Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:TFD)
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, deletion or merging of templates (except as noted below) is discussed.

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 they 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. ~~~~}}

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 20 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.
You generally should notify the creator of the template, and it is also considered polite to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. 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 these users, as well as any related WikiProjects (look on the template's talk page) that do not use Article alerts, so that they are aware of the discussion. (There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: you should 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.

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]

February 1[edit]

Template:Canberra Cavalry roster 2013-14[edit]

Template:Canberra Cavalry roster 2013-14 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Canberra Cavalry roster 2012-13 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

single use templates which I merged with Canberra Cavalry and 2012–13 Canberra Cavalry season. Frietjes (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:South Australia roster[edit]

Template:South Australia roster (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

out of date and unused. Frietjes (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Frietjes said it all in five words. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:2009 Victoria Aces roster[edit]

Template:2009 Victoria Aces roster (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:2009 South Australia (baseball team) roster (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

single use template which I merged with the articles (Victoria Aces, South Australia (baseball team)). Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Redundant, unused and out of date. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Age in years, months, weeks, days and hours[edit]

Template:Age in years, months, weeks, days and hours (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Not used, and probablty will never be. The nature of this template is needlessly specific, and I think the other Age calculation templates will suffice. George Edward CTalkContributions 13:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

January 31[edit]

Template:UWashSIG[edit]

Template:UWashSIG (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Only a few transclusions. All are dead links. Previous efforts to fix not successful (Category talk:Anatomy external link templates), therefore I propose deletion Tom (LT) (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Stedman's[edit]

Template:Stedman's (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Only a few transclusions. All are dead links. Previous efforts to fix not successful (Category talk:Anatomy external link templates), therefore I propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox nonhuman protein[edit]

Template:Infobox nonhuman protein (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (96 transclusions)
Template:Infobox protein (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (963 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox nonhuman protein with Template:Infobox protein.
Largely similar; specific parameters are (or can be made) optional, and if necessary conditional on an |Organism= parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose – in theory these two infoboxes could be merged, but each contains rather specific information and link to a non-overlapping set of databases. The {{infobox protein}} parameters |HGNCid=, |OMIM=, |IUPHAR_id= are only appropriate for human proteins since they point to human specific protein databases. Likewise |Chromosome=, |Arm=, |Band=, and |LocusSupplementaryData= are only appropriate to designate the location of the corresponding human gene that encodes the protein. The {{Infobox nonhuman protein}} parameters |TaxID=, |EntrezChromosome=, |GenLoc_start=, |GenLoc_end= could in principle be used for both human or non-human genes, but are redundant and arguably less useful than the above human gene links. A merged template would introduce confusion as to which subset of parameters should be used. Finally it would also require a fair amount of work rewrite the infobox as well as make appropriate changes to the transcluded templates. This would create a lot of work for little benefit. Why fix something that isn't broke? Boghog (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
    • As I noted, the specific parameters could be made switchable depending on the presence or otherwise of, say, |Organism=. The work is not an issue - there are volunteers willing to do it. The reasons why we need to reduce the number of overlapping templates are explained in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
      • The volunteers would need to know something about proteins and there are not a lot of us left at WP:MCB. Our time would be better spent on other tasks. As I see it, a merged template would introduce confusion and create unnecessary work. Also a merged template would have a more complex structure making long term maintenance more difficult, not less. Boghog (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger, at least for now. The suggestion to merge them into a single more complex template is just displacing the maintenance effort from the template creators/maintainers to its users. It is true that the protein infoboxes are overlapping -- there's also Template:Infobox protein family and Template:Infobox enzyme, and the articles on proteins don't seem to be very consistent about when they refer to one specific protein and when they refer to a family, in which case linking a specific organism is common but technically wrong. But sorting that out isn't really something that can be done without specific knowledge of the topic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • @Opabinia regalis: I agree that the articles on proteins, protein families, and enzymes are often not as clear as they should be. To make the {{Infobox nonhuman protein}} a bit more general, I have added support for |HomoloGene=. That way if a single {{Infobox nonhuman protein}} is meant to represent a family, at least a link to the orthologs can be provided. This lack of clarity is not really caused by the templates, but rather the lead sentence of the articles that should make clear (but sometimes doesn't) the scope of the article. One example that is fairly clear is Albumin (protein family), Serum albumin (human protein and orthologs that exist in other species), and Bovine serum albumin (one specific non-human protein). Granted, there is a certain amount of overlap between this articles, but I think this is unavoidable. Concering the lead sentence in Gene Wiki articles, as discussed here and here, we have tried to make clear that these articles are not only about the human gene/protein, but also orthologs that exist in other species. The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise:
The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human. Boghog (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Why is |IUPHAR_id= an option for non-human proteins since the documentation implies its only use is for human proteins? Likewise why |Symbol= or |AltSymbols=? This seems, to a non-biologist, to be a source of confusion for editors. SBaker43 (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • @SBaker43: Good point about |IUPHAR_id=. I have therefore removed it from both the {{Infobox nonhuman protein}} documentation and template code. Also good point about |Symbol= and |AltSymbols=. I have therefore also modified the {{Infobox nonhuman protein}} documentation to recommend that UniProt which is not limited to human gene/proteins be consulted instead of the human specific HUGO. Boghog (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Boghog and Opabinia regalis. Merging disparate topics (human vs non-human) into one infobox will confuse some editors about what is needed. Template simplification is useful for template maintainers; increased complexity for editors and cleanup of instantiation errors is not advantageous to article editors.
    SBaker43 (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The benefit of this merge is that wikipedia has one less template page...
    The cost of doing this type of merge is that: (1) it adds complexity with a combined template; and (2) it requires time/work on the part of some editor to recode of one of these templates for an unnecessary merge (i.e., this is a waste of time). Just to point out, I could put every template I've ever made on exactly 1 template page and use WP:SELECTIVETRANSCLUSION to call each distinct template alone from that one page. I don't do that because it would be a giant cluttered mass in the source code and the documentation would look retarded (the point being: merging for the sole sake of grouping content as proposed is not a good reason to merge content). I mean, why not just selectively transclude every infobox on wikipedia from exactly 1 template page? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 11:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Election Campaign[edit]

Template:Infobox Election Campaign (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (Single use, despite being created over seven years ago.)
Template:Infobox Iranian election campaign (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (Only four transclusions, despite being created nearly five years ago.)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Election Campaign with Template:Infobox Iranian election campaign.
No need for separate templates. Possibly no need at all - we could delete both in favour of, say, {{Infobox election}} or {{Infobox event}}. The Iranian template has no Iran-specific parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Professional titles[edit]

Template:Professional titles (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

For deletion - A grab-bag of random job titles, from military enlisted ranks to abbots to Members of the Scottish Parliament to nurses. I can see no real helpfulness in maintenance or navigation. Undefined inclusion criteria. It is also substantially redundant to more narrow templates, like Template:Health pro, Template:Corporate titles, Template:Catholic Church Hierarchy, Template:Usul al-fiqh, etc. Neutralitytalk 01:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator Neutrality's rationale above. This really is a random and incoherent collection of unrelated "titles" per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also, per the five evaluation criteria of WP:NAVBOX, this template fails at least three of those criteria, to wit:
1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject;
2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article; and
. . .
4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. . . .
Bottom line: this template does not serve a valid navigation purpose among closely related topics. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Chinese Communist Party[edit]

Template:Chinese Communist Party (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Created by 彭家杰 (talk · contribs), who does not appear to have any interest in engaging in productive discussion or does not speak English. I find that many Chinese prty related articles are getting extremely unwieldy because of the large number of templates placed on them, and in any case this template is duplicated by the template [[Template:Politics of China]]. The Politics of China template mentions everything mentioned in this template, is tidier and mentions other areas as well; such as government, judiciary, ideology and so on. --TIAYN (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


January 30[edit]

Template:Firefox release compatibility[edit]

Template:Firefox release compatibility (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unused. I suggest to substitute to Firefox article. RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 10:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. I've added it to History of Firefox. -Mardus (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Substitute and delete. I cannot foresee any further use other than on the article of its only transclusion, mentioned above. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Mouna Ragam[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Mouna Ragam (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Due to being in limbo for long without any progress, I give up this DYK nomination. It also seems to have failed the DYK criteria. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment why do DYK nominations sit in template space? They aren't templates, and so seems like they should obviously sit in project space (WP-space); this nomination seems like it should be processed through WP:MFD as this isn't a real template. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Olympic Games opening ceremonies[edit]

Template:Olympic Games opening ceremonies (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Olympic Games closing ceremonies (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Olympic Games opening ceremonies with Template:Olympic Games closing ceremonies.
It's easy to navigate from the opening ceremony page of specific games to the closing ceremony. There is no need for 2 seperate templates. Title of the template can be Olympic Games ceremony, like the article name. All other languages, except one, also have the links in one template: fr:Modèle:Palette Cérémonies d'ouverture des Jeux olympiques, pt:Predefinição:Cerimônias de Jogos Olímpicos. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 14:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment If merged, a new template would be created at {{Olympic Games opening and closing ceremonies}} to indicate the new edit history, with the two old names redirecting to the new name. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I edit Olympic athlete bios frequently, so I am familiar with the structure of our Olympic Games articles and I understand the logic of merging the navbox templates for the opening and closing ceremonies. Having said that, I see a much bigger problem with these templates: 75% or more of the linked ceremonies are red links to non-existing articles, and to my way of thinking, that should never happen. Furthermore, some of these red-linked articles are never going to be created -- does anyone believe that the 1896 opening and closing ceremonies require a stand-alone article? And I'm sure that is true for many, if not most other Olympiads, too. The phenomena of Olympic opening and closing ceremonies as major spectacles/events, notable separate and apart from the Games themselves, is a relatively modern thing. This requires greater discussion, and quite probably should involve a larger discussion of whether we are fragmenting our Olympic articles into too many separate pieces. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Video game series chronology[edit]

Template:Onimusha chronology (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Killzone chronology (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Ys chronology (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Devil May Cry chronology (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Silent Hill Chronology (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Dead Space chronology (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Professor Layton chronology (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Ace Attorney chronology (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Per the outcome of this discussion, these templates have been found to be trivial information, based upon in-game information. How these games are chronologically set can also be easily explained by the main series' article. --Soetermans. T / C Nomination procedurally created on Soetermans' behalf by ☺ · Salvidrim! · . 18:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - per discussions referenced in nom. Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

January 29[edit]

Template:Bexleyheath Line (modern route)[edit]

Template:Bexleyheath Line (modern route) (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - {{Bexleyheath Line}} is sufficient to depict this line and, in any event, the route does not strictly extend beyond Lewisham as shown here. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:2015 Africa Cup of Nations finalists[edit]

Template:2015 Africa Cup of Nations finalists (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

just not needed. Koppapa (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

January 28[edit]

Template:Government of China[edit]

Template:Government of China (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Created by 彭家杰 (talk · contribs), who does not appear to have any interest in engaging in productive discussion or does not speak English. I find that many Chinese government related articles are getting extremely unwieldy because of the large number of templates placed on them, and in any case this template is duplicated by the footer navbox [[Template:State Council of the People's Republic of China]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colipon (talkcontribs) 19:48, 28 January 2015‎

  • Weak delete as redundant, overly large sidebar. —PC-XT+ 07:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. --TIAYN (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nominator. Jackninja5 (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Silver Frames Production[edit]

Template:Silver Frames Production (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Created by user blocked for WP:CORPNAME; not used by anything other than user's sandbox Drm310 (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I would subst and speedy delete as test or non-controversial. —PC-XT+ 07:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Adam Air[edit]

Template:Adam Air (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Template with only 2 links to articles other than the airline itself. Those articles, both aviation accidents, are linked by a aviation accident template because they both happened in the same year. Destinations link is a redirect to the Adam Air article Further links in this template are unlikely because Adam Air went out of business. ...William 12:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Having the template at the three articles included in it is a redundancy, as the linked pages can perfectly be included in different portions of the text.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:2011–12 UEFA Futsal Cup[edit]

Template:2011–12 UEFA Futsal Cup (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

not needed. was only used on the tournament site, where it repeated info. deleted it from that article. Koppapa (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - The primary purpose of a navbox is to permit quick navigation among related articles. This "navbox" template is overwhelmingly composed of unlinked topics for which no Wikipedia article exists. This template thus fails the fundamental test of a navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:2010–11 UEFA Futsal Cup[edit]

Template:2010–11 UEFA Futsal Cup (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

not needed. was only used on the tournament site, where it repeated info. deleted it from that article. Koppapa (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - The primary purpose of a navbox is to permit quick navigation among related articles. This "navbox" template is overwhelmingly composed of unlinked topics for which no Wikipedia article exists. This template (and its sister above) thus fails the fundamental test of a navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:PetInfobox[edit]

Template:PetInfobox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Fails WP:N. Doesn't link to anything, probably has something to do with creator's other articles that have been deleted and/or merged. Soetermans. T / C 10:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:List of Dogs[edit]

Template:List of Dogs (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Fails WP:N. Doesn't link to anything, probably has something to do with creator's other articles that have been deleted and/or merged. Soetermans. T / C 10:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong delete the title of the page has nothing to do with its actual topic, since it is overly generic. The creator's articles have been deleted -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:GameFAQs[edit]

Template:GameFAQs (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Per this discussion. GameFAQs is a website that mainly provides walkthroughs, which fails WP:VG/EL: "external links should not be added to include material that explicitly defines the gameplay on certain aspects of the video game", which is exactly what walkthroughs provide. Knowing how to finish a game, where to find all collectables or what cheats there are isn't "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", failing WP:ELYES no. 3. GameFAQs isn't a "[site] that contain[s] neutral and accurate material". It also fails WP:ELMAYBE no. 4: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

GameFAQs itself isn't considered a WP:VG/RS. There are countless other websites that also provide walkthroughs, so favoring GameFAQs (and having it in a template, no less) is WP:LINKSPAM (or maybe giving it undue weight, but not sure if that applies to EL). The template has been around for a long time, but that not a reason to keep it. Soetermans. T / C 10:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - In any good video game article, every piece of useful information provided by GameFAQs (release dates, developer info, explanatory screenshots, and a compilation of notable reviews) should be included anyway, and with reliable sources to back them up. So there's no reason for GameFAQs to ever be included as an external link, much less have its own template.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template generates a link that is not sanctioned by WP:EL. Once in blue moon, GameFAQs can be used as a source for something very trivial. But this template doesn't help that case either. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - WP:VG/EL is wrong in assuming that external links must abide by WP:ISNOT. That assumption would preclude Wikimedia sister project links. GameFAQs includes a lot of information that Wikipedia deems minutiae such as release and ratings data, credits, yet are still useful for comprehensive coverage and further study. I'd treat GameFAQs links the same way as imdb or MobyGames links. - hahnchen 12:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: GameFAQs isn't used as a WP:VG/RS on Wikipedia, because the information provided is user-submitted without any oversight. If we would add release dates, credits or ratings to articles we have to look elsewhere, so why link to GameFAQs for that kind of information when we've decided for ourselves that we can't use it? Besides, WP:ELYES no. 3 reads: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" and WP:ELMAYBE no. 4 reads: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." GameFAQs is solely user-submitted and we can't check if the material provided is accurate. --Soetermans. T / C 13:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
imdb and MobyGames relies on user submissions and are not reliable sources. Wikipedia is better with links to them. - hahnchen 16:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
True, but they're not the same, are they? As far as I know, those two provide content unlike any other websites. There are hundreds of websites that offer the same content as GameFAQs. --Soetermans. T / C 17:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

January 27[edit]

Template:Ambassadors of Albania[edit]

Template:Ambassadors of Albania (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

All associated articles in this navbox have been deleted after AFDs, leaving one blue link, which is a redirect. KTC (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • delete pointless having a template with no valid entries. LibStar (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Stlwart111 00:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - The primary purpose of a navbox is to facilitate easy navigation among closely related topics. This navbox has one linked article, and 25+ red links to nowhere. In short, this navbox serves no valid navbox purpose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Extremely pointless. It's not like we are gonna work on them again. Jackninja5 (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

January 26[edit]

Template:Wikinews[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 keep, as it is clear that no one wants this template deleted, other than the nominator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Wikinews (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Linking to Wikinews appears problematic, and concerns have been raised on the template talkpage. Some concerns related to the links going to old news (links I looked at related to news items between 2 and 9 years old), and this seems pertinent. There's also a concern that Wikinews is not a reliable source, and that what it gives us is an unreliable summary of the news items. While there may be sources listed, the main article does not have inline sourcing, so we have gone from a Wikipedia article which dealt with the news item with inline sourcing that we can check easily to a self-published source that lists sources separately, making checking difficult. I also noted that sometimes we would go from a Wikipedia article item, such as Apollo_11#40th_anniversary_events with ten inline sources, to the Wikinews article with only four sources, none inline. In most cases the Wikinews article is simply an alternative rewording of the Wikipedia item, though is locked for editing, while the Wikipedia article can continue to be updated and improved with modern sourcing.

The links are taking readers away from an article that has up to date sourcing, to an unreliable self-published and out of date summary. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep per User:Dl2000's reply to User:Student7's commment on this section of the template's talk page. From my (admittedly limited) experience writing for Wikinews, they hold articles to similar sourcing standards as Wikipedia, requiring references to other news websites. theonesean 18:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Criticizing en.wn for having old articles is like criticizing Wikisource for having old books. Criticizing en.wn for not using footnotes is like critizing Wiktionary for presenting its main content in the form of dictionary entries. There isn't any concern about en.wn being an unreliable source from those who understand the project; that's fantasy from the anti-Wikinews fringe. --Pi zero (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The nominator hadn't notified en.wn of this nomination [suggestion? what would be the correct technical term] for deletion, but I've taken care of that. --Pi zero (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Should someone inform Jimbo and WMF? -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with several of the arguments posted at Template talk:Wikinews#Why is this template being used at all. One that is rather pertinent to me is that Wikinews, like Wikpedia, is part of the overall Wikimedia family (see also: Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects). Therefore, providing inter-wiki links is good and this template serves a useful function. - tucoxn\talk 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I wholeheartedly agree with each point made by the three keep votes above me, as well as DI2000's reply to Student7. Frankly, none of the arguments in favor of deletion make any sense to me, particularly the concern that Wikinews is not a reliable source (if you're going to make that argument, you could make the same argument about Wikipedia itself, and in that case we may as well all go home) or the concern about linking to old news (I assume the template is being used in a section of a given Wikipedia article that pertains to the time in which that news article was written). I also think we should be striving for more connections between the Wikimedia sister projects, not less. — Hunter Kahn 05:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm frankly bored of seeing so many attempts to bulk remove Wikinews links from Wikipedia. It's a perfectly valid sister project doing good work (albeit with the limitations of a small community). Linking to Wikinews provides opportunities for readers to read an often in-depth, as-it-happened report of what went on that sometimes provides more details, more context and more images, as well as original reporting that is explicitly disallowed in Wikipedia. It's a different sort of project and that adds value for the reader. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep it doesn't matter how old the Wikinews article is, it was news when it was written, and therefore in-contenxt with whatever particular portion of history in the article's coverage of the topic it is used for. It's the same as reading regular non-Wikinews news articles, which are in-context of the date in which they were written. If you wish to delete Wikinews, that is something for proposing to the WMF Foundation. As long as Wikinews exists, I see no reason to not link to it, as we do for Wikiversity, Commons, Wiktionary, Wikispecies, Wikidata, etc. Wikinews is not Wikia, it is a WMF Project containing reader content. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Theonesean and Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects. -- KTC (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, on the basis that those who are voting for deletion know practically nothing about Wikinews, clearly demonstrating such in their remarks. Firstly, it is not self-published. I'd like to see the nominator get some specious nonsense published (not an invitation to disrupt to prove a point), just to highlight their lack of clue on reviewing processes and standards. Second, there are — as others point out — perfectly valid reasons not to duplicate Wikipedia's citation style. Lastly, I'd invite the proposer to ask the New York Times for write access to their archives. Any whingeing about a news archive being locked would then get the appropriate degree of contempt it deserves levelled at it. --Brian McNeil /talk 15:45, 27 January 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.

January 25[edit]

Template:MUNAnatomy[edit]

Template:MUNAnatomy (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

About 30 transclusions. The transclusions are all dead links, so they don't work. Consequently there is no reason to include them. Therefore I propose deletion of the templates. To be explicitly clear, I am proposing that the templates are removed and that when they are removed the links are not substituted back into the articles. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete unless the articles can be recovered, somehow. The site disallowed archiving in robots.txt, so it seems unlikely to be found somewhere else. (I'm leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, just in case.) —PC-XT+ 06:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I do bit works about maintaining anatomical external link templates. This template is one of some dead link templates. I can't find new location of this template (and there are no archives of this site, as PC-XT said just above). Basic information about this template was already stored at Category talk:Anatomy external link templates. So there are no harms to delete this template, which can now provide readers only dead links. --Was a bee (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Al-Arabi (SC Kuwait)[edit]

Template:Al-Arabi (SC Kuwait) (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article. Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

delete Frietjes (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Shahrukh Khan sidebar[edit]

Template:Shahrukh Khan sidebar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

per prior discussions. Frietjes (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This one has 4 (and until recently 5) links, as opposed to the previous discussion, where they had 3 links. It's a big article, so it takes some searching to find these without the sidebar. BollyJeff | talk 02:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
if there are so many subarticles, you need a {{navbox}}. Frietjes (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Tell me then, when is it ever appropriate to use a sidebar? Should they be removed from the syntax? BollyJeff | talk 18:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
person-centric sidebars are rarely necessary (one exception would be Template:Joseph Smith). Frietjes (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep All links are working. VandVictory (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:H:titleS[edit]

Template:H:titleS (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unused and redundant to Template:H:title. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Jews in the world[edit]

Template:Jews in the world (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Redundant to already existing templates. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

So I'll do it the next few minutes ... and then ask for you'r help to delete that value exists: Template:Jews and Judaism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaoXan (talkcontribs) 17:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

There are already other templates, and there is no need for this template. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. There is so much information stuffed in here that's it's useless as a navigation box. Yoninah (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I know, thank, I have tried to fix so many times but someone always brings back the old and not good version of the Template... So you delete it later? because I don't know how to do that... I'll let you know here one's i'll done. DaoXan (talk

Why don't you STOP editing, and discuss first?! Debresser (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Split into about a million templates. Honestly, both this template and the ones it is redundant to are bloated junk. There is no realistic way to expect a navigational aid to be useful when there are hundreds of links spanning a dozen topics. Resolute 18:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Debresser I'm new sorry :/ Reso you are right, but that's a start... DaoXan (talk 18:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Done! :-) you can DELETE the Template:Jews and Judaism, leave Template:Judaism; History and Philosophy & Template:Jews in the world

Is it OK for me to Update those 2 it the related entries, or you'll get angry on me again? :-)

DaoXan (talk 18:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

DaoXan, please discuss these templates at WT:JUDAISM first; more large templates are likely to be just as contentious. Sam Walton (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Jews in the world sounds idiotic to me. Definitely discuss at WT:JUDAISM first. Yoninah (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yoninah I'm open for ideas...DaoXan (talk 19:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

DaoXan, please come to WT:JUDAISM and discuss this. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Way too crazy long and clueless. Template creator has less than 300 edits on Wikipedia and is creating massive problematical redundant un-requested templates. The "Prominent figures" section is particularly problematical -- who in the world gets to decide who would be listed there throughout the centuries, and why in the world is a redlink there? No, this template must go. The creator could userfy it on a sandbox for possible use of some of the information some other way, but this template cannot stand. Plus the fact that he says "Done! :-) you can DELETE the Template:Jews and Judaism" proves he has delusions of grandeur and needs to refrain completely from template creation. Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Just another alternative template. VandVictory (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - Split it into different templates. Jackninja5 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is one of those navboxes that you know is "just plain bad" as soon as you see it, as Neutrality states in the related discussion below, even before you begin to analyze what's wrong with it. For starters, it's just too damn big, and covers too many tangentially related topics . . . a navbox that includes links to Henry Kissinger, the Spanish Inquisition, Karl Marx, Culture in Israel, Mark Zuckerberg, the Bar Kokhba Revolt, Steven Spielberg, and the History of Jews in Iceland is trying to cover too much ground. Delete it, and offer to userfy it for the creator -- and will another editor who understands well-designed navboxes offer to help and counsel the creator so we're not back here in a month reviewing something similar? A split into a half dozen different templates would be a start. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Judaism; History and Philosophy[edit]
Template:Judaism; History and Philosophy (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Same reasons as template above. Debresser (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


It's the same length of Template:Jews and Judaism and way more Informative and focused matter..see also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism

  • Delete or userfy. Un-requested, overlong, uncollaborative, and incompetent template. Same goes for all his other templates. Creator needs to refrain from posting templates himself or face a possible topic ban, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Softlavender. Creator needs to seek consensus before making drastic changes to existing templates. Yoninah (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just plain bad. Neutralitytalk 01:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

January 24[edit]

Template:Electronics industry in the United States[edit]

Template:Electronics industry in the United States (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Undefined inclusion criteria, except being in the US and to do with 'electronics' which could mean almost anything. The completely unrelated linked articles in the template demonstrate this. Vaypertrail (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter weather it's a company involved with the manufacturing or development of computers, semiconductors, or radio equipment, they are all electronics. Also, what articles are you talking about that are unrelated to template? Seqqis (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of these articles don't have a navbox, but it would be better to narrow down the criteria to direct competitors or otherwise directly related articles. (That is, directly related to each other, not just to the template.) —PC-XT+ 02:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • So split up the template based on what electronics industry the company(ies) deals in? Like a section of the template displaying companies dealing in laptops and another section dealing smartphones or video game hardware? But that may make the template seem too big. Seqqis (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I was thinking of splitting into multiple templates, each covering, possibly, one industry. That would keep each template smaller. One template could cover several related sections as long as the list doesn't become too long, though. That's just my opinion. —PC-XT+ 11:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I tried that before, I've created video gaming industry templates. But someone didn't think they we're necessary, and they all got deleted. Here's the link:Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_11#Video_gaming_industry_in..._templates Seqqis (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Yeah, these things can be hard. It might be best to start by finding a few related articles without navboxes, with one article that ties them all together in a specific way, and make a navbox for them. When there are several related such navboxes, they can be merged into one with sections. Even then, someone will probably complain at some point, but editors will not be so inclined to delete the template if it has specific inclusion criteria. —PC-XT+ 06:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • delete as too broad to be useful as a navigational aid, though I don't oppose orphaning and userfication if the creator wants to use this as a base for one or several more focussed navboxes. Keep in mind though that not everything needs a navbox. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


January 22[edit]

Template:Infobox academic division[edit]

Template:Infobox academic division (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (77 6 16 128 transclusions)1
Template:Infobox university (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (19,369 19,464 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox academic division with Template:Infobox university.
A previous TfD to replace Academic Division after replacing instances with the more generic template closed as "no consensus", because some people preferred to insist on a formal merge proposal rather than discuss the merits of the template in question.

