Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Wikipedia:TFD)

Jump to: navigation, search

Find this page confusing? Just put a note on your talk page with {{Help me}} (including the curly brackets) above it and someone will assist you.

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Closing instructions

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

Shortcuts: WP:TFD WP:TD

On this page, deletion or merging of templates (except as noted below) is discussed.

[edit] How to use this page

[edit] What not to propose for discussion here

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:

Stub templates

Stub templates and categories should be listed at Stub types for deletion.
Userboxes

Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates

If the template clearly satisfies a "general" or "template" criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at Tfd, tag it with {{Db-repost}}. If you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}.
Policy or guideline templates

Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the Csd templates, cannot be listed at Tfd separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
Template redirects

List at Redirects for discussion.

[edit] Reasons to delete a template

Shortcut: WP:TFD#REASONS

The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
The template is redundant to a better-designed template
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
The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility

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.

[edit] Listing a template

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:

For deletion: {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}
For deletion of a sidebar or infobox template: {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|type=sidebar}}
For deletion of an inline template: {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|type=inline}}
For merging: {{Tfm|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|name of other template}}
For merging an inline template: {{Tfm-inline|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|name of other template}}

Leave the text PAGENAME as is – do not change it to the actual name of the 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 nominations: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|discussion title}} or {{Tfm|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|name of other template|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.

It is considered civil to notify the creator and 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

For deletion: {{subst:Tfdnotice|template name}} ~~~~
For merging: {{subst:Tfmnotice|template name|other template's name}} ~~~~

to the talk pages of these users, as well as any related WikiProjects (look on the template's talk page), 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.

[edit] Discussion

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.

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes.
Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] February 28

[edit] Template:The Programming Block Barnstar

Unlikely to be used, as the "programming block project" only has one member. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Single ship class templates

Ship templates for classes with only one ship have limited navigation value. The template will never be able to expand. So we have only three links total per template. Brad (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete all; useless ritual padding. Classes of ships which have lots of members might realistically get their own navbox, category, index article &c; but duplicating that infrastructure for a "class" of ships with a single member is just silly. bobrayner (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete all bobrayner (talk) said it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 18 February 2012‎
Keep and reformat - while as they are the templates are pretty useless and I'd agree that they should be deleted, they can become useful navigational devices, simply by adding "previous class" and "next class" links as I've seen in other ship class infoboxes. A single-ship class is still a class, and providing "directions" like that serves a valid navigational purpose. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Subst and delete all - the navboxes are useful for the reason stated by Bushranger, but that doesn't mean it has to be in template form. See for example USS Wichita (CA-45). Parsecboy (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- If we subst, then any future code changes, accessibility improvements or style tweaks would not be applied. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm indifferent if they're kept or not, but they need to be modified as per Bushranger's suggestions or they can be replaced by a table as per Parsecboy's example.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 27

[edit] Template:FreeToUse

Unused. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:British medical journal BMJ — 13 August 2011, Volume 343, Number 7819

Single use, single source, non-standard citation template. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

subst and delete - probably created by accident under circumstances like I described at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 20#Template:Independent. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:AP

Used in a handful of articles; none use the title or date parameters, so it simply creates a link to Associated Press. I can't figure out how the link is associated with the content; example: Chilean Air Force#Aeronaves. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cite local authority

Used in 13 articles; replaceable by {{cite web}}. Template was broken for four years until I fixed it. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Citation parameter legend

Unused; replaced by {{Citation Style documentation}}. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cite GIS

Used in one article: Pennsylvania Route 848 #1. That use has two external links: one to a directory on an FTP site and one to an XML file. I can't see how either link supports the content. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Adt

Unused. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. It is supposed to be substituted, so that could explain a lack of transclusions. The documentation just needs a bit of work. PleaseStand (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox vodka

Single-use, redundant to (and fork of?) {{Infobox beverage}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cool World

Only four links, all interlinked well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Citation metadata

Unused -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Merged these two TfDs since {{Citation metadata}} calls {{COinS}} ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This one's setting off my mental alarm bells. Was the template really replaced by equivalent code? I think Template_talk:Citation/core/Archive_5#Problem... may suggest what's going on. It looks like the quest for load-time efficiency had something to do with it, but I don't really understand the matter right now. Perhaps User:Smith609 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) can help generate some clarity. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The COinS metadata is directly generated by {{Citation/core}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cite/author

Unused. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cite EU regulation

Unused; no updates for three years. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Yes, I created it ages ago. I was going somewhere with it, but haven't yet. More than happy to say goodbye to it. TimR (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:New page

This template serves no useful purpose. If one creates an article that requires more work before it will survive on Wikipedia one drafts it in user space and moves it into the main namespace when ready. Since the template states it is for experienced editors they know this. It simply gives an illusory cloak, a Harry Potter Invisibility Cloak, if you like, under which an article hides, or it gives the creator an illusion of some sort of security. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. A case of "over-templating"! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to Template:New unreviewed article. 65.94.76.224 (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment the current content looks like it's a weird {{underconstruction}} template. 65.94.76.224 (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Even the template's creator 'misused' it by forgetting to remove it after the stipulated time period. I removed it from an article I sent to MfD today and found he was the creator of that, too, and had created that many moons ago without revisiting it to remove this template (per his own instructions in it!). I feel templates that "ought to be removed after x time period" are ones we should at best deprecate and usually delete. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I've been keeping half an eye on the use of this template for the last year or so (see http://toolserver.org/~tb/NEWP/). In general it doesn't seem to be much misused - for the most part those editors using it remote it promptly and do indeed carry out a series of improving edits over the hours/days it's on a new page. That said, it shouldn;t *really* ne necessary. - TB (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That's partly my point in nominating it. An experienced editor simply should not be using it. Bringing a half way decent new article to main namespace is a delicate art of pulling many different threads together. Slapping a template on the top to pseudo protect it while we get our act together is, well... weird. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I prefer deletion to redirecting. Debresser (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to {{Underconstruction}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to Template:In creation. This template is fairly redundant to that template. And the other template does has it's uses (i.e. preventing edit conflicts with users doing new page patrol). Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- That template should also be redirected to {{under construction}}. The semantic difference between the two is negligible. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
~~Redirect to {{in use}}~~Keep - This template seems to exist to function as a type of {{in use}} template, ~~which is why I think that is where this should redirect to.~~ but I think it would be best if it were kept. - Purplewowies (talk) ~~21:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)~~ 21:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep. The fact that there are already !votes to redirect it to four different other templates indicates that this template doesn't cleanly overlap with any one of them. In fact, IMO the template that this most overlaps with is {{New user article}}, but that is specifically for new users. {{New page}} clearly has a use in discouraging the premature deletion of new articles that should be improved rather than deleted. I do think the wording is a bit testy and could be revised, but the template does have a clear use. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment the name of the template indicates a duplication with {{New unreviewed article}}, so the name is bad. The content of the template indicates a duplication of {{underconstruction}} subtype {{in creation}} ... (though why do we need "in creation" ? ) ... it's not indicative of {{in use}}, since the text does not that the article should not be edited because of possible edit conflicts. So, it should just be replaced (transclusion replacement) by a pair of templates {{New unreviewed article}} and {{under construction}}. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Mama's Family

All content was redirected except the episode list — the character bios were all unsourced and full of in-universe plotty stuff. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The template is standard and matches that of plenty of others. - The Real One Returns (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You're not making sense. Every link on this template redirects to Mama's Family except for the episode list. The template now navigates nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That is because you took it upon yourself to redirect all of the articles back to the Mama's Family article. They articles and template were fine before you began to edit them. The Real One Returns (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I redirected the articles because they were full of in-universe, plot summary and had no relevant content. Which is what you do with such articles — redirect or delete. So now as it is, the template only points back to the Mama's Family article a bunch of times, making it pointless. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
No actually. primary sources are just fine. And what you do is go get sources yourself, not be so non-wiki-way as to just remove content because you don't like it.... - jc37 18:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedily close as out-of-process, per WP:SPEEDYKEEP criterion 2d "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion": This strikes me as a massive process problem, a blatant fait accompli. The articles should have been taken to AfD first or consensus arrived at (e.g. on the main article's talk page) to merge/redirect them. TfD is completely inappropriate so soon after such WP:BOLD action, given that the R and D parts of WP:BRD are pretty likely to happen, judging from how The Real One Returns feels about the matter. I heartily agree with the redirections and their rationale, mind you, but this TfD is premature. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking them to AFD seems like process for the sake of process. I don't see anyone disputing the redirection yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Real One Returns is obviously disputing it, though may not be aware of how to undo it. Don't split hairs just for the sake of splitting hairs. PS: I didn't say "take it to AfD", I mentioned that as one option. At this point, establishing consensus for the consolidation at Talk:Mama's Family seems like the wise choice. If that happens, then the template can be speedily deleted as uncontroversial maintenance. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_21#Template:Characters on The West Wing for directly comparable "redirect and TfD" issue. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem with saying "you redirected those all yourself, fait accompli is bad" and such is that because it's trivial to set up a support network of navboxes, infoboxes, categories et cetera it is far easier to indefinitely expand fiction elements into a farm of plotcruft than it is to consolidate them again. Similarly, merging fiction character articles back to the main topic is much harder than it should be because it's trivial to wikilawyer over process (if one starts with an AfD it's "AfD is not for merges": if one starts with merges it's "go and get formal consensus"), especially as the majority of the participants on any given subject talk page will be fans of the work and probably significantly less interested in our notability guidelines than the norm. In this particular case, is it likely that all the characters will be spun back out to their own articles? No, not in the slightest. Therefore, let's see about dismantling the support network with as little fuss as possible so as not to encourage that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep for the sake of process. I don't disagree with TPH's assessment that these articles were full of in-universe information and essentially plot summaries, and would probably fail our inclusion guidelines if taken to AFD. However, I'm saying 'keep' purely because I'm uncomfortable with the idea that a single editor can redirect a bunch of articles and then delete the navigational template immediately without seeking wider consensus. In this case, TPH should have got consensus first to get rid of the character articles, either with a discussion on Talk:Mama's Family or an AFD nomination. Alternatively, boldly redirecting them is permissible, but then the navigational template should only be deleted once a certain period of time has passed and it's become clear that no one cares about these articles enough to undo the redirects, in which case consensus can be said to have supported your action. In this case, TPH redirected the articles and nominated the template for deletion the very next day, without waiting to see if the redirects would stand; I think that's being a little too bold. I say, keep the template for now and give it a few weeks to see if anyone bothers to revert the redirects. If not, then it can be deleted. Yes, this is precisely 'process for the sake of process', but it's also the best way to ensure consensus supports your actions. Remember, there is no deadline. Robofish (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Your argument isn't making a lick of sense. I can't send the template to TFD just because I redirected the articles? Sounds like process just for the sake of process. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as it has no purpose for redirected articles, and an episode list (there) and a character list (not there, but could be) don't need a nav template. However, I agree with Robofish that it's better to wait a while (at least a week?) before talking the navigation template to TfD, just to be sure that the redirects stick. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Once the redirects are undone, the template will serve it's navigation purpose. As an aside to address the broader situation, this is just another part of the back n forth in fiction. This whole attitude of "not in my encyclopdia". We have had many LONG RfCs on these matters, but meanwhile, XfD is continually used to remove fiction-related content. And this "redirect as a soft delete" move is being done to facilitate moves at both at TfD and CfD. (And AfD for list pages, and RfD for the redirects themselves.) It's gaming the system imho. - jc37 18:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 26

