Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

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

Closing instructions

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

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

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

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

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

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

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

Listing a template[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can add up to 20 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

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

{{subst:catfd2|category name}}
III Notify users.
You generally should notify the creator of template and it is also considered polite to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:

to the talk pages of these users, as well as any related WikiProjects (look on the template's talk page) that do not use Article alerts, so that they are aware of the discussion. (There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: you should write a personal message in these cases.)

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

Discussion[edit]

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

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

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

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

December 25[edit]


December 24[edit]

Template:LIN TV[edit]

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

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

December 23[edit]

Template:Jim Carrey sidebar[edit]

Template:Jim Carrey sidebar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

With only three links that all appear in the main article, this template is redundant. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Serbian Royal Regalia[edit]

Template:Serbian Royal Regalia (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

None of the entries have a standalone article, but are included in the Serbian Royal Regalia article. Zoupan 23:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe those should be created? All are important... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 12:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:LVPosseRoster[edit]

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

This navbox should be deleted because (a) approximately two thirds of the included links are red links, and navboxes exist to navigate among existing articles, (b) there is a long established consensus among the sports WikiProjects that only championship teams merit a navbox (and then only for the season roster of the championship), and (c) most all-time rosters for sports teams are prohibitively large. This navbox is a bad precedent all around. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Integrated development environments for .NET[edit]

Template:Integrated development environments for .NET (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:.NET Framework (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Integrated development environments for .NET with Template:.NET Framework.
Actually, Wonderfl has already added the main entries of this template to {{.NET Framework‎‎}}. I thought perhaps it is a good idea to complete the merger. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - I added all of the items to .NET Framework. Wonderfl (reply) 18:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:A.C. Siena squad[edit]

Template:A.C. Siena squad (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Since the company folded (as well as team from the same town is in amateur level, the template was no longer needed. Matthew_hk tc 09:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Hidden multi-line[edit]

Template:Hidden multi-line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

no longer needed after I added the |multiline=y option to {{hidden}}. you can find the articles where I replaced it here. Frietjes (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

December 22[edit]

Template:Infobox hymn[edit]

Template:Infobox hymn (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Infobox musical composition (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox hymn with Template:Infobox musical composition.
Similar coverage; the musical composition box is better designed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I think an infobox for musical compositions without an image inclusion option largely preferable, so if the merge results in a template that no longer allows images (like is the case for the current template:Infobox hymn) I have no objection, otherwise I oppose strongly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: No need for two closely related infoboxes. Option to add an image is crucial to all infobox designs, now let's not be silly; nothing would look stupider than an image immediately above or below but not IN an infobox. Montanabw(talk) 17:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: There is indeed no need for two closely related infoboxes. The musical composition box, which I have used for the about 40 Bruckner's motets and other religious works, is better designed. I agree with Montanabw that the option to add an image is crucial to the infobox design. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge: No need to have an Infobox with a subset of options. Infobox musical composition supports more options. Bgwhite (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Less is more in this case. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge: it's pointless to have a template just to force the omission of parameters that are already optional in the other. An editor can (almost) as easily change the choice of template as add or subtract a parameter. Just have the richer template and keep the parameters optional. --Stfg (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the template richer in options, could not have said it better than Stfg, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

December 21[edit]

Template:Adobe Flash Sidebar[edit]

Template:Adobe Flash Sidebar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

This template is redundant to Template:Adobe Flash which existed when the author created this one. The nominee only causes linkbombing and WP:REPEATLINK being broken. The number of links on this template is less, i.e. only Adobe software are listed, but that exactly the problem: It results in POV treatment of Adobe. Fleet Command (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. Also, we should favour footer navboxes over this, sidebar, style, as logic dictates that most people will want to use them after, not before, reading the article on which they sit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep the sidebar since it highlights the most important tools and formats on the Flash Platform, while the footer introduces hundreds of minor and insignificant applications and formats that obscure the important ones. There are other examples of duplicate navboxes. See Template:Barack_Obama and Template:Barack Obama sidebar, where the entire list of related articles are listed in the footer navbox, and the most prominent or important articles listed in the sidebar. I have added the only 2 other major tools into the sidebar (FD & FDT). -- Wonderfl (reply) 19:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Hello, author of the template. You said: "it highlights the most important tools and formats on the Flash Platform". Are you sure? Because seems to me besides Adobe products, it only lists article that you yourself wrote. In addition, per WP:N only most important tools and formats can have Wikipedia articles, so everything that you didn't list there is equally important. Also you said "There are other examples of duplicate navboxes" which is the same as other stuff exists; the answer is: If other stuff shouldn't exists, delete other stuff too. Fleet Command (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Actually I started almost none of the articles, However, I have been actively contributing to all Flash-related articles. I'm not presenting a biased overview. For example Stage3D and Away3D, which I majorly contributed to are not included. I have only presented the biggest and most influential tools in each category. -- Wonderfl (reply) 20:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • If some of the items in the navbox are more sigificant than others, they can be highlighted by emboldening, or placed in the first line. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I concede. The argument could go on and on, and I see its no use having a duplicate navbox. Does someone have a script to remove it from all the pages? Wonderfl (reply) 08:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Indian state government[edit]

Template:Infobox Indian state government (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Infobox legislature (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Indian state government with Template:Infobox legislature.
Largely redundant; the Indian box (which has just 49 transclusions) has a judiciary section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Strongly Oppose this The current UK house of commons template is much better as it shows the breakdown of each party in a much neater way and the template is easier to understand. I don't know the technical side of it but changing it seems pointless to me and would annoy me greatly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.77.86 (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • What does the current UK house of commons template have to do with this? It's unaffected by this proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox astro object[edit]

Template:Infobox astro object (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (16 transclusions)
Template:Infobox cluster (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (160 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox astro object with Template:Infobox cluster.
Most instances of the "astro object" template are on articles about clusters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose We would then lose a template for astronomical objects that do not have specific template for itself. And we have many cluster articles, so it should have its own infobox template, and should not be merged into astro object either. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • No, we would not. We would have one template suitable for use for both clusters and other objects. The requirement for separate infoboxes in contingent on the necessary parameters, not the number of instances (which, at 160, is in any case quite small). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Your proposal nomination doesn't indicate which way the merger is to proceed, (such as merging astro objects into cluster). Merger into the generic will greatly complicate parameterizing open star clusters and consistency between the various star cluster templates. The generic template should not support parameters for values for a specific type. Template maintenance should be open to members of thw wikiproject, not so restricted as to not have members available to maintain the wikiproject's own templates. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
        • The nomination doesn't indicate which way the merger is to proceed, because that is something for this discussion (note: it is a discussion, not a vote) to decide. Nor is this necessarily a question of merging one template into another; we could, for example, merge both templates into a new one, with a new name. Or we could merge the parameters of Infobox astro object into Infobox cluster, hypothetically supposing the later had better technical features, but then give the resultant template a new name, or call it "Infobox astro object". And note that these templates are not owned by any wikiproject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional support – it may be, as long as there are other templates for other unknown objects. For instance, Hanny's Voorwerp. SkyFlubbler (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • There are many more object types than we have specific infobox templates for, and not every object currently has an infobox, so if we eliminate the generic box, we will no longer have an infobox to use on such articles. We do not have a void infobox AFAIK, for instance, nor one for LQGs, black holes, objects of unknown character, etc. While we have many open star cluster articles, so should easily be able to support a separate infobox type for its own articles. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose – "Most instances of the 'astro object' template are on articles about clusters" means the original editors didn't use the right template (probably b/c "infobox: cluster" is vague and currently up for renaming to "infobox: open cluster") and someone needs to edit those pages; it doesn't mean the infoboxes should be merged. Would you propose a merge between 'infobox: globular cluster' and 'astro object' if most astro objects referred to globulars? (the answer should be a resounding NO) 'Astro object' is very broad, 'Open cluster' is not. Both are useful within their respective scopes.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  14:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • No, it means that the templates are largely interchangeable, because most of their parameters are the same. Note also that the astro object infobox has a |type= parameter which can take a value of [[Open cluster]], or whatever". You advance no reasons was to why separate infoboxes are needed. The requested move you cite was made after this proposal, by the first objector to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
      • The purpose of an infobox is to immediately identify the type of object to the reader. A merge destroys this, no matter how well-intentioned.
        'Infobox: cluster' is not distinguishible simply b/c no one put links to open cluster information on the bottom yet, as is normally done on {{infobox globular cluster}}, {{infobox galaxy cluster}}, {{infobox supercluster}} templates. I support an edit to put links to open cluster info at the bottom of 'Infobox: cluster' before I support a merge of cluster and globular cluster, before I support a merge of astro object with cluster. I also support an edit to 'Infobox astro object' to include a broader set of parameters applicable to disparate phenomena than I do any merge. Also, the community should do what best serves the reader, common sense, and organisation than arbitrary nomination times.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  15:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
        • The purpose of an infobox is to immediately identify the type of object to the reader I have no idea what led you to believe that, but no, it is not. Even if it were, the |type= does that adequateley. Merging redundant infoboxes best serves the reader, common sense, and organisation, as explained at Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
          • From the WikiProject:Astronomy. Your reference is to an essay. This is not policy, as noted in its header, and I believe reasonable control should be left to the parent WikiProject (excessive use aside; i.e. your other recent noms here seem justifiable).
            From Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation: "A separate infobox isn't a measure of importance, but of difference from other subjects." Open clusters are very different than an infobox which literally refers to all other astronomical bodies which don't yet fall into a template. You missed several key parameters which exist in {{infobox astro object}} but not in {{infobox cluster}}: "propmo", "radvel", "pecmo". The former 2 can, in fact, arguably be incorporated into cluster with little problem. The latter, however, refers to objects at cosmological distances, which in no way applies to clusters. If this escapes you, please stop merging outside of your scope. In fact, I could, and should, add several other parameters to astro object to be even more all-encompassing, and potentially EXclusive of open clusters, be it applied to some non-cluster object.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  19:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
            • I didn't say it was a policy; I said it explained why merging similar infoboxes is a good thing, which it does. But thank you; as its author, I've clarified the wording. And no, having some parameters which are not mutually common does not prevent us merging infoboxes where a large number are used mutually. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
              • If/when {{infobox astro object}} is fully developed (ideally it contains most/all parameters from all other existing astronomy related infobox templates, as its description suggests), then, by your logic, all other astronomy infoboxes should be merged into {{infobox astro object}}. I hope you see the exception to your rule in this case.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  22:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
                • If their parameters are largely overlapping then yes, they should. Do you contend that that (overlapping parameters) is the case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: The following is a complete list of parameters which are in {{Infobox astro object}} but not in {{Infobox cluster}}: |image=, |caption=, |credit=, |mass_msol=, |age=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • You missed |propmo=, |radvel=, |pecmo=; |pecmo= being the most relevant to this discussion.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  22:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
      • No, I didn't - but I have the two template names the wrong way round. That should read: parameters which are in {{Infobox cluster}} but not in {{Infobox astro object}} = |image=, |caption=, |credit=, |mass_msol=, |age=. The image parameter set should always be available; which leaves just two parameters distinguishing the cluster infobox from the more generic one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose; the purpose of the two templates is drastically different. One is a specific template for open clusters, the other a generic template for all astronomical objects without a better category. By this logic, merging {{Infobox astro object}} with any astronomy infoboxes would be good, which is clearly false. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • 50-50– I think they are very distinct, one is for clusters and one for objects not yet having any category (or with an unclear nature). But for all of the 57 billion celestial objects discovered to date, I think it's unlikely that they're very unusual. Astronomers already classed them, and we have the templates. I also think it would be very unlikely that Template:Infobox astro object will be used, since we already knew a lot about our universe. But comment, there are no infoboxes concerning LQG's, stellar streams, and others, so if they are notable then we can create them. However, we must note that of all the dozens of LQGs discovered to date, only three have their own articles (Huge-LQG, U1.11 and the Clowes–Campusano LQG). So the choice is yours, my friends. SkyFlubbler (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • you already lodged an opinion, this is a second !vote, you should change it into a comment instead. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying that we should create a separate template for every object, only for those that we have significant number of articles for which a separate template can be supported (such as open clusters) separate from a general template. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment– If the intent here is to, over time, migrate templates to have some sort of awesome connectivity with WikiData, then great, lead with that. However, a full and clear explanation of that intent, WikiData, and a project timeline should be made, and not a weak "well... the parameters are kinda the same" excuse. The reactions from the community will be vastly different.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  21:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • You're confusing two issues. The two templates should be merged, regardless of Wikidata. And we're likely to move toward importing data from Wikidata, regardless of whether or not they are merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox crater data[edit]

Template:Infobox crater data (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Infobox feature on celestial object (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox crater data with Template:Infobox feature on celestial object.
Largely similar; craters are a subset of features. Keep as a redirect for craters on Earth, if used for any. Note that the "feature" template is already used on several crater articles, such as Aladdin (crater). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox lunar mare[edit]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox Lunar crater}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge. They are too similar. But I support using the title style of Infobox lunar mare. Fleet Command (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge to a combined template, named {{Infobox lunar feature}}; unlike the open cluster/astronomical object discussion above, these are both similar features, and thus a single infobox is appropriate. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Solar eclipse2[edit]

