relevant articles would leave them inconsistent with all the other WP:MILHIST articles and is addressed in the Manual of Style which says that the various navigation templates maintained by the Military history WikiProject are "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." If this usage is considered acceptable for WP:MILHIST, then why is Wikiproject Aircraft being singled out for doing the same thing? Mojoworker (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That is a good point and one that has been made at many of these discussions, that nav boxes across all aircraft type articles creates a uniform reader experience, showing all the other aircraft the manufacturer has built and other related articles in a concise, expected and compact format. This is something we will have to get into in the Project debate. This sort of use is employed by many projects, even beyond Aircraft and History. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
They got the attention now, Mojowoker. I doubt of your templates will withstand scrutiny. On the other hand, they can easily be expanded with key people like commanders. The Banner talk 21:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • keep, connects three articles. Frietjes (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aviation[edit]

Template:Infobox aviation (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

As per my second point below. WP:AVIATION doesn't get to create their own thumbnail style. Alakzi (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Any reason why they cant, it is used to produce a consistent style across aviation articles. Have you a suggestion as a alternate that can be used in the 379 articles that uses this? MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
A thumbnail. In-between two-link navboxes and infoboxes that contain nothing but an image, I believe the Aviation WikiProject has an unhealthy obsession with "consistency". Its articles do not exist in void; consistency with the project at large takes precedence - see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Alakzi (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Cant see anything wrong with consistency is that not why we use infoboxes, would you rather all articles were "individual"? So what do you suggest to bring the rogue project into line, how can it show an image and article title? MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
In what way would articles be "individual" if they were to use regular thumbnails? There doesn't need to be a title on top of the image. Alakzi (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose dont find the I dont like it and the I dont like the way the project does stuff a valid reason. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm jovial to see my argument reduced to "I don't like it". Per the MOS, "an infobox template . . . summarizes key features of the page's subject. . . . When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article." The infobox isn't a different frame style for thumbnails. Alakzi (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Alakzi. The pupose of an infobox is "to summarize key facts that appear in the article" (MOS:INFOBOX), but this doesn't summarise anything, it's just an image, a caption and an unnecessary heading, consequently it's redundant to a simple thumbnail. The template itself is more or less a duplicate of {{Infobox image}} and has nothing at all to do with aviation. PC78 (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete This infobox is not doing what an infobox is supposed to do. And you get the idea that WP:AVIATION is not a part of Wikipedia with their templates in conflict with a lot of policies and guidelines. The Banner talk 21:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - This box has been used for many years on hundreds of articles as a result of WikiProject consensus. Nominator has not specified any policy that this offends, other than he doesn't like it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I have cited both the MoS and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If you repeat this fabrication, I will take serious issue. I also urge you to review WP:TFD#REASONS. Finally, what is "it's been used for many years" supposed to prove? Alakzi (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is just an image with a title. A captioned image works better, especially now that we have Media Viewer. Fleet Command (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no difference between the content of this template and {{Infobox image}}. However just the name difference, and its use, is enough to justify this. This is a template that has the (difficult to achieve or recreate) advantage of being deployed across the relevant aviation articles. That's a valuable piece of software real estate, even if not being exploited at present.
    If we replace this specific template with the general template, that conveys no advantage. It is literally pointless. What benefit does it convey? However it does then throw away the advantage of already having a large set of themed articles already tagged with a specific template. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • A difference of no more than the template name is very much a reason to redirect, if not delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
      • If you're going to comment specifically to my !vote, at least read it first. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the points made by Alakzi. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Alakzi. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 03:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - This infobox is useful when is unclear which other aviation-related infobox would be better suited. And is bettr than no infobox at all. Regards, DPdH (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @DPdH: How is it better? Articles are not required to have infoboxes. Infoboxes are for summarizing information in the article—this is just a table with a picture in it. There's no information in it. I'm not sure why this discussion has more oppose votes than {{Infobox image}}'s, since they're pretty much exactly the same thing. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep or Replace – While I agree that this template should be replaced with {{Infobox aircraft begin}} it's not going to be as simple as a redirect. I'll echo what I said at the concurrent {{Infobox image}} deletion discussion: I'd be OK with deletion - but only after every instance has been replaced with an equivalent thematic infobox. Mojoworker (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I just worked up a version in the sandbox at {{Infobox aviation/sandbox}} which replaces the existing version and instead utilizes {{Infobox aircraft begin}}. It renders a little larger, but at a size consistent with other infoboxes (see {{Infobox aviation/testcases}}). Perhaps an easy solution would be to go with the sandbox version for now in order to preserve the context of all usages of the current template – perhaps with the understanding that it will be replaced (and the other relevant modules currently available for the modular Infobox aircraft added) as soon as practicable. I'd volunteer to assist with this as time permits. Mojoworker (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Infoboxes are not necessary; this particular example does nothing substantially more elaborate than normal Wikipedia image syntax, just with different formatting from the rest of the site. Relentlessly (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after replacing with a simple thumbnail image, or actual infobox. Frietjes (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Arf-big[edit]

Template:Arf-big (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

unused template that gives errors (i.e. it links to the "United States national Australian rules football team", a disambiguation page, with visibly linking to it)) but has no benefit compared with template:arf The Banner talk 16:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose
  1. What errors? Fix the Template:Country data USA, and everything will be OK. (FIXED)
  2. This template is one week "old", so wait a moment!
  3. 70 sports have their own big-templates – see category
Maiō T. (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
(fixed Country data USA) Maiō T. (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:TransAdelaideRailLine[edit]

Template:TransAdelaideRailLine (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox rail service (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:TransAdelaideRailLine with Template:Infobox rail service.
{{TransAdelaideRailLine}} (14 transclusions) is redundant to {{Infobox rail service}}, except for |majorstops= (which could be omitted or merged) and the specialized frequency parameters for peak, night, weekday and weekend (could be merged or omitted). Could alternately be merged with {{Infobox rail line}}. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox rail service[edit]

Template:Infobox rail service (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox rail line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox rail service with Template:Infobox rail line.
These two templates share many parameters (since the former was based on the latter) and are largely but not entirely redundant to each other. Some articles, such as those of some metro/subway/rapid transit lines, could benefit from using the parameters/features of both infoboxes. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. I've found needing parameters from both when replacing the Sydney infobox. It's extremely common that we've got one article for both the line and the service. Alakzi (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. They're not describing the same thing. A rail line is a piece of physical infrastructure which might host one or more services. That there's overlap within some metro transit lines doesn't mean we should discard the differences between the two templates. In many other articles there is not a one-to-one relationship between a line and a service. This is not the way to resolve the issue you're having. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • What would you suggest? Alakzi (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Withdraw this nomination (I realize you didn't open it) and have an actual discussion, perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains? Discussing the line and the services on it in a one-to-one scenario isn't a new problem, but blurring the distinction between the two isn't helpful. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
        • This is an actual discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Then presumably at some point you or another person favoring a merge will draw up a concrete proposal for what this merged template will look like. Eyeballing the parameter list there isn't all that much meaningful overlap. Worse, some parameters mean different things in different contexts. For a rail line, speed would mean the maximum authorized speed on the track (if used correctly). For a service, speed would be the maximum speed of that service. The physical details of the line don't make sense for a service which traverses many of them. The rolling stock characteristics of a service are irrelevant to a line which hosts many services. How would these merge? What is your proposal? Mackensen (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
            • We can easily have two parameter, say |line_speed= and |train speed=, if that's a concern. Having the same parameter name mean different things in two templates is extremely dumb. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not the same thing at all. A rail line is the track and its stations, over which pass several different services, which may vary not just by time of day but also from one year to another. A rail service is a train which connects certain places (which might not all be on the same line) and runs at particular times, such as the 20:01 Banbury to Paddington (all stations except Radley, Culham, Appleford, Southall, Hanwell, West Ealing and Acton Main Line) which runs partly on the Cherwell Valley Line and partly on the Great Western Main Line. Some rail services have names, like Flying Scotsman, Orient Express or City of San Francisco, and for these we usually have articles. Over the years, rail services may alter their routes, or their termini, and in some cases may be completely divorced from long stretches of their original route - the Pines Express, for instance, which has had two completely different routes between Birmingham (New Street) and Bournemouth (West). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, we understand all of that. The question is what do we do where the infrastructure and the service cannot be parted. This is extremely common with rapid transit. As is, {{Infobox rail service}} contains a number of technical parameters which pertain to the line, and not the service. Another solution might be to purge {{Infobox rail service}} of all line-specific parameters and make it embeddable (or the other way around). Alakzi (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Further to Alakzi's replay, the issue is not whether lines and services are very similar; but whether the templates are. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
      • They are somewhat similar, but the differences are much more important than the similarities. As I indicated in a different thread, we should probably work to make them more different to avoid confusion. This isn't the place to do so. Mackensen (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Er, yes it is. And others commenting here have shown that the two templates have very similar lists of properties. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
          • No doubt. That in no way provides a justification for a merge. A proper place to discuss this would be on the templates talk pages, where we can assess whether some properties are inappropriate and should be removed. The central issue, which you've not addressed, is that physical infrastructure and a temporal routing are conceptually and categorically different, and should not be handled by the same template, regardless of the apparent overlap. That there are use cases where the two overlap does not change the fact that there are many which do not. A line can host many services. A service can run on many lines. A single template probably can't capture both, which is why I and others don't favor a merge. Mackensen (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
            • This is the proper place for such a discussion. We can't hold it simultaneously, on two templates' talk pages. The "conceptual" issue has already been addressed by Alakzi. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
              • To the degree that it was addressed, he agreed that a merge was inappropriate. Mackensen (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
                • @Alakzi: Is that so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
                  • Though I did propose an alternative, I've not retracted my !vote - I'm not convinced that this merge is such a bad thing. Alakzi (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per Redrose64. A rail service and the rail line(s) ut runs upon are not the same. Mjroots (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mjroots, Redrose64, and Mackensen: The templates share around half of their parameters, and would share even more if the ones that were added to {{Infobox rail line}} after {{Infobox rail service}} was split from it were added to {{Infobox rail service}} as well. {{Infobox rail line}}, apart from perhaps a few parameters which aren't listed in the documentation for some reason, has no parameters that don't fit into {{Infobox rail service}}. It is true that they are not the same thing, but they are very similar. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 15:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, and they should probably become more dissimilar, not less. Mackensen (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
      • 👍 Like ‹See TfD› Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Please offer actual input. This is not Facebook. An issue has been identified; a proposed solution rejected. Now what? Alakzi (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
          • I offered you a way forward above. Mackensen (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Mackensen: How do you propose the templates become more dissimilar, and how would this improve the templates? Since their splitting the only way they've become more dissimilar is that parameters and display changes which could have been added to both were only added to one of them. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
      • They need to become more dissimilar because editors get confused on the distinction between a line and a service, and that's not a good thing. Service should lose some technical parameters like electrification and gauge. Line should lose at the very least the ridership options, and possibly termini and stations. Also either routenumber or linenumber. Makes no sense to have both. Mackensen (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
        • @Mackensen: A service could benefit from having electrification (if some trains on the line are electrified but those of the service aren't) and possibly gauge (particularly if the line has dual gauge). In any case, would it be a good idea, in your opinion, to create a third {{Infobox rail line–service}} for those articles which need both templates' parameters (if they don't get merged)? Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
          • A service isn't electrified; the line is. Some services are electrified in portions (such as Amtrak's Vermonter). I don't know that capturing that detail in a service infobox is all that useful. I think such a infobox as you propose would be duplicative of both templates and unwieldy. I think the ultimate solution is making either service or line embeddable in the other, though it would take considerable restructuring. Mackensen (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose. Some similarity in parameters is insufficient to merge infobox templates things that are quite distinct. Just looking at a list of a parameters does nothing to inform whether a merge is appropriate, and should never be the basis of a merge proposal. oknazevad (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Oknazevad: The point of the merge proposal is that the templates are very similar and there are various reasons to merge similar templates (such as consistency and not having to make the same changes on multiple templates). Aside from the "On-board services" section in {{Infobox rail service}}, which of the parameters in each template could not possibly be applied to the other? Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. At the risk of belaboring a point, nominators approached this discussion with a solution and not a problem. The problem is how to adequately capture details of a line and service when the two overlap one-to-one in a single-article, usually in a metro setting. Blurring the distinction between a line and a service by merging these two templates might solve the issue in that use case, but raises problems for all the other articles which do not overlap one-to-one. However, this discussion is oriented around the idea of a merge, so we're going to have that discussion instead. Why this didn't start at Template talk:Infobox rail service or Template talk:Infobox rail line is unclear to me. The latter is a pretty active talk page. It's still not clear after all this discussion which parameters are wanted in which template, or on which articles. Mackensen (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The problem identified - and identified clearly - by the nominator (singular) is that the two templates "share many parameters and are largely... redundant to each other". The reasons why this is a problem are explained in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. The problem is not simply "how to adequately capture details of a line and service when the two overlap one-to-one in a single-article". And you have provided no evidence of "problems for all the other articles which do not overlap one-to-one" that would be caused by the proposed merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Indeed, that is what the nominator wrote. I'm still waiting to find out how these templates are largely redundant and what parameters they share (note that Jc86035 has acknowledged that On-board services could not possibly be applied to a line). I'm also waiting to learn why it's a good idea to commingle the concept of a line and a service. Despite your claims I and others have raised serious problems with the idea as a concept. Mackensen (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per RedRose 64 reasoning, there is a very distinct difference. BarossaV (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox TransAdelaide station[edit]

Template:Infobox TransAdelaide station (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox station (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox TransAdelaide station with Template:Infobox station.
The TransAdelaide station infobox is largely redundant to {{Infobox station}}, except for frequency parameters (which could either be merged or removed) and some facilities parameters (toilets, for example); most facilities parameters were removed from Infobox station per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The "adjacent stations" section will, however, need manual conversion to {{S-line}}. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. We have decided against the inclusion of frequency and facilities parameters. Alakzi (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Drop the WP:NOTDIRECTORY stuff. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. I agree with Alakzi and Andy that the frequency and facilities parameters should not be merged. Once there's consensus to do so I can assist with the migration. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above reasons BarossaV (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox image[edit]