[edit] Template:Placebo singles

Content is now included in main {{Placebo}} template. LF (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:UnsignedAFC

useless template, not longer in use (since years) - should be 'substed and then deleted mabdul 02:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Redundant template, almost deprecated, not in use. Pol430 talk to me 11:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I can't see any point in keeping this template, especially if nobody uses it.--Slon02 (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as it isn't used at all on articles. Aslbsl (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 25

[edit] Template:PD-US-LOC

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 Procedural Close There is no valid reason for deletion here, despite the nominator's mistaken impression that there is. The reason for deleting the similarly-named {{PD-LOC}} was that it was "deprecated" and "has now been removed from all usages"; neither of those are currently the case for this template. The nominator has also asserted that this is "essentially the same template" as {{PD-LOC}}, but this is clearly incorrect: This template says "This image is specifically listed as {{PD-US-not renewed}} by the LOC" (and we may as well trust the LOC), while PD-LOC said "We assume this is PD because it's on the LOC website" (which is not necessarily a valid assumption). Rather than prolong the pain, let's just close this misbegotten nomination. Should a valid reason for deletion arise in the future, such as the actual deprecation of this template and replacement of all uses, it can be renominated then. Anomie ⚔ 19:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Recreation of previously-deleted material - see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 14#Template:PD-LOC. Kelly ^hi! 05:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment {{PD-US-LOC}} was created 04:36, 3 January 2006 and has not been deleted. As such it predates the deletion of {{PD-LOC}} but I cannot see when that was created. The TfD linked above resulted in keep but a later one was delete, Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_15#Template:PD-LOC. There may be a reason for deletion but recreation is not it. Thincat (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Template:PD-LOC was created on 20:45, 27 July 2006. Anomie ⚔ 16:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Why is this template nominated for deletion? --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The same rationale applies to this template as to {{PD-US-LOC}}, as it is essentially the same template with a different name. Kelly ^hi! 17:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:The Smashup

only one album. Frietjes (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as the band doesn't even seem notable and this navigates nothing as it is — two articles isn't enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment The band seems notable; I don't really have an opinion about whether the template is needed or not, but the issue should not be predicated on lack of notability. Chubbles (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Amended. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as its unclear what the template adds. The one link is a redirect back to the band's page. Aslbsl (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 24

[edit] Expert-subject and Expert-subject-multiple

Back in 2009, a user posted on the talk page: "Anyone adding an expert-whatever template in good faith perceives some content problem in the article but finds it beyond his expertise to fix it. But if the editor adding the expert tag knows where to look for experts, e.g. wikiprojects, he/she can just post a question/request there instead of adding the name of the wikiproect to a template. Adding the name of some wikiprojects to a template doesn't automatically trigger any alarm bells at those wikiprojects."

I'm finding untouched transclusions dating from 2007, suggesting that this template is only building up a backlog that is not decreasing in any way. I have used it several times dating back to 2008 (e.g. FoxTrot), but never seen it work — because again, the template doesn't notify the WikiProjects. This template is beyond useless, and does nothing but add template creep. If an article needs attention from a WikiProject, how about just asking the WikiProject on their talk page instead of cluttering up the article with another template? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

ETA: Including {{Expert-subject-multiple}} since it's the same thing but DOUBLED! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Less than helpful template; non-specific and of little help to both readers and editors. henrik•talk 00:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment sounds like a bot should be created for informing wikiprojects... 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I remember this template well, having been one of the people who helped merge and redirect the then-deprecated {{expert}} into it. The template's documentation advises explaining why the template has been added on the talk page, and removing it if no explanation is given. I've seen a lot of uses of this template but very few explanations for why (too many were just drive-by tags by AWB users), so if this template isn't deleted I'd strongly recommend going over existing uses and taking out those that have been added with no apparent reason. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Not useful, portals are not a group of editors, and is not responded to. Not useful. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 02:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete with conditions, the template does add articles to "Foo articles needing expert attention", which are usually watched/categorized by the various WikiProjects. However, it is a duplication of the "attention" parameter in the Template:WPBannerMeta. I'm wondering if these templates are deleted, then there should be a bot that would add to the article's talk page the relevant Project banner and the parameter "attention=yes". Otherwise, you're going to lose a whole bunch of articles that were tagged for help. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep unless conditions like what Funandtrvl are implemented. Just because it isn't used appropriately doesn't mean it can't have a function. Why not just have it notify wikiprojects? Aslbsl (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment This should be orphaned, rather than just merely deleted, per the comments above. However, I agree that it's current set up needs to be changed. Most of these big unchecked categories are just that, unchecked. They typically only get used is if used by a not or someone uses them to make a list for AWB, or some other tools. - jc37 00:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's a good point. One could use AWB to add the WikiProject banner to the talk pages. This template shouldn't be deleted unless that is part of the conditions--to wait until the bot or AWB work is done. --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep As the nominator mainly objects to it failing to notify wikiprojects, it seems the issue is more with that aspect of the template, rather than the nature of the template itself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

But fixing the template does nothing to fix years of prior drive-by transclusions which did not notify the wikiprojects. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Expand further

Original TFDer said "it is not used much, and seems to have not drawn much attention.", which I agree with. I elaborated, "Name is also misleading, as it sounds like a clone of "expand", not a template used to suggest sources. Furthermore, it's pretty sloppy and lazy to just dump a bunch of sources in an article and say "here, use these". What if no one else on the wiki has access to those books, or through that paywall? Also, I see absolutely zero talk-page suggestions tied to this template, further suggesting that it's just not being used much."

The last TFD was closed as no consensus due to a complete lack of parity from !voters — everyone was !voting a completely different thing. I think this needs another looking-at to regather consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete It's entirely too non-specific and isn't helpful to readers or editors. Silver seren^C 00:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Agree with reasoning above. henrik•talk 00:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Where is the history of the last TfD? When did it occur? I want to refrain from expressing an opinion until I can examine that, so if nominator would do the favor of including that, I'd appreciate it. - Jorgath (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It was right here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Close give it a rest, take it up in March (or later). This was nominated and it got a full and active hearing at the beginning of February. Couldn't you just wait a bit before reopening it? Twice a month is a bit much. If you didn't like it being closed, and wanted a longer hearing, you should get it relisted from WP:DRV. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Close. If the nominator thinks the TfD close or the discussion was unsatisfactory he should take the matter to DRV from where a second TFD could be launched by consensus. In other words I agree with 70.24.251.71 Thincat (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Close and investigate possible behavior problem. While it isn't necessarily a forgone conclusion that nominating a template for deletion ~~twice in one month~~ less that a month after the last nomination is a problem, it does suggest the possibility of gaming the system by nomination a page over and over in the hopes that this time the deletion will stick. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Since TPH wasn't the prior nominator, this entire comment is completely irrelevant. Silver seren^C 05:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. While nominating a page for deletion twice in 18 days would be worse, nominating something 18 days after someone else nominated it is still a problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Not if the vote turns to delete. And your "behavioral problem" comment above is a personal attack against TPH, especially in the light of your comment being incorrect. Silver seren^C 20:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My comment was not incorrect. You misread it, probably because my statement was ambiguous (but not incorrect). It is problem behavior when an editor nominates a page for deletion 18 days after the last nomination. That is too soon. I did not post a personal attack. One is allowed to discuss and even disagree with a Wikipedia editor's on-wiki behavior without it being an attack. As for "Not if the vote turns to delete", you are implying that I can nominate something for deletion again and again hoping that this time the keep votes will overlook it, be on vacation, etc. and that this would be acceptable behavior if my strategy worked. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If it had closed with any form of keep, I would agree with you. Which would be most situations. But templates aren't the sort of thing that merge discussions or other options can apply to. This is all there is. And the prior discussion ended in no consensus. Thus, it's proper to form a new discussion to try to get consensus one way or the other. Silver seren^C 21:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"[T]emplates aren't the sort of thing that merge discussions or other options can apply to" - You would think. However {{Expand}} was deleted partly on the basis that we had more specialised templates available (including {{Incomplete}}). {{Tlx|Incomplete was "merged" to {{Expand further}} a week or so ago. Essentially this template now bears the bulk of the load for articles that need specific expansion. (Note that the people - often the same people - are arguing for deletion of tags as "too specialised" and as "too general" - one might think they just want rid of tags - which is fine but that should be an RFC not a war of attrition.) Rich Farmbrough, 17:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

Comment/Question. why do Template:Expand further and Template:Incomplete both have messages that say "This template (Expand further) is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy"? Why does only one of them have a "This template was considered for deletion on..." notice on the talk page? They have different wordings (close but not the same) and different "What links here" lists, so it doesn't look like a merge. TenPoundHammer only tagged one of the two. What am I missing here? Are we voting on deleting two templates instead of one? If so, is there a third or a fourth I don't know about? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That was a leftover from the last TFD for {{Expand further}}, into which {{incomplete}} was bundled. It was just never removed. (Also, I was not the nominator the last time around.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was not in any way implying that TenPoundHammer had anything to do with the odd two-template effect I described. He appears to have done everything correctly. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep This really looks like "Nominate and nominate until I get my way." SilverSeren would possibly be right that it is "entirely too specific" except the most ridiculous merge of {{Incomplete}} happened. Rich Farmbrough, 17:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

Delete. This is just another "I'm too lazy to fix up this article, how about you do the work for me" template that aids neither the reader nor the editor. Reso lute 17:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep and improve, including information in its documentation how to include specific suggestions – The Expand further template provides a useful tag to alert readers that an article could use expansion. A potential problem exists in the merging of the {{Incomplete}} with the {{Expand further}} template that occurred recently. It appears that if the Expand further template is deleted, the Incomplete template will also be removed. I preferred the Incomplete template as it was worded until recently, when it stated, "This article is incomplete. Please help to improve the article, or discuss the issue on the talk page."

Just a note, in the template's current documentation, there's a segment that reads, ..."However a bunch of people who did not understand the hereinbefore purpose !voted to merge the template "Incomplete" here. Therefore if you don't want to explicitly point to the "Further reading" section, you will need to set "further = no"."

It's already possible for users to include specific suggestions, but this is currently not included in the Expand further template's documentation. Also, users have to begin their sentence with the text "article." and omit a period at the sentence's end for the text to render properly. Here's example text of including suggestions:

{{Expand further|date=February 2012|article. Here's an example of including specific instructions, but information about how to do so isn't in the template's documentation. Also, users' have to manually type "article." for the text to render properly, and omit a period at the end of the sentence}}

Which creates:

‹ The template below (Expand further) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus.›

The same goes for the Incomplete template: it's possible to include specific suggestions, but the template's documentation doesn't include instructions for users about how to do so.