Template:Infobox Solar eclipse2 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Infobox Solar eclipse (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Solar eclipse2 with Template:Infobox Solar eclipse.
#2 is a wrapper for the original, for no obvious purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose It is used in conjunction with template databases, like {{Solareclipse200_db|Infobox Solar eclipse2|2006Mar29}} Tom Ruen (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
That's {{Solareclipse200_db}}; what an impenetrable (and undocumented) mess; a barrier to editing for all but a few editors. That data should be in infobox templates in the respective articles (and eventually in Wikidata). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Template:Solareclipse200_db and others were exported from a spreadsheet, and reduces the chance for errors, and allows data to be presented in different ways. It was first setup by another user, and I just copied what he did. I don't know what wikidata is, but if its easier, I'd support a conversion eventually. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; I see no reason for a separate template, when all it does is wrap the other. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The second template DOES NOT "wrap" the other template. It substitutes values from the db file. If its useful, it can be renamed for clarity. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
      • And it should not; as I noted above, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
        • It's not clear what you are proposing. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm proposing that we do away with having two versions of the infobox; and that the specific data should be in written directly in infobox templates in the respective articles (and eventually in Wikidata). How we achieve that is a mater for this discussion to decide, but the result would probably look like this (which was achieved by simply Substing the nested templates in turn). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
            • REALLY? You're going to do this by hand for some 495 cases, and then if NASA updates its calculational database, we're going to again hand-edit 500 articles to make the corrections? Tom Ruen (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
              • No. The conversion would be best done by a bot or a tool like AWB. And future updates, if any, can be applied by a bot; or eventually via importing the data from Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
                • I don't have access to a bot or a tool like AWB (whatever that is). The current template works fine. You complain templates are hard for users, and then offer something even more inaccessible. Why not keep it as is. There are many other such template systems as well in-use. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
                  • No-one us asking you to use AWB. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
                    • So why not keep it in a system I understand? The data-field templates are hard to setup, but easy to use and extend when needed. If a better system exists, and I have time to learn what it is, then I can evaluate when to move to it. Replacing a good system with an inferior direct substitution one because someday a better system will be setup someday by some mysterious unknown person makes no sense to me. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
                      • Because the more generic system is understood by far more editors than just you; and because putting the data into Wikidata makes it available to all 280+ Wikipedias. The commoner system is not inferior to the current one, which is dependent on the knowledge of one or two (or any small group of) editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
                        • So how about WAIT and keep as-is, UNTIL someone wants to take the time to move it to WikiData, assuming it is so great like you promise? Tom Ruen (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • don't merge yet. it would be a good idea to rewrite this using LUA, moving the database pages (e.g., {{Solareclipse200_db}}) to subpages of the lua module, but that will take some engineering. Frietjes (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Tornado year (EF scale)[edit]

Template:Infobox Tornado year (EF scale) (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Infobox Tornado Year (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Tornado year (EF scale) with Template:Infobox Tornado Year.
Very similar templates. "EF scale" refers to Enhanced Fujita scale, which can be accommodated in a combined tempalte by a choice of parameters, or a switch. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Hmm... I will consider undertaking such a merge if I find the time. Dustin (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox air density[edit]

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

Hard-coded instance of {{Infobox property}}, of which it is the only use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete. Has only three transclusion (2 are sandboxes); accepts no parameters. Fleet Command (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Before disposing consider evaluate the contents and compare with other similar infobox. Scientific texts should have a chance to improve their information and presentation: properties, its units, equations and use are important for understanding its context in scientific texts. Maybe expand the use is a better destiny than discard. After all I see still a long way to transform the informative texts of school in encyclopedic articles containing knowledge. As the editor I will abstain from voting, but I believe quality was more important than quantity. As for the parameterization I would be pleased if someone would help me and improve the code. RookTorre (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • New Comment. As there was no answer: When made this template I used as a reference this architecture and hierarchy:
Template:Infobox element >> Template:Infobox oxygen >> Oxygen
Template:Infobox property >> Template:Infobox air density >> Density of air

Is not the first time that the rules are applied in unbalanced way. We should delete all templates for specific chemical elements? (It is an obvious ironic way, just to emphasize my amazement). Me looks exactly the same case. (As I would expect from a copy) RookTorre (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Nothing. I stopped edit the wiki because of rules-based reversions(in my other account). After months I went back now and in my first significant edition that happens...Better I stop editing, just edit who knows what does. ty and apologize for the inconvenience. -- RookTorre (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Gidi Up[edit]

Template:Gidi Up (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Per NENAN. Only two links are active. Stanleytux (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: The template has four active links on the main subject, episodes, and the seasons. These are not pages the the average reader will easily be able to look up without a nav box, NENAN obviously doesn't apply here. Besides, more articles on this subject (series) will definitely be created - then the need for a navbox.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment: NENAN definitely applies here because all I can find is just two links, a parent article which is fewer than five links. This shouldn't have been created since the pages for it aren't yet ready. Stanleytux (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: @Stanleytux: If you exclude the main article, there are three active links. The Episodes article and the two seasons articles. NENAN recommends that five articles (excluding the primary article) need to be present in order for a navbox to be present. If you want to be techinical like that, the navbox can be deleted. However, it doesn't make sense to do so because the navbox will be recreated once two more articles spring up. Versace1608 (Talk) 15:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Such a small number of links can easily be incorporated into article prose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I generally hate nominations that say "Per WP:NENAN" unless they say which part of NENAN. But this one makes sense: The navbox bears four links, all of which are either in the compulsory infoboxes of the linked articles or can be. So this template makes no sense. Fleet Command (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:SPACEUSER[edit]

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

Now exist the {{ROOTPAGENAME}} variable. Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 02:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete per nom. (Template is pseudo-wrapper for {{ROOTPAGENAME}} anyway.) 62 transclusions should be easy to deal with. Fleet Command (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Strong opposal Not sure of the technical side to this, but I would like the infobox template of the UK house of commons to stay the same, it looks much neater as it is now and changing it would be just pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.77.86 (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This template was created in the Wikipedia in Spanish only because there was a variable to do the same to {{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}|1}}, now exist {{ROOTPAGENAME}}. In Wikipedia in Spanish was completely unlinked, this template is obsolete. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 20:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

December 20[edit]

Template:Infobox AFLChamp1960[edit]

Template:Infobox AFLChamp1960 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Appears to be a close variant of {{Infobox AFLChamp}}, created because the latter automatically calculates and displays the preceding year; yet 1960 was the first. Such functionality should be included in the main template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete if the main template is changed to handle the first year —PC-XT+ 05:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Mexican Cabinet[edit]

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

Unused wrapper (I Subst: the only two transclusions). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Philippines cabinet[edit]

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

Unused wrapper (I Subst: the only two transclusions). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Taiwan cabinet[edit]

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

Unused wrapper (I Subst: the only transclusion). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • delete this one. Frietjes (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Liberian Cabinet[edit]

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

Unused wrapper (I Subst: the only transclusion). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • delete this one. Frietjes (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox South Korean musician awards[edit]

Template:Infobox South Korean musician awards (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Americas Cup year[edit]

Template:Infobox Americas Cup year (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox PLFA team[edit]

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

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NWHL team[edit]

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

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Simpsons characters[edit]

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

Redundant to {{infobox character}} {{Infobox Simpsons character}}, with which I have replaced the only three instances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep I have undone your edits for the time being. If the template is deleted, THEN it should be replaced. I should also point out that the "better infobox" uses more code (300+ characters) than this one.
To explain this template, it's essentially the easy solution to a problem we were having with {{Infobox Simpsons character}}. A few of the pages (Patty and Selma, Lenny and Carl and Kang and Kodos) are about two characters. So some of the language used in the other one was incorrect (ie. Voice actors vs. Voice actor). So this template provides an easy solution to the issue. In short, it makes the page better. No really good reason has been provided to support the deletion nomination, so I think it's an easy keep. Also, if we switch to the generic template, we will not be able to control what is added to pages (ie. Age, Birth place, etc.) and some things are inconsistent, which will lead to edit wars. -- Scorpion0422 01:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
That's a pretty poor reason to mass revert edits to articles. An infobox having more lines of code than another is also neither a reason to mass revert edits, nor to keep a redundant template. And we absolutely do not need a second template, just to deal with a plural label. The "good reason" provided is the redundancy; this is explained at length in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge. The articles Huey, Dewey, and Louie and Hubie and Bertie are among the several examples of the use of multiple animated characters. The parameter used for the voice actors is voice, where the label "Voiced by" is displayed. As for not being "able to control what is added to pages", that is really a ongoing sitewide infobox vandalism/edit war problem throughout Wikipedia (which should go through the normal WP:DISPUTE/WP:3RR/WP:RFPP, etc. processes), so it should not be used as an excuse not to merge a template that is only used on on a handful of articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't really have a problem with this template being deleted, but if edit wars over template paramaters is a "problem throughout Wikipedia", isn't that a strong argument to give shows their own templates? Each show is different. For example, with characters from Lost, it's easy to tell which episode "belongs" to which character, so you can have a "featured episodes" parameter. Others may warrant a "created by" parameter. In others, things like age, occupation and family may be important and unchanging character info (the same thing goes for episodes too). It's very unfortunate that this change has been forced upon TV show editors and I remember the edit wars WP:DOH used to have over various parameters before we decided it wasn't worth it and removed them. -- Scorpion0422 23:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I've updated the label on {{Infobox Simpsons character}} to "Voiced by", and replaced the three instances of the nominated template with that. Merging that with {{infobox character}} is for a separate discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox comic strip character[edit]

Template:Infobox comic strip character (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}, with which I have replaced it on the only six articles where it was in use.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox RTCA standard[edit]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox technology standard}}, with which I have just replaced the only half-dozen instances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:SAE standard[edit]

Template:SAE standard (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox technology standard}}, with which I have just replaced the only two instances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Member states of the Council of Europe[edit]

Template:Member states of the Council of Europe (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

This basically duplicates the second and third rows of Template:Council of Europe, listing the Council of Europe's members and observers, respectively. Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:England national under-21 football team results[edit]

Template:England national under-21 football team results (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Serves no purpose, does not navigate between sufficient articles. GiantSnowman 09:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per GiantSnowman's nomination statement. We generally expect more than two linked articles to justify a navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:NENAN - insufficient links to be a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Ford modern v8 engines 2010[edit]

Template:Ford modern v8 engines 2010 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Very small usage for template; content largely duplicated by Template: Ford engine timeline. Timeline forecasts content up to 2039. SteveCof00My Suggestion box is open 07:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Bleudegascogne[edit]

Template:Bleudegascogne (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:French dogs (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Bleudegascogne with Template:French dogs.
The content of the Blue de Gascogne template is not sufficient to warrant a stand alone template. Additionally all four breeds are covered in the French Dogs and Template:Hounds. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support I agree, it makes better sense. Miyagawa (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Spaniels[edit]

Template:Spaniels (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Gundogs (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Spaniels with Template:Gundogs.
All the breeds covered have links to the Spaniel page, which also contains a consolidated list (with photos and basic breed info) of all breeds in this template. Those spaniel breeds not used as gundogs are all covered by their national templates and Template:Toy dogs or Template:Extinct dog breeds. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support I agree - gundogs are much better defined, and makes more sense. Miyagawa (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


December 19[edit]

Template:Pre-read[edit]

Template:Pre-read (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unused; the proposal to go around using it seems to have died a while ago. -- Beland (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

No Contest. as original creator.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Iran Squad 2000 FIFA Futsal World Championship[edit]

Template:Iran Squad 2000 FIFA Futsal World Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Iran Squad 2004 FIFA Futsal World Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Iran Squad 2008 FIFA Futsal World Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Iran Squad 2012 FIFA Futsal World Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

non-notable squad. Frietjes (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Iran Squad 1992 FIFA Futsal World Championship[edit]

Template:Iran Squad 1992 FIFA Futsal World Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

4th place squad. Frietjes (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Iran Squad 2014 AFC Futsal Championship[edit]

Template:Iran Squad 2014 AFC Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

2nd place squad. Frietjes (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Iran Squad 2012 AFC Futsal Championship[edit]

Template:Iran Squad 2012 AFC Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

3rd place squad. Frietjes (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:TopGolf Locations[edit]

Template:TopGolf Locations (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Related to TopGolf article, this template seems to be a precursor to creating lots more TopGolf articles. Currently the links are geographical. While 1 page on TopGolf seems ok (given that it's a pretty specific topic), having a multitude of them smacks of advertising. Adding locations could readily be achieved by extending the current article. Nigej (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete This is a "Navbox" which does not navigate and is only in the one article with no possibility of adding more. The information should be inserted to the almost empty Locations section of the TopGolf article. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:RFC boilerplate 1[edit]