Template:Infobox image (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

An excuse for: (a) the creation of sometimes elaborate impromptu infoboxes, in combination with {{Navbox|child}} or otherwise (see Sonderkommando or Subsequent Nuremberg trials, or Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters); (b) the misguided notion that the top-right image(s) has/have to be enclosed within an infobox (see Polish literature or Judenrat, or FreeOTFE); (c) various image arrays that should rather be served by a purpose-built template, such as {{Multiple image}} (see Kalinjar Fort). Alakzi (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Why does this exist? For what purpose? Most navboxes have the image parameter, and those that don't probably don't need/deserve one. — Wyliepedia 03:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - but only after each instance with text content other than an image caption (and others, as appropriate) has been replaced with a thematic infobox (for example, {{Infobox organisation}} on Sonderkommando). Has 215 transclusions, BTW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • comment looks like a duplicate of Template:Infobox aviation. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • no vote but it looks good in e.g. Midnight Commander (same size as infobox), and remember if this is deleted - WP:INFOBOXUSE: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.", especially among the editors at each individual article. Christian75 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete (template author). This template was created to solve a problem; now that problem is solved by Wikipedia CSS. Fleet Command (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, after replacing current uses with suitable alternatives. The purpose of an infobox is "to summarize key facts that appear in the article" (MOS:INFOBOX), but this summarises nothing. Redundant to thumbnails and various multiple image templates. PC78 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - This infobox is useful when no other aviation related infobox is available; and better than no infobox at all. Regards, DPdH (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Delete – I'll echo what Andy/Pigsonthewing said above, but I'm taking it a step further: I'd be OK with deletion - but only after every instance (even those with just an image and caption) has been replaced with a thematic infobox or a [[File:...]] tag. Otherwise, deletion has the side effect of removing images from articles – #notgood for Wikipedia users. How does deleting this template improve the encyclopedia other than in a nebulous bureaucratic housekeeping sense? If someone volunteers to fix all 200+, I'll switch to delete. I don't think that's likely however, thus my 'keep' !vote. Mojoworker (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Obviously - that's a given. When have we ever removed content when deleting a template, unless explicitly stated? Alakzi (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Mojoworker: Of course no images will be removed from articles. You should be saying "Delete", not "Keep". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
      • OK, then I'm fine with deletion, but I still agree with Andy that a thematic infobox should be used as replacement where possible. Who typically ends up doing the grunt work – the closing admin? Mojoworker (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, redundant to {{infobox}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly keep [see below] - This template is the only one available for "multiple images with more than one row and one column" (please post a link if it ain't so). {{Multiple image}} template works when you have either one row or one column. This template is in use in the Slum article, and there is no other alternative template to present a WP:NPOV array of slums worldwide. Those who are suggesting deletion because in some cases a different template works better may wish to consider revising the instructions and help page for the alternative templates, so users know which is preferred and when per WP:AGF. Alternatively, if there indeed is another template that allows n1 x n2 images grid, please guide me to it. Respectfully, ThomasJessica (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
You can do it with a plain infobox. See example. Mojoworker (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Mojoworker. Your addressed my concern. Respectfully, ThomasJessica (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Or you could use {{Auto images}} (example). PC78 (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

May 1[edit]

Template:Naked Camera[edit]

Template:Naked Camera (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only one of this show's characters has their own article. Greykit (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Only one navigable link that is listed several times in the main series article, which is also listed at the character page. Completely unnecessary. — Wyliepedia 03:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Older navbox versions had a few more links, but those were largely redundant and have been trimmed. The topic in general is just not broad enough for a navbox, all necessary links are provided in the article. GermanJoe (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:German Reich[edit]

Template:German Reich (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This navbox mixes "real" historical countries with a fictional, fringe Neo-Nazi concept. WP:NAVBOX notes as first point: "All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject." Those four terms do not form a coherent subject - no reliable sources treat them that way. Mixing such fundamentally different terms in 1 navbox doesn't work. GermanJoe (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

A valid concern in past discussions has been the navigation between articles for the first 3 "Reichs", which are connected of course. In most cases those Reichs are already inter-connected via "See also" entries or Template:History of Germany (which gives a lot better overview about the historical timeline). A few missing See also-entries could easily be added, if needed. GermanJoe (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template is a footer navigation template that redundantly and confusingly duplicates a small part of the history section of the footer navigation template {{Germany topics}}, as well as the sidebar template {{History of Germany}}. The current version of the template also mixes the historical periods with a completely different topic related to a neo-Nazi concept or conspiracy theory (the "theoretical" Fourth Reich). --Boson (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete; I was the original creator of this template, many years ago, but looking back on it now it does seem to be completely redundant and of dubious purpose. Let's be rid of it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per WP:G7 -- the template creator Midnightblueowl requests deletion of this template immediately above. There are multiple problems with this template's subject matter, and a now-experienced template creator agrees. Let's not drag this out unnecessarily. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Süper Lig top assister[edit]

Template:Süper Lig top assister (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

It is WikiProject Football's consensus that assists are not included in articles. I'm also not aware of any other assists templates, and it's also worth noting that several of the seasons here are either linked to redlinked pages, or are for incorrect years. Taking one page at random, 2001–02 Süper Lig, there is no mention of the assists at all, so this template is apparently based off of OR. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. QED237 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Assists are not included in articles because it is not defined what an assist is. The same reason applies here. --Jaellee (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. It has all been said above. The definition of assist change from person to person and it is not in player articles for a reason. QED237 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I must also add that the editor has had Template:Turkish Super League top scorers Assists deleted a few years ago after This TfD QED237 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. GiantSnowman 07:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:English-language soap operas[edit]

Template:English-language soap operas (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Not a suitable topic for a WP:NAVBOX. This is what categories are for. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep, since this is the English language Wikipedia, first and foremost, and the topic is in clear accordance with Wikipedia's English language itself, as opposed to this being a non-English language Wikipedia. Should the nominee chose to create a category based exclusively upon this template as a replacement, then, by all means, after such is created, delete. Best, --Discographer (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this meets any of the criteria for a WP:NAVBOX, that's why I've nominated it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Categorise. Per nom this is not a suitable topic for a navbox, but categorisation of soap operas by language seems reasonable. PC78 (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Martin and Lewis[edit]

Template:Martin and Lewis (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

No actor filmography navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates Rob Sinden (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete actor filmography naxbov per consensus at provided link. Aspects (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per well-established precedent of WikiProject Film regarding actor filmography navboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

April 30[edit]

Template:Country data Mughal Empire[edit]

Template:Country data Mughal Empire (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

As discussed on Flag of the Mughal Empire talk page this image is a fictitious flag of the empire dreamt up by some wiki(p/m)edia editors, and that has been transcluded onto a 100-odd pages on wikipedia. The flag is inconsistent with,

  • written descriptions of the flag,
  • (close to) contemporary pictorial depictions of banners etc carried by Mughal armies, and
  • as User:RegentsPark pointed out, it is highly doubtful that there is a singular 'flag of the Mughal Empire' given the long time span of the empire and its organization.

Abecedare (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete No source for this flag and no reliable source for any flag for the Mughal Empire. --regentspark (comment) 02:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per the nom, RegentsPark and Talk:Flag of the Mughal Empire. - Sitush (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment What do you propose to do with the ~100 usages of this template if it is deleted? If just the flag is dubious, we could replace it with a blank placeholder, like was done in several other data templates. That way {{flag|Mughal Empire}} just shows the link with an invisible image in front of it. SiBr4 (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. This "flag" apparently falls somewhere between "imaginary," "anachronistic" and "nonexistent." In any event it's a misrepresentation of historical reality. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

April 29[edit]

Template:Chuggington[edit]

Template:Chuggington (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The entire template, with the exception of the voice cast and episode list, links to One Article. If there are any other templates with the same problem, please notify me. Lior (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, pointless. Frietjes (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

April 28[edit]

Template:HK route nav[edit]

Template:HK route nav (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{HK routes}}. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Philippine Film Awards Season[edit]

Template:Philippine Film Awards Season (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only one blue-link, which redirects to another article. The other redlinks were prodded a while ago. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, pointless Frietjes (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Australian criminals[edit]

Template:Australian criminals (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This is a navbox with only one entry. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Only one entry. (Slightly creepy and [possibly potential BLP vio at that], unless there are similar templates for other countries that have passed approval.) Softlavender (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even its history shows it was only a slight variation on the subcategories of the existing Category. If it had been included on many more articles I might have suggested more options. Mark Hurd (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, clutter and duplicates Template:Crime in Australia, which is also being applied to way too many articles. Frietjes (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Various Hemingway navboxes[edit]

Template:The Old Man and the Sea (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:A Farewell to Arms (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:The Killers (short story) (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:The Sun Also Rises (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:To Have and Have Not (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:For Whom the Bell Tolls (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Ernest Hemingway}} as all links are included there. See WP:CSD#T3. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Note. Seems we already had consensus for this a year ago. See Talk:The Sun Also Rises#Proposal. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Placing the entire {{Ernest Hemingway}} on Hemingway's works is appropriate. However, placing it on adaptations of his works such as movie or ballet adaptations of his works is inappropriate use of the template. For an adaptation of his work, the only other links on the template that are relavant are the source work and other adaptations of that work. Thus, the need for the smaller works templates at discussion here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not how navboxes work. If that is the case, then the adaptations should be removed from the main Hemingway template, but per the previous discussion, that was decided against. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Templates work that way at almost every author. Look at the adaptations of the works of the most important authors like Shakespeare and Dickens. The adaptions of their works have templates dedicated only to adaptations of those works. Hemingway is the only author that I have seen where his adaptations could have individual works, but those works have been merged back to the main author template. You are setting a dangerous precedent trying to use a one size fits all template for adaptations of works.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that "one size fits all". You have two options here - merge to one template and delete all the little templates as redundant (which they are), or remove the adaptations from the big template, and just have the smaller templates on the adaptations, and not the main template. Either is fine with me, but there is no point in having the little templates if all the links are on the main template, as the navigation is already covered. The first course of action was already agreed upon, yet the little templates remain. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and incidentally, most of the adaptations currently have both navboxes on (which is of course correct per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL). --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I realize the data has been merged into the now extremely large {{Ernest Hemingway}} template. I also see a point in having (only) the smaller templates on the articles on adaptations of his works (as opposed to on the original works themselves). The adaptations are small, often tiny articles. Cf. this one: The Sun Also Rises (opera). The comprehensive {{Ernest Hemingway}} is really quite a massive, and one might even say possibly overwhelming, template to have on such an article as a solo template (even in its collapsed state), which is why it may be preferable to have the source-work template instead, or at least as the top template. Softlavender (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
    • indeed, which is why I suggested a second 'adaptations' navbox. Frietjes (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

April 27[edit]

Template:Infobox television film[edit]

Template:Infobox television film (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox television (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox television film with Template:Infobox television.
{{Infobox television film}} is redundant to {{Infobox television}}, which is broader in scope, with the exception of |screenplay=, |story= and |budget=. Both are used for miniseries, e.g. Persuasion (1960 TV series) and The Citadel (1960 British miniseries). AussieLegend has combined the two infoboxes in Template:Infobox television/sandbox; there's a lone testcase here. Alakzi (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 25#Infobox television film
  • Support per nom and discussions had in the previous TfD, which is now linked above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - They're virtually identical - No point in having in essence a duplicate template. –Davey2010Talk 22:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge. These should, of course, also be merged with the near identical, and equally redundant, {{Infobox film}}, for the wider benefit of the project at large. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • We're getting real tired of your idea of merging of these infoboxes with {{Infobox film}}, Pigsonthewing. Film and television are different and your previous idea was met with strong opposition because film and television are entirely different in table, base and such. If you continue with this idea, you will face strong opposition from other users. Get that straight. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom and previous discussion; {{Infobox television}} feels like a more natural fit for {{Infobox television film}}, and it would seem to be an easier and less contentious merge than the last proposal. PC78 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge - {{Infobox television film}} and {{Infobox television}} are pretty much identical and it should be merge since it's more natural than merging it with {{Infobox film}} for sure. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge - This makes sense, and it's good to see that the nominator and several of the discussion participants listened and understood the points being raised in the previous related TfD discussion. "Well done" to all concerned, including Andy, Alakzi and AussieLegend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge Code for the two templates is very similar, although the visual appearance is slightly different. A merge requires only a few extra parameters and adding some aliases to existing parameters. I don't understand why we didn't think of this before. --AussieLegend () 05:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. If it initially airs on TV, reads like a TV infobox, then it should have a broader home. — Wyliepedia 03:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support There are some rather redundant parameters in the TV infobox, such as "production_website", "production_website_title", "website_title". The "website" parameter itself seems adequate enough to note the company or production or other related websites. The TV-Film infobox itself is lacking in parameters that specify "camera", "picture_format" and "audio_format" which could be useful to know. I'm in favour of the merge. Deltasim (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge This is a great idea. I agree with AussieLegend this should have been done before. JohnGormleyJG () 20:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support merge per all the comments. Having two templates is redundant and also redundant. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: A television film is essentially a "series" of one episode, so this merge makes sense. -- Wrightaway (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge Two templates look rather similar. It doesn't make any sense to have two separate templates with extreme similarities.--Chamith (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • READY FOR CLOSE - Note to any passing administrator: this one is ripe for immediate closure. There is clear consensus among the nominator, regular TfD participants, and members of the affected WikiProjects what should happen here, with unanimous support among 14 participants for a merge after 7 days -- which is indeed rare. Let's not prolong this TfD unnecessarily. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I fully support the merge, but I'm thinking a few more days are warranted; not even a full week has passed and the number of articles that would be affected by this change is so much more massive than the number of respondents to this issue so far. Snow let's rap 03:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge Most of the relevant parameters/salient details for a television movie can already be represented via the general television infobox, so the merger should proceed with relatively few hiccups. Further, I see no other likely downside here to counterbalance the interest in simplicity. Snow let's rap 03:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge I'm also for the merge, however I'd like to point out one downside to the merge. In television (at least as far as USA television goes), the person who gets more credit for the show is the writer (who in most cases is also the showrunner) and the director is in a technical position. In film, the director gets the credit (with cases of multiple writers and drafts for the film). If you take a look at the templates, you'll notice that they also use this distinction with director being above writer in the film and television film infoboxes, while writer is above director in the television infobox. As I noted, I'm in favor of merging, if only because as noted above, miniseries are being added with both templates. I'm not a coder so don't know if its possible, but if there was a way for the merge to happen and for the director credit in a television film to still be above writer, I'd be much more satisfied with the merge. --Gonnym (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for merger. Separate infoboxes for television programs of specific genres are completely unnecessary, and television films are no exception. Only one infobox is needed for this medium's programming. --SethAllen623 (talk) 18:33, May 4, 2015 (UTC)