It is redundant to the generic template (which already serves for faculties, schools, colleges, and other types of parts of universities, which currently use the AD template).

The parameters unique to the AD template are |canton=, |prefecture=, |region= (the documentation of the University template says |province= is for "all other administrative subdivisions"), |alumni=, and |symbol= (the latter pair are not specific to academic divisions, and may apply to any University or sub-set of one).

Here is an example replacement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

1I have replaced the transclusions of the AD template which do not use the parameters listed above. Further investigation shows that |symbol= is unused. |alumni= is used in the remaining six transclusions, but its meaning is not clear (one is footnoted "The number of living alumni as of the year 2012"; others not, and most are uncited). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Please use |type=sidebar with {{Tfm}} when nominating infoboxes in the future. 31.153.43.216 (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Keeping it in Infobox academic division gives a better semantic meaning. – nafSadh did say 02:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge. Although semantically these infoboxes would appear to have different functions, the nomination shows that they have essentially the same parameters and can thus be merged painlessly. Infobox academic division should be maintained as a redirect to Infobox university. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge per my !vote in the previous discussion (keeping this as a redirect) —PC-XT+ 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC) 04:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge per TTO, the name difference is no reason for keeping a template that shares many parameters with university and is substantially a recent fork of the earlier template.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge per Andy. This is similar to {{Infobox politician}}. Would make things less confusing. Bgwhite (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I created this specifically for its semantic value, but the intention was to eventually extend the template with other details specific to such divisions (which I've yet to consider or enumerate, unfortunately). My intention was to merge university and college infoboxes to {{infobox university}} (as has already been done with some infoboxes), and also to merge infoboxes for all academic divisions (medical and law schools, faculties, departments, etc.) to {{Infobox academic division}}, which I began with the creation of these template redirects. Mindmatrix 17:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    • There were more "parts of university" using {{infobox university}} than the nominated template, even before its nomination. The semantic value can be derived from the presence and contents of |parent=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why did you replace all uses of this template before resolution of this discussion? The point of such discussions is to come to a consensus, then act on that consensus, not to preemptively act on a proposal then have to undo such changes if consensus doesn't agree with that proposal. Mindmatrix 17:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Nobody did. However, since the template is demonstrably redundant, many instances were replaced with a more suitable, generic template. The existence of a TfD does not preclude this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Aside: infoboxes in general could benefit from separating location-related info into a separate template or module to deal with naming of subnational jurisdictions (that is, whether to use state, province, canton, prefecture, etc.) and their display in the infobox. Mindmatrix 17:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger I have to agree with our colleagues who believe that usability trumps minor technical issues or unnecessary consistency. I understand how the templates overlap but it seems like it's much more important to ensure they remain useable by editors than to combine them simply because they can be combined. ElKevbo (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    • In what way do you believe that the more generic template less usable? Indeed, the reverse is true; the nominated template's only unique field in use has such poor usability that no-one seems to know what it is for. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not enough valid arguments showing reason to merge. --NotWillyWonka (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The valid argument is that the template is redundant to another; this has been demonstrated unequivocally. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge per ElKevbo's rationale above. This is more template merging for the sake of template merging. Sometimes a specifically tailored template is superior to a generic one-size-fits-all model. The nominator might receive less opposition and save himself a great of time and aggravation if he would simply run such proposals by the relevant WikiProjects before dropping them here at TfD -- he might even receive some helpful advice as to what could be easily and appropriately merged from the viewpoint of editors who use the templates on a regular basis. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Dirtlawyer1's comments make no points in favour of keeping two templates; why a template currently used in only six articles is supposedly needed, nor why the more generic one is "superior" to the one which works in over nineteen thousand other cases. His procedural comments seem to be overspill from another discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Hey, Andy: guess again. I'm a long-time member of WikiProject Universities. Please stop trying to discredit other editors who oppose your proposed deletions and merges. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Your membership of that project does not refute my point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
          • And what is your "point," Andy? I found this TfD discussion because I keep Infobox university on my watch list to prevent tampering by vandals and ill-advised changes by inexperienced editors. You have a well-established pattern/bias of always wanting to consolidate/merge templates into larger, multi-purpose, one-size-fits-all master templates, sometimes without understanding the purposes and uses of those templates; pointing that out is fair game. I happen to believe that in many instances, smaller, more specialized templates that are tailored to their specific uses are often easier to use and don't create problems of inexperienced editors using inappropriate template options. You clearly have a different opinion, but my opinion is no less valid than yours, and your compulsive need to answer every !vote and opinion opposed to your merge proposals does not advance your TfD proposals more often than not. More is sometimes less, a lesson you would do well to absorb in these discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
      • It's only used on six articles because you replaced all other uses of this template before resolution of this discussion, as I noted in a comment above. This is one of the primary reasons I objected to replacement before resolution, because it could then be used to skew the discussion by stating how few articles use it. Mindmatrix 22:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
        • On the contrary, such replacement is evidence to the assertion that the template is redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unhelpful, get the ugly spam off of pages RoyalMate1 12:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • You appear to be commenting on the TfD notification, not the proposal to merge and do away with the redundant template. Do you have a view on that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I see. Yes, I oppose the merger, it seems to be independent enough to not warrant a redundancy in terms of templates. RoyalMate1 03:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Wish I'd known about the academic division infobox earlier, it would be very useful on some of the articles I edit. I've found infoboxes that attempt to be "jack of all trades" to be overstuffed with criteria and virtually unusable. Universities and university divisions are different animals with markedly different identifying information; keeping the templates separate allows for this and is conducive to editing. I agree with others above that this seems to be template merging for its own sake. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 21:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This merger does not seem reasonable simply because academic divisions are different from universities, and while currently the infoboxes are similar, a better solution would be to flesh out the academic divisions infobox so that it could be used on pertinent articles to provides more specificity. VivaLaPandaz (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
    • "academic divisions are different from universities" As noted above, There were more "parts of university" using {{infobox university}} than the nominated template, even before its nomination. Infobox university already serves the function of showing data for universities and parts of universities. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This template is distinctly needed, a merge would suffice although there could then be problems with Good Faith Editors filling all fields for new institutions/universities and making a mess of existing/new articles, the converse could also occur but it just seems to make more sense to me to keep them separate to avoid confusion. Chris(Talk) 23:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge, unnecessarily duplicative and as noted above, does not do anything that {{Infobox university}} doesn't already do. -- Visviva (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose University pages almost all contain this infobox. This page should have an infobox because that is Wikipedia's format. Furthermore, I do not see any gain in removing this box - it would just make the page look less like it was for a university. Please provide examples of reputable universities with no info boxes to support your argument to remove the box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.56.99 (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    • You misunderstand the proposal, which is to merge two similar infoboxes. no article would lose it infobox as a result Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose changed to Merge. University is an institution with which "divisions" are affiliated, not the other way around (for example, Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences is operated by the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University). Try not to engage in busy work. Poeticbent talk 17:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know what this deletion request is about, but I don't think it's a good idea for "this template is being considered for deletion" at the top of infoboxes which would lead to casual readers thinking there was an error on the website. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: relisted as a result of deletion review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

I hope this provides a road map to anyone who is a first-time participant in this series of discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, the first nomination "closed as "no consensus", because some people preferred to insist on a formal merge proposal". The 8 December listing was the requested merger proposal. This was wrongly closed (as the 8 January DRV unanimously agreed). The current discussion is a relisting of the (thus ongoing) second nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Andy, Dirtlawyer1 provided a neutral roadmap. No need for you to inject judgements. The discussion you try to fire here is in the wrong place. And you know that. -DePiep (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I supported the close of the first nomination to reopen as a merge proposal, which was then closed, reviewed and relisted here. I don't see how that is somehow a judgement of PotW. He fought against both closes, and only reluctantly opened the second discussion. The use of wrongly doesn't negate the fact that the DRV made that decision, though with things this heated, something like that can easily be construed. Almost anything seems to be easily construed. —PC-XT+ 23:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
That was not a "neutral roadmap", it was a fallacious description of events, which I have refuted with the facts, not "judgements". Here is the correct place to do so, since here is where the bogus statements were made. Now get the beam out of your own eye. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
In some ways, this one seems more neutral than the one in the third (out of process) TfD, collapsed below. While it is still affected by the confusion of that section, I think this was done in good faith. Anyway, since it is incorrectdisputed, and someone else agrees this is the wrong place to discuss corrections, I'll try hiding it. —PC-XT+ 13:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC) 02:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I undid the collapse upon request on my talk page. —PC-XT+ 14:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The transclusion counts have been updated to reflect reality as of 13:30 UTC, 22 January 2015. TfD discussion participants, specifically including the nominator, are respectfully requested not to replace instances of the subject, Template:Infobox academic division, while this discussion remains open. Doing so could be construed as disruptive editing, an attempt to pre-empt the merits of this discussion, and to game the system. Such replacements will be reverted until the conclusion of this TfD. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • What Dirtlawyer1 refers to is the mass reverting of the replacement of this clearly-redundant template. The only 6 (six!) copies that were not replaced are those using the inadequately-documented |alumni=. The allegations of disruption are pure FUD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Andy, please do not engage in personalized commentary ("pure FUD"), and please do not attempt to "orphan" this template while the TfD remains open. Furthermore, if this template were "clearly redundant" then your arguments would probably sway more participants; as it stands two thirds of participants disagree with you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
        • This is templates for discussion Anyone - including me - is at liberty to discuss the template, its uses, and claims you make about it here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Andy, about your orphaning edits Dirtlawyer1 wrote "Doing so could be construed as disruptive editing". That is a correct statement of fact. You responded by changing topic (clearly, orphaning is not discussing), and so you are in the wrong. I note that this reopening was from your request, so you too should obey good editorship. All in all, towards the DRV you have shown proven that you know perfectly well the rules. Nu use the rules if they work against you. And, of course, keep out the "accusations" diversion into muddy tactics. -DePiep (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is for units within universities, so tagging them with the full University infobox would be inaccurate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The point is that {{Infobox university}} is also for "units within universities"; and, as described at length above, the parameters are largely the same. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
      • One of the common points of those who oppose your proposed merge, Andy, is that we believe that academic subunits, including universities' constituent colleges, schools and other subunits would be better served by a simpler template, with fewer optional parameters, that omits the 15 to 20 optional parameters that are rarely, if ever, necessary or desirable for the subunit infoboxes, and includes a small handful of options that are specific to law, med or business schools, but not universities generally. There is nothing to be gained by creating a single all-in-one template, with its potential for misuse when a simpler template would better serve the needs of constituent colleges, schools, faculties, etc. For the primary writers and maintainers of these articles, there is no advantage to such a merge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
        • No, that was not "one of the common points of those who oppose the proposed merge". As can be seen above, most opposers did so on the misunderstanding that the "university" infobox does not also serve for articles about "parts of universities" (it does); because they thought the template(s) would be deleted without replacement; or to remove the TfD notice from articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect: We don't need a bunch of balkanized templates where parameters are virtually identical and the few that aren't can simply be aded. Keeps things much better organized and simpler as well. Montanabw(talk) 20:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
That's theoretically, if at all. Would you care to reply to the commenter her commenters here that actually use the templates? -DePiep (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

[Outdent due to more broken indenting by DePiep]

I use the templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: I said this in the procedurally closed section below, regarding the keeping of redundant templates: I happen to agree that sometimes smaller templates are better, but these problems can often be solved in documentation, if the templates are close enough that changes would affect each other, anyway. If these templates would usually not be updated at the same time, I could reasonably see them either being split into some kind of module things or kept separate. Documentation can have code to copy for each usage, and otherwise explain the differences. I don't really care about multiple front-ends, if the editors using them find them convenient. I don't think it wise to require these templates to be updated separately if a change affects both of them. This can be solved by sharing code, which can be done in a merge or by using either Lua or template modules. A merge seems the best fit in this case. —PC-XT+ 23:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seems simpler for editors to have an infobox specifically for academic divisions. Someone above notes that good documentation of specific application possibilities could compensate, at least partly, for additional complexity of a mega-template that does everything. But truly it is less difficult to explain and to document and to use, if the academic division infobox is just kept separate. Overall administration costs appear lower if specific template kept. --doncram 18:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Doncram: Please explain how each of your assertions ("simpler for editrs"; "mega-template"; "administration costs lower") is true, given that there is only one parameter in use that is different between the two templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually, Andy, Infobox university has over 60 parameters, and Infobox academic division has 24. It is self-evident that universities require more optional parameters than constituent colleges and schools do. Constituent colleges and schools also require a handful of discipline-specific an/or profession-specific parameters for business, law, medical and other professional schools which the parent universities do not. As Doncram quite rightly points out, the constituent colleges and schools would be better served with a smaller, specifically tailored infobox template that does not incorporate the unnecessary/undesirable university-level optional parameters, with their potential for improper use for academic divisions such as colleges, schools, institutes, faculties, etc. Doncram is not the first editor to make this point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
        • My point is that the 'division' infobox has only one parameter, used - ambiguously - in only six articles, that is not in the 'university' infobox. As such, it is entirely redundant to it, and your perceived need for a simpler version is easily met by providing a tailored blank proforma, as is done with many other templates. You have yet to explain - because there is no good reason - why such a pro forma will not be adequate in this unremarkable case. Especially given that many articles on 'divisions' already use the 'university' infobox. Which specific parameters in the 'University' infobox do you believe should not be available for articles about 'divisions'? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Andy, by this questioning you are trying to make an other editor responsible for your proposal. It is up to you to explain and convince others of redundancy. So far you have just mentioned 'redundancy' as a mantra (combined with incorrect statements): "Redundant to", "is redundant to", "he template is demonstrably redundant", "redundant to another; this has been demonstrated unequivocally", [Q: "Why did you replace all uses"] A:"Nobody did" +[1] [2], "... replacement is evidence to the assertion that the template is redundant", "this clearly-redundant template", "it is entirely redundant to it". This repetition is not making it into an argument. And the diffs in between show a contradiction. -DePiep (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Free advice, DePiep: don't get trapped into the back-and-forth with the nominator. It's a waste of everyone's time, and it only leads to more pointless back-and-forth. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Andy, there are thirty-six parameters in Template:Infobox university which are not present in Template:Infobox academic division (or 60% of them), and should be excluded from Infobox academic division. A simple side-by-side comparison will show you which ones they are. There are another four or five parameters that are specific to business, law, medical and other professional schools which should be added to Infobox academic division so we may merge and redirect all of the various business, law, medical and other grad/professional school infobox templates to Infobox academic division. I thank your for asking these questions, but you're a little late. You should have asked these questions 50 or 60 days ago, instead of insisting on doing things your way and ignoring the valid concerns raised by discussion participants regarding your proposed merge.
By a 13–6 !majority, it is evident that the users of these templates do not want to merge Infobox academic division with Infobox university. The reasons that I and others have repeatedly stated during this TfD discussion (and other related TfDs) are sufficient to maintain Infobox academic division and Infobox university as separate templates. When this discussion closes tomorrow as a consensus keep, I will take this to WikiProject Universities, and ask them to discuss the parameters to be shaved from and added to Infobox academic division. If further college and school merges are required to complete the correct merges and redirects, we will return to TfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

[Outdenting, due to broken indenting by DePiep]

This is not a vote, and I have refuted, not ignored, the various assertions made as to why two templates are supposedly required. The closer will weigh the arguments, not count "votes". I asked you, Dirtlawyer1, "Which specific parameters in the 'University' infobox do you believe should not be available for articles about 'divisions'?" (emphasis in original). Your answer is "there are thirty-six parameters [which] should be excluded from Infobox academic division". These include, for example, |native_name=, |religious_affiliation=, |endowment=, and |chairperson=. Given that these all exist in the 'university' infobox, and that I assert that there are examples of parts of universities, variously to which each of them applies, can you say why they should not be used in such cases? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • "Andy, there are thirty-six parameters in Template:Infobox university which are not present in Template:Infobox academic division (or 60% of them), and should be excluded from Infobox academic division. A simple side-by-side comparison will show you which ones they are. There are another four or five parameters that are specific to business, law, medical and other professional schools which should be added to Infobox academic division so we may merge and redirect all of the various business, law, medical and other grad/professional school infobox templates to Infobox academic division. I thank your for asking these questions, but you're a little late."
    I think I was perfectly clear the first time, so I have simply re-posted my previous statement. Please feel free to do your own comparison. As for the various optional parameters you list from Template:Infobox university which are not present in Template:Infobox academic division, no, none of them are required for constituent colleges and schools, starting with the amazingly redundant list of chief officers. For example, one does not usually list the "religious affiliation" of a law school, even if it is a constituent college or school of a Methodist university. That can be done at the university-level infobox. The infobox for the constituent colleges and schools should be specific core information to the particular academic division, and should not unnecessarily repeat the more general information from the parent university. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    • "one does not usually list the 'religious affiliation' of a law school" may be true, but it does not answer the question of why no part of a university of any kind should ever be allowed to use that parameter. For instance, some universities have faculties which teach divinity ([3]), [4], [5], [6]), and therefore have a religious affiliation. These cases are, of course, already catered fro by {{Infobox university}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Won't reply, language to clean up first. -DePiep (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
[7] Andy breaking other editors contribution. -DePiep (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I note that the nominator, in their nomination, did mention but not link to the previous very recent TfD (Nov 29, 2014). Then the nom continued to misrepresent the conclusion of the earlier outcome (see the "closed as "no consensus", because ..."). Then, when theis TfD was relisted Jan 22, that same misrepresentation was repeated (see 14:42). -DePiep (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Poppycock. The previous TfD was closed as "no consensus" as anyone can see. Likewise, anyone can see the comments there, including "I would potentially support merging..." and "Renominate for merging". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Uncivil, PA. Won't reply. -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to closer: Please be mindful of this canvassing both here, and here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Note to closer: Andy Mabbett, the nominator of this TfD, has a demonstrated pattern of accusing other editors of wrong-doing when they oppose his proposals in TfD discussions and thereby attempting to discredit their opposition to his proposals. In both instances linked by Andy above, both of the notified parties have already expressed their opposition to Andy's merge proposal above, with no prompting from me or anyone else. They therefore cannot be "canvassed," and contrary to Andy's accusations no canvassing has occurred. I have notified the template creator (MindMatrix) and one of the principal organizers of WikiProject Universities (ElKevbo) that I intend to request that this re-opened TfD be closed on the 7th day after its re-opening (January 29), and that they should express their closing thoughts as the template creator and a representative of the WikiProject that is the primary consumer of these templates. Frankly, many TfD participants are sick and tired of Andy's overly aggressive, uncivil and generally disruptive TfD tactics, including his repeated and often baseless accusations of wrong-doing by those who oppose his TfD proposals. It's time to knock it off, Andy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree that Pigsonthewing's accusation of wp:CANVASS violation is not justified, not at all. --doncram 03:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
      • About the canvassing point, Dirtlawyer1 has replied. As for the TfD befhaviour by Andy Mabbett/Pigsonthewing, I am on the receiving end too so I think I am qualified to say something about that. This week alone (in the relist), Andy has hurled four snaps at me so far, which you have read by now. None belong in a TfD discussion. The issue is that deviations disrupt the discussion beyond salvage, and no fruitful result of such a sub-thread can follow -- at all. That is, whether I respond to jab or not: the subtopic is useless. With that, other Andy's subthreads are useless (one can not expect me to respond to someone who in the end will throw another stab in, or has so in the same TfD already). Let it be clear that Andy disrupts and chases away editors in one subthread, and then suggests performing a discussion in a next one. Add to this an admin's vindication of this behaviour, giving encouragement instead of denial. After all this, we are dependent on the closing admin on how the disruptions are treated.
For this I expect from the closing admin an explicit statement on how this behaviour is handled in the closing. Either all Andy's contributions are thrown out (per my previous notes), or it is accepted attitude (in which case I may ask clarification, eg for future TfDs). I do not accept a "just swallow it and keep replying seriously". It is clear that if this behaviour goes unmentioned or unevaluated in the closing, that counts as a vindication for chasing and trolling other editors. -DePiep (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I add: this is Andy editing and breaking other editors contributions. -DePiep (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I do not believe discouraging anyone from contributing is the best solution, and would like to avoid it, if possible. (I direct this at all participants.) Shouldn't we encourage effective behavior, instead? Everyone involved seems resistant to negative feedback, which tends to encourage it. How much positive feedback has been attempted? We are all so busy arguing that we overlook such things. I would like to say that I appreciate assumptions of good faith, especially in the midst of controversy. I appreciate when a misunderstanding is resolved through gaining understanding, rather than jumping to conclusions. I appreciate overcoming disagreements through cooperation, collaboration and teamwork. I may never know if an editor holds back a reply to something that irks, instead of to the matter at hand, but the conversation will flow better, encouraging a resolution, which I find rewarding in itself. If something must be said, why not say good faith is assumed, and give ample opportunity for the stick to be dropped without disgrace. I probably won't send a thanks every time, but I do appreciate these things more than many edits. I have seen everyone involved do these things at various times in the past, and I appreciated it. —PC-XT+ 09:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • delete This is one of a number of sub-university infobox templates, in which there is minimal lack of overlap of parameters, and no persuasive reason for its existence. I see the phrase "semantic value" being used above, but see no value whatsoever being delivered. These things which could be described by Infobox academic division can and are already very effectively described by Infobox university, and without me needing to worry about whether I'm dealing with a 'faculty' or a 'college' or 'division' or 'school' or whatever. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Tagishsimon, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but neither you nor the nominator have expressed a compelling reason based on policy or the guidelines for the merge of Template:Infobox academic division and Template:Infobox university. Nor have either of you offered a compelling reason why articles for constituent colleges and schools should use a template that includes 36 optional parameters they do not require, and fails to include the five or six discipline-specific or profession-specific optional parameters they do need. I might also add that there is no reason for you "to worry about whether [you're] dealing with a 'faculty' or a 'college' or 'division' or 'school' or whatever" because all of those "divisions" can and should be served by an improved Template:Infobox academic division. Regards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If extra, unused, optional parameters are the main issue, the two solutions after merging are: keep this as a wrapper or have a copy/paste section of the documentation list only those parameters needed in each case. The wrapper would be preferable if the documentation gets long enough that editors get lost in it. Otherwise, the pure documentation solution would likely be preferable, to reduce complications in maintenance. —PC-XT+ 05:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Between those, we could probably organize the documentation better, in one way or another, so a wrapper would most likely not be needed. —PC-XT+ 05:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Again, PC-XT, at the risk of repeating myself, there is not a single set of problems, but there exist two different sets of problems with merging Infobox academic division into Infobox university: (1) there are 35 or 36 parameters of Infobox university that are simply unnecessary or inappropriate for constituent colleges and schools of universities; and (2) Infobox university does not include five or six optional parameters that the infobox for articles about business, law, medical and other professional schools should include, but are completely unnecessary for universities. Yes, we can always improve the documentation and instructions for a given template, but the sad truth is that precious few editors read the template instructions until there is an editing dispute. The best way to insure the proper selection of infobox parameters for universities on one hand, and the constituent colleges and schools of universities on the other hand, is to maintain separate templates that do not give editors the opportunity of including inappropriate optional parameters. Universities do not need optional parameters for "affiliated hospitals" and "bar exam passage rates," nor do constituent colleges and schools require parameters for "mascot," "sports teams," and "colours" (nor do they require a dozen different options for the title of the head officer of the college or school). Please -- let's keep it simple, instead of jamming two different templates together and then trying to make an imperfect merger work less than perfectly after the fact. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
        • The parameters not in the template at this time would be added in the merge, and neither articles nor documentation copy/paste code should include all parameters. Are we talking past each other? I see all these options as effectively equivalent, in terms of usage by editors to present relevant information, except for names: keep, keep as wrapper, merge to either a new university division template or this university template with documentation designed to make the differentiation. I would prefer the one with the least maintenance overhead, which usually means relying on documentation and actual usage (examples) in the articles, themselves. —PC-XT+ 07:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
          • PC-XT, we are and we aren't talking past each other. I understand perfectly well what you are proposing: you want a merge or a merge with wrap. The university-level template apparently requires approximately 60 parameters; the division-level template shares 23 or 24 of those, and should incorporate another 5 or 6 unshared parameters to be added, for a total of 6 or 7 parameters that are not shared. Both the university-level template and the division-level template will require separate documentation with separate instructions and examples for the users, with a wrapper and a redirect for the division-level templates. Frankly, I see little or no economy to be achieved with a merge-wrap here, and, yes, it would be merging for the sake of merging, contrary to the expressed desire of the actual users of these templates, who want separate templates for the sake of clarity, ease of use, and the avoidance of university-level parameters in the division-level articles. The same "economy" you desire could be achieved with the maintenance of common code for the 23 or 24 shared parameters. The additional maintenance argument is a massive red herring. At the end of the day, ease of use, and the correct selection of parameters for both the university-level template and the division-level template should trump the minor economies in template maintenance every time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
            • Oh, I didn't mean to suggest wrapping as more than a compromise. It is not an ideal solution, but has clear disadvantages. The advantages I saw in wrapping were that it would allow for a different set of parameters, with different documentation, on the one hand, while sharing some of the code on the other. I am often quick to suggest wrapping because it can make later decisions simpler, though in this case, I expect the same debate would continue, as it appears to be over the code organization itself, if I understand correctly. A wrapper could actually add complication to that kind of discussion. I am happy to drop the idea. —PC-XT+ 01:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge - We don't need duplicates which this template basically is. –Davey2010Talk 23:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Davey2010: Respectfully, Davey, these templates are not "duplicates" and serve distinct purposes. Please see my summarized reply to The Banner below. If you would like to explore more details of the argument against merging, please follow my comments in this TfD from the bottom up. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Convenience break[edit]
  • Merge there is hardly any difference between the to templates at this moment. The few unique fields of "Template:Infobox academic division" could easily be added to "Template:Infobox university". Anyway, there will not be too many subdivisions of universities warranting their own article and too different from that university to need a different template. The Banner talk 13:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @The Banner: There are actually several thousand stand-alone Wikipedia articles about constituent colleges and schools of universities (see, e.g., these categories of university subdivisions in the United States: Category:Business schools in the United States, Category:Dental schools in the United States, Category:Engineering universities and colleges in the United States, Category:Law schools in the United States, Category:Schools of medicine in the United States, Category:Nursing schools in the United States, Category:Pharmacy schools in the United States, Category:Veterinary schools in the United States). Because of the complex web of categories, my examples are limited to the several hundred U.S. constituent colleges and schools of universities with stand-alone Wikipedia articles, but you can follow the parent categories for examples from around the world. There are hundreds of stand-alone articles for U.S. constituent colleges and schools of universities, and hundreds more around the globe.
      As for for the differences between these templates, I will attempt to summarize the TLDR wall of text above: Infobox university has 35 or 36 optional parameters that Infobox academic division does not require. Infobox academic division requires 5 or 6 optional parameters that are inappropriate for university-level articles, but are needed for the subdivision-level articles. By merging the two templates, we perpetuate the problem of incorrect optional parameter selection and use for both university-level and subdivision-level articles. The appropriate selection of infobox parameters across thousands of articles outweighs any minor efficiency in template maintenance. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
      • You have read only half of what I was writing. Anyway, there will not be too many subdivisions of universities warranting their own article and too different from that university to need a different template. The Banner talk 14:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Respectfully, Banner, I read your entire comment and understood your precise meaning; the second paragraph of my comment was written in answer to the second half of your comment. In a related TfD, we have already decided that Template:Infobox law school (215 articles) should not be merged with Template:Infobox university (see here). Please note that Infobox law school uses 25 parameters; Infobox university uses 60, 35+ of which do not apply to law schools, and are excluded from Infobox law school. Schools of business, medicine, etc., are similar in their needs for a handful of discipline-specific optional parameters while excluding the 35+ university-level optional parameters. So, yes, I read your comment and understood it well; in answer, there are already 215 law schools that a recent TfD has determined are "too different from [their parent] university to need a different template," and business, medical and other professional schools should receive the same treatment. Infobox academic division was created with the intent of excluding the 35 or 36 university-level optional parameters of Infobox university, but creating a single infobox for business, law and medical schools (as well as other constituent colleges and schools of universities) and adding the discipline-specific and profession-specific optional parameters to Infobox academic division to serve those schools (e.g., bar exam passage rate, ABA profile link, affiliated teaching hospital, executive MBA program, MBA exchange program, etc.). That horizontal merge of templates for all constituent college infoboxes still makes a lot more sense than this vertical merge of the infobox of universities and the infobox for constituent colleges. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I clicked one of your example links (Category:Pharmacy schools in the United States), chosen randomly. Then a random subcategory (Category:Pharmacy schools in Missouri). That has only one entry, St. Louis College of Pharmacy. And look what I found - not only does it use {{Infobox university}}, but has been doing so, without drama, since 7 April 2007. Further, you have provided zero evidence that "incorrect optional parameter selection and use" is a real problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Andy, one example among thousands proves nothing. Like schools of business, law, medicine, nursing, etc., colleges of pharmacy would also be better served by a shorter, simpler template that excludes the 35+ university-level optional parameters that are not required for constituent colleges and schools. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge - feel free to open the above if you need some further explanation of my opinion. Stlwart111 11:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • @Stalwart111: Stalwart, you are new to this discussion, which has obviously generated a fair amount of words above. While your example of Cornell Tech could probably use either the present Infobox university or the present Infobox academic division with no adverse impact, it is important to understand the larger issues at stake. This boils down to one simple question: whether stand-alone articles for the constituent colleges and schools of universities (e.g., law schools, medical schools, colleges of business administration, etc.) would be better served with an all-in-one template of 60 to 70 parameters, or whether they would be better served with a simpler template of 25 to 30 parameters that excludes the unnecessary/inappropriate university-level parameters (e.g., colors, mascots, sports teams, alma maters, etc.)? In a related TfD, it is has already been decided that Template:Infobox law school should not be merged with Template:Infobox university (see here). Infobox academic division was created with the intent of excluding the 35 or 36 university-level optional parameters of Infobox university, but creating a single infobox for business, law and medical schools (as well as other constituent colleges and schools of universities) and adding the discipline specific optional parameters to Infobox academic division to serve those schools (e.g., bar passage rate, ABA profile, affiliated teaching hospital, international MBA exchange program, etc.). These subdivision-level parameters are not needed or appropriate for university-level articles. At the end of the day, it's not a question of whether we can merge two templates, but whether one class of articles (i.e. constituent colleges and schools) would be better served by a shorter, simpler template that only includes the optional parameters needed by that class of articles (and excluding the 35 or 36 that are not needed). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox academic division (procedurally closed)[edit]