Template:RFC boilerplate 1 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:RFC boilerplate 2 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:RfCsubst (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:RfC2subst (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct is now shut down. These templates were substitution templates and are not transcluded anywhere (except for the wrapper templates also nominated that merely add "subst" to the others). There should be no harm in deleting these Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm not convinced that this does need to be deleted, or what purpose is served by starting deletion discussions for this type of thing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps mark historical? —PC-XT+ 00:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree, mark historical - There's a lot of text here, and it looks like they collectively document a good lesson on how things should not be done. -- Beland (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox university chancellor[edit]

Template:Infobox university chancellor (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Infobox officeholder (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox university chancellor with Template:Infobox officeholder.
The chancellor box was recently made a wrapper for the officeholder box, but apparently we have to have a merger debate before it can be Subst: and redirected. This should be done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Does the merger tag really need to be on Infobox officerholder, or perhaps more specifically, does it have to appear on every page that has it transcluded? It's affecting almost 85,000 articles. Number 57 22:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • If it was not on the template, people would complain. It could be noincluded, but that is supposed to be for substituted templates only, according to Twinkle, so we may need to develop some consensus to do that. I would support noincluding in this case. —PC-XT+ 23:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Not only should the notice not appear on every damn instance of the officeholder template, this discussion is a waste of time. Shouldn't we be writing an encyclopedia instead of eliminating templates? Chris Troutman (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Can we please get the damn notification off every page that has this template. Unnecessary and very annoying. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 04:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know anything about templates, but I arrived here via a page for a major corporate CEO whose bio template is of the "officeholder" variety. Unless this CEO is an aberration, this template might be in too wide of use for the proposed merge. It obviously doesn't make sense to have a "university chancellor" template in use on corporate CEO pages. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The officeholder template would be the one used, as the other is only a wrapper of it. —PC-XT+ 23:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, okay. Thanks. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete — I believe the main question from the last discussion was whether several params needed merging, or could they use the blank parameters, instead, if needed. Looking at the tracking categories, I think the blank parameters are ok. Three examples are Carol Folt for salary, Richard C. Atkinson for workplace, and Nancy L. Zimpher for both. —PC-XT+ 23:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Get rid of that template notice Do what you need to do with the chancellor thing, but for the love of God, get rid of that damn template notice, noinclude it, do something. It is affect a whole mess of articles. Unfortunately, it is fully protected or I would have taken the damn thing off myself. Safiel (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Seeing as I wasn't the only one concerned about the notice, I've removed it (using noinclude) from infobox officeholder. Number 57 09:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merging the chancellor template, as the officeholder template is part of Category:Politics and government infobox templates. That doesn't seem right, but I don't know the policies on this. I was brought here by a notice at the top of Carol T. Christ, who isn't in politics or government, that I am aware of. Eddymason (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Note: If there is a question for me, please "ping" me, as my watchlist automatically adds pages I edit, and became unmanageable after weighing in here. Eddymason (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The category of a template is not a reason not to merge it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • We could always add it to another category. —PC-XT+ 00:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge. Looks like a lot of unnecessary duplication. Add to Category:Universities and colleges infobox templates and Category:People infobox templates or just move to the latter. There's only two fields that are standardized by this over the other template, but it's such a mess if anyone cares to get salary information etc. systematically it's better to just write a style guide for this class of articles than to keep the extra template around. -- Beland (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox criminal organization[edit]

Template:Infobox criminal organization (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (423 transclusions)
Template:Infobox organization (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (16,086 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox criminal organization with Template:Infobox organization.
Some people felt the recent TfD discussion about the criminal org template should have been a merger proposal; so here it is.

The relevant parameters are |named after=, |founding_location=, |ethnicity= and |rivals=, all of which have their place for non-criminal organisations (e.g. Oxfam, named after Oxford Famine relief, founded in Oxford, England). For |years_active= we should use the more generic template's |formation= & |extinction=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • This is annoying.
Can we stop "The template Infobox organization is being considered for merging." from appearing at the top of each and every page --there are over 16,000 of them! -- that uses the target "infobox organization" infobox?
I think it suffices for it to appear on the criminal org infobox pages (at most). Desire to generate conversation on these 400-odd pages proposed to be changed doesn't warrant marring the tops of 16,000 other pages. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is annoying, but as I said in the above discussion, we are attempting to follow appropriate procedure. (You can see why in the previous discussions.) This is one of the questions about TfD process that appears hard to answer. —PC-XT+ 23:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
There must be a way to remove that notice. Ask the tech boffins. Cite IAR. Anything. This is absurd. Can we at least stick it under the infobox? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge per my previous !vote —PC-XT+ 23:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge: I agree with User:Epeefleche, merge it ASAP to get the link off the top of these 16,000 articles. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge as they share most parameters.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No They are entirely distinct. The notification on pages is annoying as well.Ahmer Jamil KhanWho?Chat? 06:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    • No, they are not "entirely distinct"; they are largely the same, as demonstrated in the previous discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy it either way. I don't care which way. The possible incremental head-of-a-pin benefit from a possible merge is far outweighed by the immediate and evident cost of starting a process that leads to a ridiculous sentence marring the very top of the page of over 16,000 wikipedia pages -- pages which will remain the same whether the templates are merged or NOT. This is absurd. Epeefleche (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree (though the benefits of merging are significant); it wasn't me who required this process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose if only because of sloppy execution of this merge discussion. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Bad TfD quality. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The 16,000 uses of the base template are not affected at all by the merger, so I see no reason why all of them should be notified. This is not a merger of equals, just an accretion of a minor addition, so let's get the notice off of the {{Infobox organization}} pages at once. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to mecontribs) 17:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Whether those 16000 should be notified is a point. But whether this deserves a merge-TfD: absolutely. Because: the proposal implies a change of the target template. That can not be enforced from a TfD outcome without consulting that template ('s followers). On top of this, the nom only grudgingly seems to admit that a parameter-issue overview should be included in the proposal (the earlier TfD in this failed). -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • don't merge for now, I would rather not see |rivals= and |ethnicity= added to {{infobox organization}}. I am imagining all the fabricated rivalries, and unsourced claims of ethnicity. however, |founding_location= and |named_for= seem to be of general use. Frietjes (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No rationale has been provided for a merge and things seem to work fine the way they are. Also, the notification on each organization infobox is disruptive. - MrX 04:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose |ethnicity= and |rivals= don't cross well enough to merge. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per arguments at the template's unsuccessful deletion discussion and because |ethnicity=, |rivals=, and |allies= do not cross well into Template:Infobox organization. - tucoxn\talk 20:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have hidden the notice advertising this discussion on Template:Infobox organization in response to the many comments here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Kudos. Thank you for restoring my faith, if not in humanity, then in the ability of sysops to lend an ear, and apply common sense. Much appreciated. Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Looks like the attributes on the criminal organization template are well-used. Many attributes on each template don't apply to the other type, so it seems easier for editors to keep them separate for now. -- Beland (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, we have a separate Template:Infobox company which is probably more similar to the generic organization template, though the company template is much more heavily used than the criminal organization one. -- Beland (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tucoxn. - SantiLak (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

December 18[edit]

Copa Centroamericana templates[edit]

Template:Costa Rica squad 1999 UNCAF Nations Cup (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Guatemala squad 2001 UNCAF Nations Cup (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Costa Rica squad 2003 UNCAF Nations Cup (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Costa Rica squad 2005 UNCAF Nations Cup (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Costa Rica squad 2007 UNCAF Nations Cup (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Panama squad 2009 UNCAF Nations Cup (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Honduras squad 2011 Copa Centroamericana (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Costa Rica squad 2013 Copa Centroamericana (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Costa Rica squad 2014 Copa Centroamericana (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Competition is not a major tournament. Templates should only be created for major tournaments like FIFA World Cup, UEFA Euro, Copa America and others. The Honduras template had already been deleted in 2011. Other Copa Centrtoamericana templates have also been deleted in the past. GoPurple'nGold24 00:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • delete all non-championship squad boxes, but indifferent for the championship-winning squad boxes. Frietjes (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all - agreed that we only need squad templates for top level continental tournaments, which these are not. GiantSnowman 13:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

*Meh. Sports are boring. -- Beland (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Please review WP:IDONTLIKEIT. – Michael (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per GiantSnowman's comment above. There is a well-established understanding among the sports WikiProjects to discourage team navboxes (with links to notable team members) only for teams that have won major tournament championships. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

December 17[edit]

Template:Infobox western riding timed event[edit]

Template:Infobox western riding timed event (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Poorly designed, vertical navbox with only four links; was used on only two articles, now orphaned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong support: On behalf of WikiProject Equine. Infobox sport is perfectly adequate and used for all of the other horse sport articles that have infoboxes. (Most should) Montanabw(talk) 23:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Montanabw's comment immediately above. If WikiProject Equine prefers to use a more generic template, the project should be given that deference. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Weather/ disaster notices[edit]

Template:Current tornado outbreak[edit]
Template:Current tornado outbreak (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Current disaster (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Current tornado outbreak with Template:Current disaster.
Both are currently unused due to the lack of disasters getting attention right now. It would be better to have a smaller number of templates to remember when one is actually needed, and there's no need to be so precise in the wording. A smaller number of templates will also make it easier to update the wording across all current disaster templates, as I just had to do. -- Beland (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Current tropical cyclone[edit]
Template:Current tropical cyclone (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Current disaster (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Current tropical cyclone with Template:Current disaster.
It's currently a simple call to the other template, and there's no particular need to be more specific. These are actually both unused right now, since there are no current disasters getting a lot of attention. Better to have a smaller number of templates to remember when one does occur and a template needs to be slapped on the article. -- Beland (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Combined discussion[edit]
  • Delete both weather templates in favour of {{Current}} or {{Current disaster}} as apprpriate. Otherwise, merge the tornado & cyclone templates as, say "Current weather event". Not all weather events are disasters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Current weather event seems a good target for merge/rename —PC-XT+ 08:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC) 08:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

  • Comment: Having a single well-known template with a free-text "reason" parameter makes it easy for editors to tag articles, without sorting through a bewildering array of tags. It doesn't matter to me what the tag is, as long as it's tagged with something, so it gets noticed by cleanup editors and warns/apologizes to readers. -- Beland (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Beland WP:NOTBURO, Wikipedia should not be a bureaucracy, making all editors know every kind of cleanup template is bureaucratic. Instead editors versed in the cleanup message system can go through and replace cleanup as necessary with more specific templates, as editors already do with {{stub}} template trees. Further, expecting that all possible cases of cleanup are covered by some existing template is folly, there's no mathematical way anyone can prove such an assertion (a mathematically complete proof), since it would require knowing every single way an article can fail (one would have to prove there are no unknown unknowns, and no known unknowns). -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with the keepers on this. It appears redundant, except that no one of the other templates can tag for everything this one can. This template does tag a mess, but much of that mess would simply be left for someone else to tag, otherwise. I do think this template should prominently link to copyedit and other tags in its documentation to encourage better category sorting, but I'm unconvinced that this one should be deleted at this time. It's like {{db}}. —PC-XT+ 08:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:SBL team[edit]

Template:SBL team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

The template is only used in one location, where it could be replaced by Template:Infobox basketball club. Diannaa (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Song Contest[edit]

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

An unnecessary fork of {{Infobox Eurovision}}, intended to pre-empt discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 6#Template:Infobox ABU Radio (and possibly wider discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 6#Song contest templates). This new template gives no credit to the creators of the earlier version, including significant contributions by User:Thumperward.