Template:Rfap[edit]

Template:Rfap (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Rfaf (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Rfap with Template:Rfaf.
I think both templates should be merged to form a new template called Rfae (Request for adminship end) or Rfa-top (Request for adminship top) with a unnamed parameter which shows the successful RfA thing if p or s is used and the unsuccessful RfA thing if f or u is used. It would make things simpler. TL22 (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Girls Can't Catch[edit]

Template:Girls Can't Catch (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Another navbox without enough articles to support it. Each of the three articles already link to the other two without it. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete because its not very useful. --TL22 (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Polytechnic University of the Philippines campus map[edit]

Template:Polytechnic University of the Philippines campus map (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

pointless now that the image has been deleted. Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete unused template per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as useless since there is no map. Borderline to G8. --TL22 (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Deletion pending[edit]

Template:Deletion pending (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Proposed template that never gained traction; redundant to {{Being deleted}}, where templates are concerned. Alakzi (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

That's it? Just a vote? --TL22 (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
no, not WP:JUSTAVOTE, a suggestion. Frietjes (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - {{Deletion pending}} is for "merge and delete" and "redirect" and {{Being deleted}} is for "delete". It is not to be confused. --TL22 (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Is it actually being used though? The template was created 8 years ago, yet the doc suggests that it's still just a "proposal". A better name might help, if nothing else. PC78 (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • (a) Have you read the documentation of {{Being deleted}}? There is a "merge" parameter. Where templates are concerned, "redirect" is a supplementary outcome; it means, either, that some parameters are to be incorporated in another template, after which time the template can be redirected (a "merge"); or that the template is wholly redundant to another, but the name is kept as an intuitive redirect (a "delete" outcome). It's never been the case that we needed to advertise that a template's due to be redirected.
      (b) Where would {{Deletion pending}} be actually used, if kept? Alakzi (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom, assuming no one actually uses it. I can't see any significant difference in intended use compared to {{Being deleted}}. PC78 (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - "Being deleted" covers a different situation, where the decision is actually happening imminently and automatically, perhaps within minutes, or implied to be very imminent. This template is for non-administrators watching the article, and readers who happen to be interested in the article, to be informed that the page could be deleted shortly, its content will then be inaccessible, and to copy or back it up locally if needed, before this happens.

    Perhaps this advice/info could be included in brief in the deletion process templates, though? FT2 (Talk | email) 09:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

    • {{Being deleted}} is not used when deletion is imminent and is not used in articles. Alakzi (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete then redriect, as redundant; and unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Eddy MacDonald films[edit]

Template:Eddy MacDonald films (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

No actor filmography navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete actor filmography naxbov per consensus at provided link. Aspects (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep next to the dancing (and singing) team of Astaire-Rogers (Template:Fred and Ginger) and the semi-musical semi-teaming of Rooney-Garland (Template:Rooney Garland films), this is the most recognizable musical teaming in film history (a Dick Powell-Ruby Keeler navbox [7 titles] would also be welcome [there are too few titles for Mario Lanza- Kathryn Grayson (2) and for Howard Keel-Kathryn Grayson (3)]). The 8 titles in their collective filmography are mentioned in the Jeanette MacDonald and in the Nelson Eddy respective biographical entries (singled out under sub-section header "The MGM/Nelson Eddy years" in the Jeanette MacDonald article, and under sub-section "Hollywood" in the Nelson Eddy article), but are accompanied by much surrounding text, thus increasing the difficulty of clear comparison and navigation. This navbox, which accompanies each of the 8 films puts every title in clear chronological relationship to the others and enables distinct and unobtrusive navigation from one film to the other for those Wikipedia users who wish to make such comparisons. Wikipedia's very purpose is to present knowledge in the age of the Internet by making navigation tools as user-friendly as possible. The deletion of such tools does not benefit anyone. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Loy Powell Films[edit]

Template:Loy Powell Films (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

No actor filmography navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete actor filmography naxbov per consensus at provided link. Aspects (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the most prolific leading man-leading lady teaming in American cinema [13 films, plus, in the 14th, a cameo appearance by Loy in Powell's The Senator Was Indiscreet], but the highlighting of those titles cannot be found in either the Myrna Loy as well as the Myrna Loy filmography articles or in the William Powell article. Although the titles are mentioned in those three articles, they are commingled with the totality of the two actors' prolific filmographies. The sole place where the 14 Loy-Powell titles may be found in unobstructed form is in this navbox which appears at the bottom of those films and facilitates/enables navigation between and among the films. Anyone wishing to examine and explore the films comprising this notable teaming would be all the more disadvantaged by the potential of this navbox's disappearance. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Meryl Streep[edit]

Template:Meryl Streep (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

No actor filmography navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per prior discussion. Frietjes (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete actor filmography naxbov per consensus at provided link. Aspects (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:The 100 (TV series)[edit]

Template:The 100 (TV series) (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unnecessary template. Only four links, including the link to the main article. While it is likely in the future that more articles may be created, for now there are not sufficient articles to justify creation of a poorly populated navbox when internal links in the related articles will suffice. AussieLegend () 10:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Internal links on the related articles do suffice. — Wyliepedia 05:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The four links are already connected to each other through links making this template redundant. Aspects (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Inherit the Wind[edit]

Template:Inherit the Wind (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Lawrence and Lee (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Inherit the Wind with Template:Lawrence and Lee.
The people mentioned are not characters from this work of fiction, but their real world counterparts. Not appropriate for this navbox and do not satisfy WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. The adaptations could easily be incorporated into {{Lawrence and Lee}} thus reducing the need for multiple navboxes. We could possibly also introduce Scopes Trial to this navbox, but it probably isn't really needed. Another option would be to have a separate {{Scopes Trial}} navbox which included the people involved and a "See also" pointing to Inherit the Wind (play). --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

On reflection, repurposing {{Inherit the Wind}} as a {{Scopes Trial}} navbox may be the best option (even including all the adpatations), losing the links to the writers only, as they are not directly related. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Species abbreviation[edit]

Template:Species abbreviation (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This template is intended for use on disambiguation pages, however it seems like its use runs counter to disambiguation page guidelines, for several reasons:

  • The template does not provide a way to provide a common name or describe the species being linked, limiting its usefulness for disambiguation.
  • The template abbreviates the genus name, contrary to WP:PIPING.
  • The template does not find all relevant species, only those for which a page exists with the abbreviated genus name.

Other users have pointed out similar concerns on the template's talk page. Furthermore, it is unclear if the template's intended use case is valid in the first place. Linking to a species from a disambiguation page about the species name seems to contradict WP:PTM, since species are rarely if ever referred to solely by their specific epithet. For these reasons, using this template is counterproductive and I propose that it be deleted. Augurar (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. replacements such as this one leave much better content. Note also in that example that the template placed two items under an inappropriate pseudo-sub-heading. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Unsigned-unk[edit]

Template:Unsigned-unk (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

A lazy person's version of {{Unsigned}}, the idea of the unsigned template is to sign comments so people will know who they were posted by and when they were posted. "— Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user" doesn't help that purpose. People should use Template:Unsigned for correct signatures. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Useful. There are times you might not be able to figure out who signed it without undue effort. Is EoRdE6 volunteering to go through the effort on command, or is he just assigning work to other people? Hipocrite (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. Seems to me that if you can figure out when a comment was posted, you can also figure out who posted it. If you can't be bothered to do either then you probably shouldn't be tagging unsigned comments. Isn't "unsigned comment added by an unknown user" somewhat redundant? PC78 (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Perhaps redirect to {{Xsign}} which displays the same default message but seems to be more useful? PC78 (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
      • {{Xsign}} transcludes this template. Alakzi (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Merge into {{Xsign}} then, unless it's also used elsewhere? PC78 (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant to {{Unsigned}}; and as unhelpful. Its use may discourage a later editor from applying {{Unsigned}} correctly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge to {{Unsigned}}. It could default to "Unknown user" if nothing is specified on the first parameter. --TL22 (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you're going to add an unsigned template, you find out who the comment was from. This is about as helpful as not inserting a template. Eman235/talk 23:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Star Parivaar Awards[edit]

Template:Star Parivaar Awards (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This enormous template is too unwieldy for navigation. There is already a list at STAR Parivaar Awards which could better serve this purpose. Psychonaut (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep per this edit. Chander 16:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The "categories" link to other navboxes? Still nothing worth keeping there. Alakzi (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after the changes, we now have the opposite problem that there are few working article links that aren't redirects. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per WP:NAVBOX, navboxes exist to facilitate readers' navigation among existing articles regarding closely related topics. Navboxes do not exist to daisy-chain multiple navboxes one to another. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Was willing to properly tweak this one until I saw all roads lead to the main awards page. — Wyliepedia 05:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

April 26[edit]

Template:Members of FIMA[edit]

Template:Members of FIMA (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only one article of this WP:NAVBOX is on Wikipedia; which is even under AfD. First we create articles, then navigation boxes. Not the other way around. 🌞 শুভ নববর্ষ ১৪২২Bengali new year | nafSadh did say 19:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep I regret to say that I disagree with the perspective and reason given here. The reasoning given does not establish that things cannot be done the other way round, OR that such a methodology violates Wikipedia policies. Neither has the information been challenged to be untrue, nor can it be said that Wikipedia is but a work in progress. A suggestion can be given to create more articles. Asking for a deletion is simply too much. ~Mohammad Hossain~ 03:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
So, which part of Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia -- you do not understand? 🌞 শুভ নববর্ষ ১৪২২Bengali new year | nafSadh did say 06:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of navboxes with redlinks in them. People create navboxes either before or after the relevant content is created. This also helps note which articles need to be made. If the grouping is useful, why not. See Template:Hospitals in Jordan as example. 103.7.250.251 (talk)
  • Delete as there aren't a whole lot of articles for this navbox to navigate between. Tavix |  Talk  20:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as I said above. 103.7.250.251 (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - This navbox is almost exclusively unlinked text; the reason why navboxes exist is to provide links to existing content, not to provide a road map of future articles that may or may not ever be written. We can argue about what percentage of red links is acceptable, but this navbox ain't even close. Delete with extreme prejudice. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dirtlawyer1 and WP:NAVBOX. Alakzi (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, but no objection to userfying, since the articles should eventually be created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cinemassacre Productions[edit]

Template:Cinemassacre Productions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Much of the content of this template has been deleted or is nominated for deletion. By the time it's all over, it will list one company, one actor, one show, one movie, and two related companies. Given the lack of content, the template seems completely pointless. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox tram[edit]

Template:Infobox tram (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox train (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox train}} - and the distinction is blurred, on some metro systems. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, the tram infobox has some categories of information that are specific for trams and that are currently not used in the infobox train. Unless all of the categories, such as minimum curve, axleload, steep gradient, are implemented into the train infobox, the tram infobox cannot be called redundant. These are all information that are extremely relevant as regards the possibility of use of certain trams in given cities.
The distinction is somewhat blurred with some light rail systems, but not as regards tram vs. train per se. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Specifically, the train infobox does not have the following parameters: articulations; assembly; class; designer; driven wheels/wheels driven; lowfloor; minimum curve; predecessor; steep gradient; and successor. The train infobox does have an axle load parameter. Alakzi (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge as redundant. Only several parameters to be merged (which, as both templates use {{Infobox}}, would be trivial). Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 06:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge the important parameters per above. Hajme 11:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: Three of us support merging; and no-one has objected, Why was this relisted, rather than closed as merge? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • probably because you didn't tag {{Infobox train}} for merger. Frietjes (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Funny; I don't see that mentioned in the relisting. But then, I didn't nominate for merging, I nominated one template for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
        • We'll be merging parameters, so the conversion to a merge discussion appears to be reasonable. Alakzi (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom; some of the missing parameters can also be used for trains. Alakzi (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per Alakzi. FreightXPress (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Lake Charles, Louisiana[edit]

Template:Lake Charles, Louisiana (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The template has no likelihood of being used. It repeats the sections already on the article, and is useless on any other Wikipedia article. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, the articles are already well-connected. Frietjes (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Multihulls[edit]