January 20[edit]

Template:ASAP Nast[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 as redundant to {{ASAP Mob}} Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:ASAP Nast (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Content already adequately covered by {{ASAP Mob}}, no need for separate template. GiantSnowman 13:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant per nom —PC-XT+ 10:22, 27 January 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:Columbia County public 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 delete with no objection against userfication for further development on request Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Columbia County public schools (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Only links to two articles. ...William 13:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Which rule are you citing? Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 11:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Not a rule, but a consensus about the minimum amount of links a template needs....William 00:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy as premature (for recreation/moving back to template space when the articles are created) —PC-XT+ 10:13, 27 January 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:Political parties in Donetsk People's Republic[edit]

Template:Political parties in Donetsk People's Republic (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

WP:Original research, none of the political entities could be verified as a political party. Purpose of the template is unclear. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per Aleksandr's reasoning. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I find this nomination bizarre as the articles linked to in the template are well sourced. The groups clearly exist and are covered by reliable sources. Is the nominator's real objection perhaps that he considers the organizations to be illegitimate? If so, that's not a valid rationale for deleting them or this template which aids in navigation among them. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • By the way, the template itself is not tagged for deletion. Aleksandr Grigoryev, you need to make a protected edit request in order to do this. Without this tag in place for several days, this discussion cannot be closed. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Psychonaut, the only really well referenced article is on the Donetsk Republic (political party) which in fact is a public movement rather than a political party. It is a technical term, I agree, but it only shows that whoever created the template his or her familiarization in politics of Ukraine. The reason for nomination is the fact that the article is created by a blocked user and the user whose expertise in politics of Ukraine are in question. Other parties like Communists and Novorossiya do not even exist as they were merged. It is clearly stated in their respective articles. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep while there are articles to navigate, without restricting renomination in the future, if this changes. —PC-XT+ 05:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Creating a template that includes only two barely notable Parties does not make a lot of sense. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nominator. Jackninja5 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

ACTinttop & NSWinttop[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 subst and delete' per nom. The discussion about converting in to a wrapper didn't pan out, and no strong preference for it was expressed in the first place Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:ACTinttop (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:NSWinttop (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Hardcoded instances of {{AUSinttop}} with few transclusion; suggest deleting after substituting in articles. - Evad37 [talk] 01:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It might be better to leave them and convert them into wrapper templates. --Rschen7754 02:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe for ACTinttop, as that one actually changes the sub1 column name to District, but otherwise both are just AUSinttop with <ref>s hardcoded in. - Evad37 [talk] 09:17, 22 January 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:Keelboats worldwide[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 as overly broad. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Keelboats worldwide (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Navbox with too broad scope, it cannot list all keelboats. Smartskaft (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unscoped and incomplete and (IMO) of little practical use. There are probably hundreds of classes. Categories would work better. Moondyne (talk) 01:25, 23 January 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.

January 13[edit]

Template:A.R. Kane[edit]

Template:A.R. Kane (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

WP:NENAN. Only three links, one of which is a collaborative single under a different name. No chance for expansion. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as template creator - five links, not including the one back to the band article. Plenty of scope for expansion, should articles on singles be created. GiantSnowman 12:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @GiantSnowman: A. R. Kane article itself, two albums, and Pump Up the Volume. That's four counting the parent article. The links to MARRS And Colourbox do not count toward WP:NENAN, because those articles do not (and should not) use this template. And explain to me how the singles have potential, as none of them appear to have even charted. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 23:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:NENAN is an essay, not policy - and the other links are valid. GiantSnowman 10:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The other links do not aid in navigation, as the MARRS and Colourbox articles do not use the template. So in your opinion, the template would grow more valid if I larded it out with more links to tangentially connected acts and articles? Why not link an article on Arcanine since it's a Pokémon whose name sounds like the band's name while we're at it? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. Three links does not make for a useful navigational aide, and being a useful navigational aide is the reason navboxes exist - though I'd like to see research on how much our navboxes are actually used. I doubt it's much, but that's a different thing altogether. These links are easily presented in the article proper, and the redlinks are very unlikely to ever turn blue. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox political party/seats[edit]

Template:Infobox political party/seats (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

fork of {{composition bar}} with the only substantive being the height/alignment. this history is basically (1) the template was created as {{Infobox political party/seats}} (2) it was moved to {{composition bar}} (3) hundreds of transclusions were changed from {{Infobox political party/seats}} to {{composition bar}} and (3) it was forked as {{Infobox political party/seats}}. it may seem like a good idea to fix the problems by simply forking it, but the problems should be addressed by fixing {{composition bar}} instead of forking it. Frietjes (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - Frietjes, are you sure fixing the supposed problems with {{composition bar}} that led to the forking wouldn't create new problems at those hundreds of other pages? Or do you suggest adding optional parameters for height and alignment? In the latter case it may be wise to add them before deleting the fork. What we probably don't want is an edit war about those parameters in {{composition bar}}. Huon (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Huon, sure we can start with an option, say 'infobox=yes' or something that will fix the alignment in infoboxes, then work on a more universal solution. however, the current situation fixes nothing since hundreds were already changed to not use the redirect. Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • merge the alignment and height changes back in to composition bar. I oppose straight up deletion without making sure composition bar can handle it first. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Lymphatics of head and neck[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 merged

Template:Lymphatics of head and neck (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Lymphatic system anatomy (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Lymphatics of head and neck with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy.
as stated below Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done per consensus below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:59, 25 January 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:Lymphatics of upper limbs[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 merged

Template:Lymphatics of upper limbs (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Lymphatic system anatomy (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Lymphatics of upper limbs with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy.
as stated below Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done per consensus below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:59, 25 January 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:Thoracic lymph nodes[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 merged

Template:Thoracic lymph nodes (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Lymphatic system anatomy (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Thoracic lymph nodes with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy.
as stated below Tom (LT) (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done per consensus below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:59, 25 January 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:Abdominal lymph nodes[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 merged

Template:Abdominal lymph nodes (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Lymphatic system anatomy (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Abdominal lymph nodes with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy.
as stated below Tom (LT) (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done per consensus below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:59, 25 January 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:Lymphatics of lower limbs[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 merged

Template:Lymphatics of lower limbs (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Lymphatic system anatomy (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Lymphatics of lower limbs with Template:Lymphatic system anatomy.
I propose that this template be 'merged' or for a better term collapsed into the parent template, {{Lymphatic system anatomy}}. The benefits of merging are clear: all lymphatic structures are visible in a single template, instead of the tiny and confusing piecemeal templates. These small templates make the topic difficult to navigate, and by virtue of the slow speed of evolution and the relatively stable state of human anatomy and the science thereof, are unlikely to be significantly expanded. In addition to making the topic easier for readers to navigate, merging the templates is easier for maintenance, which includes making copyedits and keeping the set standard.

I have created this template as a result of a discussion with DePiep and PizzaMan. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I have notified the relevant WikiProject (WP:ANAT) here: [10] --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments re process: 1. I understand {{Lymphatic system anatomy}} is the target template (so I read: with into ...). 2. The five proposals here can be seen as one (a section restructuring could be done). -DePiep (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Support merge The templates will be far more useful when merged into one larger template.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Support all merges. Not because I discussed this, but because the profound discussions at Template talk:Medicine navs show that nom and PizzaMan oversee the topic (of medicine navigation). -DePiep (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Support. Having all the lymphatic system templates in one place would give a more complete view of the subject. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Support merge obviously PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Support all merges. BakerStMD T|C 02:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done per consensus above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:59, 25 January 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:I-22 aux[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 as uncontested Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:I-22 aux (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Navboxes such as this with only three links (I-22, I-222 and I-422) have traditionally been deleted. The usual rule of thumb has been to require about 5 or more separate links to put them into use in articles. Imzadi 1979  05:47, 13 January 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.

January 12[edit]

Template:Cite journal R[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 as G2 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cite journal R (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

This looks like a mistaken creation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:07, 12 January 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:Canberra Capitals current roster[edit]

Template:Canberra Capitals current roster (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Duplicates Template:Canberra Capitals 2014/15 Roster At least this year. Will be obsolete soon. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Speaking from experience, these templates that need to stay current get deleted eventually, unless someone (or some bot) continues to put in that extra effort. If nobody chimes in to do that, here, I will probably !vote weak delete. —PC-XT+ 12:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC) 01:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC) If someone does chime in, I may !vote keep for now, but I don't recommend it. I've helped keep more complicated ones up to date, before, but if they are not redundant, they will likely become out of date at some point, and both are good enough reasons for deletion. —PC-XT+ 12:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)01:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - PC-XT, for what it's worth all of the American major league sports have current roster templates -- MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL -- and they're all very well maintained. That being said, I have no idea what kind of participation the Australian women's basketball league draws from WP editors. If they involved editors maintain these and keep them current, I think they should be kept. A bigger problem is, however: several of these Australian NBL roster templates are mostly red links, and that violates one of the basic navbox criteria. I'm going to wait for further comments; I think what we should do with this navbox (and the other NBL rosters) will become clearer with some scrutiny over the next week or so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, they should be kept as long as they are maintained and compliant with policy. I am very willing to change my !vote in this case. This particular template is mostly blue-linked, and the author has been around a while, and may very well maintain this. I'll mark my above comment as such, and !vote if I develop a strong opinion. If I did !vote delete at this point, it should be marked weak. —PC-XT+ 01:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)]
      I've created a new template each year. The "current" roster duplicates the 2014/15 one. I wasn't aware of the American practice. We copied the practice used for the Olympic teams. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
      For the Capitals at least, I will be supplying the red-linked articles. There was a delay this year while I took photographs of some team members who didn't have them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
      Hey, Hawkeye. The American major league sports practice is to maintain current roster templates, not year-by-year annual team templates. Apart from the current team navboxes, the only individual team navboxes should be those for teams that win major national or international championships; in this case the 2014/15 team navbox needs to go. I'm pretty sure that WP:FOOTY and the other major sports projects adhere to this same standard. Also, remember there should be a stand-alone article or list for every navbox per WP:NAVBOX, otherwise it doesn't satisfy the criteria. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep the "current roster" template, but in my opinion the yearly rosters should go. For most (if not all) sports, it is common to have a template for the current season if the players are likely all notable, but the yearly rosters for a club (if not a national or international champion or for a major FIBA event like the Olympics) are only creating infobox overload/clutter. Take a look at Alice Coddington – she now has four infoboxes for unique seasons with a team. If she were to stay with the Cannons 15 years, that'd be 15 navboxes. WAY too many. Imagine the glut of infoboxes that John Stockton would have if this practice were used for his 19 seasons with the Utah Jazz. This is not the same case as Olympic rosters where the event only happens every four years. Past rosters can (and often are) shown on the main team article (see Real Madrid Baloncesto for example) but full rosters are not necessary for each player's page. Rikster2 (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Tennis events 5[edit]

Template:Tennis events 5 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Tennis event (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Tennis events 5 with Template:Tennis event.
There are only 3 differences between these two templates:

  1. The note at the top of the template page, which could use updating, anyway
  2. Coloring, which may be able to use the standard tennis infobox colors, instead
  3. Width of 3 cells are set to 7em in {{Tennis events 5}}

(diff) —PC-XT+ 11:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Churches in the City of Rome[edit]

Template:Churches in the City of Rome (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

I consolidated my arguments:

  1. This template does not add anything that is not found in either the category Category:Churches in Rome or Category:Roman Catholic Churches in Rome or Category:Basilica Churches in Rome.
  2. There is also an entry for churches in Rome with over 200 churches arranged in chronologic order
  3. There is a template Landmarks of Rome that already includes many of the landmark entries.
  4. There are likely over 700 consecrated and deconsecrated churches in Rome (the Churches of Rome list in Italian has over 650). I have read some sources stating that there were likely over 900 churches in Rome before the 19th century. The navbox will become larger than many articles in the list.
  5. With this navbox The What Links Here tool becomes utterly useless when finding relevant related articles.

Rococo1700 (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Rococo1700 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Rococo1700 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - Don't delete the information Rococo1700, before the discussion! That is vandalism! Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The author does not have a talk page. It would not be easy to inform him about this discussion without making a major change in the template. Without this we could have even greater proliferation, and he would likely feel worse about the process. As it is, we have still not heard from the author. Any suggestions?Rococo1700 (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I notified him on his home Italian Wikipedia. —PC-XT+ 06:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a little crowded, but still seems useful as a navbox. Some organisation might help (grouped by initial letter of the name, or municipo), but that could be done on the talk page. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Delete, crowded and not much organization per Martijn Hoekstra. It appears to only include Basilica; should this be renamed to Basilica in the City of Rome? I count two more entries in the template than in the category. Maintenance will be a problem. Are there basilica for which there are no articles? The template could be helpful in identifying what's missing. Basilica of Saint Lawrence outside the Walls is listed here as Minor; however, it:Template:Basiliche patriarcali lists it as Major; is there a definitive answer?
    SBaker43 (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

January 9[edit]

Template:4TeamBracket-2legs-singlefinal[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 as unused Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:4TeamBracket-2legs-singlefinal (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unused. Template:4TeamBracket-2legsExceptFinal already exists. MicroX (talk) 23:21, 9 January 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:Star essay[edit]

Template:Star essay (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unused template. See Wikipedia talk:Star essays. DexDor (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • delete or move to a subpage of Wikipedia:Star essays and mark as historical. Frietjes (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Historical template of no current usage that doesn't reflect current standards. No problem substituting this on the historical page. SFB 13:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete; a proposal that never got off the ground need not have its template marked as historical. Historical assumes that it was once used a bit. As it is, this is obscure enough that I assumed it to be a navbox for essays related to Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects). Nyttend (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Mark historical and move to a subpage of Wikipedia:Star essays. Since that page still exists, this should be retained, and substituting it on there while retaining it in its original form as historical seems off. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Mark historical and move to subpage per Fritejes and Martijn Hoekstra —PC-XT+ 08:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Wheelsofsteel66 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 move to userspace without leaving a redirect Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Wheelsofsteel66 sandbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

This appears to be an article draft created in the wrong namespace. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:58, 9 January 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:Films and television series about Aboriginal Australia[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. Note that page moves are outside the scope of TfD Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Films and television series about Aboriginal Australia (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

There is nothing in the Indigenous Australian project of the Larger Australian project - that shows any discussion of the usage of the term 'Aboriginal Australia' is in any way an acceptable phrase as far as the media series - or anywhere else - discussion is needed before departing from the accepted terms as found at the project satusuro 08:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Apology - this is a suggested change to 'Films and television series about Indigenous Australians satusuro 01:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: I think the tempate itself is relevant, but the language or terms used could be improved if deemed necessary Whats new? (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: I think it can be useful.--333-blue 13:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Despite the name of the template, Aboriginal Australians is what the title bar says. What is wrong with that? Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • comment - Indigenous Australian is the accepted term and phrase - the phrase here is not commonly used in articles, the main project, or most of Australian project materials about first australians - the templates relevance or usefulness is not what is being questioned - the terminology is inconsistent with the rest of the related projects satusuro 01:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • If that is all you're worried about, why did you not just move it? Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I presume because there has been a tendency of editors over recent weeks to substitute Aboriginal for Indigenous and use the term as racial loaded commentary about Indigenous subjects. Gnangarra 01:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
        • If you had said all this I would not have interfered. I am out of this political discussion. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • for now rename - to Films and television series about Indigenous Australian as the subject matter is broader than the title indicates. The template isnt just about the final product nor does it cover the production industry appropriately within context and needs a complete rethink of purpose. Gnangarra 01:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: This template has been created to make it easy for readers to find films and/or television shows about Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and is in no way political. I have now renamed it to include Torres Strait Islanders, as it does indeed include film/television relating to Torres Strait Islanders, and I would like to thank other fellow wikipedians for pointing out this unfortunate omission. GangGangQuokka2 (talk) 15:10, 10 January 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:Somer Onur Engin[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 as G8 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 00:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Somer Onur Engin (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Only has one link in it, which currently is a dab page. This template isn't useful. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete: the link in the navbox (name) is a disambiguation page, and I don't know it means what, I hope the template creator can give me some examples.--333-blue 09:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • delete Frietjes (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as useless —PC-XT+ 23:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I have restored the TFD-template that the template-creator had removed. The Banner talk 00:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a new editor that has no idea what they are doing. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • G8, no parent page for the template, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:01, 10 January 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.

January 8[edit]

Template:Google translation[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. Consensus states that this while this template may be useful for references, that other translation services may be good to include. Discussion about this can continue on the template talk page. Jax 0677 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Google translation (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

This template encourages people to put in machine translations, which are deprecated. Many end up at WP:PNT. While Wikipedia should encourage contributions, substandartd contributions from machine translations make the Wikipedia worse and require considerable, usually unrewarded, effort from multilingual speakers to put them straight. This should be deleted and salted, or at the very least, the list of language codes should be removed. If someone can't navigate to the list of language codes then they have no business attempting to insert a translation. Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is valuable when citing references that are not available in English, and for providing useful ELs where no English equivalent is available. I agree that it should not be used in main text in the article body, but that's best handled with documentation. I'm not sure how the template encourages WP:PNT instances. Can you give an example? TJRC (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Rewrite Keep per TJRC; Expand to cover all commonly used free online machine translation services (like Bing translate; or other popular ones from Machine_translation#Online_translator_links, etc) to not have bias concerning the source of the translation. This template can be used in discussions, where the source material (references, source passages, etc) is not in English, on such things as Talk Pages, etc. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a pretty good idea actually. The template language is, to me, pretty arcane and frustrating, but now that we have Lua modules, this sounds doable, and gives me an excuse to learn some Lua. I may give this a go, unless someone beats me to it. TJRC (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: when everyone reads other language, may have to translate. Other reason, same as User:TJRC.--333-blue 09:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per TJRC. The reality is that a link to a machine translation is beneficial for verifying citations and including it in a reference, <ref>{{cite web}}{{Google translation}}</ref>, is convenient. I think the "destination language code" should just default to English on the English Wikipedia. <ref>{{cite web}}{{Machinetranslate}}</ref> doe that. Maybe, for that kind of use, a translate toggle could be added to {{cite web}} since there is already a language field. But, as 65.94.40.137 wrote, it is used on talk pages also and a toggle in {{cite web}} would not change the need for a separate template to use on talk pages. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has never made Wikipedia worse and its usage is very much needed because not all references are available in English language. VandVictory (talk) 17:38, 11 January 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:Simanta khataniar[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 delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 17:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Simanta khataniar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Mistaken creation of user page as template? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:29, 8 January 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:Cleanup[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 . A suggestion has been made that the template generate an error message if it is used without a reason. However, there is no way to determine every way in which an article can fail, therefore, discussion can continue on the template talk page. Jax 0677 (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Previously, the main problem with this template was that it was getting drive-by tagged without the tagger ever explaining what needed cleaning up. This seems to have been at least somewhat remedied by adding a "reason" field… and while people are at least bothering to fill in that field now, I'm still seeing rampant misuse.

A search of some recent transclusions (articles in ‪Category:Articles needing cleanup from December 201‬4)

I could go on and on, but the template's problems are still manifold. This template seems to fall under the same pitfalls as the deprecated {{wikify}} or {{expand}}, in that it's too broad in scope. Many in previous AFD's argued that WP:ITSUSEFUL which makes no sense. Most of the arguments in the last AFD in 2012 were suggesting that the "reason" field be made mandatory. But the samplings above show that, even if the "reason" field is used, there is always at least one other template that gives the exact same message.