Any necessary improvements should be made to the original, {{Infobox Eurovision}}, based on {{Infobox}}, then that template renamed over this one (albeit with corrected capitalisation); leaving a redirect, rather than the recent and unnecessary practice of manually replacing templates ([1], [2] etc.). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete + renaming of {{Infobox Eurovision}}, keeping the history intact. -- [[ axg //  ]] 17:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the responsible party needs cluebatted here. If someone points me at whatever changes are required to fix the original so that the various forks are unneeded I'll see if I can do it (along with {{infobox}}ing it). Obviously all the bulk-edits should be undone in the interim. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support deletion again. For all the same reasons as the last go-around. Montanabw(talk) 23:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep considering it was already apparent from the discussions of 6 December that this infobox is the new universal replacement of {{Infobox Eurovision}} - and it was actually suggested to make such universal box by none other than Pigsonthewing. And I think it may need to be reminded that the nominator actually has a ArbCom sanction on himself regarding discussion of infoboxes - of which can result in a year-long block. Andrew even stated in the discussions of 6 December, that the other nominated infoboxes would not be deleted until the replacement was ready and rolled out. This is the replacement. Wes Mouse | T@lk 11:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • If you feel I'm in breach of a sanction, please raise the matter at WP:AE (although note that similar attempts to use that to silence deletion discussions have failed). Otherwise, you are just making ad hominem attacks. Who is "Andrew"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Don't be pedantic, you know as well as anyone else does, that Andrew is the longer version of Andy. And yes, perhaps taking this matter to AE is required. The sanction states that you are not to add, remove, or discuss infoboxes. Creating TfD's is a sly underhanded way of getting around such sanction, as you clearly nominate with the intention of letting someone else delete on your behalf; and thus are skirting around the sanction ruling. Wes Mouse | T@lk 13:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
        • You can take it to AE if you like. As someone who spent a good amount of time cleaning this mess up several years ago, I'm not especially keen to have it discarded by some copy-pasted replacement. This should have been done properly by building on the original code; indeed, it must be done to preserve attribution of the template history. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
        • @Wesley Mouse: I didn't ask you for the derivation of the name "Andrew"; I asked you who the Andrew to whom you addressed your comment is. Also please stop your mass deployment of this new template, until this TfD is resolved. To continue as you are doing is disruptive. (Pinged, so you're aware of this comment). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
          • @Pigsonthewing: How is the rollout "disruptive"? Have you forgotten that on 7 December 2014 CT Cooper stated that a new universal template {{Infobox Song Contest}} should be created and replace the problematic "forked" ones. On 7 December 2014 you replied back to CT Cooper by stating "nothing would be replaced or deleted "until a replacement template is ready"; that's what this discussion is (supposed to be) about". A replacement is ready, the replacement has been rolled out so that the nominated templates can be deleted without controversy. If the likes of the predecessor {{Infobox Eurovision}} need to be technically moved into its successor is required, then so be it. I fail to see why you have nominated a new universal design that has been made, following your comments and recommendations from the TFD dated 6 December. Its a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Wes Mouse | T@lk 14:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
            • It's disruptive, for the reasons given in the deletion ratinonale in this section. Thank you confirming that you are now aware of my request that you desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Attribution is hardy a major issue - the new and old templates can have their histories easily merged through use of the delete/move buttons. There is no need for a whole load of drama over it. As for the new template itself, it's unfortunate that those complaining about how it was created, its quality etc. didn't make more detailed or helpful suggestions earlier on how they wanted. CT Cooper · talk 01:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Thumperward: There has been no copy/paste as such. I got in contact with AxG via his talk page User talk:AxG#Universal infoboxes for Project Eurovision, as I am not very good at creating infoboxes myself (all the #if codes are somewhat confusing to me). Anyhow, as I knew that AxG was the creator of {{Infobox Eurovision}}, I felt it was only fair to contact him and see if he could work on a new universal version, which was recommended at the TfD of 6 December and at the project talk page. AxG built the new coding in his sandbox (User:AxG/Sandbox/12) and at his talk page he stated it was finished and was ready to be transferred to the new template space - which is what was done. Seeing as I was given permission by the creator to carry out this action, then I do not understand how A) I am being accused of plagiarism by Andy when permission was granted to me to copy the new code to the new template space. And B) why this template has even been put up for nomination, when Andy was one of the parties who actually suggested that a new universal template be created. Even an admin at AE notes that "nominating the replacement template for deletion after suggesting it does sound a bit silly". Had it not been that I mentioned this new template was now created via the TFd of 6 December, then Andy would not have known of its existence - so he is clearly demonstrating stalking of some kind by finding things I've created, and nominating them for deletion with intent to cause distress and fuel up more heated tension and debates. He also started to edit war on the project page, of which A) he is not a member of, and B) an admin also tells him that "the project decides what templates to display" and to "butt out". This nom is just a waste of time and purely disruptive. Wes Mouse | T@lk 10:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
      • It is readily apparent from even a cursory inspection of the source code and history that {{Infobox Song Contest}} is copied from {{Infobox Eurovision}}; was created by you; and has no attribution. As for your fatuous allegation of stalking and the cited editor's and your own lack of understanding of WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not interested in what random admins have said, in your history with Andy, or with any other red herring you're waving around. I'm interested in fixing these templates to preserve the history after it's been broken by an editor who by his own admission barely knows what he's doing. As an involved party here I'm not going to use my tools to fix that myself, but I'll be doing it after this is closed; the only thing that's required is for some clueful uninvolved admin to put an end to the present warring so that I can sort it all out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    • "Attribution is hardy a major issue" O really? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
      • CT Cooper is correct in that if a history merge can be performed here that fixes a lot of the issues, but it's essential that this is carried out: at present there is a clear history break due to the complete mess-up made of the introduction of the new versions. As for getting involved in advance, it's somewhat difficult to get involved in a conversation without being notified that it's taking place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I think the meaning of my comment is very clear, even more so when it isn't quote mined. It's clear what needs to be done, and I've given my support to merging the template histories. There is no need to stir-up controversy where it doesn't exist. I would like to thank Thumperward for managing the situation and providing assistance. CT Cooper · talk 02:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't speaking to you Andy, I was speaking to Thumperward - so please address your disgusting remarks elsewhere. And for the record, the template coding was not created by me, and I proven that by providing the link to AxG's sandbox in which he did the entire work. Is there a template that can be added to infobox talk page, so that we can highlight that AxG is the creator? But to address @Thumperward:'s comment, I agree that Cooper is right too, and he and I have spoke about this the other day when I informed him that AxG had agreed to help out by creating the coding of a new universal template. Coop said that he would be more than happy to do the history moves if it were to restore peace and civility to these parts. But I'm not sure if that would be allowed partly because he is a member of project Eurovision and has also commented and/or !voted on these TfD's. Wes Mouse | T@lk 13:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
          • "I wasn't speaking to you Andy" Tough,If you post here anyone - me, Thumperward, any other editor - is at liberty to answer. And when what you post is arrant nonsense, anyone is at liberty to refute it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox Song Contest/split 1[edit]
I've just found {{Histmerge}} for the history merge. Which page is it wise to tag it on? AxG's sandbox, {{Infobox Eurovision}}, or both? Also I'm not sure if {{Interwiki copy}} or {{Copied}} are the templates that I would use to show the attribution. Any advice please, Chris? Wes Mouse | T@lk 14:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Thumperward for those links. I have submitted a request per your advice. Hopefully that should clear up this bit of a blunder. Does that mean the old {{Infobox Eurovision}} will require a redirect into the new {{Infobox Song Contest}}? As for the other universal boxes, so that we don't get into this mess again, I will try to use the coding that AxG worked on, see if it can be modified into National Year and Country inofboxes for these contests, and then I'm guessing a page move to its new title is the correct step forward? At least then the TfD's will have reached some progressive conclusion. Wes Mouse | T@lk 14:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from altering other's talk page comments. I may not have wanted my comments to be bullet-pointed; and such change is of my choice to make not yours. Also as noted, I addressed my question to a specific user, not at you. Speak when spoken to, it is rude to butt into other's conversations. Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have not "altered other's [sic] talk page comments"; I fixed the list formatting, which you have again broken. As for "butting in"; please read what I wrote above (and note who started this conversation). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • @Anthony Appleyard: thank you for fixing that, much appreciated. It now means we are at least one step closer towards resolution (I think). KTC, I do apologise for my remark as it was a bit untoward. I merely got frustrated as I had asked one user a question, and felt it a tad rude when someone else appeared to be answering it on their behalf, especially in the harsh tone that was used. Now that this history merge has happened, what steps forward do we need to take now, in order to put a peaceful end to this? Wes Mouse | T@lk 11:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have just received this message in my user talk page from User:Pigsonthewing: "A request from an editor opposing (indeed, disruptively so) both proposals. You've been played. Please revert the move; which I acknowledge was done in good faith on your part. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard: thank you for making me aware that an editor has openly slagged my name into the ground by calling me "disruptive" and accusing me of being a "player". I'm starting to get sick to the back teeth of the users uncalled for arrogance, mudslinging, derogatory name-calling my persona. It is clear from the discussions above that everyone was in favour of merging the page history so that attribution was restored. This has been carried out. The nominator suggested the creation of this universal-style infobox, it has been done, and now they are demonstrating a I don't like it attitude. This calls for urgent admin intervention, as their behaviour is causing me serious distress and anxiety, to the point were I feel as though they are doing anything in their power to have me leave Wikipedia for life. Wes Mouse | T@lk 16:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep after recent history merges. Neutral on naming to {{Infobox song contest}} -- [[ axg //  ]] 17:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think if AxG doesn't mind the current arrangement, I'll remain neutral on it, though placing copied notices on the talk pages may be in order. The lowercase name seems better. —PC-XT+ 06:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - after recent history merges.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Banis[edit]

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

Redundant due to Template:Sikhism and Template:Sikh scriptures Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 00:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

December 16[edit]

Template:Cropped image[edit]

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

unnecessary frontend for Template:CSS image crop. Frietjes (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete, identical in function and only 3 remaining transclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WOFall (talkcontribs) 00:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:TCACycle WP78 cropped[edit]

Template:TCACycle WP78 cropped (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

unused and broken. Frietjes (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:WBCBL Teams[edit]

Template:WBCBL Teams (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

The navigational template contains one blue link, Women's Blue Chip Basketball League, which is the only article the template is located in. The template simply creates a list of the basketball teams in the league, thus going against WP:TG, and could better be expressed in a list or table in the league's article. Aspects (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - Navboxes exist to navigate among linked articles. We often debate whether some red links are acceptable -- in this case they are NO blue links for presently existing articles. This navbox serves no purpose that a list of teams withing the articles would no serve better. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Years in the State of Palestine[edit]

Template:Years in the State of Palestine (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

all redirects. Frietjes (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - refers to the post-2012 entity, formerly referred as "Palestinian Authority". State of Palestine is the UN designation, regardless whether it is recognized and by how many nations and it does function as a semi-state.GreyShark (dibra) 16:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • then why is it entirely redirects? Frietjes (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • delete - redundant to Template:Years in the Palestinian territories. If necessary, that template can be changed to split its contents between the two designations, following appropriate discussion. --NSH002 (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Years in the Republic of India[edit]

Template:Years in the Republic of India (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

duplicates Template:Years in India. Frietjes (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nominator....William 13:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Years in Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

Template:Years in Bosnia and Herzegovina (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Years in North Korea (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Years in Sierra Leone (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

not enough working links. Frietjes (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nominator....William 13:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Years in Iceland[edit]

Template:Years in Iceland (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Years in Jordan (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Years in Kuwait (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Years in Lebanon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Years in Libya (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Years in North Vietnam (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Years in Rwanda (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Years in Saudi Arabia (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Years in the United Arab Emirates (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

not enough working links. Frietjes (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nominator....William 13:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Years in the Moon[edit]

Template:Years in the Moon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Years in Venus (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

no enough working links. Frietjes (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Azerbaijan Squad 2012 UEFA Futsal Championship[edit]

Template:Azerbaijan Squad 2012 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Croatia Squad 2012 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Czech Republic Squad 2012 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Italy Squad 2012 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Portugal Squad 2012 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Romania Squad 2012 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Russia Squad 2012 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Serbia Squad 2012 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Slovenia Squad 2012 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Turkey Squad 2012 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Slovenia Squad 2012 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Ukraine Squad 2012 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

non-championship squad and duplicates UEFA Futsal Euro 2012 squads. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete All - The precedent is well established among the sports WikiProjects that we do not encourage navboxes for non-championship, non-medalist teams -- and we discrouage them for minor tournament championships. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Rugby tier 3[edit]

Template:Rugby tier 3 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unused template and per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Tiers defunct Gnevin (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Gnevin (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Rugby tier 1[edit]

Template:Rugby tier 1 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unused template and per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Tiers defunct Gnevin (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Gnevin (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Rugby tier 2[edit]

Template:Rugby tier 2 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unused template and per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Tiers defunct Gnevin (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Gnevin (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Hoak Media[edit]

Template:Hoak Media (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

After the sale of KNHL (formerly KHAS-TV) was done, Hoak now only owns KAUZ (and sale of KAUZ is pending), made this template unnecessary. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Flashlink[edit]

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

It has only 19 use cases and its use is unnecessary as per WP:EL#Rich media. Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 09:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Conceptually, i want to agree, but is the need for the template truly gone? WP:EL#Rich media seems to point toward specifying when an external link requires a proprietary plug-in. Ideally, as some subjective percentage of modern browser adoption meant most were able to view such content without plug-ins, the template would no longer be warranted. Would deletion just roll any uses back to the basic external link template? Cander0000 (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. The correct style seems to be (Adobe Flash Player) rather than Requires Adobe Flash Player, and it's just as easy to write that as it is to write the template name. And the direct method can work for any plugin, not just those that have a template. I'd reconsider if we wanted to put in an icon or something, but it's easy to re-recreate the template if need be. -- Beland (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

December 15[edit]

Template:EuroRoute[edit]

Template:EuroRoute (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Jct (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:EuroRoute with Template:Jct.
It is redundant, Jct is a better version. TheWombatGuru (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:YellowRoute[edit]

Template:YellowRoute (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Jct (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:YellowRoute with Template:Jct.
It is redundant, Jct is a better version. TheWombatGuru (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:RedRoute[edit]

Template:RedRoute (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Jct (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:RedRoute with Template:Jct.
It is redundant, Jct is a better version. TheWombatGuru (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Ernie Davis Award[edit]

Template:Ernie Davis Award (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

This template notes the winner of a minor college football award that does not even have its own article. It's not significant enough to warrant a navbox. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete not a notable enough award for a template.--Yankees10 17:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - A quick review of the WP:NAVBOX criteria reveals that (1) there is no stand-alone article regarding the subject of this navbox, (2) 40% of the award recipients are red links, (3) not a single one of the 12 articles where this navbox is transcluded even so much as mentions the award in either the main body text or infobox, let alone verifies the award with an inline footnote to a reliable source. Conclusion: non-notable or marginally notable minor college sports award that does not merit a navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:HKafter1997[edit]