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments (1) In reference to 70.24.251.71's comment — there's nothing wrong with renominating a page that was recently discussed if the discussion resulted in no consensus. The problem is when someone renominates something that was recently discussed with a keep result. (2) There have actually been two TFDs for this template in the past: 2012 February 2, which the nominator mentions, and 2010 June 23, which resulted in a keep. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Northamerica1000. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep and improve per Northamerica1000. Agent 78787 ^{talk contribs} 00:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep per the discussion above. - jc37 00:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete I completely agree with Seren's comments, but I would add that a tag like this is redundant and unnecessary. We have many different tags to indicate that an article is a work in progress. We also generally understand that pretty much every article, if not every article, is a work in progress and thus all are "incomplete" or need to be expanded. Focus should be on finding specific tags that can more directly address what needs to be done with an article. Tags like what Resolute mentioned aren't inherently a problem as there are many reasons why someone will not or can not make contributions to an article yet still be able to recognize issues the article has, but in this case it is essentially a tag for people who can't think of the specific problem or are too lazy to find a tag for it. It doesn't really achieve anything to say "this article should be bigger" when there are plenty of other tags that will actually say something helpful.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep-this template does serve as a counterpart to {{expand section}}. Unless this template can be combined with the "expand section" template by using a |section=yes parameter, then it should be kept. --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Golden Threads F.C.

all red links. Frietjes (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. A useful navbox would, you know, actually navigate somewhere. Reso lute 04:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Dalek video games

Redundant. Everything listed in this is also in Template:Doctor Who video games. Digifiend (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Subset of {{Doctor Who video games}}. — Edokter (talk) — 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Minnesota Lynx first round draft picks

Navbox clutter. This information would be much better served on the Minnesota Lynx article in a section titled "All-time first round draft picks" Jrcla2 (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment – Before anyone jumps in and says that these types of navboxes exist for the Major League Baseball and National Football League WikiProjects, I want to mention (1) I don't think those should exist either but haven't gotten around to nominating them, and (2) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per many discussions in the past that these sort of navboxes should not exist. WP:NAVBOX specifically mentions this sort of thing is better served by being a succession box. And WP:EMBED suggest that in nav lists only links that would expect to already be found in an article (if it were "complete") should be in a nav list. You can't assume that players drafted in every year would appear in each players page. Thus its just a mess links of no direct relation. -DJSasso (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Without getting into whether this should be kept or deleted, I note that there seemed to be a weak consensus to generally use navboxes over succession boxes at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_90#Using_navboxes_where_succession_boxes_would_suffice.—Bagumba (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I currently dont have a strong opinion either way as far as first round picks of an individual team. I hope whatever the outcome is here that it is not used as a precedent for MLB or NFL. Those projects have more participation, and a broader consensus would be gained from a TfD on a similar template in those projects.—Bagumba (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note: I have left notices at WikiProject Baseball and WikiProject National Football League.—Bagumba (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would you invite completely unrelated projects to this discussion? Especially ones who clearly use this type of template. That is stacking the deck for one side of the argument. Some projects like them others don't. While I am sure it was unintentional you just totally canvassed one side of a heated debate. -DJSasso (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The concept of a draft and the significance attributed to a first round pick seemed related. Perhaps there is something about women's basketball that is unrelated that I missed? If it is a heated debate, input from a wider community seems relevant to make an informed decision. Note that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." If there are other similar projects that I missed, please invite them. I invited these because I was aware of them, not to add to "one side of a heated debate." Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Note that the projects canvassed were the exact ones mentioned by the nominator.—Bagumba (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Right...and that is the reason I commented. You invited the exact ones he mentioned thus one side of an issue which is exactly what canvass says not to do. By inviting ones known to use it you biased any neutral discussion that will take place by people not necessarily involved in any project. Like I said I am sure it was an accident but inviting the two he specifically mentioned sure seems like you are stacking the vote now from those two projects which will swamp any independent discussion that could have happened between people not in any project. In essence by inviting two groups that have created a local consensus you have possibly insured that that local consenus might overwhelm this discussion where we might have had discussion by the wider community. -DJSasso (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Templates could exist in a project for a valid reason, or nobody has gotten around to deleting them, or there could be unreasonable reasons. You seem to think the latter; I'm not aware if that is the case, so accept my apologies for assuming good faith if they are misguided. If I really wanted to canvas in the truest sense, I wouldn't have provided notification here.—Bagumba (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I indicated I am sure it wasn't meant with any malice and that it was done in good faith. Just get touchy as one of the smaller sport projects when we constantly have to hear. "Baseball does it so you have to do it." Well no we don't have to do it, they can decide to use them and we can decide not to use them. So when you invited them it raised my ire a bit. Especially since they are often so militant about their way is the right way. -DJSasso (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Meets several of the characteristics under "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines..." of WP:NAVBOX, at least #1 and #2. Possibly #4, since even though the article does not currently seem to exist, it can certainly be created; deleting the navbox based on the current article status would just be WP:OTHERSTUFF. And to some extent, even #3 applies. Rlendog (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment I call attention to the two-step analysis required here: (1) is the underlying concept that is the subject of this navbox notable per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS guidelines; and (2) does the navbox satisfy the guidelines of WP:NAVBOX? Notability requires significant, recurring media coverage, separate and apart from routine game coverage or passing mention elsewhere. One or more significant stand-alone articles or other publications are required, independent of the subject—no media guides or other team publications are sufficient to establish notability because they are not independent of the subject. Among other things, the navbox guidelines require a supporting Wikipedia article. This particular honor fails both steps of the analysis. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on WNBA, but other sports regularly have coverage on past 1st round draft picks to satisfy WP:LISTN. It seems reasonable to require the same to be demonstrated here.—Bagumba (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. WP:NENAN. Navboxes like these are simply clutter designed to spam irrelevant links across multiple articles. They also tend to needlessly multiply like a virus. Reso lute 04:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Whether or not this particular template is kept, about which I'm neutral, should not be considered a decision on the other sports. There is no List of Minnesota Lynx first round draft picks, which makes me lean towards delete, but for the baseball project, all 30 franchises have that page at FL status, and I have on my to do list to get the overarching page to FL so we can have a FT. Navboxes in that case are appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. The problem is that people misplace the navbox. In your case, a navbox that links each team's list of draft picks article is appropriate. A navbox that links first round picks is not. In my view, the former is a closed loop (good) navbox and the latter is an open loop (bad) navbox. Reso lute 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

While it's useful to be able to navigate from one team to another if I have a general interest in a sport, it also seems useful to be able to navigate from one player to another if I have a general interest in a team. Can you elaborate on your rationale for limiting navboxes at the team level?—Bagumba (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to speak for him, but a link between team articles are higher value links because they are more directly related to each other and answer the question where is a reader of the article most likely going to want to go to next. If they are on a team draft pick page its likely they are probably going to want to look at another team draft pick page. Whereas having this template on all the players pages who are on it fails the idea that every link on the template should be expected to be included in the article that template on. For example a player drafted in say 1962 is very very remotely related to the guy who was drafted in 2010 and isn't likely to be included in the page of the 2010 player. This makes the link a low value link because a reader reading the page of the 2010 draftee's page isn't likely to go to the 1962 page. Instead a See Also link to just the draftee page would be much more high value and would avoid clutter instead of including all the links of all the players. In essence that they were both drafted by the same team doesn't really define each other. -DJSasso (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see another scenario being a reader who knows about a specific player, and then wants to find out about other 1st round draft picks of that team. A lot of readers start off only caring/knowing about a specific player, and then wanting to branch off on that player's team's history, perhaps without having much interest in other teams in the league. Sure a player from 2010 is not closely related to one from 1962, but I could also argue a team in one division is not that closely related to a team from a different division or even a different conference.—Bagumba (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What makes this "open" instead of "closed"? I'm not sure I follow your meaning. Do you mean that "closed" loops will have no more additions, while "open" loops will add new members to the loop? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Official statistics

This template is used on only one page (official statistics) and is an odd combination of links that have only only tangential relevance to the template topic. Decstop (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as it is. If it is profoundly restructured, then it might be useful, because official statistics is an important area of statistical practice. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:1983-84 Stanley Cup Champions navbox

link farm - project consensus not to use templates like this. Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 18:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Recreation of previously deleted template. Its come to TFD and been deleted a number of times. Had it not already been put up for TFD would have speedied it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - per project consensus. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - clutter, WP:NENAN. Reso lute 23:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - useless clutter. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Richard Petty Milestone Wins

I don't think we need a template for this. we don't have articles titled 'Richard Petty's XXth win'. it would be better to just list these milestones in an article, rather than have this as a navigation box. are we going to seriously do this for every driver? Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. This can be/is in the article. No other driver has it, no matter how many wins they earned. -- Nascar1996^{(Talk • Contribs)} 20:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - belongs in the prose of the article, not in a template. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Inline relevance cleanup tags

Merge the latter two into the first, which uses standardized inline tag code. The second asserts rather than suggests, and the third is jargonistic, while the first suggests discussion. Move merged result to {{relevance inline}}. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Debresser (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Off-topic could be used to quickly mark the text as "relevant; does not belong to this article; potentially useful in another article". I believe there is no other inline template to fit this use. --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It helps the closing admin if you bold your vote. Nyttend (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Isshin-ryū organizations

Template is un-used and is a link farm in disguise. jmcw (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:List of Italian cheeses TOC

hardcoded instance of {{alphanumeric TOC}}. Code is simple enough to be substituted into the one article that uses it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Subst and delete per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Subst and delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:List of roads in Toronto/eastwestTOC

Hard-coded TOCs which include every section heading: can easily be replaced with {{horizontal TOC}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I've already switched over the templates as a test just to verify, and yes, the standard template works a bit better in this case. Imzadi 1979 → 11:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm guessing this is a fairly new template, I certainly never found it when I made this. Delete if this new TOC format works all the same. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Is it possibe to hide the numbers in the TOC that now replaces it? Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- That'll require changes to the site's CSS, but it's planned. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that this template must be replaced by a horizontal TOC on the two articles in question before it is deleted. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Glossary of boiler terminology/TOC

Glossary of boiler terminology already has its section headers in an alphabetic range format, so a normal TOC works fine here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Working version of the page, with table formatting, this (quite minor) template, and references.
Broken, after Thumperward's edit, with formatting and references gone. Which of these is a better article? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Also it's considered usual to notify the major editors of templates you're seeking to delete. I've notified user:Kerdek on your behalf. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- In answer to your question, the second is by far the better article as long as the refs are fixed up. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- The work done on the article is orthogonal to the deletion rationale, which stands even with the old revision of the page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Chris, by "orthogonal", did you mean irrelevant and not pertinent? If so, I suggest that would be a much more understandable point. Regards, mbeychok (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I see no reason why a standard TOC and standard references can't be used here They have to be done right, of course, which may require some repairs if the template is deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete for exactly the same reasons as those expressed by The Rambling Man

[edit] Template:TOC Philippine regions

Unused hardcoded TOC variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PlayManiaTOC

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) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Unused and quite, quite insane hardcoded TOC template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as redundant; possibly speedy as patent nonsense/ snowball. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Fake TOC