In short, the template is way too broad and vague to serve a specific purpose anymore. 99.9% forms of cleanup have their own template, so there's no reason to shoehorn something like "this article needs copy editing" into this generic template. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: Having a single well-known template with a free-text "reason" parameter makes it easy for editors to tag articles, without sorting through a bewildering array of tags. It doesn't matter to me what the tag is, as long as it's tagged with something, so it gets noticed by cleanup editors and warns/apologizes to readers. -- Beland (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Beland WP:NOTBURO, Wikipedia should not be a bureaucracy, making all editors know every kind of cleanup template is bureaucratic. Instead editors versed in the cleanup message system can go through and replace cleanup as necessary with more specific templates, as editors already do with {{stub}} template trees. Further, expecting that all possible cases of cleanup are covered by some existing template is folly, there's no mathematical way anyone can prove such an assertion (a mathematically complete proof), since it would require knowing every single way an article can fail (one would have to prove there are no unknown unknowns, and no known unknowns). -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with the keepers on this. It appears redundant, except that no one of the other templates can tag for everything this one can. This template does tag a mess, but much of that mess would simply be left for someone else to tag, otherwise. I do think this template should prominently link to copyedit and other tags in its documentation to encourage better category sorting, but I'm unconvinced that this one should be deleted at this time. It's like {{db}}. —PC-XT+ 08:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 17:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: very important, or User:TenPoundHammer is doing vandalisms?--333-blue 09:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Hahaha, he's not a vandal, quite the opposite. He just thinks that editors should be required to use the more specific templates available, instead of this one. —PC-XT+ 10:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: I've been here years and spend a lot of time in areas that may result in a clean-up tag also being required (like Special:UncategorizedPages). I still find myself having to half-guess, half-remember the right template. I can't imagine how confusing it is for somebody new(ish). I also thing the unintended consequence would be for the wrong specific template to be applied or no template at all to be applied neither of which can be better than the current situation surely? QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per QuiteUnusual. Nothing wrong with the duplications given above, and it will help the people who don't remember the specific template. Yes, it's useful. WP:USEFUL is all about actual articles; when we're talking about a cleanup template, usefulness is the only thing we need to consider. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep but turn "No cleanup reason has been specified" into an error message, since otherwise it is unclear what the tagger wants to be done to the article and the template is pointless. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) 13:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important issue tag for seeking major edits on a messed up article. VandVictory (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep; while there's (usually) always a better (set of) template(s), this doesn't require everyone who wants to point out an improvement be familiar with the whole array of alternatives. Per Jc86035, generate an error message when no reason is provided.SBaker43 (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep As annoying as it may be that this template is often used without a specified reason, I agree with the others that this is incredibly helpful to avoid having to hunt for the right template. If there's no cleanup message specified, it should generate an error and not be visible on the page. AHeneen (talk) 10:47, 15 January 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:2015 WTA 125K series tournaments[edit]

Template:2015 WTA 125K series tournaments (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Consists entirely of redlinks. At the very least a case of WP:TOOSOON. ...William 13:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep: why? When it is 2014, Template:2014 WTA 125K series tournaments do it, too. (I edit by my IP address that time until August 20, 2014)--333-blue 13:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Too soon? Or I can say 2015 WTA 125K series is too soon.--333-blue 13:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy until the articles are created to navigate. Another option would be to delete for now, and undelete or recreate when the articles are created, but I don't really see much of a benefit to that as long as the user doesn't try to use it until the links are blue. —PC-XT+ 11:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy until needed.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Hamilton, Ontario City Councillors[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 as unused Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Hamilton, Ontario City Councillors (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unused template. AFD last year upheld the consensus that Hamilton, Ontario is not a large or internationally prominent enough city to confer an automatic presumption of encyclopedic notability on its city councillors under WP:NPOL. The handful of minimally sourced articles that did exist about people who were notable only as Hamilton city councillors got deleted, and subsequently the few who did have more substantive claims of notability (a former federal MP and a former provincial MPP) were not reelected to the new council in last fall's municipal election — meaning that the only place the template can now be used is on the incumbent mayor. But with none of the councillors having their own separate articles, the only other links provided by the template are to Hamilton City Hall and Hamilton, Ontario City Council — both of which the body text of his article is (or should be) already linking to anyway. Delete; it can always be recreated in the future if circumstances ever change enough to make it useful again. Bearcat (talk) 07:50, 8 January 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:Florida Basketball Association[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. Currently a speedy delete but even if the FBA article was re-established on Wikipedia, it would be a template linking to only two articles, which (per multiple precedents) would have no chance of surviving a TFD discussion. So this stays deleted unless and until there is enough content to justify links between related articles. BencherliteTalk 11:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Florida Basketball Association (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Minor-league basketball association, not notable enough for a template. The Wikipedia article about it, Florida Basketball Association, was deleted per an AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida Basketball Association, then userfied to User:TheScottDL/Florida Basketball Association, where it hasn't been edited in weeks. Only one of the teams is notable (barely). MelanieN (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that the template has now been tagged for speedy deletion. [11] --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per G8, qualifies as "page dependent on a nonexistant page". Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The following comment was posted at the template's talk page by the template's author. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This page should not be speedily deleted because... (Just submitted the FBA article to be added back to Wikipedia) --TheScottDL (talk) 02:30, 9 January 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:List of albums containing a hidden track Header[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 as unused and undesirable Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:List of albums containing a hidden track Header (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Created January 2014 and not being used. GoingBatty (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete: like an article, even had {{multiple issues}}. (former, already delete that template in this template)--333-blue 13:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 22:52, 9 January 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:Hatnotes[edit]

Template:Hatnotes (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Seems that the only benefit in using this template is that it shrinks the space in between multiple lines of hatnotes. Unlike similar templates like {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, I don't see the helpfulness or usefulness of this template. I mean, one could basically remove all transclusions of this template, not counting the content in their qualifiers, and the functionality of those pages will not be affected. Steel1943 (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. There is usually a better hatnote template that can list multiple links. For example, see this edit. With that modification, I have just orphaned that template. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    Foul It is bad practice to orphan a template so that you can claim non-use in a deletion discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I second. -DePiep (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment if this is deleted, this title should redirect to {{hatnote}} -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep opinion withdrawn (see my cmt "Looks like the issue has been taken care of" ). First the nom mentions the formatting effect, ("it shrinks the space in between multiple lines of hatnotes"), then concludes that there is no need. Sure the functionality of the element hatnotes is not changed, that is what a stacker is expected (not) to do. Then, Zzyzx11 finds a replacement for a simple situation (same hatnote variant used twice), writing "There is usually ...". So I am not convinced. Altogether, the proposal is based on the presumption that hatnotes can not or may not be handled stacked. But I found no argument for that. iow, a stacking hatnote template does have it s place. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    When I went through the list of its tranclusions, that was the only page in which it was used. It's hard for me to support a template that appears to have been barely used in the three months since it was created, despite being listed on Template:Hatnote templates documentation. Furthermore, a complex situation can always fit into {{hatnote}} as a last resort so it is formatted into a short paragraph. We should not encourage editors to add long lists of hatnote templates, increasing unnecessary vertical space at the top of the page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Three months only? That's still new. Of course you won't find much uses: people like you are removing them. Sort of self-serving proof. Then, the number of hatnotes is not limited by the number, but by the actual need. And even two hatnotes are a list. This does not conclude in any way that hatnotes can not or may not be stacked. And I do not see why a complex hatnote situation should be & must be handcoded in a single one, just to evade stacking or listing. That is making things complicated for the editor. Even your 'simple' merge into one {{Redirect2}} requires studying the documentation to get the params right. -DePiep (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think we actually deerly need a format for stacking hatnotes. As a hatnote list shows now, there is no or little visual support for being a list. A second hatnote starts a new line, but a linewrap reading, misleading, can occur. -DePiep (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • A series of hatnotes is not a list; they are each separate notes that may convey separate messages. Where did you get the idea that hatnotes should be formatted as a list? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Where from? From the statement you just threw out. Two or more hatnotes is a listing (as opposed to eg prose, poetry, image, ...): a list of hatnotes. How to treat that list is secondary here; but I already gave points. -DePiep (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like the issue (the need for this template) has been taken care of in an other way by EDokter. I struck my !vote, without going into checks. -DePiep (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @DePiep: Are you sure? I just reviewed the changes made by Edokter on commons.css by looking at the hatnotes on Halo: Combat Evolved, and noticed that "...the extra space" that "is needed only to separate from article text (lede)" no longer exists either. It seems that one concern has been resolved (space between separate hatnotes removed), but at the expense of causing another (space between hatnotes and article lead also removed). (After I noticed this, I retracted a couple of my most recent edits to this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
No I'm not sure, because I did not check or testcase the changes EDokter announced below. I assume EDokter respondend & edited to SMcCandlish (who echoed my keep-reasonings). At least EDokter edited towards my remarks (without acknowledging that as such). Given that the pre-lede whitespace is a concern by EDokter themselves, I assume he knew what he does. What is you position now? DO we have an alternative solution? -DePiep (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep: As you stated above, the concern I stated seems to have ended up being caused by the editor who didn't want it to happen. Also, since it seems that the effect of this template has now been applied site-wide ... I'm now rather neutral in regards to this whole discussion, but I guess the template can now be deleted as it is truly redundant now due to the commons.css updates. Steel1943 (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. All moot then. I withdrew (struck) my !vote, so the conclusions must do without me. I did not !change into a delete, because I could not or did not research the new stuff. Don't think I'm blocking any conclusion here. (I confusingly read your post re me here as a keep? idea). btw I made crude demo's here. -DePiep (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The space between the hatnotes is partly my fault by adding a bottom margin (in Common.css) to prevent hatnotes being glued to the article content. This template seeks to remove those spaces, but does so way too aggressivly, causing the hatnotes to overlap eachother (which was my primary reason to remove its uses). As such, I see absolutely no usefull purpose for this template. I also find the default spacing to have a positive effect on legibility... Why does it need to be so cramped in the first place? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
(ec) That's just improvements, so should be at Template talk or in live template edits, not TfD. Meanwhile you give an argument to use a stacking format: the extra space is needed only to separate from article text (lede). A stacking formatter then to remove inter-hatnote whitespace. -DePiep (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, and fix the trivial spacing problem has been fixed, obviously. Edokter's complaint is was a template talk matter, not a TfD issue (to the extent it may be valid at all – I cannot duplicate this problem, in 5 browsers on 2 OSes). Nom provides no actual deletion rationale, only observes the intended behaviour of the template (to shrink space between successive hatnotes). "Rationale" seems to be that removal of the template would not affect page functionality, but the template was never intended to affect any functionality, only spacing of displayed output, so this isn't a rationale at all. Zzyzx11's comment is predicated on "usually", which does not cover all cases, and their partial solution is dependent upon everyone always taking the time to craftily figure out how to use exactly the right hatnote to cover the multiple purposes of the hatnotes being added, which simply isn't going to happen, and usually isn't even possible with our existing hatnote templates. The example they provide is cleanup that needed to be performed whether this template existed or not, and has no relevance to this TfD, as the template is intended for use only when there are multiple hatnotes of different types, which cannot easily be combined, or combined at all. See, e.g., usage at Andorra. Finally, Frietjes provides no attempt at a rationale at all, just an meaningless vote. The closest thing to any sort of rationale here is that the template isn't used much. However: A) That's simply because no one's taken the time to deploy it much (I could easily find hundreds, thousands of pages to use it on in no time, if that were one of my editing priorities – just cross-reference the transclusion lists of the page-top hatnote templates, and every page with two or more different ones can use this template). B) The same "delete" !voter is self-admittedly removing the template from pages on which they've found it, and linking to examples of them doing so, which is WP:FAITACCOMPLI.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Update: I've adjusted the CSS spacing to moot Edokter's concern (though again, I couldn't actually replicate the problem, which may have been due to user-side CSS). I also have to observe that the TfD notice was not noincluded, which probably caused various editors to remove it from articles in which the template was properly deployed, because it was "spamming" the top of articles with TfD notices, about which our readers will not care at best and will be confused at worst.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • That has normalized the spacing. I have no user CSS that would impact hatnotes. I still think the template is solving a non existing problem. One that is fixable using CSS alone. But I would have to know if the dablink and rellink classnames are still in active use. If not, they can be removed and the hatnote CSS would be much easier to ammend to address the spacing issue. That would make this template completely redundant. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I understand what you mean, but the template is doing nothing but "CSS alone". The problem does exist: We want to space the hatnotes away from the article content, but it's a waste of space and weird-looking to space the hatnotes apart from each other, as if each were its own different section of material, when they're all the same thing and should be grouped. I don't particularly care how that problem is eventually solved, but for now this template solves that problem. The fact that you may at some point have an alternative solution doesn't salvage this rationale-free TfD.  :-) When your alternative solution is tested and works, then maybe this template should be revisited at TfD. We're not there yet.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes we are! I've gone ahead and put the appropriate CSS rule in Common.css (after testing of course). There is absolutely no reason for this template to exist anymore. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
What is the rule now? -DePiep (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
div.hatnote + div.hatnote {
    margin-top: -0.5em;
}
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Now redundant due to changes in MediaWiki:Common.css. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: this template means what? Just have '{{{1}}}' and a template documentation subpage.--333-blue 13:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    • It adds space underneath, as well. It's used to hold a group of hatnotes, but this has now been implemented in CSS, instead, so this template can probably be deleted. —PC-XT+ 08:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

January 6[edit]

Template:Notleaks[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 as no longer useful Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Mea culpa! this is the second time that I close a TfD of the wrong date! I'm not expecting anything drastic to happen between now and tomorrow, but if anyone would like to keep this open, let me know, and I'll immediately self-revert and relist. I'll go find a trout now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Notleaks (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

This is a generic response meant for people who think that Wikipedia is Wikilinks and accordingly complain or praise us for things they've done. Since Wikileaks isn't much at all in the news anymore, I don't see why we'd need to continue using it; note that it's a talk page message, so all uses should be substed, and deleting it won't break them. As far as I can tell, it hasn't ever been heavily used; it links to an essay, and WhatLinksHere for the essay shows essentially nothing from the past 2½ years. We can still write a generic message if someone comes around thinking that we're Wikileaks, but it's not at all likely to happen unless they get in the news again, and we can always undelete this template should that happen. Nyttend (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. No longer useful. As above, Wikileaks is rarely discussed anymore and I haven't seen a post where this would have been relevant to place in response in a long time. Since I am the creator, I suppose G7 might be shoehorned in, even though others contributed, or this can run its course.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above; no one seems to be making this confusion anymore. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 17:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 23:42, 9 January 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:User Sandbox 1[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 delete. User created a sandbox in template space by mistake. The template has been blanked and the content is now at Draft:Robert M. Rogers. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:User Sandbox 1 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Article not a template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete DB-TEST, test edit outside of the proper sandbox areas -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 02:55, 8 January 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:Ops[edit]

Template:Ops (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Seems to be a simple copypastable text string, Why does this need a template? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  • There is a discussion going on at the moment on WPMILHIST about how to format names of operations. I created this template as part of that discussion and for further development. It is possibly similar to the ship templates in in how it could eventually work or that discussion could decide that we don't need the template at all in which case I would request speedy deletion myself. BTW it is not a simple cut and paste. BoonDock (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy if wanted, otherwise delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • delete as unused other than in the creators sandbox, with no objection to userfication for testing and subst: purposes, and to facilitate discussion. Also no objection to recreation as a subst: only template if that's deemed useful in the mentioned formatting discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

December 31[edit]

Template:Urban public transport networks and systems in Ukraine[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. Not everything needs a navbar, but there is consensus this navbar is useful enough. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Urban public transport networks and systems in Ukraine (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

This Navbox merits deletion as it does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria – it has very few direct links, as most are redlinks to nonexistent articles. IJBall (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep Notability criteria apply to articles, not templates, and this useful navbox has around 20 valid links, with potential for more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    • That's an exceedingly low bar for Navbox to clear to be considered "valid" or useful – surely there's some guidelines on this subject to help us figure out when a Navbox is too "empty" to be kept around... --IJBall (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
      • No, it isn't; the bar, per the applicable guidelines, WP:NENAN, is "at least five articles" (my emphasis). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Again, too low a standard. While five would be enough for certain Navboxes, for one like this one it's too low. The guideline should probably be changed to a percentage basis – something like: if only 20% (or perhaps even a higher percentage?) of the links in a Navbox aren't to valid articles, then there is no need for a Navbox. But I have no idea how to change guideline policy on something like this. Suffice it to say, the current policy is allowing far too many marginal Navboxes through. The current nominee should be deleted by an objective appraisal. --IJBall (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
          • First of all, red links imply notability. They imply a topic that's potentially notable for which an article hasn't yet been created. (See WP:REDLINK.) Secondly, NENAN is neither a guideline nor policy; it's an essay. Thirdly, navboxes are a navigational tool. You'd need to argue the failures of this navbox in performing its actual function. The percentage of red to blue links is a nonsensical metric in arguing the deletion of a navbox. If there's too many red links, just take them out. Alakzi (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
            • OK, fair point. While I think the current policies on Navboxes are too lax (currently, it seems like everything gets through, whether there's really a need for one or not), I may start implementing what you're suggesting – any Navbox with too many redlinks, and I'll just start taking them out. So, thanks for that – good suggestion. --IJBall (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a very useful template which helps the reader to navigate through all urban transport systems in Ukraine. Andy Mabbett makes a good point as well. Articles are slowly being created too.. § DDima 01:36, 2 January 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:PragerU[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 no consensus. The argument for deletion presented is that the existence of this template serves as an endorcement for using it as an external link. Whether Prager University should be linked from external links is not a matter for TfD itself. The discussion comes down to whether or not this template is useless other than for policy violations. There is no consensus in this discussion that it is. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:PragerU (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Apparent violation of WP:PROMOTION, WP:ADV, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, and WP:BALASPS. Prager University is a website that publishes short videos of speeches by notable people (similar to TED Talks). DougHill, the creator of the template, has added the template to every Prager U speaker that has his or her own article. (examples: 1, 2, 3) This appears to be an effort to promote Prager U in violation of the above policies and guidelines among others. Most speakers have surely given many speeches more notable than the Prager U ones. Relevant discussion can be found on DougHill's user talk. I do not work on templates so my apologies if this is the wrong forum. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep Appears to be a useful external link. The accusation of "promotion" appears to be a baseless failure to assume good faith. (But yes, this is the right forum to discuss potential template deletions). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with objecting to an edit as having an promotional effect. Promotion isn't bad faith. (Articles are routinely speedily deleted under G11 for blatant promotion; I've never heard of a nominator being accused of violating AGF.) And WP:PROMOTION/WP:ADV weren't the only policies/guidelines I cited. How about WP:ELMINOFFICIAL and WP:BALASPS? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • TNTFNOT. And there is clear and unambiguous differnece between "promotional effect" and "an effort to promote... in violation of... policies". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't follow. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom, and also fails WP:EL. I also think that this template is an effort to promote the website. An ext. link of a speech held by a certain speaker is not automatically intrinsic to the speaker's article. -- P 1 9 9   18:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:EL specifically says "This guideline does not apply to inline citations". Where the template is used as an inline citation it should not be objectionable. So P199, would you be willing to change your vote if the template's use is removed or reduced from "external links" sections (see below)? DougHill (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I am the first editor of this template. Unless Prager University is to be a blacklisted site, there is no reason why it cannot have a template to link to it. It seems to me that DrFleischman's objections are based on my usage of the template, rather than the template itself. He again says that I "added the template to every Prager U speaker that has his or her own article". This is false. Where I found a better video, I linked there instead. But so what if it were true? All I have done was to make systematic use of a good resource. Is there a rule against this? If so, we can reduce the number of links to comply with the rule.
DrFleischman also states "Most speakers have surely given many speeches more notable than the Prager U ones". At least one, perhaps most, but probably not all. Where an editor knows of a better video lecture, the link can and should be replaced. But this should be decided on a case-by-case basis. This is not an argument against all uses of the template.
It seems to me that there is no objection to the template's use as an inline citation, so we should keep it for at least that usage. However, some of you object to its use an an external link. My additions of some of these videos as external links was nothing more than a good faith attempt to improve the pages on their subjects. The documentation for the template reads

The template can be used to link any speaker at the prageruniversity.com website, including the External links section or when citing the video as a source.

This is of course just wikipedia boilerplate, which I thought was standard and led me to think there was nothing wrong with using it as an external link. But if the template cannot be used as an external link, then we should edit the documentation to indicate this. DougHill (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
DougHill, can you please provide an example of "Where I found a better video, I linked there instead" from before December 31? I'll also note I've asked you twice to disclose your connection with Prager U and you've ignored me both times. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no affiliation with Prager University. I linked to different videos on Christina Hoff Sommers. Now that I've answered your two questions DrFleischman, will you please answer two of mine? You've made a lot out of your claim that I "added the template to every Prager U speaker that has his or her own article." If I had, could you please cite a specific policy that would have violated? Please don't give us another laundry list, please cite a single, specific, policy. And my second question is: are we still in violation of this policy? DougHill (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete (as nom). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's nowhere we need to link to the propaganda machine that is Prager "University". Alakzi (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    • POV. The fact is that Prager University contains cite-able lectures by notable people. DougHill (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
      • The fact that something is citable in the right context doesn't mean it should be included as an external link in every possible article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. If we're providing links to the same website on many articles, it is clearly helpful to provide a template so that they may all be formatted alike. Objections to linking the website are irrelevant, since the template's just a formatting device for links that are already present. If you believe that the website shouldn't be linked this way, get consensus to remove the link, and then come back here with a second nomination; "Unused because consensus rejected the use of this website as an external link" is a good argument for deletion of the template; the arguments made by all three of the delete voters are only good arguments for removing the links themselves, not the template. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've started a discussion about linking to Prager U here. Alakzi (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Please note: This discussion has moved to WP:ELN#Linking to Prager University. All participants are invited to weigh in there if they haven't done so already. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Multiple editors have pointed out that these are related but separate issues. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Then shouldn't we close the discussion here so that we can continue it there (where it belongs)? As I read at WP:ATD: "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." Now I'm an involved editor, but this does seem to have been referred to an appropriate forum. And this really does seem to be a content dispute between DrFleischman and me, and not a template issue. (But he's apologized for assuming that all the uses of the template are for external links, when thoese that aren't are not even a point of dispute, are they?) And the new comments below don't add any template issues, and nothing that wasn't addressed by Nyttend above. DougHill. Je suis Charlie. (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete the template is just a tool for some editor(s) to promote Prager U more conveniently, and doesn't serve any useful goal with regard to the public getting access to useful information. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The forked discussion mentioned above seems to be acting as canvassing for "delete" !votes here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Really now? Damned if you, damned if you don't. Alakzi (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Andy, your comments are way off base and unduly aggressive. If you are going to question my motives (while trumpeting AGF, quelle hypocrisie), you should come to my talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Andy was making an observation, not an accusation. Let's all please AGF. But all the more reason to close the discussion here and continue it in the appropriate forum. DougHill. Je suis Charlie. (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
How can canvassing not be an accusation? Canvassing implies intention. I did not urge nor did I intend for people to come here to !vote for, or against, deletion. 'Forked' too has negative connotation. So no, I don't think Andy was commenting in good faith. Alakzi (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: unuseful.--333-blue 14:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Regarding the use in External links sections: The addition of an interview of/talk by the subject with/at some journal/university is failing our general inclusion standards (an interview with a subject does not very often give much extra information beyond what is encyclopedic or necessary for understanding, and what extra information is needed generally can be part of the Wikipedia page itself) - there must be a very good reason to include an interview like that, and it certainly does not belong on many pages. Having a template for that is not appropriate. Many of these external links should be removed, and consensus on each specific case should be gained on the talkpage before (re-)inclusion - convince editors that the link is one of the exceptions, or they should be used (as intended) to draw information from that expands the document (and then converted to references, which generally makes re-linking it as an external link superfluous as well). For the template, it does not need a template for the few cases where the link is appropriate in the external links section, that can be 'written out'. Regarding the use in references: interviews with, or talks by a subject can be a perfectly valid primary source for something that a subject has said. Linking to such a video is then appropriate. We have many templates handling citations, and (some of) those can handle videos as well (note, if it is a specific statement, I would suggest that the citation is including the time when it was said in the video or when the relevant info is there). Also for that, a separate template is not needed, nor is this template appropriate for use in the references section (use a regular cite-template). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, as it stands this appears to be an unnecessary template used to link external links to videos from Prager University that could use existing templates. Now if this were a template that lists "lecturers" for Prager University, than I might change my vote. Also how is Template:TED different, they appear to function the same?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Would there be an objection if the article was made into something similar to Template:Fox News personalities, where list of "lecturers" are provided?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I would object. The difference in this respect between Prager U and Fox News is that Fox News is a significant aspect of its personalities' careers. I clicked on five random people in the Fox News infobox and every one had Fox News in their lead sections. I highly doubt Prager U belongs in the lead section for anyone, beyond possibly Dennis Prager himself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Still no response on why this template is any different from the TED template. This question can be fielded by anyone.
Actually, come to think about it, since this is similar to the TED and CSPAN templates in purpose, I am changing my opinion to Keep. Granted it is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST reasoning, but I don't see how, at the very least the TED series of videos are different. Both are attempting to be educational, this is just right-of-center. Although Prager U might not be an actual accredited university, however it's purpose is the same as TEDs in that it is attempting to shine light on an idea on an issue in a video lecture format. Therefore, if this template is to be deleted in its present form, so should similar templates.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I, for one, am in favour of that - having a template seems to suggest that the links are somehow 'endorsed' (that is a reasoning that sometimes comes up with the use of the {{youtube}}, {{twitter}} templates - we have a template specifically to link YouTube links in external links sections, so YouTube links are good in the external links sections). However, the difference between PragerU and TED seems to be quite big - how many of these will end up in the end in external links sections (the ones used as references should simply be trans-templated to a proper cite-template), how many actually belong in external links sections (that is also true for TED!), and does that number qualify it to be templated, or just with a regular non-templated external link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Note, {{TED}} has 7 transclusions, 2 as references (which should be transformed to a proper cite-template), 1 inappropriate (link to a talk by a person, likely because he talked about the subject described on the Wikipage - I think he is inventor/CEO/important in the field), 3 proper external links (some in quite a linkfarm, wondering what they add), and one link to media. That leads to 3-4 uses of the template, which IMHO does not qualify as needed to be templated. For {{C-SPAN}} the situation is different (it does not link to a specific video), and .. I would say that many of these are also inappropriate as external links (because it links to a linkfarm of videos, how to determine what is appropriate?) - It leads to a 'appearances on C-SPAN'-link, where I would question how useful that is directly to the subject: you have to search through the appearances to find information that is not already covered - if there is any? I looked at Mary Tyler Moore, and on first sight, only one talk is by her, I presume she attended (e.g. '2005 White House Correspondents' Dinner Arrivals') or was partly a subject in the others (e.g. 'News and Documentary Emmy Awards'). {{C-SPAN}} looks to me a typical example of the abovementioned {{Youube}}-argument: we have a template for it, so it is 'endorsed' and hence add the link where we can. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast, I agree with you that your point is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument, and I agree with Beetstra that the TED and C-SPAN templates shouldn't exist. TED isn't useful and C-SPAN appearances are trivia. If we are to take your argument to its logical extension, we should have a template for every single media outlet (reliable or not) so that articles can externally link to all references to everyone. It should be obvious this is not how Wikipedia is intended to work. (And btw, Prager U is not an unaccredited university. It's a website. The "University" part of its name is pure marketing.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Therefore, the logical conclusion is that we should keep all mentioned, or this TfD should be bundled with TED and C-SPAN. Otherwise if it is not than this template should be kept as TED and C-SPAN are allowed to remain unchallenged. I await others to make their move.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I await others to make their move. This is not a chess match. Consensus is emerging to remove all ELs to Prager U. We're not gonna hold up on deleting a template that's outlived its purpose, 'cause other similar templates exist. Alakzi (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Then why are you, Alakzi, removing all uses of the template before there is any resolution here? That seems like a chess move to me. Please discuss in one of these forums, or wait for a resolution here, before doing that again. The TED template is useful, just as PragerU would be if you hadn't deleted all its uses. But I must admit that if there is no case for the TED template, then there isn't one for PragerU either. DougHill. Je suis Charlie. (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the links 'cause of the general consensus at WP:ELN, irrespective of the use of this template. Alakzi (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
What we're saying by this TfD, if it occurs, but the TfD for TED fails is, it is OK to censor Wikipedia from one form of (educational in its purpose) video lecture but not another. Thus, WP:NOTCENSOR applies to both, or neither. Either both Template should remain, or neither template remain.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Prager University is not "educational in its purpose". NOTCENSOR is not applicable. We're not censoring content worthy of inclusion; we're censoring links that've no business being on Wikipedia. Let go of this false parallel. Alakzi (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It is entirely educational in its purpose. It is attempting to inform/education individuals of topics from a certain academic perspective, such as on the Laffer curve, presented from a professor from the University of California, Los Angeles.
It is an educational lecture. Regardless of whether a editor/reader agrees with its view point or not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:TED has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep for now: Many of the instances can be removed or replaced with other templates, and the links could simply be written out, but the template has benefits for tracking and standardizing, and I am unsure that there is enough redundancy to merit deleting the template at this time. —PC-XT+ 11:04, 17 January 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:Blackboxwarning[edit]