Template:Multihulls (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Trimarans (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Navboxes with too broad scope, it cannot list all multihulls or trimarans. Already very big. Smartskaft (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - Both of these navboxes are extremely large with a high percentage of red links to nowhere. I would strongly urge that someone contemplate converting these navboxes to list articles and moving them to article space. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I have now saved the content to Draft:List of multihulls ({{Multihulls}} does more or less cover {{Trimarans}}). Smartskaft (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I feel this is a fair illustration of the point I make below; ie. now you have 6 pages instead of less than 1 ... and the content is far less readable. prat (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
        • No it's not, it's a fair illustration of that the amount of content doesn't fit to be in an navbox. Smartskaft (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or listify per Dirtlawyer1 - if a navbox gets too big it's usually an indicator that it needs to be broken down, but this seems like an unnecessarily-broad class to base a navbox on and I don't think it could result in useful subdivisions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Revisit later: but for the love of wiki, please don't delete: I've spent a lot of time expanding these, though I did not originally create either of them. I believe the content is extremely valuable as the best on the web with regards to getting a snapshot of the evolution of modern multihulls. Changing the format to a list article will drastically reduce the communicative power of the content. If people see the size of the templates as a huge issue then I am happy to have someone convert them but cannot personally dedicate time at present owing to 'real life' commitments. Another option might be to split the catamarans out of the Multihulls template and have two, more manageable 'Catamarans' and 'Trimarans' navboxes. Still another option might be to ban boats that are not 'production' boats (ie. multiple boats produced of the same type) from the templates, which would shrink them considerably however would necessarily remove most of the interesting earlier entries ... so I'm not really for this treatment. Still another option would be to create decade or other temporally-based categories to reproduce the current grouping visible within the templates in the categories system, however this will lack utility in terms of overview and is likely to become ignored/unmaintained. Honestly, I don't think these navboxes are really such a big problem right now and are very informative, offering a concise overview of the subject at a glance. If they grow to much larger sizes then we could revisit the question later, which would be my recommended course of action at this point. However, as I'm the only one working on them I doubt this will happen as most of the low-hanging fruit / important stuff has already been covered. I would also question why, as the major recent contributor to both of these templates, I was not notified of this deletion discussion. prat (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I note that the length is also very similar to Sailing vessels and rigs. prat (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The fact that another template exists is not a reason for keeping one, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In fact, there is also a major difference between the two, where the scope of Sailing vessels and rigs is clear (types of sailing vessels and rigs) while the nominated ones list everything (concepts, types and individual vessels, sailing and motor) about their topic. This is simply not helpful for the reader, but would be in a list or an article on the history of multihulls. Smartskaft (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually, 'vessels and rigs' is even more vague than Trimarans or Multihulls, which specifically limits to at least a subset thereof. prat (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Disagree & Template:Agree[edit]

Template:Disagree (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Agree (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

I may have a poor imagination, but I cannot imagine a reason to use these template other than !voting. Despite the warning at the top of the template pages, every single instance I clicked on with "what links here" (and there were a whole blessed lot of them, so I may not have looked at a representative sample) was for !voting. B (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep since it doesn't seem as though these templates are doing any harm, just like most, if not all, of the templates in Category:Image with comment templates. Steel1943 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The "harm" is that it is being used to encourage voting instead of discussing. --B (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • So, the other possible times this template could be used should not be accounted for? Regardless of how this template is used, WP:NOTAVOTE exists and should be followed in discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • What are those "other possible times"? I looked through the existing uses of the template and could not find any that were for something other than voting. If you know of another possible use, please let me know. If there is some legitimate process where "agree" and "disagree" are needed as responses, then we could facilitate that with a process-specific template like {{RFPP}}, {{UND}}, or {{EP}}. (I don't know of any such process, but maybe there is one that you could point out.) --B (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There's not a "legitimate process", per say, but I could see someone putting this template in a comment chain to clarify their stance. Just because an editor agrees or disagree with the previous comment in their discussion chain doesn't necessarily mean that they agree or disagree with the initial proposal/question of the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • In the over 1000 uses of {{agree}} or over 500 of {{disagree}}, can you find some examples where the use is as you describe but does not constitute voting? The uses I have clicked on mostly seem to be something like this (arbitrary example): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Consulate General in Chennai. The template is doing nothing but introducing a !vote. Here is another similar one. Here is one where everyone got in on the fun and used the templates to !vote. The "approved use" (for lack of a better term) on Wikipedia for this kind of template is for processes where the colored icons let you quickly look through a list of nominations and discern whether you need to do something. If I'm looking at WP:RFPP, I can quickly see which requests have been handled so I can handle the ones that still need to be processed. I just can't conceive of a use of these two templates that would be that kind of "approved use" and not really just a voting template. --B (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep "!voting"-restriction only applies to XfD, polling can be done in other discussions, such as at WikiProjects. (such as for polling about redesigning the look of a wikiproject) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Though of course you are welcome to disagree with the English Wikipedia's longstanding consensus not to use !voting templates, neither the infobox on the template itself nor the listing at WP:DRPR says anything about XfD. These templates should not be used in any consensus-seeking discussion in a way that resembles !voting - whether the discussion is an XfD or otherwise. But they are pretty much exclusively used that way. --B (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per deletion of Template:Support / Template:Object / Template:Oppose and Template:SupportSection and Template:Iapprove and Template:Rfasupport and ... the support templates are created so often even have a perennial request section at DRV. Frietjes (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think I will ever understand the problem with using these. Look at the beginning of all of our votes, what did we do? We bolded our vote, and all these types of templates do is that with a picture. It is still expected you follow it with a reasoning. These are happily used on Commons (c:Template:Vote keep). But in respect to this, it can be used in non voting situations easily, and does no harm. I can't see any examples of where this template has caused harm... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The reason they are used on Commons is for multi-lingual support. The templates will automatically translate your !vote template into the reader's preferred language. We have no such need on the English Wikipedia because we're, well, the English Wikipedia. In any event, if you think the time has come to re-examine our processes and whether we should start permitting voting templates, that's fine - let's have that discussion. But as long as we're banning voting templates, we should delete these as they have no use but voting. --B (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as unnecessary and divisive. Pictures speak louder than words; a big red minus certainly isn't gonna help move any argument along. Alakzi (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Completely harmless graphics that are only used in talk space. Don't like them? Don't use them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. A nice idea once, perhaps, but as we have demonstrated for years now we don't need them. Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@EoRdE6: Consensus can change. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Ya I know about that, I was referring to your reason which said ...but as we have demonstrated for years now we don't need them. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@EoRdE6:If they were needed we'd be using them in this discussion. Besides, I think Alakzi's right when he says they can probably cause division and unnecessary escalation of rhetoric. Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, I cant either see the problem with them, and consensus can change. I cant see the problem thats it used i voting discussion - its better and more visible than just "strong keep". Christian75 (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The only reason given for keeping these templates is that you disagree with the longstanding rule against voting templates on the English Wikipedia. While you are welcome to do so, I would suggest that there's a certain inconsistency in having these templates, but not templates for support, oppose, keep, delete, etc. The "agree" and "disagree" templates are being pigeonholed into discussions where "support", "oppose", "keep", "delete", etc, would make more sense. Example: where I became aware of the templates' existence was this FFD discussion. "Keep" would have been a better template to use here (if it existed), but instead this (less appropriate) template was used. Rather than keeping these two templates and disallowing all of the others, it would be better to have a discussion advertised at {{cent}} to see if there is a community opinion as to whether or not voting templates should be used. While you are obviously right that consensus can change, there needs to be an actual advertised discussion for that consensus, not just an obscure TFD for a template that few people are even aware exists in order to declare that consensus changed. --B (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:NOTAVOTE is not policy; it's not even a guideline. In practise, Wikipedia has voting procedures of various kinds, such as the elections to arbcom, and having a range of useful symbols as graphical options is helpful. Andrew D. (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per WP:DRPR#Template:Support, they encourage voting rather than discussion aimed at the generation of consensus. Dalba 22 Farvardin 1394/ 12:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Agree" and "Disagree" are merely synonyms of "Support" and "Oppose"; thus, the nominated templates should share the same fate, especially since the perennial consensus uses the word "etc." to accommodate all synonyms. That said, these template haven't done a significant good either, thanks to their more specialized brothers like {{Ep}}. The alternative importScript('User:Ais523/votesymbols.js'); would suit the need of those who are too nostalgic to let it go.
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Is using wikitext to bolden words so difficult? It takes about as much effort as writing these templates in. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. - I agree with Codename Lisa and Alakzi. No need to clutter talkspace and projectspace with unnecessary, ugly, and duplicative templates of this type. The large red "disagree" stamp is particularly objectionable. Also, I imagine these images unnecessarily slow down the download of pages (on mobile, for instance). Neutralitytalk 04:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    • A 20px image is less than .9kb of data, thus making as tiny of a difference in page load time as a few sentences. Please remember WP:SLOW, that editors shouldn't be concerning with page-load speeds unless there are obvious massive differences. So that is definetly not a reason for deletion, and with your rationale Yes check.svg Done, X mark.svg Not done, and all the other inline icon templates (here if you're interested) should also be deleted? What about Symbol declined.svg Unnecessary or No No? If you take out one for this reason, what about the rest? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
      • WP:OSE. Do you have an argument for why they should be kept? Whatever drove you to !vote keep when you "don't understand the problem"? Alakzi (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Even if it's small, it's still a difference. In any case, as I explained above, these images are useless at best, and inhibit discussion and turn users off at the worst. Neutralitytalk 13:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Done and not done have two really really important uses: (1) they are used by bots to determine that certain requests are processed and can be archived. (2) if you're an admin looking at one of the pages that uses those templates, you can quickly skim to see which requests still need to be processed. Agree and disagree have neither of those uses. --B (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. per all above. Page load is not an issue for a file of this size and with caching happening everywhere. Discussions do benefit from these templates as well. nafSadh did say 00:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    • In what way do discussions conceivably benefit? Neutralitytalk 04:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't use the templates themselves, but I've seen them used by others enough to think that they are enough a part of wiki-culture to keep them. I also disagree with the premise that !voting is always bad. We're basically !voting right now, even though we're making arguments to support our views. Using Agree ‹See TfD› or Disagree ‹See TfD› in a discussion doesn't prevent anybody from also making a good argument any more than using Keep or Delete does. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep – as per most of which has already been said above per the rationales of Dirtlawyer1, EoRdE6, Nafsadh. Harmless templates. Deletion only serves to limit options in creative input. More options good. Less options not as good. North America1000 22:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Brad Pitt[edit]

Template:Brad Pitt (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The relevant Wikiproject advises against any filmography navboxes except director navboxes in order to avoid navbox creep. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • keep, its his producer role, and the consensus are more than five years old. Christian75 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the consensus has always been that actor filmography template should be deleted, director templates should be kept and writer/producer templates had no consensus. If we are to begin deleting writer/producer templates a discussion should be held at WP:FILM or some place with a lot of eyeballs rather than on a one off basis for templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable film producer with multiple articles to navigate. The consensus is outdated. Dimadick (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep it's not every film he's been in, just produced. LADY LOTUSTALK 16:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin. There is currently a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#RFC: Filmography navboxes to determine consensus as to whether the guideline should explicitly discourage producer and writer navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Apart from the nom, this seems to be a unanimous "Keep". Why was it relisted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Most likely because of the ongoing RFC for consensus regarding these types of navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Scott Rudin[edit]

Template:Scott Rudin (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The relevant Wikiproject advises against any filmography navboxes except director navboxes in order to avoid navbox creep. The implication is that once we start having crew navboxes for anything other than directors, the articles will be more navbox than article. Some films can have 5-6 producers, 3-4 writers, composers, editors, cinematographers, etc, etc. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support deletion per nom and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep There has been no consensus anywhere that writer/producer templates should be deleted. There has been consensus that actor filmography templates should be deleted and director navboxes should be kept. There has been no consensus on writer/producer templates. I have never seen editor/composer/cinematographer templates and such, but would be apt to delete them. I would likely support writer/producer templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable producer with multiple films to navigate. No reason to delete. Dimadick (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with Tony the Tiger. I don't think all producers and writers need a navbox, but for those that have significant activity the navbox can be useful to readers. Rlendog (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
There's an argument when the producer has significant contribution, but significant activity just means they've produced a lot of films, which is actually more of an argument to delete, as it's likely more indiscrimnate. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Per reasons above. МандичкаYO 😜 10:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, or failing that, restrict to just explicitly Scott Rudin-centric articles, not any film he ever touched. Navbox creep is real, and this plain isn't a useful navbox. It's reasonable a reader might want to, say, click over to other Quentin Tarantino movies; I find that highly doubtful for this unconnected, unorganized list. I'm not sure I agree with the principle that only directors can merit a navbox - I think that including the films {{Michael Bay}} only produced rather than directed is fine - but the name should be very well known. Rubin doesn't qualify IMHO. SnowFire (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Brian Grazer[edit]

Template:Brian Grazer (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The relevant Wikiproject advises against any filmography navboxes except director navboxes in order to avoid navbox creep. The implication is that once we start having crew navboxes for anything other than directors, the articles will be more navbox than article. Some films can have 5-6 producers, 3-4 writers, composers, editors, cinematographers, etc, etc. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Buck Henry[edit]

Template:Buck Henry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The relevant Wikiproject advises against any filmography navboxes except director navboxes in order to avoid navbox creep. The implication is that once we start having crew navboxes for anything other than directors, the articles will be more navbox than article. Some films can have 5-6 producers, 3-4 writers, composers, editors, cinematographers, etc, etc. Once we remove the writing credits, only two films are left, which then falls foul of WP:NENAN. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Damon Lindelof[edit]