Unused hardcoded TOC variant with no obvious use case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what definition of "unused" you're working to, but it's used on two pages. Its purpose is to display a navigable table of contents without having to list every last section on the page, which is helpful when you have a page divided into a few large sections each of which has a zillion tiny ones that you don't want in the contents. Gurch (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoops: missed the non-article transclusions. I believe that {{TOC limit|2}} fulfils the requested need on the existing transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep you can use this to link to anchors instead of section heaadings, especially if you use HRs to separate sections. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Can" != "should". TOCs which don't act as they should are confusing to readers. The existing transclusions just link to headers, as they should. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- In what way is this alternative not adequate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  - I have noticed that some articles have significant paragraphs that should be indicated in the TOC, but with the flow of the article, wouldn't fit with building section headers/flow... since it would make alot of section headers, unless you have very small sections following it with "miscellaneous" as a title. This template would be a good way around that. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    - Please provide examples. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
      - Such as a tabular list article with sortable. If you build a table, there are no sections in it, but the base sort is ordered in a particular way, where you can add anchors, and then have this TOC template be used to jump to portions of the list (like entries 100-200) . 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
        
        It is counterproductive to invent new uses for a redundant template simply too keep it around for the sole purpose of introducing even more inconsistency to our handling of TOCs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Human Rights Abuses

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 deleted after the February 17 discussion concluded. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Frietjes "added" the tfd template on the 17 February 2012 but missed to do the last steps. This template was discussed at Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Human_Rights_Abuses but there is no progress since the beginning. This is only a completion of the last nominating - my vote is neutral! mabdul 09:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm worried about neutrality here. What's the use case for this template? "Human rights abuses" is really an extremely wide subject to stick in an infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
comment why exactly do we have two discussions open? see here. which steps did I miss? Frietjes (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Infobox Pro Football retired

less than a dozen uses, and can be replaced by template:infobox pro football player, which has over 700 transclusions. Frietjes (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Could these not both be merged somewhere? 700 transclusions for a sport biography infobox is very low. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Merge, ~~I would do the merge~~... mabdul 09:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is nothing to merge, all parameters are in the template:infobox pro football player and the retired template is bad coded (html table) and has no doc! mabdul 10:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I did some work in renaming parameters. I think now both Infoboxes use the same names for their parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Canadian

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Fang Aili (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Does not appear to serve a useful purpose anymore. Looks like the author tried to blank it, and then an IP cam along and finished the job. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - totally useless. mabdul 09:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] February 23

[edit] Template:Service awards/year

Delete I have edited the {{Service awards}} template so that it no longer requires the /year template. There are now no transclusions of this template, so there is no reason to keep it. If /year is deleted, its /sandbox and /doc pages should also be deleted. The template's original author has not been notified of this discussion, as they are indefinitely-blocked. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 23:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, if it is not longer needed. mabdul 10:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Be bold

This is pointless. "Be bold" applies to all pages on Wikipedia. .froth. (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no obvious use case for this template, and as such it's basically just more unnecessary talk page boilerplate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Not needed since WP:BOLD applies everywhere. This was slapped on an ARTICLE, and I removed it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Nice idea, looks neat, but totally useless. Delete. mabdul 10:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:JEL code

weird, nonstandard side box which mostly just adds pages to a category. Categories should be added directly rather than via templates; furthermore, this is being used in articlespace, and it definitely doesn't belong there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It also adds a box like at Category:Macroeconomics... I'm not 100% sure, but I see a reason to do this wit a template: it explains why a cat is in a cat with a link to the actual JEL page. I like the idea, so keep. mabdul 10:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Were that applied everywhere these boxes would be used on every single category page. That's not appropriate, and neither is this one. Categories do not need individually explained by templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Deportivo Independiente Medellin squad

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. I am withdrawing. Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 11:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Template is improper. Not used anywhere. Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 16:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's used at Independiente Medellín, as well it should be: squad navboxes are a perfectly normal aspect of football club articles. It needs fixed, and the colours changed to something less eye-bleeding, but there is nothing "improper" about it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep, I added nonincludes for the documentation and transcluded the template to the other 5 articles named in the template. mabdul 10:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Uw-dontremovewarnings

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. Speedy delete as misrepresentation of policy, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete: This template is contrary to the guideline, WP:OWNTALK, that users may remove almost all warnings from their own user talk pages. The items that may not be removed is listed at WP:BLANKING and WP:OWNTALK. —teb728 t c 07:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Note: When I went to notify the template creator, I found they are indef blocked. —teb728 t c 07:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete created by a banned user. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- The editor is not banned, just indefinitely blocked. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Arguably a speedy deletion candidate under WP:T2: unambiguous misrepresentations of established policy. Robofish (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Sustainable energy

Delete. The topic is adequately covered by ~~Template:Renewable energy~~ Template:Renewable energy sources. Note that renewable energy is by definition sustainable energy. The topic is also a bit "messy" to be constrained by a template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Template is redundant. - Jorgath (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Query -- Template:Renewable energy seems to redirect to Template:Sustainable energy, so the topic wouldn't be covered by the former if the latter were deleted..? 213.246.121.83 (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Quite. Unless the nominator has made a typo, this appears to be a mistaken nomination of a template as redundant to... itself, via a redirect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep – Invalid reason for deletion as explained by Chris. No prejudice against renomination if a suitable reason is found. – Allen4names 08:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Correction. It is redundant to Template:Renewable energy sources. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - It is a more informative template than Renewable energy. If one has to be deleted, delete Renewable instead.Gsonnenf (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that it is less informative since it does not truly represent a complex topic. Template:Renewable energy sources is what a template should be - short and succinct. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

For better or worse, we have no clear guidelines on exactly how broadly sidebar templates should link. Thanks for the correction to the nom: my opinion is that it is preferable to merge {{renewable energy sources}} to {{sustainable energy}} (as the latter term is technically a superset of the former) and to start a discussion on the merged template talk regarding the removal of material deemed superfluous. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I think that the discussion at Talk:Renewable_energy (RFC: Which navbox to use?) and arguments presented there are relevant for this discussion. Beagel (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep - It is a more informative and provides better coverage than Renewable energy. Additionally the Renewable energy template is non-standard, and is out of place in Wikipedia. Delete Renewable energy instead. LK (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that Template:Sustainable energy is more "non-standard". I like the idea of consistent templates but is being "non-standard" a reason for deletion? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

How can you state with a straight face that Template:Renewable energy sources is more standard? AFAIK, there is no other navigation sidebar on Wikipedia that looks like it. OTOH, there are numerous sidebars that look like Template:Sustainable energy, just to name a few of the A's we have Template:Anarchism sidebar, Template:Agriculture, Template:Acids and bases, Template:Anime and manga, Template:Anglicanism, Template:Austrian School sidebar, Template:American cuisine. There are literally hundreds more. Most use Template:Sidebar as a base. LK (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sidebars might not have become universally template-based like navboxes and infoboxes, but they're getting there. There should certainly be a good reason for current examples not to be based on {{sidebar}}. Nevertheless, the main problem here is the redundancy fo two sidebar templates covering the same area with <100 transclusions between them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete There seems to be a huge support at the main discussion for the renewable energy template, with better rationales. The main discussion is at Talk:Renewable energy --Extra999 (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete Sustainable energy navbox. There is considerable support for the RE navbox at Talk:Renewable_energy#RFC:_Which_navbox_to_use?, because it is smaller, cleaner, and more suitable for RE articles. Merging the RE and SE navboxes would just create problems. Consider a normal bottom-of-the-page navigation template for Sustainable energy. Johnfos (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Change to bottom-of-the-page navigation template. Change the Sustainable energy sidebar into bottom-of-the-page navigation template. However, it still needs cleanup and if changed into mbottom-of-the-page navigation template, also some additions. Merging these two sidebars is not good solution. Lets keep the Renewable energy template small as it is and have more comprehensive bottom navigation template. Beagel (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - seems too broad for a navbox, when you consider the large number of articles that could potentially be considered related to 'sustainable energy'. {{Renewable energy}} is more tightly focused, and seems to be supported by local consensus at Talk:Renewable energy. Robofish (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Much broader than just renewable energy sources, and it's not messy or incomplete, so I see no reason to delete it. Liam98 7 16:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Much better template than renewable energy. More wikipedia standard like, more informative and helpful, and more comprehensive. The people at renewable energy have a liking for a small template. But this contradicts what everyone else on wikipedia think that templates should look like. A small group cannot dictate their own style of template for their 'own' pages, contradicting wikipedia wide style. Darx9url (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Convert to Infobox Settlement

Per previous, various TFD discussions such as this one, this one and this one, the community has rejected proposals to delete or merge all these similar infobox templates into {{infobox settlement}}. So why is there a talk page template that still suggests such a conversion – and is being used on the talk pages of these same infobox templates that were previously up for deletion? One instance has already been recently removed for this reason.[1] Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

~~Keep~~. The goal of consolidating templates has merit and the fact that some don't get it and some discussions went awry is not a valid reason to knock this back. Alarbus (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, we don't really need a cleanup template for this: it's usually quite a lot of work to carry out these requests, and not something that many users are capable of. I'd prefer a tracking category like category:settlement infoboxes not based on infobox settlement on the template pages themselves which doesn't imply that this is simply uncontroversial cleanup work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Sold. See {{be bold}} in updating templates. Alarbus (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete, at the moment totally useless, is not doing anything, no changes within half a year, per nom. mabdul 11:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as the wrong way to get the right thing done, per Chris C. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cleanup-tracklist

This is not normative--anyone can use the tracklisting template or not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete It pointed to a section at WP:Albums that no longer existed before I changed it to point to the template. From the history it appears I inadvertently changed it back to the version that got nominated last time. In any case I don't really see a point in having a template telling someone to use a template. There is nothing wrong with having the track listing as a list and if someone wants to put them in templates they should do it themselves instead of asking someone else to. AIRcorn (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete since there is nothing saying {{tracklist}} must absolutely be used. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Pbrk

This odd paragraph used to be used in a lot of Template:Military navigation; mostly Template:Campaign. It worked poorly and has been deprecated, and is now pretty much an orphan. Time to get rid of it. Alarbus (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that we now have a more elegant way of accomplishing the same result, I have no problem with deleting this. I assume that the remaining (non-archive) transclusions can be changed to use the new mechanism? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 09:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course; best to keep things tidy. Alarbus (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the transclusions, including the 3 in an archive as they would break with this deleted. I had already edited that to fix categories. Alarbus (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete since useless now... mabdul 11:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Syrian Air Force

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 Fang Aili (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

hard coded and not used in Syrian Air Force. Frietjes (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as above; wiki debris. Alarbus (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] February 22

[edit] Template:Harvest (band)

navigates nothing. Frietjes (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - only link is to the band's main page; template appears to have very little value. Gongshow ^Talk 06:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Informative and good information. But Delete if Templates only serve to navigate. Harvester^talk 20:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

yes, navigation boxes are for navigation. all the information is in the article. Frietjes (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete, I checked all "prepared articles" in the template and non of them exists. This is not a navigation template since it is only in one article... mabdul 13:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't even navigate anything. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete no value at the present time to this template. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Kavalactones

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The one use of this template was substituted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:B.A.P

not enough useful navigation. Frietjes (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. The template seems a bit premature for now; perhaps once/if articles are created for the charted album and single. Gongshow ^Talk 06:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
On January 26, 2012 the group officially debuted with the release of the single, "Warrior". - simply to new! Delete! mabdul 13:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox MLB manager