Template:HKafter1997 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

It is mostly about political events after 1997 and it is insufficient to tell the full picture of the most important events and it is impossible for a template to do this. Some unimportant events are there such as the Occupy Central (2011–12) and the SARS epidemic is not here. It is not even in chronologically and unorganized. Lmmnhn (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment this is missing the nomination banner -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I just tagged it. I see the nom's point, but would like to think about it before !voting. Is it meant to cover only political history? —PC-XT+ 05:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Even if it covers only political history, it still lacks many important political events. Lmmnhn (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
        • If you think it lacks important political events, would you be amenable if we add them, re-categorize them, or otherwise improve the template, rather than deleting it? You are also welcome to improve the template yourself. The template is a very convenient way to navigate Hong Kong events since the 1997 handover. Colipon+(Talk) 13:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes, I would love to. But then I am only the one who always want to re-categorize the related templates and got into edit wars with other users which really put me off trying to improve largely on the templates. But since you are asking, I will try to do it now. Lmmnhn (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
            • I won't edit war, don't worry. Colipon+(Talk) 14:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, while work is being done on it. In a few years, or if there are too many items, it may get large enough to split, but it seems ok for now. —PC-XT+ 02:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


December 14[edit]

Template:Infobox college football player[edit]

Template:Infobox college football player (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (514 transclusions)
Template:Infobox gridiron football person (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (7,591 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox college football player with Template:Infobox gridiron football person.
[Posted per request on my talk page]

Most gridiron footballers played in college; the GFP template includes college-related parameters. We should not need to swap templates if someone is promoted from a college to a mainstream team. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Please see the extremely partisan breach of WP:CANVASS at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Templete merger proposal; starting on 14 December; then again today; and weigh subsequent comments accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Note to Andy: Your entire approach to this TfD is "partisan," and we have seen your approach to sports template merges in the past. I'm sorry to have to say it, but many if not most sports editors simply do not trust one-size-fits-all editors who have a history of proposing merges of templates they don't use. Perhaps you should rethink your own adversarial approach to attempting to force such merges on the actual users of such templates, and start next time by asking for input instead of trying to tell other editors what they should do based on your own predilections for merging templates whenever you can get a simple majority of TfD participants to agree. Frankly, I think the consumers of such templates deserve a blunt statement of what is being attempted. Your mileage may vary. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It is entirely permissible to be partisan in a TfD; partisan canvassing is expressly deprecated. And your comments are an ad hominem logical fallacy. TfD is a request for input. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Andy, we've covered this many times in other TfDs, and I am not the first to tell you this: TfD is not a "request" for input; it's a demand for action subject to the !votes of a small number of participating editors who may or may not have any working knowledge of the uses and purposes of the templates involved. If you want input and a friendly give-and-take, ask the editors who use them on a regular basis, i.e., the "stakeholders." If you don't want friendly give-and-take, keep doing what you're doing, but don't be surprised when you're embarrassed to discover that you are proposing the illogical merge of the infobox for American college football players and the infobox for Canadian professional football players. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
There is precedent for calling a TfD a "request," as well, though I don't really see how this relates to this discussion, specifically. —PC-XT+ 08:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While I appreciate the sentiment, this proposal betrays a lack of understanding of the sport of American/Canadian football, the differences between American and Canadian professional football, and the differences between college and professional football, as well as the purposes for which these two infobox templates are actually used. Template:Infobox NFL player is used for professional players of American football, and should be the exclusive infobox used for current and retired NFL players. Template:Infobox college football player is presently used overwhelmingly for currently active American college football players. The surviving template for this proposed merge, Template:Infobox gridiron football person, is used primarily for professional players of Canadian football (i.e., the CFL), but it has been imperfectly used for other purposes, including some old-time NFL players and recent Arena football players, whose infoboxes should have already been replaced with "Infobox NFL player." Not understanding what infoboxes are supposed to be used under what circumstances has also led to some editors improperly using "Infobox gridiron football player" for old-time college players.
We do not need to merge the infobox for American college football players with the infobox for Canadian professional football players. That is folly. What is needed is to rework "Infobox college football player" so that it includes specific parameters for current college players (i.e., college year, academic major, university, college team, other sports, bowl games, high school attended, etc.) and former college players (i.e., degree awarded, graduation year, subsequent degree(s), post-college career, etc.) who never played professional football and never became college or professional coaches. What we need is an "Infobox college football player" that is tailored to the core data points of current college players, but is versatile enough to be used for notable former college football players who never played professional football. We do not need a one-size-fits-all infobox that merges a template for American college football players with a template for Canadian professional football players. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:WikiProject College Basketball had agreed to migrate from a college specific template to the basketball-generic Template:Infobox basketball biography at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball/Archive_4#Proposal_to_migrate_men.27s_college_basketball_players_and_coaches_to_Template:Infobox_basketball_biography. It seems logical for something similar to happen for college football. While the players are student athletes, their notability has little to do with their major. If they do not play professionally, their notability I'd imagine would be with their collegiate playing career, not their non-sporting career. However, unlike basketball which only has the one non-college template, football is complicated by having both Template:Infobox NFL player and Template:Infobox gridiron football person. Not sure if those two can be merged as well, but this is the type of discussion that might be better held outside of TFD and among WikiProjects.—Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Bagumba, what is needed is template that works for the hundreds of notable college football players who never played a down of professional football. Combining the infobox for American college football players with the already sub-optimal infobox for Canadian football players is not a particularly good idea. The college football player infobox needs to be retooled and tailored for its intended purpose, with enough versatility built into it so it can be used for the hundreds of notable college players who never played pro football of any kind. Most of those notable old-time CFB players were college graduates, never played pro ball, many were All-Americans, and then had significant non-sports careers after college. Trying to cram them into the poorly designed, graphically primitive "Infobox gridiron football player" is not a good idea. Trying to create a generic one-size-fits-all solution is not always a good idea. Sometimes a single-purpose tailored solution is better. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
      • There are also professional players who become notable for things besides their career too e.g. Billy Hunter (American football). I think a generic template could conceivably handle this for both former college and former pro players.—Bagumba (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
        • You can still use Infobox college football player for people who never turned pro. Example WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Speaking of Template:Infobox NFL player, the 2012 closed discussion to merge that with Template:Infobox NFL coach to create Template:Infobox NFL biography still remains the oldest item in the TFD Holding cell. Something needs to be done with that issue too. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
      • No one has touched the Infobox NFL player merge because the TfD nominator failed to adhere to required TfD procedures by placing notices on either template, and the closing administrator flatly refused to address the procedural concerns after the fact. No one wants to implement the merge because it's a tainted close with no input from the editors who actually use the templates. That merge should have solicited the input of WP:NFL; instead it was a decision made by a small handful with no working knowledge of the templates involved. Not TfD's finest moment. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
        • That's not so, as this edit shows. The most recent discussion I can find is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 11#Template:Infobox NFL coach, which certainly does not make a case for ignoring the closure decision of the TfD (which is BTW off-topic here). Your claim that "no one wants to implement the merge" is also false, as can be seen at the earlier discussion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 10#TfD for NFL coaches infobox and proposed merger. In fact, it appears that the only person who does not want to do so is you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Thank you, but you're ignoring the obvious, Andy: there was no proposed merge notice ever placed on Template:Infobox NFL player (please review the edit history), nor was the original creator of Template:Infobox NFL player notified, nor were the major contributors to the template notified. Care to argue the point further? Why are you determined to impose a unified template on WP:NFL when the editors of that WikiProject have consciously chosen not to have a unified template? It's also equally obvious that WP:CFL and WP:NFL do not want to use the same templates. I'm not sure what you believe the role of TfD is, but I'm pretty sure that it is not to impose uniform templates on editors who don't want uniform templates. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Your claim was that neither template was tagged; I have demonstrated unequivocally that that was false. It's also the case that the merger proposal was flagged on the project pages; that another editor invited you to relist (reopen) the discussion, but you did not do so; that the uninvolved closing admin noted that subsequent discussion on the project talk page was in favour of merging; that a proposal (now in archive 10) to proceed with the merger was endorsed by every commenter except you; that you failed to respond to questions put to you in the discussion (now in Archive 11) in September 2013; and (as I pointed out above) yours is the only dissenting voice. Like I said, this is off-topic here; please find a more appropriate venue if you wish to discuss this further. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
              • Andy, I will readily concede the point that the template with 375 transclusions (Infobox NFL coach) was tagged, but I would hope that you would likewise concede the template with over 14,000 transclusions (Infobox NFL player) was not. You also continue to ignore the fact that absolutely ZERO effort was made to notify the template creators, major contributors, or the affected and very active WikiProject, in breach of TfD procedures. It was and remains a tainted close. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
                • That point was refuted in the discussion cited, where it was noted that the proposal (which would have had nil effect on the articles transcluding Infobox NFL player) was flagged on the project page. There was also subsequent discussion, also cited by me above, where yours was the only dissenting voice. It's time for you to drop the stick. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment There's also Template:Infobox pro football player. Seem that would be ripest for a merge with Template:Infobox gridiron football person. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • JW, virtually all of the 570 present uses of "Infobox pro football player" should be converted to "Infobox NFL player." It appears that most of these 570 players played in both the NFL and AFL (1960-68); when AFL Draft options were added to the "Infobox NFL player" several years ago, the primary reason for the existence of "Infobox pro football player" ceased. No merge is necessary; present uses should simply be replaced with "Infobox NFL player," but most of the work will have to be done by hand. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Wow. As an editor of American football, I had no idea there were this many different flavors of football templates. Mentioned above are Template:Infobox gridiron football person, Template:Infobox pro football player, Template:Infobox college football player, Template:Infobox NFL player, Template:Infobox NFL coach, Template:Infobox NFL biography. Any non-football editor would naturally guess that there has to be opportunities for consolidation here. At the same time, it's conceivable that maybe a lot of these are not used in new articles anymore, and any merging would just be creating busy work and opening up a window for merge errors. I have no opinion yet, so any insight from others would help decide on a plan here.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Upon further review, "Infobox NFL biography" is merely a redirect to "Template:Infobox NFL player". Striking from my above comment.—Bagumba (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge, as templates have semantics in parameters, rather than in the name like categories, so if one template is able to handle all parameters in each variation, or can be made to do so relatively easily, it would most likely be better in the long run than having several similar templates. —PC-XT+ 12:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I would also support using stuff from the NFL infobox, which may not require it being listed, here. That would basically be forking it to both NFL biography and this template, though. —PC-XT+ 02:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
      • PC-XT, ignoring, of course, that the three primary WikiProjects involved -- those for American professional football, American college football, Canadian professional football -- and the primary users of these templates have consciously chosen to differentiate their player articles graphically and otherwise from each other? Templates are not designed for the convenience of the maintainers of templates or the whims of TfD participants. They are designed with the purposes of article creators in mind, and to further the commonality in content and graphics among articles that share the same topic areas. Here, they have chosen to graphically distinguish between Canadian professional, American professional, and American college football players, and TfD participants should respect those choices and not attempt to impose their own personal preferences on the content creators who actually created and maintain these articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
        • I have a different perspective. In a nutshell, templates are designed for article creators, Wikipedia readers, and template editors. Wikipedia is here primarily for its readers to get information. While templates exist to provide writers a convenient way to present information, they also serve to ensure a uniform experience for its readers. Otherwise, writers would constantly reinvent the wheel to present the same information in different articles, and readers would get an inconsistent experience. Different templates are not needed, and presentation should not necessarily be drastically divergent, simply because one football league has a CFL All-Star Game (Canadian) and another calls it a Pro Bowl (American all-star game), or one league has a Canadian College Draft and the other a National Football League draft.