Template:Blackboxwarning (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Redundant to {{Warning}}. Hardly used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support deletion: If same parameters, delete, if some additional ones, maybe merge in. Montanabw(talk) 06:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge This template is used to display a more visually prominent notice than the standard warning box. Useful solutions to this situation include retention of this template or addition of a HowImportantIsThisIssue parameter to the standard warning. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • delete. Escalating prominence of templates will only lead to banner blindness. Fulfills no role over {{Warning}}. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant and obnoxious. Alakzi (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox U.S. county[edit]

Template:Infobox U.S. county (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Infobox settlement (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox U.S. county with Template:Infobox settlement.
I started making the US county template a wrapper for the standard settement infobox, in the former's sandbox, but there are just a few parameters missing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Please use |type=infobox with {{Tfm}}. You're disrupting literally thousands of articles. 213.7.227.83 (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment @Pigsonthewing: I echo the IP's sentiments – please only visibly tag the template that you're actually trying to get rid of. You've tagged several highly used templates for merger recently, which has caused quite a lot of annoyance. Infobox settlement has well over 400,000 transclusions, and it's really not necessary to disrupt hundreds of thousands of articles for this. Thanks, Number 57 13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • This is standard procedure, and is insisted on by some editors, who object to template mergers where it is not done. If you want to change it, please raise the matter at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion to see whether there is consensus to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      • It's also "standard procedure" to use |type=infobox on infoboxes. I've pointed this out to you before. 213.7.227.83 (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
        • @Pigsonthewing: will you be using this parameter in the future? 213.7.227.83 (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
          • As soon as its available in WP:Twinkle. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Please consider the possibility of that being disrespectful towards readers and editors who've expressed discontent. 213.7.227.83 (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
              • On this one, IP 213, I agree with Andy, he's sort of between a rock and a hard place here. Many of his previous noms have been opposed because the changes have not already been performed, yet if he tries to change the parameters before proposing a merge or move, he's criticized for that too. Let's now set up a no-win. Surely there is a need for technical improvements to most templates, including this one. Montanabw(talk) 00:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
                • Hi Montana. I didn't mean the nominated templates' parameters. When TfD'ing a template, we tag it with {{Tfm}}, which has an option to display a condensed TfD notice for sidebars and infoboxes. See Template:Tfm#Sidebar. 213.7.227.83 (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: A county in the United States is not a "settlement" - a county may actually have many "settlements" - towns, cities, etc. If there is something technical going on her, then never mind, but counties are most certainly not settlements. Montanabw(talk) 06:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Montanabw: The documentation for {{Infobox settlement}} says "This template should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, etcetera - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      • This documentation should be rewritten to; "This template may be used ..." Abductive (reasoning) 17:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I do agree with that. For example, we also have {{US state}} and "only" 50 transclusions (presumably) but I would oppose merging that one into anything. My own view is that a "settlement" is a good default where city, state, county, etc don't fit, for example, the zillions of unincorporated communities or census-designated places such as ismay, Montana. Montanabw(talk) 00:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Even with such rewording, my point would stand: {{Infobox settlement}} is suitable for use on articles about US counties, so, with the minor changes proposed, the US-specific template is redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until there's some detailed discussion of what "just a few parameters missing" includes. It would seem appropriate to provide that comparison without making everyone else do the research. It would also reduce misunderstandings about what the result would be. How much impact would the change have on the current sequence of items displayed in the County template? The test case samples I see at the sandbox seem far from complete; what am I missing?
    SBaker43 (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    • There should indeed be "detailed discussion" before the templates are merged; that's why I've posted this here, at Templates for discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I think that is a fair thing to say. I suspect here, the docmentation for the template is what needs work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talkcontribs) 00:01, 2 January 2015‎
  • Oppose. I see no real similarities between the templates, nor between the concept of a settlement and a county. A settlement can have no legal recognition, but a county is all about legal definitions. Abductive (reasoning) 17:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Based on my simple mapping of County to Settlement, excluding metric parameters, I find less than half of the County parameters have an obvious (to me) matching parameter in Settlement. The proposer or a supporter needs to provide enough detail of a reasonable mapping to demonstrate that this proposal is viable.
      SBaker43 (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    • As noted above, the documentation for {{Infobox settlement}} says "This template should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, etcetera - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I think they need to change the documentation. A wrapper might be the way to go, but I'm not sure. While the template is comprehensive, "Settlement" is an illogical concept for a USA state or county - or any other nation with a federalist system. Our states and counties are not stand-alone "human settlements" - they are large expanses of land with a government overseeing them, and may contain within them "settlements" - especially in the American West, they may have few "settlements" at all - or a dozen!. A U.S. county could be one like Orange County, California, that isn't even one settlement - it encompasses part of a major metro area. Or, a county might be a place such as Carter County, Montana, population about 1000, where the cattle outnumber the people and the county seat is the tiny town of Ekalaka, Montana (pop about 300), which is virtually the only concentrated populated spot in a county that is three times the area of Luxembourg. In between are counties that contain several towns and even a small city, such as Larimer County, Colorado (8 incorporated communities, plus CDPs and many unincorporated communities). So, while I suppose the parameter mapping could be made to work, I have to say that this is the opposite of my usual "let's not Balkanize the templates" position - here I think US County could perhaps be a "wrapper" from the infobox, but I'd hate to see a pure merge and lose it altogether. JMO. Montanabw(talk) 03:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. My first sentiment was on semantic grounds, since counties aren't settlements, but I quickly remembered the bit about "this can be used for anything under a country". However, the current county infobox contains multiple pieces that wouldn't be helpful in a general context, and in some cases might actually be confusing. For example, if we move the |district= parameter to the settlement infobox, I can see it getting misunderstood and accidentally misused by someone who wants to indicate the slightly wider region in which the settlement's located. The parameters for the largest city only make sense for an entity that can have cities within it, and I don't think it would be helpful for infobox settlement to start implementing a parameter of this type. The time zone parameter works quite differently from the one in infobox settlement — it requires only "Eastern", "Central", etc., while the infobox settlement requires lots more details because it's meant for a worldwide context. We'd need to make lots of changes just to get the time zones to work properly. And the map, too, would be confusing: it automatically generates the map, which is not a feature of the infobox settlement. So all considered, I think that these infoboxes are too far apart for a merger to be possible under current circumstances, and I don't think it would be worth the effort to change everything in thousands of articles (especially because it would confuse tons of people who are familiar with the current setup) simply for the benefits of making these templates ready for merger. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    • It would be easy to provide code for the timezone and maps; perhaps initially by way of making the US template a wrapper. Not a single one of the articles using either template would need to be made in such case; but even if that were not so, we must not be painted into such a corner by past practices. The largest city is equally applicable to counties and the administrative divisions outside the US. The numbered |subdivision_type= parameters are available in the settlement infobox are suitable for congressional districts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
      • As I said, it would indeed be possible to make these changes, but the amount of work would be unjustified by the benefits gained. Template merging is reasonable when it can be performed with little work, but when two templates have such significant differences, when one of them has lots of dedicated components not needed in the other, merger is a bad idea. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
        • "The amount of work" is never a reason not to merge templates. No-one is requiring you or any other individual to carry out the task; either someone will be willing to do it (which is usually the case, in due course) or it will remain not done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: No necessary to merge these. pbp 12:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but: add the missing parameters in the county infobox from the settlement one (such as nicknames and demonyms). Illegitimate Barrister 09:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no reason for merging the templates. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Another ill-conceived merge proposal, based upon little more than the perceived similarity of the subjects. The trend at TfD for the past several years has been to merge/consolidate smaller, simpler templates with similar subjects into larger, more complex, more comprehensive templates with multiple related subjects. What is often lost in these discussions is the concept of ease of use for particular intended purposes. What I have observed is when a complex, comprehensive, multi-purpose template includes 20, 25, 30, 40 or more parameters -- fewer than 10 or 15 of which should typically apply to any given use of the template -- the potential for the erroneous misuse/misapplication of the optional parameters increases significantly. In practice, this also contributes to overly long infoboxes, where many editors focus on filling out article infoboxes rather than contributing well-written prose. Infoboxes are intended to be at-a-glance summaries of core information; they were never intended to be comprehensive regurgitations of article subjects, nor a substitute for well-written text. It's time to have a philosophical discussion about whether bigger, longer, more comprehensive templates are always better. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • This nomination is based on a thorough and systematic examination of the two template's overlapping parameters, conducted during the making of the draft wrapper, in a sandbox, as described above. The alleged and potential errors described may be mediated by providing selectively-populated blank templates, as done with the highly-used {{Infobox officeholder}}, into which a great many other templates were successfully merged without any drama (for example, see Template:Infobox_officeholder#Ambassador). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, Andy, and Infobox officeholder is a perfect paradigm of any overly long, overly complex infobox template that offers too many options in an attempt to be all things to all editors for all subjects on all occasions. Instead of having several relatively simple, tailor-made infobox templates for politics, corporate/business, and academia, we now have an all-in-one infobox template that only a small handful of editors actually know how to use properly. And now you want to merge the infobox for university leaders into this same mess? Sorry, Andy, but just because you can merge two templates doesn't mean that you should merge two templates. We don't need complex monstrosities that only a select few editors can use. BTW, I think 3,027 United States counties are at least as distinct and deserving of a separate, simple, tailor-made and easy-to-use infobox template as 27 English counties (see Template:Infobox English county). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
        • We can indeed see what a mess {{Infobox officeholder}} is by all the calls for it to be split up, and the fact that no-one uses it. Well, apart from the 85,773 transclusions it currently has, that is, which mean your claims are mere FUD. Your UK-county straw-clutching is irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
          • My observations about complexity, ease of use, and length are perfectly valid, as borne out by the simple fact that not a single editor (other than yourself, of course) supports this particular proposed merge. At last count, the !votes are running about 10 to 1 against this proposal, and for perfectly valid reasons: simpler, shorter, better tailored templates are easier to use, less prone to erroneous implementation, and less prone to unchecked growth. As for "straw-clutching," your snarkiness and sarcasm are not valid arguments in favor of your proposal, and, as you are often fond of reciting, constitute a not-particularly subtle form of ad hominem attack against editors who oppose your TfD proposals. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
            • Not only have I never recited (nor indeed claimed) anything of the kind, but my straw clutching description applies to your facile arguments. And this is still, despite attempts to paint it otherwise, not a vote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
              • Ahem. For such an obviously erudite fellow, Andy, you do have a very selective memory: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. No, TfD is not a vote, but TfD outcomes are supposed to be based on the consensus of reasoned opinions, and that is self-evidently running against this proposal. And yet you still have not addressed the substance of my comment, to wit: shorter, simpler, and easier-to-use templates are often better than longer, more complex, harder-to-use templates that are prone to erroneous implementation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • OpposeSbmeirowTalk • 18:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - U.S. counties and states are very different from the content and scope of the general "Infobox settlement" template. Only articles and templates with strikingly similar content and scope should be merged. Nosugarcoating (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • As already noted above, the scope of {{infobox settlement}} includes "...administrative districts, counties, provinces, etcetera - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". You may not like the idea of a merger, but please don't ignore the facts in an attempt to derail it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose My argument is rather simple. Counties are third level entities in which cities and settlements are located. And although there are around 20 exceptions to that rule, those being Consolidated City-Counties, that is out of over 3,100 counties, some of which are larger than some of the smallest states, like San Bernardino County, California, which is enormous and has over 100 different settlements.Rhatsa26X (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose To quote an old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The current infobox works fine, and is substantially different from the standard settlement infobox. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • OpposeNot only No, BUT HELL NO.....it might be easier to make the merge, but hardly accurate, no, no wayCoal town guy (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A settlement is to a county as a county is to a state. It's a different level of government, responsibilities, and properties. This should be reflected in separate infoboxes. Mamyles (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Divbegin[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 as redundant to other col templates or HTML. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Divbegin (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

544 uses. Redundant with and replaceable by {{div col}} (63939 uses). Will need some cleanup as this template closes with a raw </div>.  Gadget850 talk 10:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Reasonable proposition. Divbegin appears to be identical to earlier versions of div_col; whoever did the migration of the old div_col to the new div_col may have code lying around to do another ~550 updates..? John Vandenberg (chat) 06:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, so John Vandenberg comes up for air finally! And here we thought he'd been abducted by aliens. Happy New Year! EEng (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too many column templates already. -- P 1 9 9   18:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • rewrite (or delete) template name has no indication this is only for columnarization, instead of some general div creation; if this template exists, it should be as a wrapper to the general HTML entity DIV, that does not define columns, but takes a "|style=" and "|class=" parameters -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    • That would be {{div}}. --  Gadget850 talk 07:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
      • No, {{div}} would contain all the content of the div section inside as a template parameter as well (such as |content= ) this would only provide the start of a div section. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Separating the start and end templates allows errors where one is transcluded properly, but the other is not. There are times where it could be useful, but in those few cases, I expect the div could just as well be written as html, instead. —PC-XT+ 08:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant per nom —PC-XT+ 07:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 23:50, 9 January 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.

December 30[edit]

Template:Hindi[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 Bgwhite (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Hindi (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

No uses. Link FAs are now hanled by Wikidata. Magioladitis (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2014 (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 Australian road[edit]

Template:Infobox Australian road (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (612 transclusions)
Template:Infobox road (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (18,289 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Australian road with Template:Infobox road.
Documentation describes the Australian template as "a version" of the generic one, with "several additional parameters that are specific for roads in Australia". However the generic template already includes code for Australian roads. We don't need a separate template for one country; much less for just one country out of all those represented in Wikipedia articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose - Firstly, the "documentation" that the nominator refers to is in a "see also" note in Template:Infobox road/doc, not the documentation at Template:Infobox Australian road/doc, which does not describe it as "a version" at all. The two templates are actually very different, although the layout of Infobox Australian road was modified to make it look a bit like Infobox road. Secondly, the code in Infobox road is by no means complete. The issue of whether to use Infobox road or Infobox Australian road was discussed at length only last year by members of the roads and Australian roads projects. That discussion included an RfC. As a result of significant improvements to Infobox Australian road, it was decided by those involved that a switch to Infobox road would not proceed. Unless there has been development at Infobox road since then, that template does not adequately cover Australian roads because Infobox Australian road includes functionality not included in Infobox road. Infobox road is not an all-in-one template. 2,418 articles are forced to use {{Infobox street}}, {{Infobox road small}} and {{Infobox road junction}} while Infobox Australian road includes the functionality of these templates. Merging as suggested by the nominator would result in Australian roads being forced to use four different Infoboxes instead of the one that they use now, which seems quite ridiculous. --AussieLegend () 01:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Merging as suggested by the nominator would result in Australian roads being forced to use four different Infoboxes instead of the one that they use now - that's not quite how it is. Currently most articles use {{Infobox Australian road}}, some list-type articles (with multiple roads) use {{Infobox road small}}, and even {{infobox highway system}} is used. The proposed merging would only add one more, {{infobox road junction}} for road junctions, of which there aren't many Australian articles. - Evad37 [talk] 03:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      • There's no need for Infobox road small as we have that code. Articles really shouldn't be using that at all. We'd still have to find and convert articles to use Infobox street and Infobox road junction. --AussieLegend () 03:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
        • There's no consensus to use Infobox Australian road instead of Infobox road small. And why does Infobox street come into this? Infobox road accommodates various road types (freeway, highway, road, street, etc) just like Infobox Australian road. Finding junction articles shouldn't be too difficult, there aren't that many of them. Or, iff there was consensus, Infobox Australian road could be made into a wrapper that substituted either Infobox road or Infobox road junction based on the |type= parameter (which is getting ahead of ourselves, but it could be done) - Evad37 [talk] 05:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
          • There's no consensus not to use it either. The discussion stalled and you didn't want to use it. Infobox street is the infobox used for streets. If Infobox road can do streets, why does Infobox street even exist? I don't see the point in turning this infobox into a wrapper - we either keep the template or don't. --AussieLegend () 06:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
            • There's no consensus not to use it either - yes, and that's not quite the same thing as "Articles really shouldn't be using that at all." If Infobox road can do streets, why does Infobox street even exist? I don't know, maybe no one has yet suggested them for merging? Why have that and not infobox freeway or infobox outback track? Again, I don't know - was in place before my time. In any case, Infobox road already has the code to handle the color for streets in Module:Infobox road/color: AUS:addTypesAsColor({"street"}, "background:#F9E2D2;"), and I don't think anyone else has suggested that streets should go to infobox street instead of infobox road. As for the wrapper, that was only to show it is easy to switch some transclusion to Infobox road and others to Infobox road junction based on |type=, if there were to be consensus to merge and then delete Infobox Australian road. ie, make Infobox Australian road something like
{{<includeonly>SAFESUBST:</includeonly>#switch:{{{type}}}
|junction = {{Infobox road junction | ... }}
|#default = {{Infobox road | ... }}
}}
Which when substitute in articles would leave the correct type without manually going through, looking for infobox road junction. No suggestion of having a wrapper long term. But again, there would have to be consensus first, this is just to show that such an issue shouldn't be a barrier. - Evad37 [talk] 01:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Much of your comment falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The RfC was 18 months ago; and was inconclusive. As for "functionality not included in Infobox road", this is a merge proposal; so that objection is tantamount to "we should not merge these templates because they are not already merged". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      • The RfC is entirely relevant. It began because the existing version of the infobox was outdated and there had been a lot of workarounds by editors to enable continued use. At the time there was some justification in abandoning it in favour of Infobox road. As a result of the RfC, the infobox was significantly redeveloped to address concerns and because the reworked infobox suited the Australian project more, the RfC was effectively abandoned. Nevertheless, there was significant discussion by members of the two projects. Your nomination is misleading because it misleads the reader into thinking the documentation for the infobox refers to it as a "version" when it is not at all. That's not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's also misleading because you say "generic template already includes code for Australian roads" when, in fact, it's only partial code. That's not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS either. The nomination implies that a merge would be reasonably simple, when the comments of Happy5214 indicate that's unlikely to be the case. Because of this, this is something that really needs to be brought up on the talk pages of the templates, rather than just proceeding to TfD. --AussieLegend () 12:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
        • "this is something that really needs to be brought up on the talk pages of the templates" There is absolutely no basis for that assertion. Indeed, when considering a merge of two templates, a discussion on a neutral venue rather then the talk page of one or the other (or splitting over two) is far preferable. This is the designated forum for such discussions, and a prominent pointer to it has been placed on the page for each template, as well as on every article transcluding one of other of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Projects notified [19] [20] [21]. And here is the link to previous RFC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal - Evad37 [talk] 02:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Pigsonthewing: I suggest adding {{infobox road junction}} to this TFD, i.e merging the junctions part of {{infobox Australian road}} with {{infobox road junction}} - Evad37 [talk] 03:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you, but I think that's best dealt with separately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      • How can it be? Infobox Australian road is already used for some junctions. How can we not even discuss how infobox road junction will handle these case if you want to merge (and thereby delete) infobox Australian road? I'm not suggesting a merge of infobox road and infobox road juntcion, but a double merge of infobox Australian road to those templates which would be used instead of it. - Evad37 [talk] 01:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Comment Why, oh why, did you have to dig this back up!? Can we please wait until there's a complete Lua version of Infobox road before trying to merge the Australian counterpart into it? I welcome any input from the Australian editors on what can be added in the rewrite to make a merge more appealing. But please do it on either template's talk page, and don't turn this into an extended discussion on new features to be added to Infobox road. -happy5214 03:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Indeed, this should concentrate on a merge based on the current version of Infobox road. --AussieLegend () 03:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      • If I have my way, the "current" version of Infobox road will cease to exist by next month. It'll hopefully be replaced by that Lua version in relatively short order. -happy5214 21:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • There is no need to wait; creating a Lua module could be the outcome of this discussion; and those who have objected loudly above could more usefully contribute to making that the best possible solution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      • There are a few different scenarios we could implement:
        1. Maintain the status quo, with the two infoboxes remaining completely separate.
        2. Convert the Australian road articles to Infobox road and delete Infobox Australian road.
        3. Separately convert Infobox Australian road to Lua and maintain it as a distinct template.
        4. Hybridize Infobox road and Infobox Australian road under the aegis of Infobox road.
        5. Similarly, merge Australian-specific features into Infobox road while keeping most Infobox road code intact.
        6. Convert Infobox Australian road to a wrapper for Infobox road.
      Keeping in mind that the best time for any incorporation of Infobox Australian road into the Infobox road codebase is while said codebase is being rewritten, and that such a rewrite is currently in progress, we have a unique opportunity to find a solution that satisfies both sides of the debate.
      If the decision is made to merge, I need to know what my feature requirements are. What has to stay in a merged template, what can I leave out, and would a wrapper or a completely separate module better achieve those goals than a merged framework? I need to know soon, since my activity will go down starting around mid-January. -happy5214 21:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Nom: "creating a Lua module could be the outcome of this discussion" - this is utter nonsense. WP:INCOMPETENCE. -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as someone who engages with new editors through outreach projects these continual merging of infoboxes are creating monsters so complicated that they are a barrier to participation. IMHO the boxes should be broken down into simpler smaller segments not shoved into a universal one size fits all. Then the very nature of these one size fits all boxes are barriers themselves to improvements and modifications. Gnangarra
    • As someone who also engages, regularly, with new editors through outreach projects; that's a misrepresentation of the true situation. It's perfectly possible to have a blank copy of such a template, with only a subset or parameters (and with some of those pre-populated), in the template documentation or on a project page. This is done and works well elsewhere - see, for example, the documentation of {{Infobox officeholder}}, which has 85,141 transclusions, without drama. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Really I've never seen you at any of my workshops or outreach events, so please tell me how am I misrepresenting what I am encountering.... most templates already have a blank copy with mile long documentation even then people are seeking help, or just walking away. Gnangarra 12:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The statis quo will continue to work fine until a Lua module is created. Also, any merging should wait until a Lua module is implemented. The parties can work together on creating a better Lua module separate from this discussion. - tucoxn\talk 19:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose both are already complicated and even as a semi-experienced editor I've had enough trouble trying to fix article issues just trying to work out how 'Infobox road' is working. Unless 'Infobox road' is made clearer and better documented, including all its sub parts and where to find them (comments above have suggested its work in progress) it just seams like a way to cause problems (that only those with permission can fix). If those working on 'Infobox road' can add full AUS support at some point and things can slowly move over until 'Infobox Australian road' become redundant then good, but to force the issue seams like asking for trouble. KylieTastic (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Until a Lua module is created, these infoboxes should remain separate. Once the module is created, it may make sense to merge them. Dough4872 18:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment While my reasons for keeping are separate from the Lua aspect, given that the conversion of Infobox road to Lua is in process, it seems wise to not merge the two at this time as it would disrupt the conversion. When the conversion is complete, any further discussion should be between the Highways and Australian Roads projects, so we can work in a non-pressured environment to achieve the best result for all. TfD is not the place for such a discussion. --AussieLegend () 01:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    • As has been pointed out to you by more than one editor recently, TfD is specifically the place for such discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Those editors have been fairly inexperienced editors who are obvious members of your fan club. As most editors will tell you, merge discussions do not have to take place at TfD. We have talk pages for discussing such things. That should be the first place for all discussions involving changes to templates, just as we use them for articles. You've used template talk pages before, you should know that. When discussing a complicated merge, TfD should definitely not be the first place to go. --AussieLegend () 11:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Even if this discussion gets closed as a Merge, it could be a while before it's actually done. It could sit in the Holding cell wiating for someone to do the work for quite a while. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
        • "fairly inexperienced"? That's rather nasty - and untrue - ad hominem against, among others, User:RexxS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
          • I wasn't talking about RexxS' uncivil comments at WP:ARCA,and I'm sure you knew that. --AussieLegend () 13:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
            • I did indeed know that, since his comments addressed to you there - which are worth reading in full - were perfectly civil. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Andy, your comment here "As has been pointed out ..." is where the actual deviation starts. (as a side note, the satement is incorrect, even if you repeat it another 100 times). You clearly do not respond to Aussies post. On top of that, I find Aussies description "fairly inexperienced editors of your fanclub" a to the point description, which is not an ad hominem but a judgement of their editing & commenting contributions. Injecting words like "ad hominen, nasty, untrue", al unspecified and unlinked, is really polluting the discussion, and could constitute the introduction of PA. As for content: I support the contributions by Aussie here, which are relevant (and to which you have not replied a single word). Saying that an RfC is "otherstuff", whether intentionally or by misunderstanding of you, is plain stupid, given that you are not a new editor. -DePiep (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Luafy, which is apparently already being done, so basically oppose any further changes for now —PC-XT+ 03:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I do not see the reason to delete nation-specific templates. There is no point to doing so. Unification of templates is always necessary, and this is one case when it's not. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, per Dough4872. I thought the same thing - it may make sense to merge them once the module is created. --hmich176 16:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Nuanced comments ahead. As the templates exist at the moment, I would oppose the merger for the moment. However, with the coming updates to {{infobox road}}, those objections disappear. As has been noted above, this discussion could come to the conclusion that post-Lua-ifcation that a merger should take place, and that could be the closure statement. Were this a simpler modification of one template to add a discrete set of functions, like {{infobox street}} and {{infobox Paris street}} as nominated elsewhere on this page, that would be the best outcome. However, the pragmatic solution, for now, is to close this discussion with no changes, but in a month or so after lua-ification, I would suggest that the discussion be restarted in an appropriate fashion. That also means that Pigsonthewing should not be the one to initiate that future discussion. Imzadi 1979  18:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Poppycock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Your nomination has been polarizing, and this is not the first time you've nominated this action. I think there is sufficient interest to discuss a merger in the future after the Lua-ification is completed, but if you initiate it, your polarizing presence will continue to influence the outcome. In short, let someone else broach the possibility in the future and back away. Imzadi 1979  19:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Agree it'd be nice for TFD discussions to occur where the issues of unmanageable behemoths, the templates functionality, and the way in which different places use english are addressed beforehand instead of the current practice of barrow push pushing, brow beating, chest thumping, I know better do it my way nominations. Gnangarra 01:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I support the way forward proposed by Imzadi1979. Comments such as this are not constructive and have no place in a mature discussion. - tucoxn\talk 01:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedurally oppose per comments above. --Rschen7754 06:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge with the condition that {{Infobox Australian road}} is made completely redundant by {{Infobox road}} (and {{Infobox street}}, {{Infobox road small}} and {{Infobox road junction}} as suggested by nominator) and all features present in the first but not in the others are moved before actually merging the template(s). Jc86035 (talkcontributions) 11:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The nominator didn't mention {{Infobox street}}, {{Infobox road small}} or {{Infobox road junction}}. I brought those up. He suggested that because a see also note in the Infobox road documentation said that Infobox Australian road was a version of Infobox road, which it isn't, it should be merged. What you are suggesting doesn't make sense. Why would you replace one easy to use template with 4 different templates? That goes against the principles of infobox consolidation in the nominator's essay. --AussieLegend () 10:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose'. As is explained multiple times here, Luafication first. No need to discuss future situations. The nom could understanding this by withdrawing, but instead keeps stubbornly (to say it nice) pushing a dead parrot. Even worse, nom suggests that "creating a Lua module could be the outcome of this discussion". This is incompetent. -DePiep (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
It is even worse. Happy5214 has clearly and repeatedly said that they are working on this, has asked to stop it (actually, to not dig up again), and Andy keeps pushing his uninformed unread stubborn idefixe through his backdoor. Enough.
Note to any uninvolved admin passing by: please close asap as 'no consensus. Let Happy5214 work as he pleases, without pushing. nom is pushing without responding, soaking up good editors energy. -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
DePeip. I've been watching this for awhile and almost every comment you make contains a personal attack of some kind. For example, none of us needs to label anyone else as incompetent, (none of us is perfect by a long shot or completely competent on all fronts, so should not be casting stones at anyone else, as a general principle). Do you realize that whatever arguments you make lose their impact and credibility when they exist side by side with personal attacks. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC))