Only no transclusions (2 before I fix them). Template:Infobox MLB player does the job better. Check [2]. I think we should delete this one and rename the Infobox MLB player to Infobox MLB biography. -- Magioladitis (talk) Magioladitis (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

delete after replacement with MLB player, which could be renamed as MLB biography if necessary. Frietjes (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete, the MLP maganger template supports the same parameters as the player template and thus totally redundant. mabdul 16:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenix Suns game logs

Phoenix Suns game logs

Subst and delete single-use templates per precedent at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_16#Game_logs, among others. Note to closer: I'm willing to help with substing. TimBentley (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously now. How many of these are there? Subst and delete per all the rest. Reso lute 15:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Subst and Delete I had started doing each for the teams but got side tracked since my last nom of some. -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ann Township

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 Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

~~With two working links, I doubt this navigation box serves any navigation purpose.~~Withdrawn Muhandes (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Userfy if someone would like it and Delete per nominator's simple rationale. I know userfication is redundant because nothing is lost form Wikipedia, but it may provoke creation of the relevant articles. I'm for anything that provokes new notable articles. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep This template was made for a reason, didn't that occur to you?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - looks very essential to me, actually. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
keep, comment out the red links if you don't like them, but the articles are being written. Frietjes (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn The template stood seven months with two working links. However, I see articles are now slowly being written (four were created yesterday), so the rationale I gave no longer applies. --Muhandes (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Jennette McCurdy

Links only three articles right now (the fourth is a redirect). WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sleepthief

at first glance this might look like it has some useful navigation, but if you look closer, the links are all to other artists who have made guest appearances, and none of the albums, singles, etc. have working links. Frietjes (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox journalist

redundant to the far more richly featured {{Infobox person}}. The only unique parameters appear to be |alias= & |credits=, whose functionality can be provided by |other_names= and |organisation=/ |television= respectively; or they could be added to the latter template. Conversely, the template under discussion lacks many of the useful parameters of {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge to Template:Infobox writer there is much in common: journalists are, by and large, writers who specialise in stories of immediate interest. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep. A writer and a journalist is not the same thing. I would hate for a journalist to have an writer/actor infox. That's just not right. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- The proposal is to replace this template with {{Infobox person}} (of which it is a subset); not {{Infobox writer}} nor {{Infobox actor}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete in favour of infobox person; nothing will be lost except a maintenance headache. This is normal practise. Alarbus (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom, just use {{infobox person}}. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep due to the widespread notability of journalists. Many wiki pages contain this template and to change this would be both pointless and time consuming. Journalists are different from writers, and the inclusion of notable 'credits' within the info box is crucial distinction from {{infobox person}} which in my opinion merits the status quo. Uvghifds (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- The proposal is to replace this template with {{Infobox person}} (of which it is a subset); not {{Infobox writer}}. The time taken for replacement is not a factor in making this decision; and neither is the notability of journalists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep stress- writer and journal is not the same thing same as a astronaut and astronomer are different! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HasperHunter (talk • contribs) 00:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- The proposal is to replace this template with {{Infobox person}} (of which it is a subset); not {{Infobox writer}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep: there should be no any problems,actually what matters,to be or not be mention?.Justice007 (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep As per Uvghifds.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not even sure "credits" is really the best way of putting this: notable works or positions, yes, but that's already incorporated into the proposed parent. This fork is both unnecessary and stifling to articles on persons who may be noteworthy for aspects of their careers other than journalism. Most of the keep comments above are non-arguments which don't address the deletion rationale (or confuse it with a merge to {{infobox writer}}, which wasn't the proposal). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep as per MouthlessBobcat. A writer and a journalist is not the same thing. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- The proposal is to replace this template with {{Infobox person}} (of which it is a subset); not {{Infobox writer}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep, template could be better distinguished from other profession-specific ones, but that's not a reason to get rid of it. Daniel Case (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Not all journalists are writers. There are also photojournalists as well. Some are videojournalists such as television news reporters, who, although most have to write their material to use on-air, their written material was not publicly-viewed prior to the advent of the Internet and social-media outlets such as Facebook. Other videojournalists are camera operators that capture images of news events.Bill S. (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- The proposal is to replace this template with {{Infobox person}} (of which it is a subset); not {{Infobox writer}}. How any journalists are not people..? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Convert to use Infobox person and gradually delete by replacing the 2 parameters as suggested. Most of the arguments above deal with the difference between a journalist and a writer but this is not what we discuss here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Don't delete this template. This is a helpful one. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is less "helpful" than {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Convert to use Infobox person as per Magioladitis. The nominator didn't propose merging this with the writer infobox and no one really favors the idea. Mackensen (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Merge It will make it easier for Wikipedia users if the infoboxes are the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.243.51 (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - no reason to delete Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- The reasons for deletion are enumerated above; please feel free to attempt to refute them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
A note to say that I've now reimplemented the template as a wrapper for {{infobox person}} in its sandbox. When this TfD is closed, the code there should be copied into the main template and then existing instances substituted to automatically update all existing articles with the extra parameters we get for free in that conversion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I've long wondered the difference between the many varieties of {{Infobox person}}. If {{Infobox journalist}} can be deleted without breaking anything, I would support the proposal for deletion (and the same goes for similar infobox templates). As Chris Cunningham says, the template's use can be stifling for articles on those persons also notable for other reasons. -- Trevj (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, Andy's been one of the main drivers in eliminating the redundancy fo sub-templates of this sort. And yes, IMO this is a strict subset of {{Infobox person}}: all of the existing parameters are accommodated in the subclassed code in the sandbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Merge (to permit redirection) into {{infobox person}} in order to ease maintenance of project and reduce editor errors e.g if using parameters from other infoboxes. If and when the redirect is in place and {{Infobox journalist}} becomes unused, I support its ultimate deletion. -- Trevj (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- keep. it is easy to understand (Jeevanjoseph1974 (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC))

[edit] February 21

[edit] 2011–12 NBA game logs

2011–12 NBA game logs

Subst and delete single-use templates (Minnesota had been removed from season article, now it's substed) per precedent at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_16#Game_logs, among others. It's just as easy (or easier) to update the season articles as the templates. Note to closer: I'm willing to help with substing. TimBentley (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Subst and delete: Per nom. Tampabay721 (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Subst and delete per previous discussions. Single use templates. Reso lute 15:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Mocca

all red links. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

delete Old and unused. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per above; the only article is the band's parent page. Gongshow ^Talk 20:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CompactDocToc

Loooong-deprecated way of adding template documentation on the template talk page, before we had {{documentation}}. Now removed from any current template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
delete Unused and obsolete. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Paleontology

Infobox which never caught on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
delete Unused and old. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem was that dinosaurs all have a taxobox that takes up the same position. Is there any way to fix that? --Kaz (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Paleontology is not unique to dinosaurs. If it is deirable to add paleological information to an article's infobox, the logical move would be to add it to {{taxobox}} directly so that all extinct or ancient species benefit from it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Support modifying {{Taxobox}}, per Chris Cunningham. 11:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
Merge to taxobox. Rich Farmbrough, 20:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC).
Delete but do NOT merge. Unused. Ancient. Redundant. The taxobox serves as a unified infobox for all taxa articles, including extant plants and animals. Most of the info in this template should be in the text as they're too variable to be on any infobox anyway (most paleo articles are not on a per species basis). The taxobox is fine as it is. Merging is not possible nor desirable.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete not merge. This sort of information belongs in the text. mgiganteus1 (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete If there is any information in this unused template that should be in the taxobox, it can be added. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Most of the information belongs in the text anyway, but if it is seen to be necessary, some of the stuff exclusive to this infobox could be merged into {{taxobox}} (with proper consensus, of course). Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Def

Unused utility template which duplicates in-build handling of definitions using the semicolon operator. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
delete Unused; template markup is greater than standard wikimarkup. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment shouldn't this be using DL lists with DT and DI ? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Daybar

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 Fang Aili (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Blanked six years ago, so obviously not doing anything of note any more. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
delete Unused and useless. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:NHLPlayoffTOC

Unused minor TOC variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
delete Unused. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Unused, unnecessary. Reso lute 15:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:American Center for Voting Rights

Unnecessary template: used on a single article, and there the existing {{Infobox organization}} seems entirely sufficient for that purpose. Robofish (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cite doi/doi:10.1371.2Fjournal.pbio.0040202

Bad title, with duplicate doi. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

speedy delete as G6: "pages unambiguously created in error" ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
speedy delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ColorTOC

Replaced by {{horizontaltoc}}, which doesn't need to hardcode the names of the sections. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep Prefer the former. As someone who watches and edits that article the former TOC is better, the hardcode names of the sections are useful...Modernist (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hardcoded names are less maintainable. {{Horizontaltoc}} gives exactly the same links as output; if its formatting needs improved (such as to remove the heading numbers) that can be worked on separately. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Chris it's a difficult article to work on - having the color names makes it a little easier to navigate. See what you can do...Modernist (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    - The colour names are still in {{horizontaltoc}}. I think the ideal layout for that template will require the numbers to be hidden, which means the site's CSS needs to be updated. I have an idea of who to ask about that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
delete, there is no need for a hardcoded TOC. Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per Thumperward and Frietjes; {{Horizontal TOC}} with class="hlist" is much more appropriate per WP:HLIST. Alarbus (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
keep {{horizontaltoc}} is new and unused, and I can see why. It includes the section numbers which are just ugly in this type of TOC. Recommend this be closed until the technical issues are resolved.
- See this version of List of colors. I can't recommend use of {{horizontaltoc}} until the numbers are suppressed.
- But, {{ColorTOC}} needs work. There is a lot of excess markup and it can be classed with hlist for accesibility. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I agree for now with User:Gadget's recommendation although keep as it is works best...Modernist (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep This template is very important and useful to allow people to easily navigate to different parts of the long list of colors article. This template should be left it the way it is. Keraunos (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. The new template also has better accessibility and standards-compliance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep new template is extremely ugly and not ready for action. It needs more work before it can replace "ColorTOC". In total, both templates are used on exactly one article. That will survive until the new template has matured. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep, for now at least. I can see a very useful future for {{horizontaltoc}} and there are good reasons for its deployment in articles where it already acceptable to editors. However, in this case I understand people thinking that its display is currently less acceptable. There is absolutely no reason at all for a rush to delete {{ColorTOC}}, it is not creating a maintenance load and it will not start taking on multiple transclusions making it difficult to get rid of later. Once it becomes unused by agreement at Talk:List of colors I am sure it can be deleted uncontroversially. Thincat (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ListOfMuseumsByUSStateTOC

A pseudo-TOC which is really a navbox, and thus duplicates the more sensibly implemented {{Museums in the US}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Appears to serve no purpose not already adequately served by {{Museums in the US}}. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ListByUSStateTOC

{{TOC US states}} but with a huge image map stuck in it. It is somewhat unlikely that we have readers who can find a state on a map without being able to name it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Appears to serve no purpose not already adequately served by {{TOC US states}}. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TOC nest right

Unused in articlespace and broken, seemingly without anyone noticing, in other namespaces for nearly a year. The niche for which this template was designed never really required it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Even if it were used, we already have standardized ToC templates that can be used instead. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:More plot

This template needs to be discussed, not deleted. Many articles that transclude this template are wrongly tagged, and they already have sufficient plot summaries. The link is to an essay within a template, not to policy, and needs to be altered. Here are transclusions as examples of the problem: [3]. Also, the "More plot" name contradicts the words and doc of this template; so a rename from "more plot" to "copyedit plot" might be in order, and help reduce incorrect usage. Note: this template was discussed in User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions#"No plot" and "more plot"; also, I must give a "thank you" to Begoon for an assistance of this message. George Ho (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment I do recommend a quick look at the discussion George links, as it explains the thinking behind this request. There are 3 main aspects we looked at:

The template should be renamed to {{copyedit plot}} or {{improve plot}} or similar, since its name is at odds with its displayed content. The word "more" may encourage unnecessary lengthening of a plot description, where "copyedit" or "improve" may not.
There are very many transclusions of this template which are unnecessary, and may, possibly encourage the addition of a long, unnecessary plot description.
The wording of the template and docs is not policy, and should be reviewed. For instance, it states that all non-fiction works should have a plot summary. Really? A summary perhaps.