Template:Damon Lindelof (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The relevant Wikiproject advises against any filmography navboxes except director navboxes in order to avoid navbox creep. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • To be clear, the discussion that you point to advises against actor filmography templates (stating that they should be deleted) but implies director templates should not be deleted under this directive. The discussion does not make any statement about writer and/or producer templates. You seem to have decided on your own that writer and producer templates should be deleted without any supporting consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The implication is that once we start having navboxes for anything other than directors, the articles will be more navbox than article. Some films can have 5-6 producers, 3-4 writers, and if we allow these, it won't be long before people start to create navboxes for composers, editors, cinematographers, best boys and key grips... --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Nav boxes aren't really needed for _any_ circumstance and are just cludge taking up space on the page. However, it's accepted to have them for directors, I don't support them for any other entity. I actually don't even see the reason for them for directors. There is usually a filmography on their page which serves the same purpose. At least, in the case of any other profession (screen writer, score composer, producer, actor) a filmography should suffice within the article. Navboxes are intrusive and stacks of navboxes are aethetically unpleasing and redundant to the content of the article.65.35.237.210 (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep This template provides solid navitational aid.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know where the consensus discussion is, but from Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates: "templates containing filmographies are not supported by this project. Such templates should be nominated for deletion as unusable. Note that filmography navbox templates for work by film directors are not covered by this consensus." Therefore, per this guideline, only director filmographies are acceptable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Robsinden your short memory is a bit disingenuous. A few weeks ago, we had one of these discussions in which you pointed me to the section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates and its supporting discussion which was a discussion about actors templates versus directors templates. No other types of templates were discussed. I pointed this out. And you did not contest that fact then. Now, instead you are pretending to forget where that discussion was and pointing back to a short project statement that was written in the context of actors versus director templates and acting like you don't remember the context of the supporting discussion. There has been no consensus regarding producer templates just like there had been no discussion a few weeks ago when we last had this discussion. Now, you are conveniently presenting this section that was written in another context as if now its context has changed. There was never a consensus building discussion regarding producer/writer navboxes. Would you be willing to have one before you run around changing the world of navboxes for the film industry.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, WP:AGF. I can only assume you're talking about this discussion? It seems I had a slightly softer approach to these crew navboxes then than I do now I've considered the consequences a little more! What I meant was that I don't know where the discussion regarding the wording is, and therefore I don't know whether producers, writers, etc were discussed at the time that wording was implemented. They may well have been. However, at face value, the wording is clear, and refers to all filmographies (it doesn't specify actors'), making one exception - directors. And let's face it, the intention is the same - to avoid navbox creep, something you if you would get if we allowed them for any member of a film crew, the same way we would if we allowed them for actors. If you consider auteur theory, it is generally accepted that the director is the "creator" of a film, and it makes sense that navboxes should be restricted to directors. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
No. In a previous TFD, you pointed us to a discussion that served as the basis for the directive that you are now pointing us to. It was a 5 or 10 year old discussion that only considered actor and director template. The point is that if you want to begin wiping out producer templates, we should have a discussion on the matter because the directive was based on a discussion of actor vs. director templates. Would you like to have a discussion at WP:FILM, WP:TV or WP:FILMBIO?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Robsinden where are you at? Since there has never been a discussion of whether producer template should exist (to my knowledge) and the directive that you keep pointing us to was based on actor vs. director templates, I continue to need to know whether you are willing to have a dialogue in an appropriate forum on the matter rather that a smattering of TFDs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete No matter how vast a producer's work may be, if we had navboxes for everyone with an extensive body of work we'd run into major WP:TEMPLATECREEP. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable producer with multiple films to navigate. No reason to delete. Dimadick (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Zeke. Actor and director navboxes are fine, but producer navboxes are a step too far for me. I don't support the use of any producer navboxes. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not convinced in the first place that a wikiproject view necessarily drives issues of this sort, nor that the discussion encompassed this specifically, nor that these would be anything other than helpful. With all due respect. It's perfectly fine, that being said, for (as stated in the first sentence pointed to) the wikiproject to decide to itself not support the navbox. The phrase "unusable" seems inapplicable, though used in the second sentence, and it seems someone is over-reaching. Epeefleche (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin. There is currently a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#RFC: Filmography navboxes to determine consensus as to whether the guideline should explicitly discourage producer and writer navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely[edit]

Template:Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The relevant Wikiproject advises against any filmography navboxes except director navboxes in order to avoid navbox creep. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep that consensus is more in regards to actors filmography, not production (ie directors, screenwriters) filmography. I think this navbox is acceptable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
To repeat the response I gave for another similar filmography navbox, the implication is that once we start having navboxes for anything other than directors (which is the only thing the project condones in the linked consensus), the articles will be more navbox than article. Some films can have 5-6 producers, 3-4 writers (Thor: The Dark World has 5, so imagine if they all had navboxes), and if we allow these, it won't be long before people start to create navboxes for composers, editors, cinematographers, best boys and key grips... --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Like and Dislike[edit]

Template:Like (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Dislike (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Wikipedia is not social media, and these 2 templates I'm nominating are a clear example of social media. --TL22 (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - By my reckoning, this is the SIXTH time these templates have been nominated for deletion in the past four years, with the previous outcomes being four "keeps" and one "no consensus." As previously discussed in most of those prior TfDs, WP:NOTFACEBOOK does not even mention templates, icons, etc., but expressly prohibits the use of Wikipedia for (1) personal web pages, (2) file storage areas, (3) dating services, and (2) memorials, each of which is explained and discussed at some length. Relying on WP:NOTFACEBOOK in this TfD is clearly misplaced, and the rationale has been rejected multiple times previously. These templates were never intended to be used in article space, and like many other "fun" elements from Wikipedia's formative years (e.g., barn stars, user boxes, service awards, etc.), there is ZERO harm in using such light-hearted elements in user and talk space. Don't like them? Don't use them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well that may be true, and it may be harmless, but being harmless isn't a reason for keeping. Its not actually useful anyway, its just serving for voting wheter you like or dislike it, and Wikipedia is not about majority votes, its about consensus. --TL22 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and prior consensus has been to keep these templates. The problem with so many TfDs that are not based in actual policy or the guidelines, is that they are exactly nothing more than a "vote," because in the absence of a basis in policy or the guidelines, there is nothing else upon which to base the "consensus". Sorry, been there, done that. You say "it's not a vote"; I say "you don't like it," nothing more. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
BTW, I see that you are a personal user of "user boxes". What purpose do they serve? Are they not similar to social media, in the same fashion as you suggest here? Perhaps we should have a discussion about whether all user boxes should be deleted, because they are harmless, serve no purpose in articlespace, and are used simply because some editors like them (while others do not). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
User boxes in templatespace do generally serve a purpose, e.g. indicating an editor's knowledge of a foreign language or their user rights. Also, user boxes have no effect on discussions. Alakzi (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as divisive and otherwise useless. In addition, templates with no utility should not be kept in templatespace; this isn't anybody's playground. Alakzi (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Alakzi, but I must disagree with you here. There is no evidence of this template being "divisive," except for the repeated attempts to delete it. There are ample precedents and plenty of evidence of the long acceptance of multiple varieties of templates in templatespace -- not used in articlespace -- including barn stars, user boxes, service awards, etc. This is a harmless bit of fun -- not everything in non-article space has to be "serious bidnez". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • They fall under the banner of unhelpful iconography. It'd be impossible to present any substantial, concrete evidence as to their effect; personally, I do get rather annoyed and distracted by them. Regardless, the number of times these "like" buttons have been nominated for deletion ought to serve as an indicator. I disagree on littering templatespace with "harmless" banners, awards, and the like. Alakzi (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I created Template:Like in 2009. The idea was to express approval on a talk page without needing to comment otherwise than "like". At the time, Wikipedia had no "Thank" function as it does now. The reason I created Template:Like was to fill a need more or less the way the "Thank" function now does. I don't use Template:Like and I can't remember the last time I saw anyone use it on a talk page. Thus it seems not to matter whether it gets deleted now. — ¾-10 15:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep They have over 1750 combined transclusions which suggests to me that they are used. I'd be happy to run through and subst: them all and see if what and where the future use is, although I just saw a use on Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Accepted nominations by Buster7 which is why I'm leaning towards keep for now. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep – These are useful and functional templates that provide options for editors. Deletion of them will only limit options, and won't serve to improve Wikipedia. Furthermore WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK is about Wikipedia pages, rather than simple graphics. Also keep as per the rationale of Dirtlawyer1. North America1000 18:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Nom doesn't address arguments made in past attempts, and current rationale doesn't hold water. WP:Notsocial isn't meant to prevent people from expressing approval or disapproval on talk pages, which is what these templates are primarily used for. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I like the template and use it often enough. Its useful to display support to a comment or an action in a way that is visible to all not just a "thank" (which I also use often) which is only visible to the recepient. Unless I'm mistaken we are all humans and so we have a social side to our make-up. This isn't about mimicking social media but about displaying manners which is the lubricant between collaborators. A few more thank yous and likes and there may not be as much drama everywhere. Using the like or dislike template as a messaging tool is quick, simple and effective. Why should we take a tool out of the editors Toolbox; it doesn't make sense. Buster Seven Talk 18:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The NOTFACEBOOK policy is not related with the talk pages (where these templates are used) but with the articles content. In a similar way, Wikipedia is also WP:NOTFORUM but it has talk pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Two templates are not going to turn Wikipedia into a social network. They're just a graphical way to say "nice" or "thank you". §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep two friendly user talk templates will do no harm. I have never seen them used in a way that is detrimental to Wikipedia so there is no good reason to delete. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. These templates are intrusive, unnecessary and have poor accessibility "1750 combined transclusions" in six years, for a template of this type, reflects very low community takeup (equivalent to less than once per day). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete 👍 Like ‹See TfD› Not facebook not like thumbs down.pngDislike ‹See TfD› WP:NOTFACEBOOK -- Wikipedia is not a social club, and this applies to all pages, not just article pages. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:NOTFACEBOOK: it has nothing to do with this discussion, but it does prohibit the use of Wikipedia for four specifically identified activitities -- none of which has anything to do with a thumb's up icon. Please feel free to quote any provision of NOTFACEBOOK which you believe is applicable to this discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, and {{trout}} to the nom. A bit more "social interaction" would go a long way towards improving the collaboration of this project. (note: Andy and I don't always agree. :)). — Ched :  ?  11:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Keep all at worst these are harmless, and while I I don't use them myself they serve a purpose for those people that do while causing no problems for anyone else. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep for tradition. I never use them myself, but would miss some on my talk archives, put there by people I LIKE, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep handy and useful. Also put a one-year moratorium on raising this at AfD again! Montanabw(talk) 18:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, I am not sure what the nominator means by these 2 templates I'm nominating are a clear example of social media. They are templates that convey the opinion of the person using they are no more intrusive than {{done}}. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - "like" is a simple and clear way of indicating agreement or support for a post. Not appropriate in article space, but useful in talk page discussion and on the reference desks. SemanticMantis (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete They're annoying, and WP:NOTFACEBOOK. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Useful for discussions. Honestly, at this point the deletion nominations are more disruptive than the templates ever were. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I happen to 👍 Like ‹See TfD› them, and Not facebook not like thumbs down.pngDislike ‹See TfD› having to waste time rehashing the same old arguments over and over. Next thing you know, they'll want to get rid of {{smiley}} too. Face-sad.svg. Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC).
  • Comment - OK, I admit that NOTFACEBOOK doesn't apply, though NOTFORUM seems to apply. By the way, there is seem to be a lot of ILIKEIT and ITSUSEFUL arguments in the votes. There is even one that says they should be kept just because its on a talk page archive. Dunno guys, but maybe this should be relisted. --TL22 (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Old Test Edit Warnings[edit]

Template:Test (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-test1}}
Template:Tests (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-test1}}
Template:Test intro (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → Delete
Template:Test1a (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-delete1}} (Already redirected)
Template:Test1article (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-test1}}
Template:Test2 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-test2}}
Template:Test2a (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-delete2}}
Template:Test2article (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-test2}}
Template:Test2del (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-delete2}}
Template:Test3 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-test3}}
Template:Test3a (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-delete3}}
Template:Test3article (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-test3}}
Template:Test3ip (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-test3}}
Template:Test4 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-vandalism4}}
Template:Test4alt (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-vandalism4}}
Template:Test4aalt (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-delete4}}
Template:Test4article (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-vandalism4}}
Template:Test4im (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-vandalism4im}}
Template:Test4im-alt (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-vandalism4im}}
Template:Test5 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-block}} (Already redrected)
Template:Test5i (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-vblock}} (Use the indef=yes parameter)
Template:Test6 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-vblock}} (Or delete as 5 serves this purpose already)

Propose redirecting to new templates. These templates have grown and spread into a uninteliable mess of random templates, most of which use odd language which goes against current guidelines. For example, the block notices don't inform blocked users about how to request an unblock, in fact they don;t even mention that it is possible. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 27#Old Spam Warnings. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Test, Test2, Test3, and Test4, neutral on the rest. I'd like to thank EoRdE6 to take the time crafting this nomination. Note prior discussions Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 17#Template:Test and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 3#Template:Test. My view hasn't changed since the last time around. I still use the older templates because I prefer the language. No one's confused by the existence of these templates and they do no harm. I'd like more explanation as to how these templates could possibly violate any guidelines, seeing as they simply provide boilerplate text. How does the project benefit from this action? Mackensen (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Mackensen: The wording of some could violate guidelines and confuse new users. For example, {{Test6}} doesn't even mention unblock procedures . {{Test2}} makes absolutely no sense if yo read it, Such edits are considered vandalism and quickly undone. And things like {{Test4im-alt}} say Your recent vandalism has shown you to be intent on doing harm to Wikipedia... you will be reported to administrators which first sounds childish (intent to do harm to Wikipedia?) and then says you will be reported to admins, without explain what happens then, and no links to the blocking policy. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm agnostic on Test4im-alt and Test6 so I'm not sure why you're arguing with me about them. As for Test2, I find I can parse its meaning. The original wording did not include the clause " and quickly undone" and I would support its removal. Mackensen (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nothing has changed since the two previous discussions linked in Mackensen's message. Some of us prefer the old templates' style and continue to use them. Given that they aren't listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace (which would confuse users seeking an appropriate template), their retention causes absolutely no harm.
    These are talk page messages, which needn't be uniform (unlike templates appearing in articles). No "guidelines" require the use of specific wording when conveying information via someone's talk page. Any editor who wanted to could store these templates' text on personal subpages and transclude them at will, but it's far more convenient to retain the longstanding locations (at which they've resided since long before the "uw" series was created). The requested action is a solution in search of a problem (and one that would cause problems for no good reason). —David Levy 19:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @David Levy: My concern here also centers on the wording of some of them, and that ones like the block notices don't give unblock instructions which could confuse new editors and cause accidental socking. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Actual deficiencies in some of the templates' wording can be addressed through normal editing. There's no need to redirect the entire set indiscriminately. —David Levy 19:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • What an insane number of templates, all doing essentially the same thing! Keep Test, Test2, Test3, and Test4, as they do appear to see some use; redirect or delete the others to the more modern and maintained equivalents, as proposed. — This, that and the other (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all but the blocking templates - the objection to the blocking templates (that they don't tell you how to request an unblock) seems perfectly reasonable and those should be redirected to the newer templates. The other templates have a legitimate use, though, for those who want their message to sound like it comes from a human. The uw templates all seem less user friendly and these test templates provide a reasonable alternative for users who desire to use them. --B (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, these are still in regular use and the content doesn't have any major issues. Nakon 00:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Test, Test2, Test3 and Test4 per This, that and the other; redirect the rest. Compromise is integral to a collaborative environment; surely, we can compromise on having two of each kind, but no more? Alakzi (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Test, Test2, Test3, and Test4. Also keep Test5i, which is the target of {{Uw-test5i}}, and sometimes absolutely priceless. The others are a bit obscure these days really and I'm like meh about them. However if someone wants to keep them let them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect the TestXarticle templates to the uw-createX templates, TestXa, Test2del and Test4aalt to uw-deleteX, Test, TestX and Tests to uw-testX (except for Test4, Test4alt, Test4im and Test4im-alt which should be redirected to uw-vandalismX), Test6 to {{uw-vblock}}, Test5i to {{uw-indefblock}} and Delete Test3ip. The Test3ip template could be redirected to any of the uw-testX templates, but I can't decide to which. also redirect Test3ip to {{welcome-anon-unconstructive}}. Or maybe Keep all but Test4im-alt (due to blameful language) for legacy purposes. Changed my mind, legacy only applies to Wikipedia pages. --TL22 (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or redriect per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Uw-restore[edit]