          Moreover, templates should also be designed for template editors. Backlog for template editors could be alleviated if normal editors could reuse an existing template for a similar purpose, or a template editor could incrementally expand an existing template as necessary. Again, think not reinventing the wheel for Football Flavor X and avoiding tribal not invented here mentality. Also, this would prevent future improvements from having to be methodically replicated piecemeal across multiple templates. No need to design job security into templates here, right?—Bagumba (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
        • WikiProjects sometimes prefer tailored templates that they maintain, themselves. If they come here and say they want them separate, the closing admin will respect their voices. However, as Bagumba points out, merging templates can be beneficial, up to a point. Using wrappers or template modules is sometimes better, especially with Lua module backends. It seems like there is little discussion of the templates, with all of this discussion about why we are having this discussion, so all I can say is that these seem appropriate for merging in some form. I would support merging leaving wrappers, first, so we could deal with project-specific concerns separately, if desired. —PC-XT+ 08:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose What would the merged template look like? Also, since the reason for this proposed merge is not wanting to switch templates when they turn pro, then you should actually be looking to merge with Template:Infobox NFL player. The Template:Infobox gridiron football person is only used for CFL players (and old college players who never played pro, though you can still use infobox:college player for that Example Note:I think the only reason Infobox:NFL players isn't used for college players who never played pro is because of the "debut" parameteers that you cannot remove and if you wanted to list college stats in the infobox it would still say "NFL statistics", you can list CFL and Arena stats in the NFL infobox though) and most college people who turn pro are going to use NFL player. Any college player who is notable enough to have their own article is not going to start their careers in the CFL. You are still going to have to change the infobox to NFL player. If you want to merge something, you might as well merge all of the gridiron football infoboxes into one. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I appreciate the merge request but it would be hard to fit all of the various gridiron football parameters into one neat infobox. If someone experimented and found an infobox that that would easily fit all of the information, then we could only have one infobox. All of the parameters that would be needed for a merged infobox may confuse editors. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • It would look like whatever this discussion decides. All of the issues you describe can be addressed in the template code. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the arguments made above by Dirtlawyer1 and WikiOriginal-9. This appears to be an opportunity for anything but a clean merge. A clean strategy for how such a merge would be executed, one that maintains all the existing relevant info where needed, needs to be drawn up before we can green light this. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Professional Canadian football and college American football have enough differences for a merge to make no sense. Even the templates don't look similar. And no one is complaining about the need to swap templates once someone goes pro. Additionally, players in the CIS football ranks currently use the Template:Infobox gridiron football person as opposed to a college variant like the Americans have. Cmm3 (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • That the templates "don't look similar" is another reason we should merge them; there's absolutely no need for infoboxes to vary in visual layout like this. I am complaining about the need to swap templates once someone goes pro; it puts up an unnecessary cognitive burden which is a barer to editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
      • If you were primarily complaining about the need to swap templates once someone goes pro; then, like I said before, you would want to merge NFL player with college football player. Also, it is not a lot of work anyway (here is an example of me changing "college football player" to "NFL player". They are very similar already. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Add that to the fact that the graphics of "Infobox gridiron football person" are horribly primitive. Why would we want to use it? Graphically, it's hideous and its design is inconsistent -- years and year spans follow honors, awards; years and tenures precede team names. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
          • We wouldn't; when merging two templates, we use the best design. Another reason why the merge should be carried out. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
            • "We" who, Andy? You? You're not a template editor, nor are you a regular editor of American or Canadian football articles. If you were, and you understood the tangential relationships between Canadian pro football and American college football, you would not have proposed this mismatched merge. The three WikiProjects want their own distinct graphics, Andy, that's why you have never been able to combine the infoboxes for the CFL and NFL players into "Infobox football biography" -- because no one wants it except a handful of regular TfD participants like yourself. Do you understand that? The users of these infobox templates consciously designed them to be graphically distinct so that readers could quickly distinguish between CFL, NFL and CFB players. You seem to be the only one in this discussion who cannot absorb that, or the fact that an attempt to merge the infoboxes for American college football players and Canadian professional football players is a goofy mismatch that only someone who doesn't edit these articles would ever propose. Get it? These infoboxes are graphically distinct because that's what the contributing editors want. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
              • "We" being Wikipedia. And yes, I am a template editor. Any other mud you'd like to throw? Your claim about the reasons why these templates are " graphically distinct" seems to be an invention; do you have any evidence to support it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
              • If there was a conscious effort to make the infoboxes distinct, I do think its fair to re-examine the original rationale and make sure that consensus has not changed. In some instances, "not invented here" has been the driving reason, which could result in depriving one subset of articles if another similar template later has useful and applicable improvements that are not replicated across templates.—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
                • @Pigsonthewing: "We" being you, Andy. If you had done some due diligence on the NFL, CFL and CFB player infobox templates, including the talk page and edit history for Infobox gridiron football person and the other two infoboxes, you would know that WP:NFL editors created Infobox NFL player in 2007, intending to consolidate and replace several pre-existing templates that were then in use, including Infobox gridiron football person. WP:NFL ceased to use Infobox NFL gridiron football by conscious decision in 2007, but WP:CFL continues to use it and maintain the template to this day. The same editors who created Infobox NFL player in July 2007 were responsible for the creation of Infobox college football player in December; although their graphics were similar, they were also distinctly different. For your benefit, here's the timeline:
                  • 1. Template:Infobox gridiron football person was created in December 2005, abandoned by WP:NFL in mid-2007, but continues to be maintained and used by WP:CFL for all active and retired CFL players;
                  • 2. Template:Infobox NFL player was created in July 2007, and thereafter WP:NFL ceased using Infobox gridiron person for all active and retired NFL players; subsequent to its creation, at least three different other infoboxes were merged and replaced by Infobox NFL player; and
                  • 3. Template:Infobox college football player was created in December 2007, and thereafter WP:CFB ceased using Infobox gridiron person for all current college football players.
                • So, yes, Andy, WP:NFL and WP:CFB consciously and deliberately stopped using Infobox gridiron football in 2007. Did you know any of this before you proposed this merge? Would you like to continue to advocate forcing WP:CFB to use Infobox gridiron football, a template they deliberately and intentionally rejected? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
                  • "We" being Wikipedia. Didn't I already tell you that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
                    • So, instead of acknowledging the template history that WP:NFL and WP:CFB consciously and deliberately stopped using Infobox gridiron football person, your only response is a sassy reply? Are you unable to acknowledge the valid points of other editors? For the record, I will repeat my point above: the infoboxes for American college football players (i.e. Template:Infobox college football), American professional football players (i.e. Template:Infobox NFL player), and Canadian professional football players (i.e. Infobox gridiron football person) are graphically and visually different because they were designed to be distinct one from another. It's not an accident, but differentiation by design. And there's nothing wring with that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
                      • The template history is irrelevant. Your claim about the reasons why these templates are " graphically distinct" seems to be an invention; you have offered no evidence to support it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
                        • Andy, like so much of what you write above and below, you obviously lack a fundamental understanding of the basic facts and history, and you're either dismissing valid points or you lack the reading comprehension to absorb what is being said. I'm not going to re-read the history of these templates for your benefit; you should have done that BEFORE you submitted this merge TfD. You have demanded the illogical merge of two templates for subjects that are tangentially related, but distinctly different, obviously without any basic understanding of the distinctions between these subjects. You were obviously unaware and are now dismissive of the edit history and the fact that Infobox college football player was created two years after Infobox gridiron football person, and WP:CFB stopped using the older template when the newer one was created. All of this is extremely relevant, and everyone else who is reading this understands that -- even if you don't understand, or as seems more likely, you simply refuse to acknowledge its relevance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
                          • @Andy Mabbett, @Dirtlawyer1: I think you both mean well. May I suggest we divert and concentrate on the infobox requirements of each project as they stand today, and determine what (if any) changes or new templates are needed to address those present day requirements.—Bagumba (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
        • It's a concern, but it's not the primary one. And if the templates are so similar, that again points to the redundancy of having more than one of them. (Your link isn't a diff, BTW.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Most American college football players who go on to a professional football career, play in the NFL, not the CFL. To the extent "Infobox college football player" and "Infobox NFL player" share common data (e.g., name, weight, height, birth date, birth place, number, position, college, highlights, etc.), the field names should be standardized to facilitate easy conversion. That does not require a merge of "Infobox NFL player" and "Infobox college football player," and certainly does not argue for a merge of the standard infobox for American college football players and the standard infobox for Canadian professional football players. Only someone who does not edit American/Canadian football articles could argue in favor of the latter. That idea is goofy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Convenience break 1[edit]
  • Support merge to college football player: "football person" has got to be the most ridiculous name for an infobox. One infobox for college and one for NFL would work fine and cover most bases. If there is a need to rename to add "gridiron" to the new title, no reason not to. Frankly, I see no reason not to also combine USA and Canada - gridiron football is gridiron football. We don't need a bunch of bBalkanized infoboxes. And really, where we have one editor who has commented almost 20 times and has insulted the nominator in the process, that alone suggests that the idea proposed happens to be an excellent one that is well worth doing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talkcontribs) 00:09, 19 December 2014‎ (UTC)
    • Uh, Montanabw, with all due respect, you got that exactly backwards. Andy Mabbett's proposal is to merge the infobox for American college football (i.e. Template:Infobox college football) into the infobox for Canadian professional football (i.e. Template:Infobox gridiron football person), not the other way around. As I took pains to point out above, WikiProject College Football specifically rejected Infobox gridiron football person and created their own infobox for college football players in December 2007, after WikiProject National Football League did the same thing in July 2007. The sports of Canadian football and American football are similar, but different, and American professional football and American college football are two different levels of the same sport with entirely different players, coaches and fanbases. It's not nearly as simple as your comment suggests, and we are dealing with thousands of examples of each template. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that suggests why these distinctly different versions of the sport should not have visually distinctive infoboxes for their athletes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
      • The proposal is "merge with", not "merge into"; the resultant template would need a new name, the existing names remaining as redirects. The number of instances of each template is yet another red herring. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Convenience break 2[edit]
  • Comment on refactoring attempt I am formally objecting to attempts to WP:REFACTOR this discussion. For reference, here was the version before I reverted the refactoring attempt. In my opinion, the "other templates" threads that were collapsed are pertinent to this discussion, as it illustrates the relationship of all the football templates, and discusses the deficiency in the original proposal of limiting the discussion to two templates. I realize this TfD is regretably large and unwieldy, but it illustrates the need to continue this discussion outside of a TfD where all dependencies can be thoroughly analyzed among all WikiProjects to formulate the most optimal plan moving forward. Unfortunately, it is this complicated.—Bagumba (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I have re-collapsed the sections, at least for now. This is a proposal to merge two templates. Lengthy discussion of other templates hinders that discussion, making it hard to find relevant comments. Such discussion, especially those in which the nominated templates are not discussed, needs to be clearly delineated. I have tried two different methods of doing so; if you have a better way to do this, please suggest it on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
      • @Andy Mabbett: I have no desire to get into a edit war with you over your recent revert to restore your preferred refactoring. Please note that per WP:REFACTOR, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." I kindly ask you to self-revert, discuss your concerns, and leave it to another party if they see fit to refactor as you prefer. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose per Dirtlawyer1. As noted above, Template:Infobox gridiron football person is a terrible navbox, so any attempt to merge anything into that mess should be shot down on sight. As far as the idea of creating one master navbox for all gridiron football players, with options that could be turned on/off for college football players, NFL players, CFL players, AFL players, etc., I think it's certainly an intriguing idea, but I would have to see mock-ups and examples of exactly how it would work presented before I would feel comfortable expressing an opinion one way or the other on that. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:MissGrandInternationalCountries[edit]

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

Reason#3: The template is not used and has no likelihood of being used. Miss Grand International 2014 has been deleted multiple times and is now salted. Geniac (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

December 13[edit]

Template:Medical schools in Ireland[edit]

Template:Medical schools in Ireland (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Only links to two articles and doesn't have a mother article. ...William 21:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I am working on a mother article and other related articles. --GeneralBelly (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Userfy: AGF and move back to template space when ready. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Userfy per PotW —PC-XT+ 03:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Animal attacks in Australia[edit]

Template:Animal attacks in Australia (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Template first of all doesn't have a mother article. Second of all, half the articles in it are either about the animal or fauna, they being attacks particular to Australia being just a minor part. ...William 15:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Fredrikstad FK[edit]

Template:Fredrikstad FK (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Per WP:NENAN only two links. Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Flickr image inline link[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure)  —PC-XT+ 05:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Flickr image inline link (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Flickr tag inline link (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Flickr tag inline link with Template:Flickr image inline link.
The two templates are similar. Can they be combined? --evrik (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose: I think not, one is for individual images, the other tags. I've renamed them accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: neither template is tagged for discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Either close as withdrawn or tag the templates for further discussion. evrik, would you be ok with withdrawing this, so it can close, or did you want further discussion? —PC-XT+ 03:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Renaming was probably a better idea. Withdrawn. --evrik (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 12[edit]

Template:Villages of Albania[edit]

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

scope is too broad. Frietjes (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Army of Two[edit]

Template:Army of Two (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

With only 3 titles, I don't think this requires it's own template - not necessary. LADY LOTUSTALK 14:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Goyang Wonders roster[edit]

Template:Goyang Wonders roster (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unnecessary, defunct, not informative. Sawol (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

December 8[edit]

Template:Cleanup-spam[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was mergePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Propose merging Template:Cleanup-spam with Template:Advert.
Although some have argued that {{advert}} is designed to deal with content that is written with the "tone" of an advertisement, this template argues that it contains "promotional material and other spam", such as inappropriate external links.

However, if it is written like promotional material, it is promotional material. Aside from the slightly different wording, these two templates essentially have the same purpose. I suggest that these two templates be merged with the wording:

"This article is written like an advertisement. Please help improve the article by removing promotional language and inappropriate external links, and adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view."