I do see a valid use for this template, but I agree it needs attention to encourage proper use only. This is here rather than RM because the template needs overall discussion, and a move may not be the only solution. Begoon ^talk 06:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Please explain what you mean by "[I]t states that all non-fiction works should have a plot summary. Really? A summary perhaps." I hate to have to point out that a plot summary is, yes, a summary. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a major point, just semantics. Seems to not help describe what the tag actually wants. I'm not sure what the plot of a non-fiction work is. Maybe the work tells a story with a plot, maybe not. As I say, not very important, but possibly confusing to dumb editors like me :-). Begoon ^talk 06:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Duh! Sorry, I missed the "non-" part. Yeah, this template should not be used on non-fiction works. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedily close: Someone suggested deletion, so speedy keeping on a process basis is off the table. This is a WP:RM issue, and should be discussed on the template's talk page. TfD is the wrong venue, and no clear proposal we can support or oppose has been made here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought that might be a response, but since there were several possible outcomes, of which deletion could still be one, I didn't feel it would hurt. I'm sure George would be happy to move the discussion if it is deemed out of process. Begoon ^talk 06:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not that it hurts, it's just premature. This should easily be resolvable at the template's own talk page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair point. Seems we had xFD "stuck" in our minds after the start of the linked discussion, and forgot it was now really an RM as you say. Begoon ^talk 07:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, this should certainly be kept as a TfD, because the template in question should be killed with fire. If there is one single aspect of Wikipedia which does not need improving, it is out coverage of plot material! The potential for misuse here is simply too great to warrant its existence. Nor is a move to "copyedit plot" or the like necessary, when {{copyedit}} already takes a section flag. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that's the sort of comment I was hoping for in wider discussion. Good point with {{copyedit}} and the section flag. That sounds like a good solution. One of the options we discussed was deletion and use of another template, but we didn't spot that. Too simple, I guess. I think that works for me. Begoon ^talk 07:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

See Template talk:Copy edit; the template is already being abused almost as badly as {{Cleanup}}. Proposing a "hey, we can just convert all of these to yet more cases of {{copyedit}}" pseudo-solution is contraindicated. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As a prolific {{copyedit}} spammer myself, I'm not particular opposed to it being used as a catch-all "rough diamond requires attention" tag. I don't see why {{copyedit|plot section}} is suboptimal for the use case described. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I repeat: "See Template talk:Copy edit". Objections have been raised by people who care a lot more than I do. Heh. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Anybody here can vote delete or keep if possible. In fact, the goal of this discussion is to discuss; voting can be optional but beneficial. --George Ho (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep: This exists for a reason. It is not a general "drive-by tagging" pointless template like {{cleanup}} (I can't believe that thing survived TfD again), nor does it flag something so uncommon and peculiar that having a template for it is pointless (like original research with regard to a coat of arms, a template presently at TfD). While we do have {{All plot}} for excessive plot summary fanwankery, which certainly does happen, the clear fact of the matter is that an enormous number of articles on works of fiction in various media have plot summaries that are basically one-liners or little more, and do not serve our readers' encyclopedic interests. If the template needs to be renamed or have its wording altered, be my guest and have at it. Deletion would be a mistake. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've had a look through the existing transclusions and I really don't buy that this is a pressing enough problem to warrant a cleanup tag, or indeed any central action at all. Lemonade Mouth is nearly all plot, though it lacks a narrative. That's a matter of general copyediting. The Accident Man and Assassin (Cain novel) contain absolutely perfectly-sized blurbs for their overall lengths. Ingenious Pain, Outlaw (novel), One Morning Like a Bird and King's Man could do with a little plot expansion, but again they explain the key plot element in each case and some of the themes while devoting a far larger amount of time to the much more important aspect of the cultural impact of the works. The vast majority of our coverage of fiction is weighted completely the opposite way and ignores the cultural impact of fictional works in favour of droning on about what happens in them. We should do everything in our power not to encourage that any more than we already do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That some editors have misapplied the template where it isn't appropriate is not an actual argument for deletion. The fact (which I concede, I assure you) that many of our articles on fiction lean too much toward {{all plot}} does not mean that the opposite sort of article, with a "user-hateful" level of near-nothing plot summary, are not also problematic and somehow don't need to be fixed. It's an apples/oranges logic issue. Just because hypoglycemia is far more prevalent than hyperglycemia doesn't mean we don't test for and treat the latter condition. PS: The template is relatively recent so it is to be expected that it use is not yet widespread and stabilized. The template was not "advertised" at the Pump or otherwise, so usage is naturally low and spotty so far. Again, not a real rationale for deletion. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what is "user hateful" about short plot sections. The truly aenemic can be tagged with the existing {{expand section}}, which does not come with implications of an expected minimum verbosity for plot sections specifically as a new tag does. {{Spoiler}} might be long gone, but if you asked the average editor (as opposed to, say, the average high school student with a late homework assignment) whether our plot sections should be less or more detailed in general, I'd hope for the answer to be "less". Blurb-style plot sections should be encouraged IMO, especially over user-generated narratives. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so how do we get that goal while also getting at the goal of fixing "It is a movie about a guy in Manhattan who falls in love and then they move to New Jersey and a lot of funny stuff happens" so-called plot summaries? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I simply don't believe this is a common enough problem (especially compared to the opposite issue) to warrant a separate cleanup tag. {{plot}} specifically links to a part of the MoS where we explain what we want from our plot sections and why too much detail is bad. We have no such advice for plot sections which happen to be too short, because hey, people intuitively seem to grasp that we should make an effort to explain the plot of a fictional work in its article. Usually with both hands. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As the person who added the tag to Lemonade Mouth, I'd like to point out that I couldn't find a more fitting tag to explain the situation that was going on when I added it. A well-meaning editor added TONS of info on the characters, and I discovered this. I added an {{All plot}} tag to the article itself (since it is entirely plot), and I added {{more plot}} and {{overly detailed}} to the plot and characters sections, respectively. Since I haven't read the book, I wasn't sure what was important to the plot and didn't feel comfortable moving/deleting information unless it seemed/was obviously unimportant/trivial (i.e. "Olivia carries a Scooby Doo backpack", etc.). - Purplewowies (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Weak Keep, on the same basis as SMcCandlish above: that this template is misused does not mean it is useless, and some of our articles do have excessively brief plot summaries. I don't think there are any precise guidelines on the subject, but clearly a few sentences to summarise the plot of an epic, multivolume novel saga would be too short, just as many detailed paragraphs about one short story would be too long. I say 'weak' keep because I take Chris Cunningham's point above that {{expand section}} could do this job just as well, but there is arguably some value to being able to identify the articles specifically lacking plot detail. Robofish (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: If {{expand section}}'s (or whatever's) documentation explicitly provided such a case as an example, I probably wouldn't have an objection to phasing this template out. I really couldn't care less about the code or the page name, just about article improvement. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Would "phasing this template out" imply deletion? If not, what would it? --George Ho (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply: Yes. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 02:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Split to {{Improve plot}} (maybe), {{Copyedit section}}, {{Hook}} and {{Expand section}} Rich Farmbrough, 20:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC).

"Many articles that transclude this template... " there are a grand total of 24! And "A journalist who covered the Vietnam War becomes mentally unstable and goes on a spree of robbery and murder." seems a perfectly good candidate for both more and improved plot coverage. Rich Farmbrough, 20:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC).

Yeah - "many" was a bit strong - if you see the linked discussion, I looked at the first 10 and thought it could probably be removed from 6. But that's subjective too. I am concerned, as George, and Chris, that there is a lot of 'drivel' already masquerading as plot summaries, or masquerading as 'character summaries', so I'm sensitive to the concerns about encouraging more. I also agree that there can be a need to tag some short/badly written plot sections. I'm equivocating but leaning towards rename to {{Improve plot}} and clarification of template wording/usage rather than deletion outright. Begoon ^talk 02:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Characters on The West Wing

Delete. I have redirected some of the articles with issues. Some of the links were already redirs. The template is now superfluous due to the very few remaining useful links. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - boldly blanking through redirecting? Then trying to delete the nav template? There are innumerable of these types of nav templates for television shows, and quite a few other things. - jc37 07:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Lists of characters may be appropriate in certain circumstances. Organisational charts for fictional US Administrations masquerading as navboxes, however, are not appropriate in any circumstances. The navigational value of this template is minimal, and thus it is unnecessary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Just as useful as any of the others in Category:Drama television navigational boxes. - jc37 07:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    - No it isn't. All the organisational fluff and duplication makes it far harder to use as an actual navigation tool than the standard navboxes. If all that cruft were stripped out and it reformatted as a normal navbox like {{Grey's Anatomy}} it might be appropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
      - I click a link. What's "harder" about it? - jc37 18:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 19#Template:Mama's Family for directly comparable "redirect and TfD" issue. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently relisted on the 27th. - jc37 18:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep, but restructure. Most of the links here exist as separate articles rather than redirects, which means a navigational template is useful. But this template is made less useful by its structure that lists the characters based on their role in the show, resulting in some characters being linked more than once. If kept, this template should be restructured into a simple list of characters arranged alphabetically rather than by their fictional position. That would make it clearer that this is a Wikipedia navigational template rather than a guide to the show. (Compare {{GalacticaCharacters}} for an example of what this should look like.) Robofish (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete no matter how the content is linked it's not necessary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Kevin Harvick Inc.