Template:Uw-restore1 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Uw-restore2 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Uw-restore3 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Uw-restore4 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unecessary and redundant combination of {{uw-ew}} and the uw-disruptive series. TL22 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

That's it? Just a vote? --TL22 (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
These templates are not as useful, there is other template that would cover more advice and warning than these. Hajme 00:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, but please always remember to put a reason on your vote. --TL22 (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Seems that no one taken action yet, so I'm relisting this. --TL22 (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TL22 (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

April 25[edit]

Template:Tonio Ranks[edit]

Template:Tonio Ranks (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Delete or userfy. All entries are either unlinked, or point to articles in the "Draft:" space. Delete if the topic is deemed non-notable, otherwise userfy pending creation of the articles. NSH002 (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television film[edit]

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 (NAC, SNOW). There is overwhelming consensus against the proposition. Codename Lisa (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television film (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox film (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox television film with Template:Infobox film.
Largely overlapping. A comparison of parameters is available. This FAQ explains why redundant templates should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge If the infoboxes were merged then further alterations would require consultation with two Wikiprojects (WP:FILM and WP:TELVISION). While there is a substantial overlap there are notable differences that reflect the different project outlooks. Notably, WP:FILM continually reject the addition of a genre parameter since it is a subjective perspective rather than a concrete fact; also, the preceded by and followed by parameters were deactivated at {{Infobox film}} a couple of years ago and the film articles rely completely on templates and navboxes for sequel navigation. Since the templates serve different projects with a different set of editors with primarily different aims I think the distinction should be retained. Betty Logan (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Differences of opinions between two projects should not prevent two similar templates from being merged (equally, we should not fork a template, just because one arbitrary group of editors wants to do things differently to another arbitray group of editors). While we should use the same technique for navigation between sequels regardless of the project which has an interest in the subject, the merger would not prevent the status quo systems from being used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Along with the items that BL mentions the "Original channel" - "original run" and "number of episodes" are useful for TV shows, they are not needed in the film infobox. MarnetteD|Talk 19:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Why would TV show articles not use {{Infobox television}}? Alakzi (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Further to Alakzi's good point; that they are not needed in some articles is not a reason not to merge templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Further still, a merge of this infobox with the television infobox would be trivial; the three parameters which are missing from the latter are |budget=, |screenplay= and |story=. If the two factions don't want to work together, they can at least keep to one infobox each. Alakzi (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
        • If that's the only additional difference, we should probably merge all three. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Considering that the scope of the projects are fairly distinct fom each other (the only overlap being TV films) I don't see why it is necessary to merge similar infoboxes. They are tailored to the specific subset of articles they are used on, where editors have developed different views on what information should be included/excluded etc. Both areas have active projects that rarely have any need to work together. This is a classic case of trying to fix something that isn't broken. By merging these infoboxes it will mean that the Film project will have to consult the television project to make alterations to the representation of data on articles that the television project has no declared interest in and vice versa. If these articles did not require a different set of considerations from each other then we wouldn't have two separate projects serving these areas. Why reduce the autonomy of these two projects when it is not necessary? Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
            • These infoboxes do not "belong" to projects. The FAQ I linked to, above explains what is being "fixed". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
              • First of all I do not not consider the two infoboxes redundant, and second of all that FAQ is just an essay by you that reflects your rationale. It does not reflect any particular community perspective. You also have not addressed the fact that WP:Television does not have a declared interest in film articles and WP:FILM does not have a declared interest in television articles, and that merging the infoboxes will effectively oblige two largely independent sets of editors to collectively consider a large group of articles neither have a declared interest in. Betty Logan (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
                • Saying that it would require editors to consider the larger wikipedia seems a rather counter-intuitive counter-argument. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
                  • Your comment is something of a non sequiter. Templates exist to tailor regular content to groups of articles; films and television articles are two distinct groups that are not generally considered collectively. The technical treatment of these articles should reflect the actual reality of editing them. Betty Logan (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
                • That's why I called it a "FAQ", not a policy. I believe I have addressed precisely the former points you accuse me of not having addressed. Jason has adequately addressed your latter point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; I agree with Andy Mabbett that {{Infobox television film}} would better be merged into {{Infobox television}}. Also, though irrelevant, if his username (Pigsonthewing) is a reference to the Pink Floyd song of the same name, then I like his taste in music. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 21:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Andy: Can we get an early close and a renomination for merging with {{Infobox television}}? Alakzi (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge I don't agree with the merge idea and it's best to keep film and television infoboxes separate due to different information and alterations of the films and shows represent. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I linked above to a comparison of parameters, whch shows that they - and thus their information - are mostly the same. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Newsflash, pal. Not everything in those two infoboxes are the same and there's a reason why they should be kept separate. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't have an opinion yet, so it might be helpful if you explained the difference and reasons (preferably more civilly). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
        • @BattleshipMan: That reason would be..? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Because films and TV don't have anything common in detail. Films are one movie and TV shows are a number of episodes. TV shows have showrunners, films don't. Those are among a few reasons why those templates should be separate. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - Don't fix it if it ain't broke. BMK (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - Film and TV are not the same. Bluerules (talk)
  • Oppose merge - Film and TV are not the same. Magazines are not books. ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Film and Television are two different things --Mjs1991 (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm all for template consolidation, but {{Infobox film}} and {{Infobox television}} appear to be sufficiently distinct in their usage, and {{Infobox television film}} seems to be a better merge candidate with the latter. PC78 (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not the same thing. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Yes, they serve similar purposes (as do ALL infoboxes), but they are different and impart different information to our readers. Apples and oranges are both fruits, but thy are different fruits. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge with iFilm, but Support merge with iTelevision. — A WPTV contributor, Wyliepedia 05:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    • If it has to be merged I'd say it would be better to merge with infobox television.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
      • @Pigsonthewing: If you relist this as a proposal to merge with infobox television rather than film I'll support.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
        • No, not the other way as well. Film and television are two different things. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    • This is not a vote. Your WikiProject affilaition is irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Don't cross the streams. MB1972 (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose merge Feel pitty for the one who started this senseless discussion as television film and a feature film are two different things and have different credits ofcourse. You want to merge a sea into river and that's impossible! UBStalk 21:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Rivers merge into seas all the time. feature films and television films are not different things, no matter how you and other project-members would like to pretend so; they're just different parts of the same spectrum. Modern technology (Netflix, at al) is blurring the distinction even more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Egzistence of multiple Wikiprojects is irrelevant to merge (or templates in general). I believe, this is also a good opportunity to review "status quo" matters (should be done regularly). Optional parameters are natural (increased number of unused fields after merge is not a valid argument - I wildly guess that it is possible to prove that ~20% average utilation of fields is opptimal. User:Betty Logan is not familiar with the purpose of templates - their arguments can be safely ignored. Most other posts by editors from affected projects do not even contain arguments. Might be difficult to reach meaningful consensus in this atmosphere, but I recommend seeking administrative/authority support (replying to void statements is not productive) and holding onto the project.
    If Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) is willing to put effort required for merge (including supporting systematic update of film article infoboxes, which might be negatively affected by changes), I would strongly support 'film' + 'TV-film' merge. On the other hand, idea of merging 'TV-series' with 'TV-film' does not seem correct. Ideally, all three (or more) current infoboxes should be redeveloped into two separate templates ('film' & 'series'), optionally, morphing the new infoboxes towards commonality with other relevant templates [art-work (song, ...), product (software, ...), publication (magazine, ...)].
    There could be further discussion on categorization (possibly having auxiliary boxes, besides 'film' & 'series') and inheritance (ultimately 'film', 'series' and other video art infoboxes should have a common parent template). However, opposition on the basis of "status quo" or metaphors is invalid. Fakedeeps (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I have designed and coded quite a few templates, so I am more than familiar with their purpose. In fact I believe it gives me an insight editors such as yourself lack, since I have come to firmly understand that Wikipedia's technical underpinnings are subservient to editing practices, and not the other way around. Betty Logan (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
      • This is more an issue of categorization, than technical underpinnings, which, indeed, should serve here, again. Fakedeeps (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Not one article would need to be updated as a result of the proposed merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. TV show templates, tv film templates, and feature film templates are all different. Furthermore, feature film templates can be expanded with parameters that do not (yet) apply to tv show/tv film infobox templates. -Mardus (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Some editors feel there are too many different infoboxes and believe there is some kind of virtue in cutting down the number. However, I don't think the regular users of Wikipedia (i.e. the non editors) are in any way disturbed by the fact that there is one infobox for feature films, another for TV films, and a third for TV series, quite the opposite. Different infoboxes for different things help editors to understand what information is most relevant for each category, and thus help readers find the most useful info. Too many fields intended for different things within a template only serves to create confusion, and increases the risk that editors, especially the greenhorns, miss adding good information even if it's available for them. Let's keep all three and improve them, instead of merging for its own sake. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm in a complete agreement on what Thomas Blomberg said. There's no way we are merging those infoboxes together and what Pigsonthewing is trying to do is unnecessary. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • You're apparenlty unaware that infoboxes may have optional fields which are only used as required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this merge but Support merging Template:Infobox television film with Template:Infobox television. By all means delete or merge infoboxes that are redundant or not used, but television films and cinema films have huge differences and budgets, so they can be expected to suit different purposes and requirements. For example, Template:Infobox film has a "gross" field, as expected, but Template:Infobox television film does not, as also expected. Conversely, Infobox television film includes airing dates, a common and useful metric, while Infobox film obviously does not. How would you merge all that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • In the same way that we have already merged hundreds of largely-overlapping infoboxes with some optional fields that ware not used in all articles. Why this is an issue in this case, but not all those precedents is not made clear by any of the above comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose First, I want to make clear that I am not opposed to anything that may be new and better, but I am not sure we are gaining anything by it, if not actually making things worse. The problem as I see it with merging the infoboxes templte is that it possibly would hurt usability for future editors as they may find terms confusing or that they do not understand what they are editing. If the two were merged, you would have a larger infobox template. Now, if doing this would somehow make the given article more readable for the end user, I would be for it. Or if it made things easier editing, then I would be for it. But I actually think that down the line it just creates more confusion. Besides the inherent distinction that a "made for TV" movie is clearly different from a theatrical release. Even if that was not the case at some point in the future, you still have a vast catalog of films that are made for TV that have yet to get an entry on Wikipedia. So I actually think it has the potential to hinder in more than one area here. Nodekeeper (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • As I said above, this FAQ explains why redundant templates should be merged. Perhaps you missed that. It addresses the points you raise. As for "the inherent distinction that a 'made for TV' movie is clearly different from a theatrical release"; that is bunkum. Some films are made of theatrical release; that is then cancelled; they are subsequently used as "TV" movies. Your premise also ignores straight-to-video/DVD releases, and on-line only releases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
      • @Pigsonthewing: Actually, I'm in an agreement Nodekeeper. This merge might make things worse of film infoboxes, not better and what your trying to justifying has no bearing on this propose merge. You better accept that this merge is with met with a rather opposition. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The TV and film projects collaborate when necessary but, while there are similarities between the infoboxes, the parameter use and requirements are different because of some subtle differences between film and television. Some of these have arisen in recent times making me think that it would be a bad thing to make both projects use the same template. The genre parameter has already been mentioned. Another is that of runtimes. A single template would result in no end of conflicts when determining instructions for some of the parameters. Even if we had two sets of instructions, we'd have some issues with adding or removing parameters as, despite instructions, the presence of parameters makes them available to both projects. I do think that a merge of {{Infobox television film}} and {{Infobox television}} is worth considering and that would seem the more logical choice. --AussieLegend () 14:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
As it happens, a merge with {{Infobox television}} is very simple. I've already added the appropriate code to that template's sandbox.[2] This provides far better consistency across the TV project. --AussieLegend () 18:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Support an {{Infobox television}} merge, but I think it'd be better to have a fresh nom. Alakzi (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2015 (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:Fighting game character[edit]

Template:Fighting game character (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox video game character (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Fighting game character with Template:Infobox video game character.
FGC is used as a module in 146 (about one quarter of) instances of VGC. The two should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Highlander character[edit]

Template:Infobox Highlander character (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. (20 transclusions.) This FAQ explains why redundant templates should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

keep or merge - no explanation why it should be deleted except that its redudant, which it is not. The replacement are missing a lot of parameters. Number of transclusions doenst matter Christian75 (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox pulps character[edit]

Template:Infobox pulps character (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. Some parameters are crufty and perhaps best discarded. (Only 10 transclusions.) This FAQ explains why redundant templates should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

keep or merge - no explanation why it should be deleted except that its redudant, which it is not. The replacement are missing a lot of parameters. Number of transclusions doenst matter Christian75 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Power Rangers character[edit]