Template:Infobox Paris street[edit]

Template:Infobox Paris street (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Infobox street (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Paris street with Template:Infobox street.
Merge the overly-specific local template (just 112 transclusions) into the generic one. Chief difference is the arrondissement functionality, which should be replaced with ordinary text parameter values. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support—the generic template has greater functionality and better display. The arrondiessement can be added to the generic template, the specific one can be converted into a wrapper so that it can be substituted and deleted. Imzadi 1979  21:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Imzadi1979. Dough4872 18:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, sorta. I would like to see this become similar to the FRWP version of the same template (Modèle:Infobox Voie parisienne), where there is some of the "showiness" of the previous version, but the template would, in effect, be a wrapper for Infobox street. –Fredddie 23:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    N.B.: I am willing to do the work I describe. –Fredddie 23:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The nom writes "overly-specific", but that is not explained (so I keep that for not true). Also, bad sloppy param analysis; a first glance already shows quarter information. Statements "chief difference" (nom) and "has greater functionality" (Imzadi 1979) are incorrect or imprecise. -DePiep (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Imzadi1979. Paris is of different importance in France. A glance at the templates shows that Paris street is very specific which is not needed in the English Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Gerda Arendt and others, but in the future please do not spam articles containing our Infobox street (or any other valid Template) with a notice regarding a Photo Booth in a separate Wikipedia corner. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Chairpersons of the University Alliance[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 merge; no objections

Template:Chairpersons of the University Alliance (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:University Alliance (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Chairpersons of the University Alliance with Template:University Alliance.
Content covered in the chairpersons navbox could easily be included in the University Alliance Navbox as a section. Chris(Talk) 13:53, 30 December 2014 (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:JJ Project[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 Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:JJ Project (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Utterly redundant, this template for a two-person boy band that released one single in 2012 and then was dissolved. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree. Not enough links to be useful. -- P 1 9 9   18:58, 2 January 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.

December 29[edit]

Template:Mabel Matiz[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 Bgwhite (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Mabel Matiz (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

This NavBox only has one unique link besides the topic article and two transclusions. Offers no further aid to navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree. Not enough links to be useful. -- P 1 9 9   18:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 23:52, 9 January 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:DatabaseBasketball[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 as unused and unnecessary. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:DatabaseBasketball (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

No transclusions in article namespace. By convention, Template:Basketballstats is used to consolidate statistics links in National Basketball Association bios. Any new sites can be added per consensus at that template. —Bagumba (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - I seriously question whether we should be linking to databaseBasketball.com at all. This website -- together with its sister websites databaseFootball.com and databaseOlympics.com -- has not been updated or maintained since 2011 and has fallen into disuse. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: The intent of my nomination was to delete (might have been unclear since I forgot this was "Templates for discussion"—Bagumba (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is an unnecessary template. And, for the reasons I stated above, I question whether we should be linking to databaseBasketball.com at all, with or without the use of this template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:47, 9 January 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:Sir Sly[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 as not sufficiently useful as a navigation tool. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Sir Sly (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

With only one album and an EP, navigation to and from each of the three articles is simple and straightforward even without the navbox. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree. Not enough links to be useful. -- P 1 9 9   19:00, 2 January 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:WPGOLF article count[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 as unused Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:WPGOLF article count (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Funny sort of template. Was used as part of WP:GOLF in the past but has ceased to have a purpose. The author has been inactive since 2011. Nigej (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2014 (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:Acts of the Parliament of Iceland[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 with no objection to userfication while the relevant articles are being developed Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Acts of the Parliament of Iceland (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

All redlinked articles, unused. George Edward CTalkContributions 19:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - As the creator of the template I intend to create the relevant articles when I get around to it, hopefully early next year. I had already created one of the articles on a local wiki but suffered data loss due to a hard disc drive failure. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • delete, can be trivially recreated once someone gets around to creating the articles. Frietjes (talk) 23:53, 9 January 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 tractor[edit]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox automobile}} (which covers buses and trucks also). Only 37 transclusions. Previous TfD closed as "no consensus... but feel free to relist this at a later date if you still feel it should be deleted".(@Plastikspork: Did you get around to merging parameters, as mentioned then?) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - One infobox can't be redundant to another if the other doesn't perform the same function. As was explained at the previous TfD, there were issues with Infobox automobile that prevented it replacing Infobox tractor. If these haven't been addressed, then the template cannot be deleted. --AussieLegend () 15:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Remind me who said "expand and then merge... For the most part this infobox appears to be redundant to Infobox automobile" in that previous discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Selective quoting is never a good thing because it comes back to bite you in the arse. I actually said Keep, expand and then merge. Note "keep", which was a change from "Redirect". I followed up the small part that you quoted with but Caterpillar D9 demonstrates that's only the case because there are tractor specific fields that are missing from the infobox. These fields need to be identified and then incorporated into Infobox automobile before this template can be deleted. A merge discussion on the template talk pages (something the nominator seems to avoid at all costs - see the Template:Infobox garden discussion) is more appropriate, since changes to Infobox automobile may affect 5,000 articles. So, keep this template, expand Infobox automobile to include missing fields and then merge the two. Has Infobox automobile been expanded? If not then we have to keep. --AussieLegend () 17:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
        • So you did. There then followed a discussion, referred to in the nomination, above. Did you read either? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Andy, you are playing a wordgame. AussieL opened with the note that "One infobox can't be redundant to another if the other doesn't perform the same function.", to which you have not replied in any way. Instead you diverted into selective quoting (as is pointed out). I concur with the statement: not the same so not redundant. -DePiep (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: Here's a sample replacement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep for now or modularize — I'd support a merge, preferrably to a name like "Infobox motor vehicle," but the name doesn't matter so much to me, anymore. It could be called "n65yyh" if that is easier for editors to use. still doesn't matter much. The only things keeping me from !voting to merge or delete at this time are: I'm not sure of the state of the template; is it under some kind of editing process? I don't know it is redundant, but would look at a sample replacement of the Caterpillar D9 usage. This isn't a merge discussion. —PC-XT+ 09:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC) also, is the automobile template equipped to work with modules, as mentioned in the previous discussion? If so, I'd support that. I tried to interest outside editors in expanding tractor articles, but they seem to think that this community is either not interested or too divided about such subjects, and so they prefer other sites. There was some interest in the livestock articles and task force, but I don't remember finding many project pages for farm machinery. Maybe someone can direct me? —PC-XT+ 04:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't merge or delete (whatever the proposal may be). Nom writes: "(Plastikspork Did you get around to merging parameters, as mentioned then?)", which shows that they themselves did not prepare this proposal, did not even bother to check. Then in a subthread the nom diverts into wordplay and evasion. Also, the nomination is actually an explicit merge proposal, requiring edits to another template not tagged. In short, an incomplete and incorrect proposal, and then steered away from sense by the nom themselves. -DePiep (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • There is no requirement that a nominator "themselves prepare [a] proposal", whatever that may mean. Once again, you are trying to derail a perfectly reasonable proposal by inventing rules on the fly. Please stop. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      • DePiep's comments seem clear to me. If you're going to propose something then you should at least attempt to ensure that your proposal is practical. You should have already checked whether parameters had been merged before proposing. You know how to do that so there is no excuse not to. You know that the D9 infobox was problematic at the last TfD, yet you chose to use a much easier article to use as an example. Quite simply, you haven't adequately prepared for this nomination. --AussieLegend () 00:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps comments could be limited to the issues at hand with out attempts to make unasked for personal comments about other editors' competency. Thank you.(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC))
As far as I am concerned, the competence has a direct influence on the proposal. From the nomination onward, into the discussion flow. It is aimed at improving the discussion, not a PA (as you wrote in the editsummary). Oh and is your comment also triggered by someone writing (or stabbing) "Did you read either?" above? Why not? -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── While it's amusing to be lectured on competence by someone who can't even format talk page posts correctly, WP:COMPETENCE is a matter for administrator intervention, not TfD. How did you last attempt to silence debate by that route go? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Really Andy, ENOUGH is ENOUGH. Criticising somebody for formatting their post in a manner that you don't like is both incredibly petty and being overly pedantic. In your post you wrote "How did you last attempt" instead of "How did your last attempt". Should we criticise your spelling? Your nomination for {{Infobox Rome episode}} claims it's a wrapper for a redirect, ironically one that you created. Has anybody mentioned that before now? Let's stick to the issue at hand. Have you created that Caterpillar D9 infobox that I asked about 4 days ago? --AussieLegend () 11:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
re Andy: read WP:THREAD; don't edit my post unless absolutely necessary; competence in this is your issue, snotty remarks are not good talkpage behaviour anywhere, and if you have any serious question for clarity please start asking. -DePiep (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't really think these nominations are totally wrong. The nom is just asking for discussion. He's hard to understand, sometimes, but so are we. Let's just keep to the subject of the template and assume good faith. —PC-XT+ 04:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I have asked Andy often enough and once more to prepare a proposal more seriously, to actually help that discussion. Also, I asked to keep a discussion productive, without snarks and chasing away editors (btw you could have asked for AGF in there too, why didn't you?). Claiming AGF does not allow an editor making a bad discussion ensuing. And apart from good faith, Andy can bring in some WP:COMPETENCE too. Being "hard to understand" is not a problem, an issue follows when that the editor does not want to help themselves and others in explaining, communicating, bringing some effort to the page. As things go now, every serious critical question gets a deviative or snarky response. In that flow, no one can claim a "right to AGF" from others. -DePiep (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand. I and others have also asked for such help from PotW. Where didn't I ask for AGF? There are so many discussions, I don't say it every time this happens. My statement here was that we should AGF; it wasn't entirely directed at you, but myself and, (though not very implicitly,) Andy, as well. I have my problems with Mr. Mabbitt's nominations, or rather discussions of them, including this one and others on this same page, but he does try to edit for the good of the encyclopedia, as I think most of us do. —PC-XT+ 00:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm not convinced that the template can be replaced. At the last TfD Caterpillar D9 was a problematic infobox and there was no evidence that it could be converted. It has now been 15 days since I asked for a demonstration that the infobox could be converted, and 11 days since I asked a second time. No such demonstration has been forthcomining, so I must assume that it can't. --AussieLegend () 05:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Laura Maynard[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: boldly moved to artice space and tagged for speedy deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Laura Maynard (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Article in Template space Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2014 (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:VASHISTAR C.POOSAMUTHU NADI ASTROLOGICAL CENTER[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 as G11 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 18:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:VASHISTAR C.POOSAMUTHU NADI ASTROLOGICAL CENTER (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

This is not template content, possible spam? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2014 (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 dot-com company[edit]

Template:Infobox dot-com company (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Redundant. A previous TfD closed as "...no consensus. It appears the redundancy issue could be resolved through the use of modules... a good first step would be to create the requisite modules, and rewrite this template as a frontend for {{infobox company}}". I have therefore enabled the use of {{Infobox website}} as a module, and added a |module= parameter to {{Infobox company}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Perhaps it is redundant, but what would happen to all the articles using this template if it was deleted? Frmorrison (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I see little reason for replacing this with some other mechanism serving same purpose. This template seems to work like it should. jni (delete)...just not interested 17:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep There appears to be nothing especially wrong with the newly created template, but I see no reason to systematically delete the existing template either. If the new templates creator wishes to replace all the older templates with his own, then so be it. But I fear the collateral damage that would ensue due to deleting the older template at this time.--JOJ Hutton 15:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, most useful infobox. — Cirt (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, dot-com companies tend to have different structures and mergers and acquisitions tend to be more common in the software world, as well it includes special options for software clients and other important information that regular company infoboxes lack. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Even if your "tend to" claims were true (I doubt it, and you offer no evidence), why is that relevant? How is it not catered for by a merger, or by having the website template as a module of the company one? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is not sufficient reasoning to delete or merge this template. It works fine as is. WP:Infobox consolidation is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and only represents minority viewpoints (see the essay's revision history). - tucoxn\talk 19:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Nobody has claimed it is a policy; it was written as a FAQ to save repeating the same points in each TfD. The vast number of infobox deletions and mergers over the last four years, made on that basis, shows widespread community support for its principles; nor does its edit history evidence any dissent. I note that you advance no arguments as to why a separate template is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
      • My arguments to keep stand as I stated them: "There is not sufficient reasoning to delete or merge this template. It works fine as is." It is unnecessary for me to advance arguments as to why a separate template is needed... I simply give arguments about why the statis quo should be kept. - tucoxn\talk 09:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
        • In which case, since the justification given is summarised in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation, you are arguing that the points in that essay are invalid; yet they have been upheld in many dozens of previous template deletions and mergers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
          • It's not necessary to re-state my argument in your own words. The closing admin should read my arguments as I stated them originally: "There is not sufficient reasoning to delete or merge this template. It works fine as is." Cheers! - tucoxn\talk 21:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see the difference between a Dot com and a Company. In the Western World nearly all respected companies have websites and webclients, etc. Voting "Keep" just to keep the status quo is disruptive editing, in my mind. I applaud the effort to consolidate templates, which are slippery things to maintain. Jane (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no reason to encumber future editors of Tesco with irrelevant fields like ipv6 and programming language. I appreciate that the more templates there are, the more maintenance there is, but this has a significant number of its own fields. User:GKFXtalk 15:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • This proposal would not "encumber future editors of Tesco with irrelevant fields", whether enacted through the use of a module, or by a full merger, in which case copyable blanks of varying permutations could be provided. Furthermore, {{Infobox company}} already includes parameters which are not used on Tesco; and we do not have separate template for most other types of company. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
      • That's very reasonable. Having addressed that, I see no reason not to delete. User:GKFXtalk 17:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is probably the most used template on here and personally I see no point in replacing it with an infobox that basically does the same thing anyway ... I'm not keen on the infobox's name tho but meh it's least of the 'pedias problems. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 20:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • {{Infobox dot-com company}} has 1704 transclusions. {{Infobox company}} has 56,413; {{Infobox person}} has 180,893; {{infobox settlement}} has 435,315; {{Taxobox}} has 269174. This is nowhere near being "the most used infobox template on here", much less the most-used template. But thank you for confirming that the nominated template "basically does the same thing" as {{Infobox company}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Well lets put it this way - I've never seen an article that's used the "Infobox dot-com company" infobox before and that's despite editing every random article here, But if those are legit numbers than I guess I'm wrong there...., Thanks for badgering myself and others tho. –Davey2010Talk 05:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I previously !voted for rewriting as a frontend, and said the steps taken by the nom would be good, as well. A frontend would show how redundant the template really is. As is, I say they are probably redundant, but if a problem is found in the replacement process, I hope it is handled appropriately. I may actually !vote if I have time to construct a wrapper, myself. —PC-XT+ 04:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Um... There are some small problems. Infobox website displays the typo "wesbite" when used as a module, and I spent a long time trying to get the module to work inside Infobox company because the documentation says the parameter is |module=, but is actually |Module=, in title case. If lowercase is not preferable, the documentation should be changed. I have read that these templates are updated by bots such as OKBot, but haven't seen any recent edits of that kind. —PC-XT+ 05:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Both issues ("wesbite"/ "[M|m]odule") fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks! I'll try to look at it, again, and return with a parameter map and !vote. So far, it does seem to basically be two templates spliced together, which would be better in module form. —PC-XT+ 00:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Some labels are linked in the dot com one that are not in the others, such as Products, but this is probably a small issue. I put a wrapper in the sandbox, but it will need some changes. I did not keep the screenshot collapsible, though that is probably desirable. Location is an alias of location_city, instead of a separate parameter as in infobox company, as that is how the current template handles it, though I'm not sure if that is appropriate. The dot-com infobox includes fields for individual key people, which are hard to merge back in to |key people= if that parameter is also used, since they will be separate lists. A bot could do this better than a wrapper. I have not yet mapped Country of origin, IPv6 support, computing platform (native clients) or advertising, but maybe I or someone else will find ways, later. If there are instances where these are important, the replacement should not be made, there, yet. The module has some options the current template lacks, such as years for data. I don't know if it will be appropriate in all situations, though, until the wrapper/mapping is better. You can compare on the testcases page. —PC-XT+ 06:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Why is this even a discussion?–User:MarcoPolo250
    • This is a discussion, because the dot-com template is redundant to other templates and so unnecessary. However, this is not a vote, and you offer to argument to the contrary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete It took me a while to find this template when I needed it. It was luck, actually—I probably would've just used Template:infobox company if I hadn't stumbled upon this one by accident. Wouldn't it be more intuitive if there were just one template? Users could just follow the instructions for that single template, rather than performing an exhaustive hunt for the most specific applicable template. —Zenexer [talk] 01:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Having a shared module makes sense if someone wants to implement that, go for it. but don't replace this template. Combining related infoboxes leads to usability hassles like Template:Infobox officeholder and Template:Infobox settlement, adding to the barriers to new contributors. 64.136.192.229 (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful template. I don't see a reason to delete this template. Most editors find it useful when writing articles about online companies or social media sites.--Chamith (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Rome episode[edit]

Template:Infobox Rome episode (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unnecessary wrapper for {{Infobox episode}}; can be safely Subst:, as shown here. There were only ever 22 episodes.

I have already replaced the template's list of episodes with a link to the episode list article, regardless of this TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment This template was last nominated in February 2014 with the result "no consensus". I tried merging this into {{Infobox television episode}} using custom parameters for the fields that don't exist in that infobox, but that was rejected. The infobox was converted to a wrapper by Plastikspork because it contains 3 parameters that don't exist in Infobox television episode. Pigsonthewing's removal of the episode list (the 4th non-standard item) now opens the possibility of creating two additional templates for the season lists, which are provided for in Infobox television episode. --AussieLegend () 14:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    • There is no need whatsoever for sub-templates for episode lists; each article using the nominated infobox template already has an episode list, in the navbox {{Rome (TV series)}} at the foot of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
      • The community disagrees with you on that one. {{Infobox television episode}} has a field, |season list= specifically for linking to "a template containing a list of episodes in that season". --AussieLegend () 05:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete:The last thing we need are separate templates for every single television series ever aired. Sheesh! Montanabw(talk) 22:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    • How do you suggest that the extra parameters not present in Infobox television episode are handled? Should we just say "screw you" and ignore them? --AussieLegend () 07:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Please see the example substitution, given in the nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
        • I've already looked at the example, which stopped information from the custom fields being displayed. --AussieLegend () 11:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Now fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Really Andy, that's very shoddy work. You've been around long enough now to know that you should check your work before leaving an article, and you should know that you shouldn't make test edits in articles unless it's necessary. In this case it isn't. You could have created a side-by-side comparison on the testcases page, instead of a one-sided change in one article. There's no excuse. --AussieLegend () 23:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
              • Hypocrite. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
                • Not at all. I did extensive testing at hundreds of articles before making the code live with no problems. It was only after it went live that the problem appeared. The resolution was not at all what one would have expected. Nice try though. --AussieLegend () 02:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
                      • AussieLegend, please comment on the topic and don't get into the personalities here. Montanabw(talk) 00:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
                        • I suggest you direct your comment to those who call other editors, quite incorrectly, a hypocrite. --AussieLegend () 01:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Aussie is quite to the point here. Montanabw, a response not fitting your idea does not mean it's personal. Also, by bringing out the PA flak so careless it might well be you who should reconsider. -DePiep (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Though the technical aspects of this discussion are too big for my little brain, I do notice (and I mean no disrespect by this) that Montanabw's deletion justification is essentially a slippery slope logical fallacy. "If we keep this template, then we gotta keep ALL the templates!" "If we let the gays get married, then what? Brothers marry sisters? Men marry children?" That sort of thing. If the rationale is fundamentally unsound, then the "Delete" amounts to little more than a vote, and consensus is not achieved through voting. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Cyphoidbomb:, with all due respect, there are so many of these discussions, it is not worth a learned treatise for every one. The point is that these templates should not be Balkanized into a zillion different ones when something like {{Infobox television episode}} can cover everything, and usually better. Templates are difficult enough for the non-programmer user (like me), and to go hunt down an obscure one is such a total waste of time and effort. The gold standard is {[tl|Infobox person}}, where the documentation allows you to select the simple version or the more complex one, similar approaches would work here. Montanabw(talk) 00:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep As I've explained above, deletion of this template, which requires no ongoing maintenance, opens the way for the creation of two season list templates in its place. That makes no sense. --AussieLegend () 12:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This is basically a wrapper that could be turned into a module, but AussieLegend seems to think that direct use of the wrapped template would be asking for unneeded information to be added to the infobox, so I hesitate to !vote for that. —PC-XT+ 00:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • keep for now, and revert any premature orphaning. the last thing we need is to be jamming infobox|child=yes directly into articles. Frietjes (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox BBC nation or region[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 merge per nom Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox BBC nation or region (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (18 transclusions)
Template:Infobox broadcasting network (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (1,302 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox BBC nation or region with Template:Infobox broadcasting network.
No need for a separate template for subdivisions of one network/ organisation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. Montanabw(talk) 22:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Sock (tock talk) 13:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge. I agree with the nominator; there is no need for a separate template in this circumstance. --hmich176 09:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Paewiki (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The BBC is a whole lot different. In case you are covering a U.S network, the U.K stuff is not needed - copy the BBC infobox nation/region stuff to the Infobox broadcasting network template 61.6.211.3 (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. — kikichugirl speak up! 08:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The destination template documentation has been marked as "outdated" and "incomplete" since March 2014. Those problems, whatever they are, need to be corrected before this merger is completed.
    SBaker43 (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Those templates seem to refer to the documnattion, not the template itself. As there are no outstanding issues on the talk page, I've removed them. In any case, documentation is updated when a merge taes place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Create a module for the BBC part, thus leaving the original part alone. 202.160.36.103 (talk) 10:52, 23 January 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:Did you know nominations/Human body[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 as G2 by Davewild (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Human body (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