This navbox is no longer used; the team it was for is now defunct, and the navbox itself contains no "past" info, just now-out-of-date 2011 info with no provision for "past" data. All drivers have moved on to other teams; there is no longer any need for the box to be kept. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom - unused template for defunct team. Robofish (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment/Delete Is the information in the navbox included in the main article? A cursory look suggests yes, but there may be something in the box that ought to be in the article but isn't. I support deletion conditionally, because care needs to be taken not to lose notable information. The team itself is notable, since notability is not transient. - Jorgath (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:THBSOIR

~~Template with a smell of copyvio from the mentioned source.~~ Usefull template???? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Striked out the copyvio. Hopelessly wrong argument. My apologies. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Renomination: It is not a frivolous nomination, but badly worded. My main concern is the content, the Top 100 Ticket Selling Station. Why that choice? There are so many train stations in India, that this is an almost random choice. What is the added value of this template? Next a template of the Top 100 Loss Making Stations? Or a template of the Top 100 Where Trains Are Passing Without Stopping? I absolutely don's see the added value of template, hence my question if it is a useful template. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep: Its not a copy vio! The website belongs to Indian Railways and the page mentions the top 100 profitable stations in India. This is a general information. Now, we all can create stub templates here and there about major stations in India without any proof and what I provided is an actual proof. The site is for general purpose ie for passengers to know about their trains and It is maintained by IR. After all its not a book of an author for you to nominate the template on account of copy vio. Kindly check my contributions. Now providing reference in Wikipedia is such a big crime, thats it, its my last edit here!!! arun talk 04:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Please read WP:DIVA. Threatening to quit Wikipedia doesn't impress anyone, does not make your argument seem stronger, and will not affect the outcome of any debate here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wikimate, I am not here to impress anyone or to show off! My concern is just that today Wikipedia is just limited in hands of few "privileged" users who command things and do it their way and do not care for other editors contributions. This is not how Wikipedia used to be when I created my account and started contributing! Those words were just my frustration. Coming to the point, yes, this template is useful. It lists the top 100 earning stations under Indian Railways with reference! Might be the heading needs to be changed. But the template is 100% useful. arun talk 16:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy keep per WP:SK criterion 2a (frivolous nomination). Those who do not understand copyright law should not nominate things for deletion based on copyright arguments. Lists of bare facts like names of train stations are not subject to copyright. (IANAL, but I worked for a non-profit law firm for 9 years, one of the major specialties of which was copyright law, so I do in fact know what I'm talking about.) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment At a minimum, this needs documentation so an uniformed editor can understand the use and criteria. Ditto for the title and the template name.
Comment: The "top-x" ranking of things seems to be one of the most common classification systems we have. Seven wonders of the world, American Top 40, Top ten list, Fortune 500, etc. Why is this one different? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And those are notable enough for most folks to understand as well as having articles. "Top 100 booking stations of Indian Railways": top in traffic, ticket sales, awards? Not enough context for me to tell if "booking station" is the name of the sales office or if it refers to ticket sales. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

So the main problem seems to be naming method used! well, I guess if we change the name of the template to "Most Profitable Railway Stations in India", then common people would understand! arun talk 16:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: If you refer history as well, we never keep the count of losers, for example in Olympics, we do take a list of 1st, 2nd and third but never the last ones. The most profitable stations in India needs to be recognized. If I go by the way of my friend who nominated the template for deletion, we need to seriously reconsider some of other templates such as Top ten tennis players etc. arun talk 16:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Still, the chosen 100 stations seems a bit like a random choice with no real reason other then a website for it. What is the added value of this template? A Top 100 of busiest stations makes more sense. A Top 5 (or Top 10) busiest stations per state even more. A busy station seems more important (to me) then a busy ticket desk. It is certainly not the case that I want to destroy the template or don't appreciate Indian railway stations, but the plain choice of stations. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That is not just any other website! It is the website of the Indian Railways. Those are top hundred booking stations. Top booking stations means top profitable stations and top profitable stations means major rail hubs in India! It is Indian Railways that is recognizing the stations as important, not me or some website. It is not a random choice as well. India has millions of such rail hubs, but these are top 100. This perfectly makes sense! The only problem and my mistake, I admit, is the template heading, which of-course can be changed like " Major Rail Hubs in India' or so forth! arun talk 16:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Has reliable sources. --92.14.176.199 (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Old discussions

[edit] February 20

[edit] Template:Hurricane season bar gap

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 withdrawn by nominator. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

pointless additional markup with a dubious aesthetic gain and a negative impact to output readability and accessibility. If additional whitespace is necessary it should be added automatically by CSS rather than manually with junk HTML. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy keep. That's a completely nonsensical argument. The template is there to save on markup (and thus reduce clutter) and increase accessibility. Writing

...
{{Hurricane season bar button
 |intensity=storm
 |stormname=Jose
 |strength=Tropical Storm
 |linkname=Tropical Storm Jose (2005)
 |storminitial=J
}}
</tr><tr>
{{Hurricane season bar button
 |intensity=cat5
 |stormname=Katrina
 |strength=Category 5
 |linkname=Hurricane Katrina
 |storminitial=K
}}
...

(which can happen in multiple times per template for active seasons) instead of

...
{{Hurricane season bar button
 |intensity=storm
 |stormname=Jose
 |strength=Tropical Storm
 |linkname=Tropical Storm Jose (2005)
 |storminitial=J
}}
{{hurricane season bar gap}}
{{Hurricane season bar button
 |intensity=cat5
 |stormname=Katrina
 |strength=Category 5
 |linkname=Hurricane Katrina
 |storminitial=K
}}
...

Is neither cleaner, nor more user-friendly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy keep per WP:SK criterion 2a (frivolous nomination). It's part of a template system, and this sort of thing (e.g. {{collapse bottom}}, {{refend}}, {{glossend}}, etc.) is completely normal. Wikipedia editors should not have to learn HTML, much less learn how to interpret MediaWiki template code so well that they can figure out what HTML is missing in order to use templates. It's everyday WP practice to provide template "wrappers" for HTML geekery like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- D'oh, I misread the output. I'd somehow assumed it simply output a blank line, rather than being a new row marker. Happy to withdraw. Erm, but less of the accusations of the nom being "unquestionably vandalism or disruption", thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's WP:SK 2, not WP:SK 2a. It's unfortunate that they're nested that way, but I didn't write that page. No implication of vandalism implied. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 11:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Grey's Anatomy Season 1

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Almost ~~All~~all the episodes of this template have been redirected.Curb Chain (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

delete, not the way we usually do things. the succession links in the infobox are enough. Frietjes (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:McGuinness Flint

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

almost all redlinks. Frietjes (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete unless articles are made for the redlinks, and given the article's shortness this seems unlikely. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Macadoshis

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

no parent article, and almost all redlinks or redirects. Frietjes (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Independent

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. speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent creation, no reason why a single link needs to be a template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fix up article and delete as test edit. The only transclusion in article space (see Born to Die (Lana Del Rey album)#Critical reception) has the following: <ref name="independent">{{independent |class=album | label=Lana Del Rey – ''Born to Die'' > Review |last=Gill |first=Andy |accessdate=Feb 20, 2012}}</ref> which seems to be the debris left behind following this series of GF edits. Unfortunately it's hidden a valid pre-existing ref which is also named <ref name="independent">.

I've seen something like this before - new editor, unfamiliar with wikicode, sees that many refs are of the form <ref name=something>{{cite ...}}</ref> and thinks that the name and double braces are both mandatory parts of the ref. They wish to cite from The Independent, so put <ref name=Independent>{{Independent}}</ref>. Usually this is the end of the story: but they may look at the refs section and wonder why it's come up red, so click on it and find that they "need" to create a page. In goes the URL, job done. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Fukushima I nuclear accidents/about

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

unused, hardcoded hatnote. Frietjes (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Subst into Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, where it was used. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

why would we substitute it into an article that already has a hatnote? Frietjes (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Because it should replace the existing hatnote. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete hardcoded instance of {{about}} that was specifically designed for use on a single page, which no longer exists. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment page was moved, look at the move log for the base name Fukushima I nuclear accidents 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:CompactTOCrefs

Hardcoded instances of {{compactTOC8}}. Recommend that these be substituted, as the code is simple enough to be included directly in the relevant articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Subst and delete per nom. I created CompactTOC8 to be flexible specifically so this kind of junk would stop being created. This !vote applies also to all the others of this sort nominated below. (Actually, CompactTOC8 was intended to replace all the other compacttoc templates, too, and eventually reside at Template:CompactTOC, and this was decided at TfD several years ago as what to do, but no one ever did it, and not being an admin, I can't do it, because most of them are full-protected). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's precisely what I'm aiming to do once this batch of nominations is complete. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Finally! (It's been just short of 5 years.) NB: Just to be clear, I'm talking about replacement of {{CompactTOC2}}, etc., too, not just the weird ones you're TfDing here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete all per nom. I'd prefer if the existing templates were replaced with the new one rather than substed, but that may be too much hassle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as above. Completely redundant, as long as all the instances get replaced. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Lockheed Constellation production list TOC

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unused, and isn't a TOC anyway: it's a proto-sidebar for content which really doesn't need it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as unused and replaceable with standardized templates even if it were. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:TOCDecades

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

single-use hardcoded horizontal TOC. The sole transclusion would not be adversely affected by using a standard TOC layout or {{TOClimit}} instead. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete: One-transclusion templates serve no purpose, and this is replaceable with standardized templates even if it were used. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:TOCDecades50

Extremely short horizontal hardcoded TOCs. Even if they weren't redundant to {{horizontaltoc}}, articles will not be adversely affected by having a vertical TOC for such a short list. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete all. Easily replaceable with standardized templates; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CompactEMD

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hard-coded, single-use TOC template which simply duplicates the section headers in a horizontal format. Redundant to {{horizontaltoc}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:CompactTOC8CYM

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unused minor variant of {{compactTOC8}}, which already has a gazillion options. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Easily replaceable with standardized templates even if it were used; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:GeoTemplate/TOC

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unused minor TOC variant (contrary to the documentation, it isn't used at {{GeoTemplate}}). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Easily replaceable with standardized template even if it were used; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:MTGkeywordsTOC

Single-use TOC template which is probably too detailed for its own good, with per-paragraph links. Deleting this and using something like {{TOClimit}} to keep the TOC length sane would not adversely affect the browseability of the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the complicated TOC is that the article's intended browseability is for the reader to get immediately to the keyword they're interested in. The TOC condenses the list of keywords into one list, whereas TOC limit|3 splits them up by category (and occupies a lot of vertical space), and TOC limit|2 has no keywords in it at all. I'll look into {{CompactTOC8}} later, as it looks roughly like what I want, aside from that I don't want A...Z links. But I do believe that removing the keyword links would adversely affect the browseability of the article. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. The A...Z links are killable if you want to kill them. That said, the idea that every single keyword in this glossary should individually appear in the ToC is highly questionable. I can't think of any other article like that on the entire system, including very rich glossary articles like Glossary of cue sports terms. The MOS:GLOSS draft guideline leans strongly away from this sort of thing, and in fact Template:CompactTOC8 was developed (by me, so I should know :-) specifically for alphabetic list/glossary articles of this sort. There is nothing magically (no pun intended) special about MTG that would require a ToC so bloated no one will actually read it. Readers can get immediately to the keyword they are interested in by clicking on "D" or "M" or whatever, and finding the entry there. If this problematic and cleanup-tagged-to-death article ever had such an overwhelming number of "D"- or "M"-initial entries that it was actually difficult to find an entry, the template supports more arbitrary usage, such as "Da–Dn" and "Do–Dz". It's a short article as such lists go, so this will never arise anyway. If CompactTOC8 is good enough for a big glossary page like the one I just linked to, then it's perfectly fine for this MTG page full of WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE violations, while it still exists, which might not be long, since I doubt I'm the only one who's noticed it's non-encyclopedic trivia. PS: Even if what this erstwhile template is doing were ideal, it would still be subst'd and deleted, since it's a single-transclusion template and thus serves no purpose as its own page in the template namespace. Dang, I need a nap now. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The keywords aren't listed in alphabetical order entirely, since we've grouped them into categories. It may be a good idea to reconsider that, of course, and I may do that.