Template:Infobox Power Rangers character (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. (Has just 28 transclusions.) This FAQ explains why redundant templates should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - Uses custom parameters (such as Color and Zords) that are essential information for Power Rangers characters. ANDROS1337TALK 16:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Andros 1337: {{Infobox character}} has six customisable parameter/label pairs. Why are they not adequate for that purpose, for just 28 articles? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Perhaps that would work. However, one thing that might be a potential source of problems is the colored header on the standard character template. Some Power Rangers characters have been more than one color, and this could be a potential source of edit warring on what color to use for the header. Do we go by the color they were most famous in, the color they served the longest in, or the color they most recently appeared in? We eliminated them from this template for this very reason, replacing it with a "Color" parameter that you simply add colored boxes to show the full history of all colors they have appeared in. ANDROS1337TALK 00:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
        • There is no need to show colours at all, but if you wish to do it the same customisable parameters will suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • keep per Andros 1137, and there is no polycy which states that the number of transclutions play any role. We have templates which are transclude by one article only, e.g. template:Hydrogen... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian75 (talkcontribs) 21:56, 27 April 2015‎
    • Straw man, since no such policy has been claimed. Furthermore, you advance no argument as to why a separate template is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant, or modularise, as having five extra fields is not exactly ideal. Regardless, I've replaced one transclusion to demonstrate the conversion. Alakzi (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Dune character[edit]

Template:Infobox Dune character (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. (Has only 30 transclusions.) This FAQ explains why redundant templates should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • keep or merge - no explanation why it should be deleted except that its redudant, which it is not. The replacement are missing a lot of parameters. Christian75 (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Christian75: The nominator clearly nominated the template for merging. Regards "missing" parameters, that may be because Template:Infobox character better provides the information needed to write about the character in accordance with our guideline on writing about fiction. In other words, Template:Dune character (and the other templates nominated for today) does a bad job differentiating between fictional and nonfictional content, and which content is actually important to the encyclopedia (hint: it's not the fictional content). --Izno (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; no useful parameters missing from {{Infobox character}}. image2 and image3 can be placed outside the infobox, the way it's usually done. Alakzi (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge. This template is a holdover from the days when many individual shows and franchises had their own specific infoboxes, which has been proven redundant and unnecessary. In this particular case, all the content can be accommodated by {{Infobox character}} with some tweaks. Assuming this TfD is successful, I will make these changes to all of the articles that use this template.— TAnthonyTalk 16:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox James Bond character[edit]

Template:Infobox James Bond character (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. (Has only 35 transclusions.) This FAQ explains why redundant templates should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

keep or merge - no explanation why it should be deleted except that its redudant, which it is not. The replacement are missing a lot of parameters. Number of transclusions doenst matter Christian75 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Jane Austen character[edit]

Template:Infobox Jane Austen character (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. Some parameters are crufty and perhaps best discarded. (Has just 19 transclusions.) This FAQ explains why redundant templates should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

keep or merge - no explanation why it should be deleted except that its redudant, which it is not. The replacement are missing a lot of parameters. Number of transclusions doenst matter Christian75 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:505 Games[edit]

Template:505 Games (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

There is already a page List of 505 video games, and also 505 Games is a big publisher, and that it is almost impossible to have a navbox to list all the games published by them. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, navboxes are for related articles, video games that are published by the same company isn't notable enough to merit its own navbox. --Soetermans. T / C 11:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Histrefm[edit]

Template:Histrefm (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused. Part of an inactive workgroup. Magioladitis (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete or Merge. Appears to be part of a series of templates used by WP:TIMETRACE, the others being {{Histref}} and {{Histrefverif}}. I expect all three could be merged into {{WikiProject Timeline Tracer}} which would be more appropriate, though perhaps not worth the bother if the project is inactive. Otherwise this seems like unnecessary talk page clutter - we have an ample supply of cleanup templates for articles needing sources. Have you notified the WikiProject, just in case anyone is still there? PC78 (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Or perhaps Redirect to {{Histref}} as it appears to serve the exact same purpose. PC78 (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete- I am sure this served a purpose in 07 (ah those heady days of yesteryear) but this template has been superseded by several others at this point. MarnetteD|Talk 04:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this merging please, as it creates many problems to readers !!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgyu (talkcontribs) 05:45, 26 April 2015‎ (UTC)
    • What "problems" will be created for our readers by removing this unused talk page template? PC78 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
      • As template provides a picture and info briefly and it is very useful for readers to get the information quickly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgyu (talkcontribs) 08:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Talk pages are for editors, not readers, and the template is unused anyway. For highlighting problems with an article it's completely redundant to {{Refimprove}} and others. PC78 (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

April 24[edit]

Template:Tpcleanup underway[edit]

Template:Tpcleanup underway (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused template from a defunct wikiproject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Talk pages). I can't imagine a circumstance in which it would be appropriate to put this on a talk page. DexDor (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. Hard to gauge if this is "unused" as by it's nature this is only a temporary notice. Obviously it's meant to go on talk pages that are "currently undergoing cleanup", but besides advertising the WikiProject it appears to be redundant to {{in use}}. PC78 (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox CFL team[edit]

Template:Infobox CFL team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox American football team}}, save for the one pre-filled parameter label. I've replaced one transclusion to demonstrate. Alakzi (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Keep - the CFL is not American football. In addition, the delete notice on the infobox has broken the infobox so it can't be used. - BilCat (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    • We can call it {{Infobox gridiron football team}}, if it makes any difference. Alakzi (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Alakzi, to the extent template names matter, no one has commonly referred to American football as "gridiron football" for decades, and even then, the term "gridiron" was used most often metaphorically to refer to the field, not the sport. Today, "gridiron football" is a term used almost exclusively outside North America by other English-speaking countries to distinguish American and Canadian football from association football. It's not elegant, but I think "Infobox American-Canadian football team" would probably be the most semantically obvious phrasing. That said, I would be curious to hear what BilCat thinks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
        • OR we could do a "Canadian football team" redirect for "Template:American football team," and the CFL guys would not have to change a thing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Serves me right for using Wikipedia as a source. Alakzi (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @BilCat: Are there any Canadian football-specific or CFL-specific parameters you need which this template currently lacks? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't actually use the infobox regularly, so I don't know. I posted a note at WP:CFL, but no one's posted hear. The redirect would probably be fine if no one objects. - BilCat (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Oakland, New Jersey Schools[edit]

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. Participants are in favour of keeping the navbox now that it's been repurposed. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Oakland, New Jersey Schools (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unneeded template for such a small amount of schools, that are even actual articles. No other municipalities include their own template for schools, just counties. Tinton5 (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Templates like this should be used for navigation. The articles for this one, for the most part, haven't been created, and probably shouldn't be created (a redirect to the school district page should be enough). Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: The elementary school names were intentionally not linked. However this template does not only have those elementary schools. It also links to the senior high school and the Japanese school, which do have articles, and it has a redlink to Barnstable Academy. If need be I can expand this template to all aspects of the city of Oakland so other things are linked. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Still, this template is not needed. That's what we have a category for. Now if there were over a dozen schools with links, then maybe, just maybe I would think differently. Tinton5 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact, the category: Category:Schools in Oakland, New Jersey doesn't seem necessary, either. Category:Schools in Bergen County, New Jersey should suffice. But that's another topic. Tinton5 (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep by broadening template: I found that there are some National Register of Historic Places properties in Oakland. So I am adding them to the template as a way to "list all notable places" in the city. I moved the template to: Template:Oakland, New Jersey WhisperToMe (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep They're not too common in smaller municipalities across the nation or New Jersey, but a template like this does serve as an aid to navigation. With the renaming and repurposing from schools to articles related to Oakland, I think that this is an appropriate addition to these articles per WP:CLN. I would remove any non-existent articles from the template and I would oppose the inclusion of people in the template, as has been done elsewhere. Alansohn (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Change vote to keep I would like to withdraw this nomination, due to the current state of the template, as it has been improved greatly. Tinton5 (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2015 (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.

Lacrosse team infoboxes[edit]

Template:Infobox NLL team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox MLL team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox PLL team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox NLL defunct team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox NLL team, Template:Infobox PLL team and Template:Infobox NLL defunct team with Template:Infobox MLL team.
League forks with an extremely high degree of overlap; we can accommodate all of them in a single {{Infobox professional lacrosse team}}. Alakzi (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge as proposed. Do we need the word "professional" in the new name? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There are significant departures between the leagues' fields, like Steinfeld Cup vs Champion's Cup, and Home Stadium vs Home Arena. Powers T 15:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NWSL College Draft[edit]

Template:Infobox NWSL College Draft (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox MLS SuperDraft (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox NWSL College Draft with Template:Infobox MLS SuperDraft.
Gender fork of {{Infobox MLS SuperDraft}}; we can accommodate both leagues in a single infobox. Alakzi (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:TemplatePromoter[edit]

Template:TemplatePromoter (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused template that doesn't appear to be useful. Template creator advertised it (e.g. here), but it hasn't caught on. DexDor (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

this is agradman, the template's creator, not logged in. Just here to say that I no longer edit Wikipedia and I can't even remember what this template was for. I have no objection to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.26.186 (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:MUBI film[edit]

Template:MUBI film (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Advertising spam adding links to a film forum. See [3] and [4] as examples. Betty Logan (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not a useful link, fails WP:EL. PC78 (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

April 23[edit]

Template:Resident Evil chronology[edit]

Template:Resident Evil chronology (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The template has been recently created and has many issues: A) it is an indiscriminate collection of information. B) it contains fancruft, which is uninteresting to the general reader. C) it contains original research as there are no third-party, reliable sources that support this extremely detailed chronology; D) the chronology of the Resident Evil video game series is very complex, with multiple storylines taking place at the same time, so all the entries cannot be put in the same timeline; for example, Resident Evil 3: Nemesis takes place before and after Resident Evil 2, not just before that game like the template says. E) Several links are redirects or don't exist. F) it is redundant to Template:Resident Evil, which is a much better-designed template. Niwi3 (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep A) It is not an "indiscriminate collection of information". It is a comprehensive overview of the canonical entries of the Resident Evil game series, listed in story order, which B) is not uninteresting to the general reader (which I am, I have no investment in the Resident Evil saga and have never played any of the games) as the series has such a complicated interwoven plot, the genereal reader may immediately feel lost as to what takes place when. C) No original research was involved, all comes from third-party sources which are listed. D) The template clearly DOES state that Resident Evil 3: Nemesis takes place before and after Resident Evil 2 (September 28-October 1, 1998 vs September 29-30, 1998). E) All the links exist... F) it is in no way redundant to Template:Resident Evil as the two serve a completely different purpose and both contain things that the other doesn't. As for the design it is consistent with the standard for Video game fictional chronology templates on Wikipedia. G) Thank you very much for NOT notifying me you were nominating the template I spent hours slaving over for deletion as common courtesy would demand you do... Happy Evil Dude (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Using a template to describe a complex chronology of a video game series like Resident Evil is not the way to go. Things should be put into context and supported with reliable sources. And when I mean reliable sources I mean third-party, published sources (written by reliable authors) that are independent of the subject, not user-submitted wikis like the Resident Evil Wiki or the Giant Bomb wiki page for the series. Also, you added these sources after I nominated the template for deletion. In any case, templates should only contain links to individual articles that exist, and they should avoid details like fictional dates. Keep in mind that templates mainly serve as a navigation tool. If you want to detail the chronology of the Resident Evil series, creating a new section in the Resident Evil article is the best option. You can use the The Legend of Zelda article as an example. And I'm sorry for not letting you know about this nomination as I assumed you would be whatching the page. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: given the structure of the series, a chronology is probably necessary on the main series page as a prose section. But as it stands, the template looks unwieldy and convoluted, and the series itself has caused it to be like this, so it is an unsolvable problem. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Something like this is better suited for the Resident Evil wikia page than Wikipedia. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge into the main Resident Evil article as prose. I for one welcome the addition of a chronology, which I think is sorely lacking from the main article (compare to God of War (series) for example, which has a clearly outlined game chronology) but I don't think a template is the way to go. I also disagree that this would be uninteresting to the general reader. I think this is exactly the type of thing a general reader would be curious about. And not notifying the page's creator? That's bad form. Bertaut (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Since the template was recently created, I assumed that the creator would be watching it. But I agree, I should have left a message in the creator's talk page just in case. As for the idea of merging the content of the template into the Resident Evil article, I'm not against it as long as the content can be supported with reliable sources, similar to the chronology of The Legend of Zelda. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, per deletion of other chronology templates. Frietjes (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, per all the previous discussion about chronological video game templates. This table could be very well fitted into the Resident Evil main article though. --Soetermans. T / C 12:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Angelyne[edit]

Template:Angelyne (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only three links. WP:NENAN. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • weak delete, the articles are well-connected through the succession links in the infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Rooney Garland films[edit]

Template:Rooney Garland films (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

No actor filmography navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete actor filmography naxbov per consensus at provided link. Aspects (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep As their navbox indicates, Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland made ten films together at MGM and it was one of the most familiar and fondly-remembered teamings in film history. If one consults, however, either the Mickey Rooney article or the Mickey Rooney filmography article, one would not be able to determine which films featured both of them. The same would be true if one goes to the Judy Garland article or the List of Judy Garland performances article. In fact, this navbox is the sole source in Wikipedia in which the full list of the Rooney-Garland films is specifically laid out in a sorted fashion and labeled as such. The titles and dates are all there, and anyone needing a quick reference for all 10 titles can find them and, subsequently, access them, one after the other, without having to search through the two filmographies which do not even list co-stars of specific films. Deletion of this navbox would only make film research more difficult without gaining anything in return. Such an occurrence would run counter to what Wikipedia stands for. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Bud and Terence[edit]

Template:Bud and Terence (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

No actor filmography navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete actor filmography naxbov per consensus at provided link. Aspects (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Among the numerous films featuring Terence Hill or Bud Spencer, it is the 17 titles in the navbox (Spencer's article states "over 20 films") in which they appeared as a team between 1967 and 1994, that are most frequently recollected. Although the filmography in the Terence Hill article does not clearly (or even at all) specify which of his films were made with Spencer, the filmography within the Bud Spencer article, does, in fact, have such a separate listing. Even with that in mind, in the final analysis, the convenience of this navbox extends, as with all navboxes, to the user's ability to access each film without having to return each time to the filmography and in having, at a single glance, the chronological layout of the two actors' collaboration. Such ease of use, especially for those unfamiliar with all the other, more detailed methods of searching through filmographies, should be kept in place, rather than deleted. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Fred and Ginger[edit]