This covers all the potential scenarios for these two templates together. If it is just links that are the problem, {{External links}} covers it. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge. While the two templates say different things, they're close enough in functionality that we can easily write something that would cover both scenarios; your wording works, and it wouldn't be hard to replace it if someone objected. Redirect one template to the other, add the new text to the target template, and we're done. Nyttend (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom and Nyttend —PC-XT+ 00:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Coming here from an article (GNU Octave) where this was added although the EL tag would have been more appropriate, this merger seems like a good solution. I would caution against automatically re-tagging the articles after this merge is done because this template appears to have been a union of the other two (Advert and EL), so the problem in each article where this template appears cannot be discerned (and the right [sub]tag cannot be chosen) automatically by a program... 86.121.137.150 (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Evolution (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Evolution (professional wrestling) (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Same as the Shield. Not enought entries, only 4 wrestlers. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak delete per precedent, though this does actually navigate a bit, and I nearly said weak keep —PC-XT+ 01:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not enough info or anything to keep. Stephen"Zap" (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete It may help a little with navigation, but there's emphasis on little for a reason. I don't think there's enough here to make it worth keeping.LM2000 (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Russia Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Spain Squad 1999 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Yugoslavia Squad 1999 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Poland Squad 2001 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Russia Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Spain Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Portugal Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Russia Squad 2005 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Czech Republic Squad 2005 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Portugal Squad 2005 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Ukraine Squad 2005 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Hungary Squad 2005 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Czech Republic Squad 2007 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Italy Squad 2007 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Portugal Squad 2007 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Romania Squad 2007 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Russia Squad 2007 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Serbia Squad 2007 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Ukraine Squad 2007 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Azerbaijan Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Belarus Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Belgium Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Czech Republic Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Hungary Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Italy Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Portugal Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Russia Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Serbia Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Ukraine Squad 2010 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

non-championship-winning squads. Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Template:Left Behind[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was mergePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Left Behind (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Left Behind Characters (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Left Behind with Template:Left Behind Characters.
very few characters still have independent articles, so it makes sense to merge the links to the characters into the main template. Frietjes (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom —PC-XT+ 01:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:High School DxD[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:High School DxD (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

With only three sub-lists this template isn't really necessary. The characters, light novels and episode lists can all be comfortably accessed from the main High School DxD article. KirtZJ (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as unnecessary —PC-XT+ 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - With the few articles linked to it, all of which are already easily accessed from the main article, this isn't really needed anymore. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox academic division[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Futsal squad templates[edit]

Template:Brazil Squad 1992 FIFA Futsal World Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Brazil Squad 1996 FIFA Futsal World Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Italy Squad 2003 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Russia Squad 1999 UEFA Futsal Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2014 (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) 02:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • weak keep, these are championship-winning squads. Frietjes (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - since these are mostly empty, probably a list on an article would be better. -- Beland (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - a list on an article would suffice.--saeedparva 17:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Iran Squad 1996 FIFA Futsal World Championship[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Iran Squad 1996 FIFA Futsal World Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Per WP:NENAN - fewer than five blue links excluding the parent article . Not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

  • delete, didn't win the championship. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • keep, have five blue links excluding the parent article--saeedparva 18:44, 30 November 2014 (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) 02:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - a list on an article would suffice. -- Beland (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Milwaukie neighborhoods[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Milwaukie neighborhoods (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Navbox listing neighborhoods of a small city with no hope of being notable enough for articles. The one neighborhood with any chance of notability, Lewelling, Milwaukie, Oregon was deleted via PROD today. I've rescued dozens of articles about small towns and neighborhoods, so am not a deltionist on these topics, but I have no hope for expansion of these. All can be written about in the primary topic, Milwaukie, Oregon, therefore no navbox is needed. Valfontis (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete, the neighborhoods of this small suburban city are highly unlikely to be notable enough for any such articles to exist, at least for the next few decades. Even if something dramatic were to happen (like a shooting rampage massacre), the other neighborhoods would not become notable. —EncMstr (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, per EncMstr. SJ Morg (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I was hesitant to vote this way, since National Register of Historic Places historic districts often embrace neighborhoods (they're always notable, since the National Register requires much more documentation than is required by WP:N), but National Register of Historic Places listings in Clackamas County, Oregon doesn't show any historic districts in Milwaukie. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 6[edit]

Template:Infobox SBTVD standard[edit]

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

Used for just eight articles on Brazilian digital television standards. Redundant to {{Infobox technology standard}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Merge to something: Is there a separate infobox for digital TV? Seems that computing standard is perhaps a little broad, but I don't know enough about the tech to speak to this. I definitely agree that one nation's digital TV standards with so few transclusions is a proper candidate for deletion and merge, but is the "computing standards" infobox the right target for a merge? Montanabw(talk) 01:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • keep, not entirely redundant to anything. we could always go back to the old version since we all love direct transclusions of {{infobox}}. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox W3C standard[edit]

Template:Infobox W3C standard (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox technology standard}}, which has the advantage of having an |organization= parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox perpetual motion machine[edit]

Template:Infobox perpetual motion machine (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Infobox controversial invention (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox perpetual motion machine with Template:Infobox controversial invention.
Similar templates, with overlapping purpose, and only six transclusions between them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Song contest templates[edit]

Template:Infobox ABU country[edit]
Template:Infobox ABU country (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Infobox Eurovision country (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox ABU country with Template:Infobox Eurovision country.
Identical apart from a couple of parameter names. An apparent fork, with an uncredited copy of the underlying code. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

A pattern emerging here. I think a RfC is in order if we are going to be looking at the redesign of such infoboxes, and then we (or Andy) could then mass-delete the ones that are no longer needed. TfD of multiple templates all scattered about at different sections of this TfD page is just going to cause a lot of problems. People would mention of suggestion at one TfD and not be aware of other suggestions at one of the other TfD's. Could we not put all these "noms" together in the same thread, to avoid confusion. Wes Mouse | T@lk 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support deletion and merge: No need for 10 katrillion infoboxes for every nuance. One will do. Montanabw(talk) 01:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Against merging: I see no reason for merging. Wesley makes several good points as to why it should not be merged as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Restructuring, which was in the project's pipeline to begin with, regarding proposals to create "all-in-one" universal infoboxes for contests/festivals within Project Eurovision scope, so that they can be used on any of their respective articles regardless of the type of contest. Request to postpone TfD so that the discussions can conclude and may result in other templates within the project to be deleted en-mass. Wes Mouse | T@lk 01:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • No. Not least as you've opened that discussion after this nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
      • FYI Pigsonthewing, if you had done a bit more research, which you have demonstrated that you like to be devious and trawl through people's contributions as if to spite their nose of their face, then you would have discovered that the discussion has been ongoing for 2 weeks now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Haphazard methods, in which it has been noted that the project is in dire need of restructuring including the way it deals with categorisation and template structure. And there was no need to close down an active discussion on the project talk page that was concerning restructuring either; as the thread was covering not just templates, but other areas. All I have asked is for the project to be given the chance to discuss the issues and look into proposals of making universal infoboxes that would work on any contest article, and then we would be able to come back here with a list of obsolete templates that would be ready for uncontroversial speedy deletion, as the "snowball delete" consensus would have already been obtained as part of the project's restructuring debate. One would expect an ounce of courtesy, compassion, and allow a project the chance to sort out their mess. But then it is Christmas, and Scrooge has to live on! Wes Mouse | T@lk 12:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, until a replacement template is ready – The ABU has no direct connection with the Eurovision Song Contest so just using the Eurovision template for ABU articles isn't a good idea in my opinion. I think creating a new template such as {{Infobox Song Contest}}, with flexible parameters to suit each contest as needed would work nicely. When this is done a new TfD can be opened and the old templates can be deleted as redundant. WikiProject Eurovision are capable of doing the full implementation, and merges of templates and other such things had already been proposed before this nomination was made. CT Cooper · talk 15:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Nothing would be replaced or deleted "until a replacement template is ready"; that's what this discussion is (supposed to be) about. "just using the Eurovision template" is not what is proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Which is exactly what CT Cooper noted. A discussion was already taking place at Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision#Haphazard methods which has been ongoing for the last 2 weeks, and is still active with an outcome still to be determined. In the discussion are issues about looking into restructuring categories and templates; and as was noted in that discussion a series of RfC's would be created (and have been created) so that the merging/redesigning discussions can take place, and then all "redundant" templates would be mass-nominated as non-controversial speedy deletes. These string of piecemeal TfD's are more redundant and duplicated, considering the other debates already taking place. Admin closure of these should be taken to allow the active project discussion to conclude its course. Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
        • The discussion to which you refer does not mention infoboxes, and only uses the word template once, in passing, in an unrelated context. Your multiple attempts to shut down these discussions, by a variety of means, while denying that you are doing so, is becoming tiresome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • No, Andy, you are being uncooperative and disruptive and not even listening to what others have to say. Did I miss the memo in which it was announced you had become God Almighty? That debate is still ongoing, so what if it mentions templates once - the fact is they have been mentioned along with the entire production of the project itself. As it is a very indepth debate that is covering every aspect of the project, from how it should operate to structure of templates/categories. Such discussion is not going to be concluded overnight, and naturally with what is to be covered will take a hell of a lot longer than the average 30 days. Trying to shutdown that debate when it is merely 2 weeks old is despicable behaviour and very pushy. If one actually did their responsible jobs correctly around here, and took the time to just check if a project is already in mid-discussion on a template before hitting the TfD red button, then one would be more helpful and one would be avoiding the creation of heated debates such as this. You're not even showing any reconcile by noting the fact a debate is still active elsewhere and letting that debate run its course. What is the rush? I thought Wikipedia had no rush? You haven't even apologised for purposely searching through my talk page archive in order to dig up something that has no face value whatsoever - and that has been noted by an administrator for your info. Two users also state that no canvassing has taken place; yet you still do not retract such allegations; and not only that you then imply that a RfC is now a canvassing tool for this? You are the issue that is becoming tiresome and needs nominating for deletion before you cause more destruction. Wes Mouse | T@lk 19:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Wes Mouse, you need to stop attacking the individuals and focus on the issue. There is a need for a centralized discussion and it is clear that this set of template schemes happens to be a total disaster. I do think that putting all the templates into one TfD and going from there is a good start, but Andy had good faith in starting with what he could find... how many more are there? Montanabw(talk) 20:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
        • @Montanabw: I agree that a centralised discussion should take place, and one was taking place almost 3 weeks ago at Project Eurovision, as it was noted that the project was going down the "haphazard" route of just creating templates and categories at a whim, creating bio articles without due care or attention to bio policies; and many other issues. The idea of creating the discussion 3 weeks ago was so that project members could openly air out their thoughts, and then go forward to a "super RfC" that would cover every issue that was causing problems for the project, including article layout, templates, and categorisation. As such discussion would be covering so much, then the normal 30 day RfC period would be too much - too soon, to handle such major details. And I wanted to make sure that I had taking into account for a reasonable time-frame for such discussion to take place before opening up such RfC. I, myself, have been having internet issues, so opening up a discussion only to be unable to participate would be useless (if that makes sense). The project would be going through the redesigning process of these templates, roll out the new versions (across thousands of articles) which would take time, naturally. Thus a mass-nomination of all the obsolete templates would have been put up anyway, but they'd be without contention and could technically be "speedy deleted", thus saving all this brash tittle-tattle of TfD debating. (I think I made sense there). And in reply to the question, there are quite a lot of templates within the project, so the project discussion the format of how a universal version would look, is a logical and peaceful manoeuvre. Wes Mouse | T@lk 13:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm glad we're clear on the point that nothing will be done until it's all worked out. I don't want any drive-by mergers or deletions. Though as it stands I'm doubtful these discussions will end with a clear resolution. Putting aside the fact that a lot of the discussion so far isn't about the templates, it doesn't help that we seem to be having multiple parred discussions, when we actually need one centralised discussion for all the relevant templates, including some which haven't been TfDed. These nominations were premature. CT Cooper · talk 19:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge: the templates are useful, but they are very similar: they have exactly the same fields and the same style, only some field names are different. Merging them would therefore improve maintainability and would not have any impact on what users see on screen. Basically, it would just be a technical issue. Stee888 (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, until a replacement template is ready – There are no reason to merge this at the moment. Until the other issues have been taken care of.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Since no templates can be replaced (or redirected) "until a replacement template is ready", your !vote is tantamount to merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Didn't know someone's keep !vote could be changed to a merge !vote just because they say so. Isn't that vote rigging? Anyhow, a new universal design is already in progress and should be ready to roll out by the end of the week across 100's of articles - and then all the older templates will be ready for mass-deletion. We came across an issue with the map parameter, which explained why there were different templates. So on say Eurovision Song Contest 2015 (as well as previous contests and Junior etc), in the infobox we have | map year = 2015, this tells the infobox to transclude what is at Template:Infobox Eurovision/2015 into the infobox. Thanks to AxG, he has worked on a fix for this issue and which will mean we have to rename tons of pages. So [Template:Infobox Eurovision/2015]] will be renamed Template:Infobox Song Contest/Eurovision Song Contest 2015 and with added coding will be automatically generated on the article without | map year = 2015; Template:Infobox Song Contest/Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2015, Template:Infobox Song Contest/Eurovision Young Dancers 2015, Template:Infobox Song Contest/Türkvizyon Song Contest 2015, Template:Infobox Song Contest/ABU Radio Song Festival 2015 etc. etc. these will also be generated automatically on their respected articles. I should point out though that this will be quite a hefty process to carry out which will require some time, although I have the red bull and coffee on standby and prepared to work 24/7 without sleep to get these done rapidly. Also there are legends that need to be fixed, which are used across other language wikipedias, as they also use the same maps that English Wiki uses. This was the main problem that caused so much chaotic panic, because the coding used was also relying on maps/legends shared between metawiki (is that the right term to use for multilingal wikipedias?). Wes Mouse | T@lk 00:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Note: This is also BabbaQ's second !vote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as I have yet to cast my !vote for this template, I shall do so now. Keep until the replacement template has been successfully rolled out across 100s of articles, then renominate for uncontroversial delete. Final tweaking to the replacement is almost complete, and as I pointed out, I am even going to spend as much time as required to the new version changed over, even if it means taking time off work and working without any sleep. People can't say I am not being fair in this process. It will also mean all the current WP:ESC infoboxes will be mass-deleted, and an admin from the project has volunteered to carry that deletion process out once the roll out is completed. Wes Mouse | T@lk 15:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Cân i Gymru National Year[edit]
Template:Infobox Cân i Gymru National Year (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Infobox Eurovision Song Contest National Year (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Cân i Gymru National Year with Template:Infobox Eurovision Song Contest National Year.
The Welsh template is an apparent fork of the ESC (European Song Contest) one. They should be re-merged and made suitable (and named) for generic song contests, into which any other such templates may be (re-)merged later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Question how is this an apparent fork? They are two different contests, one is specific to Wales, the other pan-European. If there are ways to improve a template, then perhaps raising such issues at Project Eurovision talk page would be logical. I get the impression that the nom is mass-nominating quite a lot of Project Eurovision templates, which is quite disturbing behaviour. Wes Mouse | T@lk 20:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The clue is in the documentation of the Welsh template, which still includes a fragment of the ESC one it was copied from. Please assume good faith; and see Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation for a FAQ explaining why we don't need so many infoboxes doing very similar jobs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
And remember, Pigsonthewing, one also needs to assume the assumption of good faith. I merely said I got the "impression", that was not being bad faith. Merging the two templates would cause a hyperlink issue; because the syntax within the Eurovision version has things that create a link to Eurovision pages. For example [[{{{Country}}} in the - Eurovision Song Contest]], which allows the need to only input the country, so that it will automatically direct to articles such as Italy in the Eurovision Song Contest. We could not use that for Can i Gymru, as it would create a link to Wales in the Eurovision Song Contest, when there is no such article. The same is for the ABU Radio template which you also nominated. If we used the Eurovision version, it would not direct biennially, and would create annual links. Also it would show at the bottom on the inforbox that it is Eurovision, when we'd need to show it is ABU Radio. Wes Mouse | T@lk 20:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
A merger would not simply copy parameters from one template to another, but would address cases such as those you describe, and build in any necessary alternative parameters or switches. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
So then it would be more logical to discuss those proposals at the project talk page, work on a design that would be able to deal with every type of contest under the project scope - and then the obsolete versions get mass-deleted. This has been done before with other templates at the project. It saved time, and meant the obsolete ones got speedy deleted with no objections. Wes Mouse | T@lk 20:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Templates for discussion is the dedicated forum for such cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── TfD may be the case, but when we are discussing the possibility of merging a lot of templates so that there is a one-for-all version, then it would make more sense to discuss ideas at a project talk page, and then work on a design that would fit the one-for-all purpose, and then delete all the obsolete ones. That's how I would do it anyway, so that it avoids heated debates like this. Wes Mouse | T@lk 21:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support merge: More heat than light here. The issue is that we have about 10 katrillion infoboxes for every nuance of Eurovision and that isn't an efficient use of infoboxes. To compromise a bit here, if there are some parameters so very special to Eurovision that a generic TV song contest (American Idol, etc) infobox can't encompass everything (I would think a parameter for annual/biannual/qualifying competition, etc would work though) then maybe a generic Eurovision infobox would do, but seems no reason for more than one. Montanabw(talk) 01:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Restructuring, which was in the project's pipeline to begin with, regarding proposals to create "all-in-one" universal infoboxes for contests/festivals within Project Eurovision scope, so that they can be used on any of their respective articles regardless of the type of contest. Request to postpone TfD so that the discussions can conclude and may result in other templates within the project to be deleted en-mass. Wes Mouse | T@lk 01:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, until a replacement template is ready – The Eurovision Song Contest is a very differnt event from Cân i Gymru, so just using the ESC template isn't a good idea in my opinion. I think creating a new template such as {{Infobox Song Contest National Year}}, with flexible parameters to suit each contest as needed would work nicely. When this is done a new TfD can be opened and the old templates can be deleted as redundant. WikiProject Eurovision are capable of doing the full implementation, and merges of templates and other such things had already been proposed before this nomination was made. CT Cooper · talk 15:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Nothing would be replaced or deleted "until a replacement template is ready"; that's what this discussion is (supposed to be) about. "just using the Eurovision template" is not what is proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: At the moment, the templates could be merged, because they are very similar in fields and appearance. However, I would like to highlight that the template for Cân i Gymru is probably wrong or, at least, misleading: its fields refer to a "selection", as if it was a national selection for the ESC, but it's not, it's simply a separate competition, which does not lead to any other contest, therefore I suggest to do something different so that the template better suits its scope. I don't know if this could still be done through a merge. Stee888 (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as I have yet to cast my !vote for this template, I shall do so now. Keep until the replacement template has been successfully rolled out across 100s of articles, then renominate for uncontroversial delete. Final tweaking to the replacement is almost complete, and as I pointed out, I am even going to spend as much time as required to the new version changed over, even if it means taking time off work and working without any sleep. People can't say I am not being fair in this process. It will also mean all the current WP:ESC infoboxes will be mass-deleted, and an admin from the project has volunteered to carry that deletion process out once the roll out is completed. Wes Mouse | T@lk 15:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Sanremo Music Festival[edit]
Template:Infobox Sanremo Music Festival (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (Only 11 transclusions)