DYK for non-existent article, erronous nom? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2014 (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 Paris Network[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 merge. There is concensus that having two navigational templates is redundant. There is no consensus on whether to merge the navbox to the sidebar, or the sidebar to the navbox Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Paris Network (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Duplicates the navbox {{Paris transport network}}. Individual instances should be replaced with an infobox about the relevant line such as {{Infobox rail line}}, which can then display pertinent data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose – This one's a 'sidebar'; {{Paris transport network}} is a Navbox. They're not the same and the uses are different. --IJBall (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's the point of the nomination. We don't need both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, then I think I'd rather see the Navbar go than the sidebar. So my vote's unchanged. --IJBall (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
        • When do you think a reader is more likely to want to jump to a related article; when they've just read the first article, and are at the bottom of its page; or when they're still at its top, before they've read it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
        • It depends - maybe the reader never reach the bottom because of all the references and external links. Christian75 (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes, some people never look below the fold. They can see infoboxes; if there isn't an infobox, they probably see a sidebar, but not a navbox. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sidebars are often not as useful as infoboxes, and navboxes at the bottom are generally less intrusive. I am curious why this area needs BOTH a side and a bottom navbox, can't they be combined into the bottom navbox and the side one replaced with an infobox? Discuss? Montanabw(talk) 00:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge: Redundant to the navbox Jc86035 (talkcontributions) 11:12, 10 January 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 MTR station[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 and replace with {{Infobox station}} or {{Infobox MTR}} as applicable. 23:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Redundant to {{Infobox station}}. We don't need separate infoboxes for each network - the world has thousands. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Neutral, but what to do with all those sub-templates of infobox MTR which are used to change style of the infobox according to the station livery color? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    I'd do away with them, we don't need such cruft. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    I believe those are compatible with the Infobox station style parameter, though they'd need to be moved. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    @Sameboat: I used the multiple style pages for each station using {{Infobox MTR}} as a work-around for {{Infobox station}} requiring a separate style page for each style. If {{Infobox station}} could be modified to allow multiple styles on the same page or in parameters of the template those style pages would not be needed. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) 05:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    @Jc86035: I'm working on Module:HK-MTR stations/data in order to substitute all HK-MTRL and station style templates. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    I don't understand why each station would require a style. This should be a system wide thing. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    @Jc86035, Sameboat: I am actually against these styles, as the colour is unlikely to pass WP:COLOUR. — Peterwhy 15:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    I thought it would be better to show the station livery instead of black-text-on-white-background, because there isn't a parameter in {{Infobox station}} for showing the station's livery (which is what {{Infobox MTR station}} does); it's in line with the Chinese Wikipedia, Cantonese Wikipedia, and Japanese Wikipedia template styles; and it looks less boring. I guess a mouseover/dropdown saying "This station has turquoise livery with rainbow stripes" could be added? but if we should remove it, then the livery colouring will be omitted. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) 15:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    In the infobox "a picture is worth a thousand words". We do not need a contrived style definition to do that. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    If there were a field in {{Infobox station}} for livery colours and every existing field specific to each rail system... — Peterwhy 16:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    That is what the {{{style}}} parameter can do, but it should be for each system not every station. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    If the discussion here is to make every station page start with {{Infobox station}}, then I am afraid that this is a valid loophole: one style for one station. — Peterwhy 16:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    Why would you want "one style for one station"? Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Perhaps you don't understand that I am talking about the MTR version here, not the generic one. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    I know we are talking about the MTR styles, and I have said I am against these styles. I was merely pointing out that, if every page is to use {{Infobox station}} directly, then this is a possible use of the style parameter, even if this is unlike how the authors of {{Infobox station}} thought it should be used. — Peterwhy 01:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    @Secondarywaltz: To my understanding, neither the system or corporation have a distinctive livery style except for its logo. The usage of the logo could rise some issue of copyright/trademark when it's used excessively in all MTR-related pages (including templates). The station livery color is so distinctive and the similar color is rarely shared by 2 adjacent stations. I agree the station styles could be done more legibly, but not in any attempt to eliminate them wholesale. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    Central Station HK sign.jpg
    OK - let me try this again. The different decoration of each station is better shown by a picture in the infobox and any attempt at a style is only an interpretation of that. The corporate style in the signage at the entrances and exits is white lettering on black or dark blue. If the logo is copyright it does not need to be used. There are numerous other examples. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – no different parameters except for exits, shops, lifts, escalators and a few custom parameters; exits are listed in station articles, and the rest are not very notable/important. The template also links to station map and timetable, but could be better listed in the article and properly referenced. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) 05:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support deletion or merge: Do not need multiple infoboxes for every mass transit system in the world. Tweak the parameters and toss this one. Montanabw(talk) 00:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – I also think that the extra parameters just overload the infobox with superfluous information. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Replace by {{Infobox MTR}} – @Pigsonthewing: do you think rewriting {{Infobox MTR station}} as a layer over {{Infobox station}} would be acceptable to you? If so, then the nominated template can be simply replaced by {{Infobox MTR}}. After all there are attributes that are best set for the whole metro system, and that is the use of a template. (Also note I was a major editor of the nominated template back in 2012, before its usage was gradually replaced by {{Infobox MTR}})Peterwhy 15:17, 4 January 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 Manchester Metrolink station[edit]

Template:Infobox Manchester Metrolink station (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox station}}. We don't need separate infoboxes for each network - the world has thousands. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep There are 112 transclusions, and the way that the system is growing, are likely to be several more. The template has several parameters specific to Manchester Metrolink which are not present in the suggested replacement. If there is any problem or redundancy with this template, surely it would be better to discuss the matter at its talk page, or on the talk page of one of the relevant WikiProjects, rather than take it to the somewhat antagonistic world of TfD? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Most of the "unique" parameters have direct equivalents (|Metrolink line= == |line=; |Metrolink Zone= == |zone=). If there are any that do not, perhaps {{Infobox GB station}} would be better match? Or the "year/event" parameters proposed for addition to {{Infobox station}}, elsewhere on this page? As for replacing Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, that would require an RfC; but this is not the forum for that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
      • |Metrolink line= is not at all equivalent to |line=. The latter is plain text - the former is an integer which is used to decide which route map to show, and what heading to put in the yellow strip above that. I didn't say that we should replace Wikipedia:Templates for discussion - I had hoped to imply that it would be courteous to invite those who use these templates most frequently to discuss any perceived problems before the matter gets thrown open to comments from the floor. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Those who use the templates most are indeed invited to discuss them, though a prominent notice on the template's page, and on each article that uses it. But they enjoy no special privileges. There is no need to use one-off code to display maps and headings, especially for a relatively lightly-used template; the raw text/ file names can be entered as they are replaced by a bot or script. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Sometimes, routes are altered. This might mean that a station is moved from one route to another, and all we need to do is alter one number in each of the affected stations' infoboxes. Or it could mean that a route is renamed, and then all we need to do is to alter the infobox and all the stations on that route now show the new name. The whole point of having a template is so that you don't have to have the same content repeated across the wikitext of many articles. If that is not why we have templates, we might as well substitute it right out to the basic table markup. Maintenance would then be an absolute nightmare. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
            • How often does that happen? How many changes are involved? How is it an issue for Manchester, yet not for all the other districts and countries, that don't have unique infoboxes for their light rail systems? Your final argument is a straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep They're specific and customised to this system. Lots of unnecessary work replacing them for no obvious benefit. G-13114 (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • A plea for some perspective: In recent months, we have decided that we do not need separate infoboxes for stations in Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, France, India, Iran, The Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain or Switzerland, not to mention those on local systems in Bilbao, Bucharest, Budapest, Copenhagen, Glasgow, Melbourne, Milan, Monterrey, Montreal, Moscow, Munich, Oslo, South East Queensland, San Francisco (BART), Seville, Trondheim Vancouver, Victoria, and many more; and have merged (or are in the process of doing so) the respective templates into {{Infobox station}}. There really is no case to be made that the Manchester network is somehow different to all those, in the parameters that we record for its individual stations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • But often with two or three regular delete/merge voters. And the bonus, the new mega template is fully protected so only admins/template editors can edit it. Christian75 (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, if others want to get rid of their own infoboxes that is up to them, as far as I know Wiki policy is made by consensus and the consensus is that this infobox makes maintenance easier than a generic template which requires heavy customization on each page it features contrary to the opinion of a lone drive by editor. WatcherZero (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into more generic template. We don't need separate templates for every country in the world, we most certainly don't need them for every city on the planet with a mass transit system, all of them have some unique properties, just like snowflakes... Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominator did not even bother to check parameter list. Then claiming "redundant" is wrong (with the nominators being familiar with templates, this is incompetent). -DePiep (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    • DePiep, focus on the specific issue and do not personalize or attack the contributor. Montanabw(talk) 00:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Noted that you (again) make no attempt make a case for the retention of this template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes I do. I say that the proposal is botched from the start, I have pointed out the errors in your proposal, and you don't even try to fix or address them. And so this discussion should close as "no consensus", or actually "bad process". -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as long as you create a dedicated page for the Metrolink station, but keep a small section dedicated to the Metrolink. Therefore, you can put the infobox in its own page! Pjm0512 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • So far 4 Keep, 1 Delete, 1 Delete with conditions. WatcherZero (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Please see WP:NOTVOTE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Snowball clause, if a proposal has not a snowballs chance in hell of reaching consensus in favour and its proposal is bureaucratic then it should be dropped, also Notvote doesn't apply, everyone has provided a reason for their decision not simply a numerical vote. currently there are more reasons to keep than to delete to comply with a attitude agreed elsewhere. Therefore propose speedy close to deletion discussion under WP:Buro, Wiki is not a bureaucracy, policies decided elsewhere should not be automatically applied to all articles. WatcherZero (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
        • This is a discussion about whether to delete a single infobox; not aboutca policy. The snowball "clause" dos not apply here. Also, you miscounted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I would support deleting but I think it would be easier to retain the template and transclude {{Infobox station}} through it instead of having a completely unique infobox, so all custom formatting like line numbers and placement can be kept. {{Infobox station}} might require a few changes though. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) 04:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Question Why is {{Infobox station}} preferable to {{Infobox GB station}}? After all, Manchester is in Great Britain. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • IdeaThe plan I have had is to for the time being merge the 8 UK templates (GB Station, Disused, Manchester, London, London Tram stations, Midland Metro Stops, Heritage and Closed London, and any others into one UK/GB rail/tram station one. This alone would be a massive simplification and with the UK have a quite unique rail network merging all into the "international infobox" really wouldn't work! Have the standard GB stations infobox and have a section for Local transport authorities TfL, TfGM ect and another for Light Rail/Tram. Mark999 (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Ireland station[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 merge. There is clear consensus that {{Infobox Ireland disused station}} should be merged in to {{Infobox Ireland station}}. There is more opposition against the merge into infobox station, and good arguments are being made by AussieLegend about the complexity and time investment of the merge. The suggested alternative, merging to GB Station is in this discussion only explicitly supported by PC-XT, and only as a step on the way of doing a total merge into infobox station including the GB templates. That is however outside the scope of this TfD. Reading through previous discussions about the GB stations, even if they're a little older by now (2012) shows no consensus for that action either, which means I take PC-XTs opinion as fully opposing. Taking also the headcount (7 v. 4) for performing the merge as proposed into consideration, merging as proposed is indeed the outcome of the discussion Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Ireland station (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Infobox Ireland disused station (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Infobox station (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Ireland station and Template:Infobox Ireland disused station with Template:Infobox station.
No need for country-specific templates. In particular the Ireland station template's "year/ event" parameters should be made available in the more generic template (that will also facilitate further merges in future). The navbox-style links at the foot of the Ireland template should probably be discarded, but otherwise can be displayed through the use of a switch detecting the |country= parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keeprevised vote below - This template was nominated for deletion only last year, with the result being Keep then and nothing has changed. Not only was the result keep, but the discussion for {{Infobox NI station}}, which was also nominated by Pigsonthewing at the same time, closed with the decision that Infobox NI station should be merged into this template, which was done. At the time, I suggested that both could probably be merged with {{Infobox GB station}} since that was more logical due to the similarity between the templates, but that wasn't considered. --AussieLegend () 13:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    • That was a deletion discussion, and did not include the "disused station" infobox; this is a proposed merger. You offer no justification for keeping a separate template, nor for merging with the UK station infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Whether it was a deletion or a merge discussion is really irrelevant. It still involves, effectively, deleting this template in lieu of another. I haven't suggested a merge with Infobox GB station because, as I indicated, that proposal was ignored at the previous discussion. However, that makes a lot more sense than merging to Infobox station because, as I indicated above, the templates are similar and also are closely related. Did you bother discussing this with the end users or maintainers of Infobox GB station prior to nominating again or after the last discussion? As for me not offering justification for keeping a separate template, "no need" is hardly justification for a merge. --AussieLegend () 13:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Actually, "No need" is a good reason to merge; and you've been around TfD - which stands for "Templates for discussion", where anyone is welcome to comment - long enough to know that (anyone new to this arena can find the justification explained at length, in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
          • There's really no need to have 213 infoboxes for people when we could just use {{Infobox person}} but the community has decided we need all of the templates in Category:People infobox templates so "no need" on its own is no reason to merge. Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation is just an essay that doesn't address specific infoboxes. You really need to provide specific justification, otherwise we could just argue that there's "no need" to delete a stable infobox. --AussieLegend () 14:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
            • The community has decided to have a variety of biographical infoboxes where there is a need because significantly different parameters are required. It has also decided, over the past few years, to merge, redirect or delete a far greater number of such infoboxes, where their parameters are similar; or can be usefully applied more generally. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
              • Those templates aren't as far apart as you might think and most can be embedded in {{Infobox person}}. --AussieLegend () 15:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
                • don't merge. These work fine as is. There is no need to create a massive ammount of additional work plus different templates have their own benefits and it's up to each country's Trains Project to make these sorts of decisions (it should never be made on a global scale all at once).Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge into {{Infobox station}} it will apply worldwide. Categories are used to group articles by nation and such, infoboxes are not for categorization. We could in theory, wind up withover 100 templates, one for every nation in the world with mass transit. That would be absurd. Many articles do just fine with the basic one, and extra parameters can be added if needed, see, e.g. [22] Montanabw(talk) 21:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    • It would make far more sense to merge this into {{Infobox GB station}} as that template is more closely related to this one than Infobox station. --AussieLegend () 06:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge both into Infobox station. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • As Andy said on a Keep statement "This is (supposed to be) a discussion, not a vote; the exact changes are a matter for the community to discuss and decide upon." Robevans123 (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - please indicate what changes (other than perhaps adding parameters) are being proposed to be made to Template:Infobox station. If there aren't any, please justify spamming every person viewing a railway station article with an infobox that isn't in either GB or Ireland with a totally unnecessary and fugly message. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The message is there because it's required by the TFD rules. If you object, you should start a discussion to see if there is interest in changing the rules. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      • The actual problem here is not the TfD rules, it's that Pigsonthewing refuses to add |type=infobox to the nomination because Twinkle doesn't include the option. It's a very easy thing to add but he expects others to do it. Because he won't, the TfD banner is unnecessarily spammed across the width of the page instead of neatly over the top of the infobox. --AussieLegend () 09:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge No need for a separate one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep at least until the proposer has adequately answered the question on what changes are proposed for the widely used Template:Infobox station. However I have no objection to the deletion of, or changes to Template:Infobox Ireland station -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • This is (supposed to be) a discussion, not a vote; the exact changes are a matter for the community to discuss and decide upon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd say merge. There was no need to create a template specific to this article, when a universal template existed that could serve the same purpose.SecretName101 (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep infobox station. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    @VegasCasinoKid: This is not a proposal to remove infobox station; it is a proposal to merge two other templates into it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    In that case, merge. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge templates: only six parameters from {{Infobox Ireland station}} to combine with {{Infobox station}}. Templates have duplicated functionality. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) 05:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Question - Why is merging to Infobox station a better option than merging to {{Infobox GB station}} which is a more closely related infobox? It really doesn't make sense not to merge with that template. --AussieLegend () 01:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    • {{Infobox GB station}} is tailored for the UK rail system. Ireland is not part of the UK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Oh Andy! You just know that Northern Ireland is British, and the template covers those stations too. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I also know that the "Ireland" in the template name is a reference to the island of Ireland, most of which is not British. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
          • What happened to "we don't need country specific templates"? Infobox NI station and Infobox Ireland station were tailored specifically for Ireland and Northern Ireland but I merged them. As I explained at the last TfD, Infobox Ireland station and Infobox GB station are very similar and could be merged into a new template called Infobox UK station without a great deal of difficulty and without losing anything, which won't happen if the template is merged into the generic Infobox station. They're very similar templates so this is no real issue. Or do you have something against the Irish? --AussieLegend () 01:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
            • "What happened to 'we don't need country specific templates'?" Nothing. I'm describing the current state of affairs, not defending it. Furthermore, the Republic of Ireland is not part of the UK, and far from your farcical "something against the Irish" rhetoric, I respect their right to self-determination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
        • (P.S., on re-reading) No, {{Infobox GB station}} does not "cover those stations too". Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
          • That's irrelevant. The point is that the two infoboxes are very similar so it makes more sense to merge them. The name can easily be changed to something that doesn't offend the delicate sensibilities of those who might be offended by the suggestion that Ireland might somehow be related to the UK in some way. --AussieLegend () 13:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge only the disused version into the Ireland one, but don't merge into IS or GB unless GB is also merged into IS. My reasoning is this: The goal seems to be to merge the country station infoboxes together into IS. We could leave the question of how to actually merge to the people doing it, if we added the GB one to this list. If the GB one has consensus to stay separate from IS, I currently do not know which should be the merge target. IS is more generic, and may be the final target for all countries, but GB is closer in scope and other aspects. I do think it should be merged to one or the other, once this question is overcome. (I currently lean towards merging with GB, first, then merging that into IS, if that is feasible.) —PC-XT+ 03:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Calling to keep an Ireland infobox unless the GB template is also merged fails WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not calling to keep it. There seems to be little doubt that it should be merged. The only difficulty is determining where it should be merged. I can only !vote for merge if that difficulty is moot, that is, if the GB template is merged, as well. Otherwise, I am leaning towards a merge with the GB template, which basically means opposing this, which I do not really want to do. I'm hoping we can resolve this here, instead, but if not, at least merge the Ireland templates together. —PC-XT+ 11:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge both with {{Infobox GB station}} - It appears that those voting for a merge have not really investigated the parameters used in these infoboxes. There are significantly more than the 6 that one editor has suggested be merged making a merge more complex than the merge proponents apparently believe. There are actually more parameters that need to be merged than parameters that already exist in Infobox station. Infobox Ireland station and Infobox Ireland disused station are only used in 502 articles. Infobox station is used in 16,177 articles and adding the parameters necessary to functionally replace Infobox Ireland station and Infobox Ireland disused station just serves to unnecessarily bloat Infobox station with parameters that would be used in less than 3% of articles. As I've mentioned above, a more sensible approach is to merge Infobox Ireland station and Infobox Ireland disused station with Infobox GB station, which already includes many of the parameters that exist in Ireland station and Ireland disused station. A side by side comparison of GB station, Ireland station and station demonstrates this.[23] Only the nominator has demonstrated any opposition to this proposal. That parts of Ireland are not part of Great Britain is really irrelevant. Infobox names can be changed. This is far simpler and can be achieved in less time than a merge with infobox station. --AussieLegend () 11:21, 22 January 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 Korean rapid transit 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 merge missing functionality into {{Infobox rail line}} Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Korean rapid transit line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox rail line}}. Only forty transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge into Infobox rail line. Montanabw(talk) 21:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge per above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) 06:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Question -- Will the Korean language parameter and the logos be kept if the mergers take place? Because if so, I can agree with merging them. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • {{Infobox rail line}} has parameters for logos and a foreign language, if you also provide the language code. We could try to wrap first, then substitute or merge as appropriate. —PC-XT+ 03:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I started a wrapper, but it needs some improvement. Color is not properly handled, for instance. Feel free to edit it. —PC-XT+ 05:10, 12 January 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 German railway vehicle[edit]

Template:Infobox German railway vehicle (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Infobox locomotive (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox German railway vehicle with Template:Infobox locomotive.
There is no need for a country-specific template; and this one is redundant to its more generic equivalent. It would probably be best to make the German template a wrapper for the other, at least initially, and this may involve a small number of new parameters in the latter, so I have posted this as a merger discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There are some issues to be considered if we want to do this. One is that Infobox German railway vehicle covers rolling stock as well as locomotives. Also IIRC it has extra parameters. Finally it does a neat job of colour coding the banner at the top in colours representing the main operator. Also as a translator I'd like to request that, at the very least it remains a wrapper or whatever the term is, so that we can port the infoboxes across and they are automatically displayed in English as at present. Otherwise we waste time rewriting the entire infobox everytime. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • support with caveat I had strongly considered bringing up this discussion myself recently. It always seemed a little strange to me to have a template on the English Wikipedia be written with German parameters; it makes copying data from the German wiki to here easier, but makes it more difficult for future editors to update. The vast majority of locomotive-related parameters are already handled by {{Infobox locomotive}}. The proposed destination uses English language parameters and looks much cleaner (especially with separate areas for build specs, technical specs and locomotive usage). I may be a little biased as the original creator of the template, but it makes more sense to me to use Infobox locomotive for all locomotive articles regardless of where the locomotive was operated. We can add color parameters to the template without too much hassle. Now the caveat, as Bermicourt pointed out, is that the German template is currently used on pages that describe non-locomotive equipment like multiple units and railbuses. So, {{Infobox train}} should be included as a merge destination as well because that template would take care of those cases. The difficulty would be separating them out first; it would take a little time, but it is doable. Slambo (Speak) 16:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    As a quick experiment, I tried mapping the parameters from the German template to the generic template. Most of the parameters that aren't already mapped can be added to the generic template. I haven't looked at mapping the color parameters yet. Slambo (Speak) 05:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Railway vehicles include locomotives, but the converse is not true. It is inappropriate to apply {{infobox locomotive}} to a multiple-unit, coach, wagon or maintenance machine. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    That's why I put the caveat in my support vote that some uses will need to be merged to {{Infobox train}} instead. Slambo (Speak) 20:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Slambo's rationale. Mackensen (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Clarification needed It is not clear to me what is being proposed. Is it an even larger version of {{infobox locomotive}} (including parameters that are not appropriate to locomotives)? Robevans123 (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    • It was, but it seems that switching some of the articles that use the German infobox, to use {{Infobox train}}, would be a better solution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    • There are a few parameters that are appropriate to locomotives that are not currently in the locomotive infobox, such as those for additional carrying wheel diameters on Garratt locomotives, additional boiler data, rack and cog wheel drive data, and additional cylinder data. Parameters that are appropriate for multiple units and other equipment (parameters including the number of seats, doors and standing places) will be migrated to infobox train. Slambo (Speak) 19:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
      • We can only shim the German infoboxes to point to one template, of course, so if the decision is made to split them 2 ways; we'll end up with having manually changing the infoboxes every time for whichever category - locos or non-locos - is not automated. Pity because on at least one other similar template (the Berg/mountain one I think) not only does it display in English initially, which is a huge blessing for translators, but a bot comes along later and changes the whole template from German to English anyway. Very clever! Definitely the way to go with these templates. Bermicourt (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
        • A wrapper template can decide which of the destination templates to use based on the presence of data in specific parameters. For example if the parameters for the number of seats is populated, then it will display the info in infobox train; if the non-locomotive parameters are not populated it will display infobox locomotive. The wrapper template can also add the article to a tracking category based on which template it displays for other editors or bots to migrate the data to the destination template. That way the translators are still using only one template call. Slambo (Speak) 20:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Sounds very cool, Slambo! Bermicourt (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
            • I've modified my test template to make such a switch. To test it, pick a random page describing a locomotive and replace {{Infobox German railway vehicle with {{User:Slambo/DE infobox and then hit the preview. Do the same for a page describing a railbus or multiple unit. My test template switches based on the presence of either the |Fußbodenhöhe= (floor height) or |Türen= (doors) parameter. There are probably a few more that could be mapped, but there's your proof-of-concept for a wrapper. Slambo (Speak) 21:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This way you keep the German parameter names? Better have an AWB run the 300 transc's and swap parameter names: |Fußbodenhöhe=|floorheight= in article. (otherwise, this same translation must be a documentation). -DePiep (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (undent) A wrapper template isn't ideal, and it also isn't meant to be a final solution. It's a way to get the content in place using the agreed-upon template and an easy way to collect all of the articles into one tracking category (or a what links here list) so they can be updated more quickly. It also gives bot writers a handy place to find the translation that is needed for automatic updates. I welcome any other suggestions to ease the migration between these templates. Slambo (Speak) 01:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Why the intermediate step? Today, the WLH list lists them OK. That "handy place" simply can be the talkpage. Better provide a translation table 1:1, and treat the edit as part of the 'merge' process. Note: this does not state that the target template is OK a priori (I did not read here that the colors will be supported). -DePiep (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Using the wrapper gets all the template calls showing the same destination templates right away. It also helps resolve confusion to future editors over which template to use. As to the colors, both proposed destination templates are based on the {{Infobox}} template, which makes adding style and color parameters much easier. Slambo (Speak) 12:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
re Slambo: we understand that the German language one will be deprecated now or soon, with a note saying like: "Please use template:A or template:B", OK. But that 'confusion' you mention is already present for both English templates! Wrapping those two English templates sort of like you do here, to prevent such confusion for all, could be OK but that is not the topic here. The topic is: make the German one unneeded.
Most useful changes are if you can get the color-parameter thing into the English template(s). With or without the wrapper you build, that is required anyway for good merging. I get that you are working on this in a generic way, which is best. I don't know about other missing params, I assume you oversee those as well. DePiep (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
          • "that is not the topic here" It is if we choose to discuss it. "the color-parameter thing... is required anyway for good merging". No; we can decide to include them or not; but there is no requirement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      • There are two proposed destination templates, not just one. There are also cases where the mapping isn't one-to-one. For example, the German template has two parameters for the main cylinder size (one for piston stroke, one for cylinder bore), while the proposed destination templates have only one parameter for the cylinder size, so the wrapper takes care of combining those two parameters into the proper text (showing it as "stroke × bore") and adding the appropriate nomenclature as needed when only one is populated. Slambo (Speak) 12:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Sigh. So apart from the first sentence, the nomination is dead wrong, triggered only by a similar(?) word in the title. Leaving it for others to sort it out. -DePiep (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Does not look like a merge to me, more like a multiplier. And another tunnotified template that is getting pushed a change into it because of a non-thought through unknowing nomination. If this is it, I'll oppose. -DePiep (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
          • I have a working test case that uses a |style= parameter now. It was about as easy as I thought it would be to add this. It took longer to document it than it did to code it. Valid parameters for style are listed on User:Slambo/Loco infobox/astyle/doc; to test it, use the steps above to preview the test on a live article but also add the style parameter. Slambo (Speak) 19:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Slambo, in which template did you add this style param? -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Since a test like this should never be taken on live code for a template that is in such wide use, I copied the locomotive infobox code to a test area in my userspace (specifically, User:Slambo/Loco infobox) and added the style parameter there. This should be clear if you look at the code on the base wrapper test template (at User:Slambo/DE infobox as noted above). The style interpretation code is in the /astyle subpage, which is why the documentation for the style parameter is at User:Slambo/Loco infobox/astyle/doc. The styles that were created for this test are copies of those that are currently shown as examples in the German template documentation, with appropriate character and abbreviation modifications for North American keyboards (e.g. Württemberg is coded as Wurttemberg, and ČSD as CSD) and regional styles (e.g. Milwaukee Road's common abbreviation is based on its reporting mark, MILW, not MR as was used for the description on the German template page; similarly, Pennsylvania Railroad is coded as PRR, also based on the railroad's reporting mark, as is common practice in US sources). It is exceptionally easy to add more color style definitions as it is to add parameter codes that define them. I anticipate that adding all of the other parameters that are identified as necessary will be even easier, based on the coding of the base Infobox template. Slambo (Speak) 18:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This might save something. Step 1: Identify the templates involved (& notify). Step 2: analyse & map parameters, describe how & what the receiving templates handles them (like 'color'(?)), all English. Step 3: make a complete transalation list, 1:1, for each option (plus the criteria for the choice which situation to which template). Step 3: publish the list (in /doc), and allow editors to make the edits in articles. Given time,, no transclusion shouwd remain. There is no need to use an intermediate version or step, because in the end we will need them in English. -DePiep (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