Template:Fred and Ginger (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

No actor filmography navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete actor filmography naxbov per consensus at provided link. Aspects (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Astaire and Rogers are, undoubtedly, the most renowned musical and dancing team in film history. Having said that (no one has, as yet, submitted the Template:Eddy MacDonald films for deletion) such singing team navboxes as those for Janet Gaynor-Charles Farrell, Dick Powell-Ruby Keeler or Mickey Rooney-Judy Garland [per nomination above] are, or should be, equally welcome. As for this navbox, it encompasses ten films and anyone may visit the articles Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers plus the related articles Fred Astaire chronology of performances and Fred Astaire's solo and partnered dances, to fruitlessly search for a separate listing of these films. Unless one already knows which titles to search for, one is forced to plow through entire filmographies and scroll through listings to arrive at the titles. Furthermore, in order to navigate from film to film, among the ten films, one is forced to return to the filmographies each time in order to see what was the title of the previous film was and what would be the title of the subsequent film. Since both Astaire and Rogers (especially Rogers), made other films between their joint musicals, one loses the sense of continuity and time frame in the connective thread of the films they made together, with no indication or highlighting of their common efforts. This navbox, on the other hand, is the sole place in Wikipedia where the films are clearly laid out with easy and convenient navigation from film to film, without having to return to the filmographies. Surely, Wikipedia users deserve such convenience. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Laurel and Hardy filmography[edit]

Template:Laurel and Hardy filmography (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

No actor filmography navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep: This isn't merely an "actor" navbox, but a series, or genre, like {{Carry On Films}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per POTW, this is an act like the Andrews Sisters, or Monty Python, or The Beatles, or Aerosmith, not an actor filmography. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The act is covered by {{Laurel and Hardy}}. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per prior concensus. Looks exactly like a filmography to me. Perhaps merge into {{Laurel and Hardy}}, but since that template already links to the fine Laurel and Hardy filmography article, I'm not sure even that's necessary. PC78 (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, as the filmography article already gives all the information about their films. Because there's already a general navbox, anyone looking for their films can easily find that. While they might've been act, this is a filmography, while the Carry On or Monty Python templates list their work and related articles and such. If not delete, can't we make a collapsible table inside the general Laurel and Hardy template for their films? --Soetermans. T / C 13:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete actor filmography naxbov per consensus at provided link. Unlike what Pigsonthewing stated, this is not a series nor a genre navbox. Aspects (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Laurel and Hardy are, arguably, or more likely, unarguably, the most highly-regarded comedy team in film history. This navbox, within its word "filmography" provides a link to the already-existing detailed article, Laurel and Hardy filmography and, as has been pointed out, there also already exists the other, more modest {{Laurel and Hardy}} navbox, which is undoubtedly useful for its numerous links, including one to the just-mentioned Laurel and Hardy filmography. We should take into account, however, that the Template:Laurel and Hardy filmography which is being submitted for deletion, is the sole place where the films are sorted into five groupings, 1) "Silent short films (Starring roles)", 2) "Talking short films (Starring roles)", 3) "Short films (As guests)", 4) "Feature films (Starring roles)" and 5) "Feature films (As guests)". Again, nowhere else in Wikipedia can one find such an instant tool for easy navigation. The filmographies are detail-laden and require scrolling and searching, while the navbox is, precisely what its name indicates, instant viewing and access to each Laurel and Hardy title, conveniently sorted for ease of use. Isn't that what Wikipedia should be all about? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The filmography article is the best place for this information, this template is merely duplication, confusing and difficult to navigate. I have contributed to this template, moved it to its current namespace and watched it for many years. Szzuk (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I created the Laurel and Hardy template and have just added their more well known films to that. Szzuk (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Hope and Crosby[edit]

Template:Hope and Crosby (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

No actor filmography navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep this is an act like Martin and Lewis or the Marx Brothers, not merely a listing of an actor's filmography. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per prior concensus, this template is very much an actor filmography. If the navbox consisted of something more then I might be convinced, but there isn't even a Hope and Crosby article. PC78 (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete actor filmography naxbov per consensus at provided link. Aspects (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the Hope-Crosby films stand out as a separate grouping and, unlike the chronologically-arranged Hope and Crosby filmographies, which are resistant to quick navigation as a result of not sorting the lengthy lists by specific detail or specific co-stars, this navbox provides instant access from one Hope-Crosby film to another, which cannot be otherwise easily achieved. The usefulness of the template is further enhanced by its additional feature, "Crosby cameos in Hope films" which is, again, unavailable anywhere else and gives not only an instant visual aspect to their collaboration, but also enables users to appreciate at a glance the one-click ability of moving from film to film without having to return to the filmographies in order to search for the next title, if one even knows what the next title in such a grouping would be. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Tracy Hepburn films[edit]

Template:Tracy Hepburn films (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

No actor filmography navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete actor filmography naxbov per consensus at provided link. Aspects (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the Tracy-Hepburn collaboration encompasses nine films and may be, arguably, considered the most enduringly legendary male-female partnership in film history. That said, if anyone decides to create a Janet Gaynor-Charles Farrell navbox, a Myrna Loy-William Powell navbox, an Olivia de Havilland-Errol Flynn navbox or a Greer Garson-Walter Pidgeon navbox, those would be equally welcome. Again, there is nothing, anywhere else within Wikipedia, which provides such easy accessibility to this joint filmography. I invite anyone to visit the Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn biographical entries and, even more to the point, the separate Spencer Tracy filmography and Katharine Hepburn performances articles which, while comprehensive and detailed, do not highlight their nine-film collaboration and require the uninitiated to search the casts of entire filmographies to even determine which are their joint titles and how each title correlates to the other in terms of the time period between them. This navbox is the sole space within Wikipedia where the nine titles are displayed for easy perusal and instant navigation from one to the other, and such ease of access is what Wikipedia should represent. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:125 greatest hurlers of the GAA[edit]

Template:125 greatest hurlers of the GAA (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Possible copyvio, conform Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 125 greatest stars of the GAA that had as rationale: List is entirely subjective and thus fails WP:LSC and is almost certainly copyright of the Irish Independent hence failing WP:COPYVIO, see Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. The Banner talk 10:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Fort Worth Cats roster[edit]

Template:Fort Worth Cats roster (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Defunct team. Spanneraol (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

April 22[edit]

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Israel Defense Forces/OF/Israeli Air Force[edit]

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Israel Defense Forces/OF/Israeli Air Force (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only used in one article, information can be transcluded there. No need for the separate template. The Banner talk 21:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Israel Defense Forces/OF/USAF equivalent[edit]

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Israel Defense Forces/OF/USAF equivalent (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only used in one article, information can be transcluded there. No need for the separate template. The Banner talk 21:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:IoEgrade[edit]

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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:IoEgrade (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

A superscript external link used in the body of an article, with no indication of what website you're being taken to - is this really a good idea? Only used in a handfull of articles, most uses would be better replaced with an actual citation, others don't seem necessary and should be removed altogether. PC78 (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete - Not So Fast National Names 2000 (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete - Now converted remaining uses to inline references and removed from all mainspace articles. An early experiment as a template newbie (2006).   Oosoom Talk  09:54, 24 April 2015 (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:Aviso borrar[edit]

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 deleted WP:CSD#G2 test page. Appears to be an attempt to duplicate here the Spanish speedy-deletion template es:Plantilla:Aviso borrarJohnCD (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Aviso borrar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Non-English titled template that lacks context and purpose. Possibly vandalism or a WP:CIR issue. (See user contributions) - MrX 12:12, 22 April 2015 (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:Ficha de organización[edit]

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 deleted WP:CSD#G2 test page. Appears to be an attempt to duplicate here the Spanish Infobox company template es:Plantilla:Ficha de organizaciónJohnCD (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ficha de organización (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Empty template with a non-English title. Lacks context and purpose. - MrX 12:08, 22 April 2015 (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:Tekkaman[edit]

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. MER-C 03:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Tekkaman (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This template now only has two entries which are linked to each other in their respective articles. Hence, it is no longer required for navigation. KirtZJ (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, no navbox needed to link two articles. Frietjes (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2015 (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:Physical oceanography/sandbox[edit]

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, no objections. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Physical oceanography/sandbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant, last edit in 2012. Since then the "real" template has evolved al lot, and there is no possible use for this sandbox version anymore. Crowsnest (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Sandboxes are not really subject to discussion; you can arguably tag them with {{csd-t3}}. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:26, 22 April 2015 (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:Sustainable energy/sandbox[edit]

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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Sustainable energy/sandbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This sandbox template was created a long time ago, and there seems to be no likely use for it. Crowsnest (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2015 (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:WP Pakistan AaA[edit]

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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:WP Pakistan AaA (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Yet another one of those {{maintained}} knockoffs. This one is basically the exact same as Maintained which was deleted after a lengthy TfD. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:11, 22 April 2015 (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:Infobox Transperth train station[edit]

Template:Infobox Transperth train station (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox station}}, with the exception of facilities. Facilities parameters have been removed from the latter per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Alakzi (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:TP Train Depot[edit]

Template:TP Train Depot (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox railway depot}}; |facilities= corresponds to |type=. Alakzi (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Transperth Line[edit]

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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Transperth Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Not used in mainspace. Alakzi (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Nor it seems eligible enough. Hajme 10:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Infobox station infobox has the necessary fields Total25 (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2015 (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:TransperthTrains[edit]

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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:TransperthTrains (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused; too few links. Alakzi (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2015 (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:TP Bus Station[edit]

Template:TP Bus Station (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Mostly redundant to {{Infobox station}}, which has got all of the key parameters. Alakzi (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Istanbul Metro M1 route diagram[edit]

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 Chrislk02 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Istanbul Metro M1 route diagram (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Istanbul Metro M2 route diagram (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Orphaned templates, with errors. Newer {{M1 (Istanbul)}} and {{M2 (Istanbul)}} are their replacements. Useddenim (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Above route diagrams were created by me in 2013, and the ones (Template:M1 (Istanbul)) and (:Template:M1 (Istanbul)), which replaced them were of later date. Above diagrams are more comprehensive than the replacinfg ones. As I understand you are familiar with railway subjects, I would expect that you chack and reinstate the diagrams in consideration for deletion now. Or there is something, which I don't know yet. I appreciate your comments. --CeeGee 08:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by “more comprehensive”, as the ones currently in use have station distances (which yours do not), and you used generic icons rather than Istanbul-specific ones. (There is also your non-standard use of icons. The proper use is   (Metro or light rail on surface),   (Metro/light rail in tunnel) and   (Main line or heavy rail on surface).) Useddenim (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • With "more comprehensive", I meant the transfer options at certain stations, and correct line and station layout. I'm not sure the distances are a must. Anyway, they can easily be added up if there is an obligation. Is there a regulation somewhere about the use of icons. I cannot understand what you mean with "Istanbul-specific icon"s. Is there a place, where I can look up for those "Istanbul-spesific ones"? Thanks.--CeeGee 07:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:Route diagram template is the introduction to creating uniform route-map layouts. A list of (almost) all the icons which are currently available is at WP:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms (and sub-pages). Template:Rail-interchange display symbols specific to a country or city. There are currently over 50; Turkey’s entry is at Template:Rail-interchange/doc/TK.
As far as I can tell, the old and new templates are topologically identical, except that yours don’t indicate what the transfer options are (and on {{Istanbul Metro M2 route diagram}} the actual rail connection between branches isn’t shown at Sanayi Mahallesi, nor is Haliç actually over the Golden Horn). Useddenim (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


  • Comment: Whichever versions are kept, the long-form names should be used (and the other names made redirects). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: How do you figure that? Generally, RDTs follow the naming form of [[Template:{name of associated article}]] or [[Template:{name of associated article} RDT]]. 128.205.48.118 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
M1 (Istanbul) what? What is an "RDT"? Template names, much like article titles, should balance precision and conciseness. A longtime practice can very well be a bad practice. Alakzi (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: I think you should pursue that further at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template, as your comment has no bearing on whether the two templates should be deleted or not. 128.205.48.116 (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Alakzi's comment was a direct answer to your question; an answer which I endorse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redundant now (and in a different format that the route diagrams for the other Metro lines), so delete. I offer no opinion on the "name" issue of the "new" route diagrams, though I could certainly see the argument for moving them to "M1 (Istanbul Metro)" or "M1 (Istanbul Metro) route diagram", etc. from where they are now... --IJBall (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. These two are really unorthodox and just puzzle me... The two newer ones are certainly superior. Since they do not seem to have been derived from the older ones, there's no need to merge histories, nor to move the newer templates to the older names. They may be renamed to some other names, no doubt; but that's another question. "Istanbul Metro M1 RDT" or "M1 (Istanbul Metro) RDT" seem OK to me. Note for the closing admin: please don't forget to update/merge wikidata connections. YLSS (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete {{Istanbul Metro M1 route diagram}} in favour of {{M1 (Istanbul)}}, and {{Istanbul Metro M2 route diagram}} in favour of {{M2 (Istanbul)}}. Any percieved opacity of template names should be addressed in the context of a general renaming discussion, not of a specific deleting discussion. (I suppose that "comprehensive" above is bad English for "understandable", influenced by other labguages and based on its etymologic meaning. And which is not, by the way.) Tuvalkin (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2015 (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.

Completed discussions[edit]

The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell (edit)

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.

Closing discussions[edit]

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

To review[edit]

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

To merge[edit]

Templates to be merged into another template.

Arts[edit]

Geography, politics and governance[edit]

Religion[edit]

Sports[edit]

Transport[edit]

Other[edit]

Meta[edit]

To convert[edit]

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories, lists or portals are put here until the conversion is completed.

  • None currently

To substitute[edit]

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

  • None currently

To orphan[edit]

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[edit]

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. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

  • None currently

Archive and Indices[edit]