This isn't really the place to discuss the four cleanup tags Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) added to that page, nor whether it satisfies or violates WP:NOT. Please redirect such discussion to its talk page. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TOCMonths3

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unused minor TOC variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:TOCContinents

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unused minor TOC variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:C20YearTOCship

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unused and overwrought TOC layout variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:TOC US states 1

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unused minor TOC variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:TOC US 48 states 2

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added a 48states=yes flag to {{TOC US states 2}}, which eliminates the need for a new template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:TOCPremSeasons

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unused minor TOC variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:AFC Challenge Cup squads

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:AFC Challenge Cup squads with Template:AFC Challenge Cup.
Both are related and would be easier/better to have just one template in the same manner as Template:Africa Cup of Nations. Banana Fingers (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge. No reason to have redundant templates, and the "Africa Cup of Nations" template seems like a good model. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Merge per nominator, though it seems that the information is already duplicated. Aslbsl (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Nonumtoc

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unused and superfluous alternative TOC layout. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:CompactTOC8/Dev1

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unused and overwrought variant of a template which already has enough features to do nearly anything. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:CONMEBOL TOC

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hugely overwrought manual TOCs which do nothing but lay out the present contents (hard-coded) in a horizontal rather than vertical list. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

~~Delete CONMEBOL on the grounds that the list is not long enough to justify the level of bloat in the template. Keep UEFA and CAF:~~ There is good reason to avoid a vertical TOC when you're talking about 50+ entries. —WFC— 15:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that it's hard-coded. I've flung up an absurdly quick example of a way to do this automatically at {{horizontaltoc}} which is already about 80% of the way to obviating the need for this sort of TOC. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom, as shown alternatives can be found. Giant Snowman 12:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Speedy delete CONMEBOL and UEFA under CSD G7, per demonstration that more economical alternatives exist. I didn't create the CAF template though. —WFC— 20:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:FGC stations

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, non-admin closure (nominator has retracted the nomination). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

None of the articles about FGC stations actually use this system of naming. Liam98 7 12:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep because when {{s-line}} has |system=FGC, it relies on the existence of {{FGC stations}}. If the generated station names are wrong, either (i) amend Template:FGC stations so that it does follow the appropriate system of naming; or (ii) create suitable redirects. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Liam98 7 13:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I was wrong to propose this deletion Liam98 7 13:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] CFL team seasons navboxes

Only duplicates a section of their parent navboxes, (Template:BC Lions, Template:Calgary Stampeders, Template:Edmonton Eskimos, Template:Hamilton Tiger-Cats, Template:Montreal Alouettes, Template:Ottawa Renegades, Template:Ottawa Rough Riders, Template:Saskatchewan Roughriders, Template:Toronto Argonauts, Template:Winnipeg Blue Bombers). 117Avenue (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. The "parent navboxes," for the most part, show only CFL seasons (since 1958) whereas the seasons navboxes show a much broader range. Some clubs go back as far as the 1870s, and to include all of those seasons in the "parent navbox" would just add clutter. Cmm3 (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think one big list would be more clutter than two boxes. I should have made this a merge request, not a deletion one. 117Avenue (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Having two navboxes when one would suffice is much worse clutter. -DJSasso (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Other North American professional sports teams have the same setup (National Football League, National Hockey League, National Basketball Association). Worse comes to worse, I would prefer taking out the "seasons" sections from the parent boxes and keeping the seasons boxes. Cmm3 (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it in the NHL and NBA, but it looks like the NFL is just as bad. 117Avenue (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No vote. There is no reason for two navboxes to present the same information. However, I am inclined to keep, as the team navboxes are a complete joke, IMNSHO. POV sections ("Important people", redundant links, non-links. As with Cmm3, I personally would rather remove the seasons, division champs and Grey Cup wins) from the main team navboxes. I think two navboxes that are focused on related topics is far, far superior to a giant omnibus navbox that hinders navigation by being such a mess. Reso lute 20:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Cmm3's rationales. However if the unique information were merged into the parent box, then that may be a good way to reduce clutter. If other leagues currently employ the same strategy, it may be best to create a broader discussion, rather than just changing the Canadian navboxes. Aslbsl (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Lumpkin County, Georgia

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

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Textbook WP:NENAN. Navigates only two towns. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Every county in the United States has navboxes, and there's no reason to make this one different. Moreover, there are twenty-four populated places in the county per the GNIS, so we can write twenty-two more articles that could be placed here. Finally, we delete things based on policy or established guidelines, not based on essays. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Basically what Nyttend said. But I'd prefer more links in it—even if they were redlinks. Killiondude (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - I agree with Nyttend-thank you-RFD (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - part of a scheme; and no doubt more places will attain articles in time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:NDP Leaders

Included in Template:NDP, along with much more. 117Avenue (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment perhaps it should be expanded to include provincial leaders? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the relation, would someone want to navigate from David Lewis (politician) to Lorne Calvert? 117Avenue (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why we would need 12 NDP templates, one for each province, which contains provincial leaders, and a national one. Don't you think one would navigate from one provincial NDP leader to another for the same province? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is why each province has their own box. 117Avenue (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of a Template:NDP New Brunswick, or similar. I don't see any template listing the past and present leaders of the provincial parties. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:New Brunswick NDP Leaders, see the other current leaders for the others. 117Avenue (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Weird, those aren't used on the NDP New Brunswick or similar party articles... perhaps they should become party templates for the provincial party, like NDP is for the national party. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Redundant. As to expanding the template to include all leaders from all provinces, I don't see the value. As it is, I find that such templates are usually only used to spam low value links to the end of an article (the Wikipedia equivalent to a Google bomb). In my view, it is barely relevant to link the leader of the Alberta ND's in the 1970s to the current leader. It is completely irrelevant to link the leader of the Alberta ND's in the 1970s to that of the Manitoba ND's of the 1980s. The more links you add to a navbox, the less value it holds. Keep the provinces separated. Reso lute 15:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep or Merge into the main template. Perhaps I'm missing it, but I don't see the past leaders in the main template. This seems to be standard practice in the others that I've come across (Template:UK Labour Party, Template:Democratic Party (United States)). Aslbsl (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Does your browser lack a find function? 117Avenue (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Rushden & Diamonds F.C. squad

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The club no longer exists so this template serves no purpose. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: That the entity has ceased to exist doesn't mean that articles about it won't. Are you certain that the template will never serve its intended purpose? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Our guidelines on the use of playing squad navboxes suggest they should only be placed on current members of a squad (we don't have per-season versions). As the club no longer exists, it no longer has any players, and those players it did have have (hopefully) registered with other teams and thus been added to new navboxes. We've a long precedent of the same with other dissolved clubs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom, obsolete. Giant Snowman 10:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Completed discussions

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

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

[edit] Closing discussions

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

[edit] To review

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

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 16
- Template:Infobox England and Wales civil parish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) should be replaced as noted in the TfD. JPG-GR (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 5
- {{Infobox AFL player}} should be merged into {{Infobox AFL biography}}, preserving the format of {{Infobox AFL biography}}.
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 May 20
- Template:Infobox hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) into Template:Infobox building (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - JPG-GR (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  - I have done some research, and started a talk at:Template talk:Infobox hotel . -DePiep (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 6
- Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - JPG-GR (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13
- {{Infobox Barcelona station}} should be merged to {{Infobox station}}
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13
- {{Infobox Spain station}} should be merged to {{Infobox station}}
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 22
- Merge {{Incomplete}} into {{Expand further}}
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 19
- Merge {{Ship infobox request}} into {{WikiProject Ships}}
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 20
- Merge {{AFC Challenge Cup squads}} with {{AFC Challenge Cup}}

[edit] To convert

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

None currently

[edit] To substitute

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

None currently

[edit] To orphan

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

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 7
- Template:Infobox Chicagoland municipality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

None currently

[edit] Archive and Indices

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

[edit] How to use this page

[edit] What not to propose for discussion here

[edit] Reasons to delete a template

[edit] Listing a template

[edit] Discussion

Contents

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] February 28

[edit] Template:The Programming Block Barnstar

[edit] Single ship class templates

[edit] February 27

[edit] Template:FreeToUse

[edit] Template:British medical journal BMJ — 13 August 2011, Volume 343, Number 7819

[edit] Template:AP

[edit] Template:Cite local authority

[edit] Template:Citation parameter legend

[edit] Template:Cite GIS

[edit] Template:Adt

[edit] Template:Infobox vodka

[edit] Template:Cool World

[edit] Template:Citation metadata

[edit] Template:Cite/author

[edit] Template:Cite EU regulation

[edit] Template:New page

[edit] Template:Mama's Family

[edit] February 26

[edit] Template:Placebo singles

[edit] Template:UnsignedAFC

[edit] February 25

[edit] Template:PD-US-LOC

[edit] Template:The Smashup

[edit] February 24

[edit] Expert-subject and Expert-subject-multiple

[edit] Template:Expand further

[edit] Template:Golden Threads F.C.

[edit] Template:Dalek video games

[edit] Template:Minnesota Lynx first round draft picks

[edit] Template:Official statistics

[edit] Template:1983-84 Stanley Cup Champions navbox

[edit] Template:Richard Petty Milestone Wins

[edit] Inline relevance cleanup tags

[edit] Template:Isshin-ryū organizations

[edit] Template:List of Italian cheeses TOC

[edit] Template:List of roads in Toronto/eastwestTOC

[edit] Template:Glossary of boiler terminology/TOC

[edit] Template:TOC Philippine regions

[edit] Template:PlayManiaTOC

[edit] Template:Fake TOC

[edit] Template:Infobox Human Rights Abuses

[edit] Template:Infobox Pro Football retired

[edit] Template:Infobox Canadian

[edit] February 23

[edit] Template:Service awards/year

[edit] Template:Be bold

[edit] Template:JEL code

[edit] Template:Deportivo Independiente Medellin squad

[edit] Template:Uw-dontremovewarnings

[edit] Template:Sustainable energy

[edit] Template:Convert to Infobox Settlement

[edit] Template:Cleanup-tracklist

[edit] Template:Pbrk

[edit] Template:Syrian Air Force

[edit] February 22

[edit] Template:Harvest (band)

[edit] Template:Kavalactones

[edit] Template:B.A.P

[edit] Template:Infobox MLB manager

[edit] Phoenix Suns game logs

[edit] Template:Ann Township

[edit] Template:Jennette McCurdy

[edit] Template:Sleepthief

[edit] Template:Infobox journalist

[edit] February 21

[edit] 2011–12 NBA game logs

[edit] Template:Mocca

[edit] Template:CompactDocToc

[edit] Template:Infobox Paleontology

[edit] Template:Def

[edit] Template:Daybar