    • We need to ensure the change is a step forward. That would seem to mean:
  • No loss of existing data or features
  • A fully working wrapper that auto-converts the German template when it comes across first time (accepting that some data always has to be translated)
  • Ideally a bot that replaces the wrapper with the main infobox down the line
  • Either merging Infobox Locomotive and Infobox Train or (as is proposed) having an automated way of splitting out loco and non-loco infoboxes
This is not a trivial exercise, but I'm encouraged by Slambo's positive approach. Just need a plan and the expertise to take it forward. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Skip the wrapper stage. Just make sure everyone can replace German parameter name with English one. Make clear which of two needs to be used. -DePiep (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I think if you skip the wrapper stage, the infobox will be unintelligible until it gets replaced, which may not be immediate. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Which one unintelligible? 1. Identify which new params are needed in any of the two (required anyway), 2. Give 1:1 param mapping German to the existing English names (required anyway). 3. Describe the choice logic, when to change the German into template A or B (Slambo now is doing in code). (note: these steps should have been presented in the proposal in the first place; the lack of competence in there is shocking). No need to spend smart thinking by good editors on an temporal template. The 300 articles need to be edited anyway. What is unclear in this? -DePiep (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
No need to be rude. I'm not a templates expert nor, necessarily, is everyone else here; I'm sure you're not expert at everything either. If you're offering to sort all this out without loss of fidelity, crack on. And in the meantime cut your fellow editors some slack. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Both my opening and closing questions are sincere. In between too. And I maintain, with reason, that the nom is lacking competence. Resulting in serious editors, like you and Slambo in this instance, being required to work double shifts to save some quality. -DePiep (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge: Don't need separate templates for every nation in the world on this one. Montanabw(talk) 21:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge as proposed by nom. The proposal is incomple ad incorrect. Also, it is written by incompetence.
Apart from the opening statement ('There is no need for a country-specific template'; i.e. a German-language parameter one I understand this to mean), apart from this not a single fact is correct. It is not "redundant" because not all params are interchangeable (abuse of the word 'redundant'). "best to make the German template a wrapper" - which would keep the German language parameters (nom self-contradicting). "may involve a small number of new parameters in the latter" - if nom states that they are "redundant", this says they "may" be not (self-contradict). The immature thing is that the nom should have made an initial effort to list this issue (parameter mapping). Then, quite soon in the discussion it appears that the German template has two target English templates (also not discovered by the nom). Even today the nom has not corrected themselves for this, leaving the discussion jump all four directions (why does the nom not precise their nomination with knowledge that surfed?). This leaves the burden of solving with other editors, who are now forced to defend against an incompetent proposal. All in all, now the nom just throws in some unbased yells and leaves it to other editors to flesh it out. Also note that the proposal is ambiguous.
Looks like the only reason for listing they used is a probable similarity in words "railway vehicle" and "locomotive". I have pointed these issues out more often for this nom, on these TfD pages. Given that the nom is active in template editing and has Template Editing privilige, I find writing a proposal with this quality showing incompetence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DePiep (talkcontribs) 12:21, 1 January 2015‎
  • Oppose Its not clear what the nominator want to merge. If it merged, merge every parameter and colours. Christian75 (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The proposal was clearly stated as Propose merging Template:Infobox German railway vehicle with Template:Infobox locomotive. Others have since suggested merging some parameters to {{Infobox train}} instead. This forum is for the discussion of whether and how such merging should be carried out. You are welcome to contribute to that discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The proposal also states: make the German template a wrapper for the other. This implies that the German (-worded) template is to stay, visible for the editor. That is contradicting that "clearly stated" opening line. Christian75 is right to say it is unclear. Also, that other (third) template is not identified and not tagged. Another unclarity. Unnotified templates can not be edited with possible controversy - as in this case here. -DePiep (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Translation wrappers are usually substituted, so only the parameters used on English Wikipedia are visible for future editors. I assumed that to be the intention here, but clarification from the nominator is preferable. I don't know what to do about the new template. Should this be relisted with the third template included and tagged? —PC-XT+ 10:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── [I've outdented because you (DePiep) have again broken the nesting of comments. Please follow the style of comment to which you are responding: using asterisks below asterisks, and colons below colons, as most other commenters do, per WP:LISTGAP ]

What the proposal actually says is "It would probably be best to make the German template a wrapper for the other, at least initially...". There is no contradiction. Your "unnotified templates can not be edited..." assertion is false (indeed, it is contrary to Wikipedia policy); as it is every time you make it, and as has been pointed out to you more than one previously Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:The Armoury Show[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 and replace with see also links per Frietjes. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:The Armoury Show (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Is this really necessary, given that the band only have one release with its own article? Lachlan Foley (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. If there is a general consensus that having a template for this band is a bit excessive, I will graciously accept the outcome. Shaneymike (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • replace with see also links, then delete. Frietjes (talk) 23:58, 9 January 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.

December 28[edit]

Template:Tom Cruise sidebar[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 per precedent on such sidebars Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Tom Cruise sidebar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Redundant as the only three links in this are already contained in Cruise's main article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as per every other sidebar used in articles on actors. This one was just missed in the previous nominations. Nymf (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per precedent —PC-XT+ 01:41, 4 January 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:Cite web url[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 as G6 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cite web url (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Seemingly pointless, no forseeable uses, as it only calls one URL. It may lead to some accidental transclusions too, as it is similar to {{Cite web{{subst:!}}url=}}. George Edward CTalkContributions 18:34, 28 December 2014 (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:Bobby (rapper)[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 as unneeded navbox Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Bobby (rapper) (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Completely redundant template for a rapper with a few singles to his names; all the links in it are already in the article itself. What we have here is fairly typical K-pop template porn: the article for this Bobby, who's been active for maybe a year, has three templates, and it's hard to imagine a valid use for this template outside of this particular article. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2014 (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 Russian city district[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 no consensus Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Russian city district (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unnecessary and unused wrapper of {{Infobox Russian district}} (I Subst: the only five uses). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Since it was already used in five articles, it can't possibly be considered "unused". As for "unnecessary", there are several hundred city districts in Russia, all of which will ultimately have articles (and use this infobox). The wrapper was created to make using the main district template easier, with its main purpose being the filtration of accidental usage of inapplicable parameters. There is also plenty of potential for adding city district-specific fields (which would not be applicable in the main district template). Test-driving the wrapper in the five articles from which it was so unhelpfully removed is (as it should have been) the first step in the wrapper development.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 29, 2014; 14:24 (UTC)
    • It is unused, as explained above. It is unnecessary, as the replacement of every instance of it with something that looks identical shows. The existence of hundreds of articles which do not use it are not a reason to keep it, as they can each use the more generic template which it wraps. We never need to create wrappers for "the filtration of accidental usage of inapplicable parameters"; not least because if that is desirable, it can be done by adding a switch to the generic template. And please don't conduct "test drives" in article space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Repeating statements unsupported by evidence does not make them any more convincing, I'm afraid. That aside, I do take testing seriously. Test driving an otherwise functional wrapper (one that went through preliminary testing) to catch possible bugs in production is a normal practice, especially if it is contained to only a handful of articles, as was the case here. The absence of any such bugs (as is the case here) indicates that the wrapper can safely be deployed in other articles. As for filtering inapplicable parameters, you must have never had the "pleasure" of cleaning up hundreds of incorrectly filled out instances of a bloaty mess like {{Infobox settlement}}, which, by the way, itself has dozens of wrappers whose purpose is, among other things, to suppress inapplicable parameters. I don't see how this situation is different. Nearly all instances of Infobox settlement's wrappers can be replaced with the generic template; is it your belief that they all should go as well? One can pile up various switches in the main template, sure, but that just leads to bloating the main code and makes it harder for people with limited template editing experience to parse, understand, and/or add to, and it also makes it more difficult for people with extensive template editing experience to do maintenance and debugging. As long as the wrapper has a well-defined, distinct purpose (as, again, is the case here), there is little reason to oppose its existence. You surely haven't provided any, apart from the wrapper being "unused" (with your help, no less) and "unnecessary" (for the vague reasons that don't hold). Not cool.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 29, 2014; 16:42 (UTC)
  • Keep, is in use and has potential for further usage.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, no longer in use, Andy has shown that it is unnecessary. It is very difficult to see how "filtration of accidental usage of inapplicable parameters" is a good reason for creating or keeping a template. Appropriate copy-and-paste template syntax examples for each usage type (similar to Template:Infobox settlement) can be provided on the template documentation page. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    • For the record: It is in use.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
      • In one article; that is true. But I don't think that undermines my argument much. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
        • It was used in five articles before. Someone (I guess Andy) removed it during the nomination. It is great that Andy (who btw is restricted by the Arbcom in many issues concerning the infoboxes) showed that the template can be removed altogether and replaced by a generic infobox. This is correct for almost every template. However, this is not Andy who writes articles about Russian city districts. This is Ezhiki and I who write them and add the templates. And we find it way more convenient to use the custom infobox with ten fields and not the generic infobox where out of fifty lines thirty do not apply to Russian city districts at all, ten more are prefilled with standard information, and ten more (which need to be found) finally do the job.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
          • If you believe that I have breached an arbcom restriction, please report that in the appropriate place, which is not here; otherwise, you are just making an irrelevant ad hominem attack. I replaced the few instances of the template, using Substitutuon before, not during this nomination; and in doing so demonstrated unequivocally that it is utterly redundant. That I was able to do so is not evidence that it is reasonable to do that "for almost every template", since most, unlike this one, are not pointless wrappers of anther template, much less for a duplicate subject-specific infobox. Your reverting one of this substitutions does nothing to refute that. The authorship of the individual articles which use the infobox is not relevant; and such logically-fallacious argument to from authority smacks of Ownership. Your convenience can be assuaged by you having a blank (or part-complete) proforma in your user space; like I do for other templates in my user space, without placing a burden on the wider editing community. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
            • How exactly is it "a duplicate subject-specific infobox"? Are you saying that simply because you saw the word "district" used in both templates? That a subset of similar terminology can be used to describe Russian districts and city districts does not make the two concepts "duplicate". It is fortunate that we can make a simple wrapper around the district template to deal with city districts but it does not at all mean they are the same. I also find your ownership accusations unfortunate. We have two editors here who know and appreciate the benefits of this wrapper because they happen to use it and do a lot of work in this subject area. You, with all due respect, know nothing of the subject yet find no problem dictating the content creators which tools they should or should not be using. This is simply sad.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 8, 2015; 13:07 (UTC)
  • question where is the list of articles which were transcluding it before it was orphaned? Frietjes (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    Tsentralny City District, Sochi, Adlersky City District, Lazarevsky City District, Khostinsky City District, and one more which I do not remember.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:06, 10 January 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:Test-mode[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 mark historical as obsolete Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Test-mode (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

This was a really cool idea when it was first written, but the introduction of mw:Extension:TemplateSandbox has made it obsolete. (TemplateSandbox is the MediaWiki extension that produces the "Preview page with this template" box underneath the edit window on templates and modules.) It is also possible to preview what a sandbox template would look like on a page by using User:Jackmcbarn/advancedtemplatesandbox.js. Now that we have TemplateSandbox, it should always be preferred over this template. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete or mark historical as obsolete per nom —PC-XT+ 03:52, 4 January 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 Province GR[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 subst and delete as unneeded and uncontested Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Province GR (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unnecessary wrapper of {{Infobox former subdivision}}. Can be safely Subst:, as shown in this example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 28 December 2014 (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 Buffyverse group[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 as unused, unneeded and uncontested Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Buffyverse group (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unused and unnecessary wrapper of {{Infobox character}} (I Subst: the only five uses of it). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 28 December 2014 (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 Greek Isles[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 as uncontested Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Greek Isles (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unnecessary wrapper for {{Infobox islands}}. Can be safely Subst:, as shown in 1, 2, 3. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 28 December 2014 (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 Melbourne park[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 per nomination rationale Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Melbourne park (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unused and unnecessary wrapper of {{Infobox park}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete, unused and unneeded. Orphaned by Frietjes. There's nothing really special about Melbourne parks in the first place... — This, that and the other (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2014 (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:Origlink[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 as unused Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Origlink (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unused. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as I don't know what is useful about having 3 parameters to construct the link text. —PC-XT+ 04:22, 4 January 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:Apink BnN[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 as uncontested and uncontroversial Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Apink BnN (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Apink BnN has been re-directed to A Pink, so this template is not needed. Random86 (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2014 (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:Tagum City Newspapers[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 as unneeded Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Tagum City Newspapers (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

The navbox just contains three links, two of them are red links. Only used in the article Balitang Gawasnon. theenjay36 04:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The template is currently not in use (WP:TFD#REASONS #3) as the article Balitang Gawasnon where it was used was deleted. theenjay36 09:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, perhaps speedily as G8 —PC-XT+ 09:54, 6 January 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:Esoteric file[edit]

Template:Esoteric file (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

If it's in scope for Wikipedia, it's in scope for Commons. In essence, this seems to be a request to keep local due to the author's preferences, which makes it redundant to Template:Keep local and Template:Do not move to Commons.

Specifically, this could be accomplished via {{Do not move to Commons|reason here}}. Magog the Ogre (t c) 00:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: if we delete, we should replace the file with the Do not move to Commons equivalent. Magog the Ogre (t c) 00:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. See this and this for the discussions that led to this template's creation. The point of the template isn't to honor the author's preference, but to categorize certain types of files as being unhelpful to move to commons. At the time, {{do not move to Commons}} contained a default message about legal issues, so it didn't fulfill this purpose. With its recent change to a blank rationale the tagger would have to fill in, it could fulfill the purpose of {{esoteric file}}, but with the many files falling into this category, I think a separate tag that doesn't require filling in that message would be preferred. equazcion 00:31, 28 Dec 2014 (UTC)
  • Also see {{userspace file}} which is similar. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This template does not seem to serve the same purpose as {{Do not move to Commons}}. {{Do not move to Commons}} is used to tell that a file probably doesn't satisfy c:COM:L, but this template seems to mean that the file meets all criteria for a Commons file but that moving it there should be of low priority. {{Do not move to Commons}} also exempts the file from WP:CSD#F8, but I am not sure if this template comes with the same exemption. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. This kind of thing fits somewhere in between {{Do not move to Commons}} and {{Keep local}}. It basically says "While this is allowed on Commons, it wouldn't be appropriate there, so please don't move it". This kind of template belongs on images such as File:Jefferson PA municipalities without photos.png, a tracking image that only appears in my userspace; nobody's going to use it elsewhere, and since it should be speedy deleted at some point (explanation will be given if you want it), moving it to Commons would necessitate an unnecessary deletion debate at some point, since they're less open to uploader-requested speedy deletions than we are. I would support a merger with {{userspace file}}, merging that one into this, because this one is also appropriate for non-userspace images. For an example, see File:Ohio Counties for Stubs.png: when sorting Ohio stubs, we divided the state into several regions and colored the different regions separately, since it makes for simpler descriptions at pages such as Category:Appalachian Ohio school stubs. Since we used some semi-arbitrary boundaries, the map isn't really useful for any purpose other than Wikipedia stub-sorting, so it shouldn't be moved to Commons. All of this assumes that the file won't be useful elsewhere. If someone uploads it to Commons anyway and uses it at some other project's page, we shouldn't complain. Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as wrapper, and perhaps merge {{userspace file}} into this one —PC-XT+ 03:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) 00:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: I've seen too many files copied to Commons and then nominated for deletion there without the knowledge of the original uploader to have any faith in the system of moving files from enwp to Commons just because they may be in scope of Commons. This template is clear in its purpose: to indicate that a file has little or no value outside of enwp. Although "userspace files" may be one reason, I have sometimes uploaded screenshots of a part of a page to illustrate a point in article talk. Such screenshots are essential to an understanding of the debate for future reference, but are worthless outside of enwp. I am certainly not going to log onto Commons just to make sure that such files don't get deleted when I can simply carry them on my watchlist here. This template makes life easier for may editors who don't use Commons much and deleting it would cause a net loss to the project. --RexxS (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nyttend. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per RexxS. Giano (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge: Clearly a need. Montanabw(talk) 08:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Question: Why do we need:

when we can do:

using {{Do not move to Commons}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Convert to wrapper. As shown in the the comparison above, Do not move to commons can fulfill the exact same function. Also as shown in the above comparison, that's a lot of boilerplate text. If we make Esoteric file a wrapper with the pre-filled reason, I believe we can have the best of both worlds. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    • That would more clearly exempt from WP:CSD#F8, as well. I'll support that. —PC-XT+ 12:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Why would you want to add an F8 exemption to these files? It seems that the uploader only recommends people not to move the file to Commons but that the uploader does not object to deleting the file if it nevertheless has been copied there. If the uploader wouldn't want the file deleted here, the uploader would have used {{keep local}}, which is directly designed to be a WP:OWN violation, instead of this template. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Ah, you're right. It would be more clear, but in the wrong direction. I can no longer support confusion of {{Do not move to Commons}} with this template, because it would be better deleted, so I revert to my original !vote. —PC-XT+ 00:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
          • @PC-XT: Your !vote, as amended, contradicts this statement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
            • I was relying on Stefan2's comments for meaning. Let me explain better: This template appears to be a notice that the file probably won't be useful to other projects, but if it is, it can still be moved to commons and deleted here. As long as this template is not found to explicitly exempt from CSD F8 in any way, we should not merge with {{Do not move to Commons}}. Deleting this template would be better than trying to shoehorn it into another template. Both would cause loss of this functionality, so I won't support either. —PC-XT+ 22:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
        • WP:CSD#F8 would be reworded accordingly. There is no semantic difference between "This [...] file should not be copied to Wikimedia Commons." and "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons." (and neither is binding in any case). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It serves a specific purpose (the Guild of Copy Editors uses it frequently for housekeeping), and the similar tags are often ignored or misunderstood. Miniapolis 19:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Miniapolis: Why does the {{Do not move to Commons}} version, above, not serve that purpose? In what way are "similar tags often ignored or misunderstood"? And, for that matter, why are the Guild of Copy Editors (a WikiProject concerned with prose quality) interested in the location of image files? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
As I said, the GOCE uses the tag for housekeeping (periodic screenshots of the {{Copy edit}} backlog) and it would be inappropriate to move the files to Commons. This tag is specific enough to prevent misunderstanding. Miniapolis 03:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox The Legend of Korra character[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 per nomination rationale Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox The Legend of Korra character (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Broken infobox, only used in a draft, and appears to be redundant to Template:Infobox Avatar: The Last Airbender character. FunPika 00:16, 28 December 2014 (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.

December 27[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/releasing trick of ip adress from computer[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 as T3 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/releasing trick of ip adress from computer (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

DYK for non-existent page? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per CSD T3. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete because the user was apparently trying to create an article, rather than nominate one for DYK —PC-XT+ 09:36, 31 December 2014 (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:Yahoo directory[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 as G6 by Mackensen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 04:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Yahoo directory (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Yahoo directory no longer exists and all uses of this template have been nuked with AWB. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:20, 27 December 2014 (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 PAhistoric[edit]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox NRHP}}, of which it is a fork; or for non-NRHP uses, to {{Infobox building}} (as this sample replacement shows), or to {{Infobox church}} (example), etc. Only 95 transclusions. We neither have nor need comparable templates for other US states, nor for other places. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep, no parameter mapping provided by nom so incorrect proposal. -DePiep (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
    • No parameter mapping is required. Once again, you're inventing rules on the fly. You have nothing to say about the merits or otherwise of the proposal; and no arguments as to why this little-used, redundant template is needed. Your objection (one of several such made within the space of a few minutes; and like many you have made previously) appears vexatious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
      • A good proposal would contain an overview of parameter & content overlapping/discrepancies, and how to deal with them. Given that good-into-professional coding practice & basics exist, I do not understand what you mean by 'inventing rules on the fly'. Please explain. But if that is a semi-veiled dismission, as it can be read, then do not bother to reply. -DePiep (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant to Infobox NRHP. Definitely a content fork. There are 95 transclusions, I would recommend that the appropriate infobox for those non-NHRP sites is {{Infobox historic site}}. Any specific parameters could be incorporated into that infobox. Montanabw(talk) 20:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
    • How or why do you assume that all parameters would map 1:1 OK in a redirect? -DePiep (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I assume that because your proposal is incomplete. On top of that, you concluding "wrongly" is thin air in a vacuum . -DePiep (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. My understanding is that this fork was created as a result of this 2010 discussion on WT:HSITES. A request was made to add the designations of various Pennsylvania state historical markers on {{Designation}}. However, objections were raised by Historic Sites WikiProject members: the Pennsylvania historical markers also recognize other things like significant people (e.g Dwight D. Eisenhower and Henry J. Heinz) and other things that are not building or structures, and thus those HSITES members basically said that they were "beyond the scope of how they wanted to narrowly define what a 'historic site' is". This 2010 discussion was also mentioned on the last TFD discussion back in April which resulted in no consensus. Technically, it should be rather straightforward to replace {{Infobox PAhistoric}} with either {{Infobox NRHP}} or {{Infobox historic site}}, and add the required designations to {{Designation}}. I should also note that National Treasures of Japan, added to {{Designation}} several years ago, also includes "fine arts and crafts" that are not buildings or structures. My hope is that consensus here on TFD should override any local consensus made on a WikiProject that was made four years ago. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
    • How or why do you assume that all parameters would map 1:1 OK in a redirect? -DePiep (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how there is this misunderstanding that the technical aspects of merging or replacing need to be discussed in a TFD discussion. As far as I know, this is not a requirement listed on either WP:TFD#REASONS, WP:TFD#Discussion, or WP:DELETE. Once a discussion is closed and the decision is made to replace or merge, it is listed in the holding cell, where a more technically-minded admin or template editor can make the replacements or deletions. If there are not exactly 1:1 matches, new and/or alias parameters can be added to the merged template. I make alias parameters all the time.[25] Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Categorically False that this is a straightforward merge to NRHP template if almost all uses of this template aren't on the NRHP.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
      • That would indeed be categorically false, had anyone claimed that it is. However, no-one has done so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - A legitimate infobox with Pennsylvania-specific content. Not redundant {{Infobox NRHP}}, because these articles aren't on the NRHP. Much material would be lost with a merging. The matter was previously discussed and kept at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 21#Template:Infobox PAhistoric. Note that this template was created as the result of a 2010 discussion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @GrapedApe: Did you read the nomination, which shows that the template is redundant to {{Infobox NRHP}} and to other templates for other types of historic properties? Nor is this a merger proosal; so what material do you allege would be lost? Note that the previous discussion resulted not in "keep", but in "keep for now. [but] continue the discussion". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Note With all due respect, Zzyzx11 (talk · contribs) (an administrator who has !voted delete in this discussion) has been unilaterally removing this template from article. I feel that such an action is inappropriate during the pendency of this discussion, especially by a discussion participants. I did raise this issue on Zzyzx11's talk page--GrapedApe (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Apologies, I honestly did not realize this was still open. Per WP:TFDAI, if a discussion is more than seven days old it should be removed and closed; if it needs to be re-listed, that takes another seven days -- that should have been 14 days. So this discussion apparently has been open for almost a month. I have not closed TFD discussions in several years, so I'm surprised by the large backlog here. Therefore, I thought I could experiment with adding the PA designations to {{designation}}, and experimenting with {{infobox historic site}} by only changing two parameters,[26] and checking to make sure all material remained intact (also note that changing an article's infobox from one template to another is a totally different issue e.g. editors using to use {{geobox}} instead of {{infobox settlement}}). Again, apologies for my oversight. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry to jump the gun and assume things. My bad. Fair point about the duration of this discussion. --GrapedApe (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Infobox NRHP is only for NRHP sites, the general infobox for historic sites is only for historic sites, the general infobox for churches is only for churches, etc., while this is meant to embrace a wider range of topics that aren't themselves historic sites. It's supposed to be used for anything that's commemorated by a historical marker, and none of the aforementioned infoboxes can embrace Howard Zahniser, Braddock Road (Braddock expedition), Bucknell University, and New Geneva Glass Works. Forcing the historic sites project to misuse an infobox is most definitely inappropriate and not at all something that TFD's made for. The only needed big improvement is actually adding the infobox to relevant places, since it doesn't seem to have gotten extensive use yet. Nyttend (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • There is no requirement to have a single infobox which can cater for all such articles, when other infoboxes can do separately. Zahniser is person not a monument; we have an infobox for roads; the university article is already using the university infobox; and we have {{Infobox factory}}. Furthermore, none of those four articles are using {{Infobox PAhistoric}}. This has nothing to do with a particular WikiProject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

December 24[edit]

Template:LIN TV[edit]

Template:LIN TV (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

The deal between LIN Media & Media General was closed on December 19. All the pages have been replaced with different templates including Media General, making this template useless, since LIN is now a defunct entity. Csworldwide1 (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Still it seems reasonable to keep the only use. Transclude it there? I don't know what the convention is for a navigational aid that has only a single use. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Oops, where I said transclude it there, I mean substitute it there. Our jargon is terrible. Note to closing admin, since I'm so unsure about precedent and customs in this case, please don't take this as a strong anything. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as out-of-date, though the information could be included in the article as the stations affiliated with it when it became defunct, or something of that nature, if desired. (Generally, single-use templates are substituted and deleted, or merged with the article in some form. The Media General navbox navigates the current situation, and the article already summarizes the history.) —PC-XT+ 06:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 07:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

December 23[edit]

Template:Jim Carrey sidebar[