Overly specific; redundant to {{Infobox music festival}} (or otherwise {{Infobox recurring event}}). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep - {{Infobox music festival}} doesn't have the parameters to deal with a complex contest like San Remo. The San Remo Music Festival is not a music festival (despite its name) but is a contest that inspired the creation of Eurovision Song Contest - one could say it is an Italian Song Contest, for people of Italy only. And has been used to also select the Italian entry at Eurovision. Wes Mouse | T@lk 20:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Then perhaps it should be merged into the ESC template, as discussed above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Merging would not work, as I pointed out above. It would create linking issues, such as directing to an incorrect article. It is hard to try and explain, so maybe if one looked at the contest articles such as San Remo Music Festival, Eurovision Song Contest, ABU Radio Song Festival, ABU TV Song Festival, then you'd get a better understanding. Wes Mouse | T@lk 20:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
And as I point out above, there are technical means to deal with such matters. I would also remind you about WP:AGF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
And as noted, one should also assume the assumption of good faith. Constantly telling someone to AGF is an example of misuse; especially one that is to be avoided in deletion discussions. And casting allegations of canvassing is severe disruption if ever I have seen it. Notifying a project of a mass-number of templates that are up for discussion is not canvassing, it is making them aware of a debate and giving them the option to discuss. Wes Mouse | T@lk 21:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: the serious breach of WP:CANVASS, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Mass nomination of contest templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support deletion or merge infobox this specific is unneeded, it isn't even used in the main article on the topic. There is a navbox directing users to each year. Seems the necessary parameters can be added to the music festival or something similar. That said, one post on the project talk page, while a bit over the top in tone I don't think is the worst canvassing offense I've seen. However, the poster would be wise to be reminded that he would do better to just post the link with an "of interest" comment. Montanabw(talk) 01:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Restructuring, which was in the project's pipeline to begin with, regarding proposals to create "all-in-one" universal infoboxes for contests/festivals within Project Eurovision scope, so that they can be used on any of their respective articles regardless of the type of contest. Request to postpone TfD so that the discussions can conclude and may result in other templates within the project to be deleted en-mass. Wes Mouse | T@lk 01:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, for now – I would support the principle of merging but a replacement template needs to be found or created – after this is done, a new TfD can be opened. For now I think WikiProject Eurovision is capable of figuring out the finer details. As it stands, a merge to the generic music/event templates isn't appropriate unless the parameters of said templates are significantly expanded, so a new generic song contest template may be in order. CT Cooper · talk 15:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Nothing would be replaced or deleted until a replacement template is ready; that's what this discussion is (supposed to be) about. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
      • See above. Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Good, I'm glad we're clear on that point. I don't want any drive-by mergers or deletions. Though as it stands I'm doubtful these discussions will end with a clear resolution. CT Cooper · talk 19:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep – I was the creator of this template; the template is clearly useful to summarize data about the annual event. If it would be possible to merge it with a similar one, I would support this proposal, but, not only there is no template with similar fields at the moment, but I also think it would be very difficult, nearly impossible, to create such a template, because the rules of the Sanremo Music Festival are different from the rules of other song contests. Therefore, merging this templare with another one would result either in an extremely complex template, or in a template including a small subset of the data which are supported by the existing one (and I think all of these fields are useful). I also would like to point out that the Sanremo Music Festival is related to the Eurovision Song Contest, but it is not (or, at least, not only) a national selection for the European contest. It was created before the ESC, it was also held during the years in which Italy did not compete in the ESC, and its winner is not automatically chosen as the Italian entry for the ESC. It is a different contest. Using a ESC template would therefore be misleading (for example, the ESC template includes the logo of the European contest, but why should it be included in Sanremo Music Festival 2009 article?). Stee888 (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Template:Infobox ABU Radio[edit]
Template:Infobox ABU Radio (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Appears to be a fork of {{Infobox Eurovision}}, to which it is redundant. ABU name suggests Australia, but this is also used for Eurovision competitions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep - This is used on articles such as ABU Radio Song Festival 2012. Eurovision Song Contest are annual contests, ABU Radio Song Festival are biennial. Using the Eurovision infobox caused navigational issues because of this; and also if the Eurovision version were used it caused linking issues at the bottom of the box, when click on the hyperlink. Wes Mouse | T@lk 19:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Then, again, perhaps all these ought to be merged, as discussed above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
We tried to use the Eurovision first, and it caused a link issue. For example at the bottom where it provides links to the previous/next contests. Eurovision is yearly, ABU Radio is biennial - using the Eurovision template on ABU Radio would create yearly links and not biennially links. Wes Mouse | T@lk 20:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I've already replied to you above, about the technical means which would solve this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Changing my !vote from keep to Redirect to {{Infobox Song Contest}}. Both {{Infobox ABU Radio}} and {{Infobox ABU TV}} are now obsolete, their issues have been rectified and merged into a new universal Infobox Song Contest and a history merge of Inofbox Eurovision has been done with that template now redirected to the newer Infobox Song Contest. Wes Mouse | T@lk 13:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Combined discussion[edit]

I've grouped these discussions, as it seems there are shared issues. Please feel free to comment here, or under individual headings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

They are definitely not canvassing, and one is looking to stir trouble by falsely accusing users of such. It is clear both are replies to a user's comment, and that does not constitute canvassing. The first "linked allegation" one is in reply to something entirely different and not connected to these TfD's. That discussion is regarding the proposal of adding a new data field to the template so that we can include information about composers/lyricists; to which I stated it be best to put the roll out of that new change on-hold whilst these TfD's conclude. The second "linked allegation" again is certainly not canvassing, and I feel the user is twisting comments out of context in order to attempt to have people blocked so that I am "muted" and they "win" their way in this TfD. Wes Mouse | T@lk 12:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Update The universal {{Infobox Song Contest}} has now been created and is in process of being rolled out, so the soon to be obsolete ones that it is replacing should be ready for deletion by the weekend. Wes Mouse | T@lk 16:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • This new template appears to be an attempt to preempt the {{Infobox ABU Radio}} discussion, above. It does not appear to address the other nominations in this section, such as those for the ...National Year or ...country templates. If that is the case, please clarify. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Rome wasn't built in a day, Andrew. Don't be demonstrating the lack of pragmatism. It is Christmas next week, people do have real lives beyond Wikipedia. The creation of this new universal template took longer than excepted, and its subsequent rollout will take even longer. And once that is done, then the new universal versions for other inforbox will also be created, rolled out, and its predecessors deleted. I think it is time that one stepped down and allowed such process to take it natural course. After all Wikipedia is not a race to the finish line. Wes Mouse | T@lk 11:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
        • So the new template is not intended to replace ...National Year or ...country templates. And who is "Andrew"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • {{Infobox Song Contest}} (as noted in a comment made by CT Cooper above) is the template to replace {{Infobox Eurovision}}, {{Infobox ABU Radio}}, and {{Infobox ABU TV}}. The universal designs allows it to be used on any annual contest article. The design of the new version will be modified for similar universal boxes that will have the intention to replace Nation Year and Country versions - all of which have been discussed at WT:ESC in which you also noted the proposal to scrap the "forked" versions and replace with brand new universal designs. The editors who created the original ones will still be credited as being original owners of the previous versions. Wes Mouse | T@lk 14:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • {{Infobox Song Contest}} is an uncredited fork (and thus plagiarism) of {{Infobox Eurovision}}, intended to disrupt some of the above TfDs. See it's deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I think one needs to read a dictionary and learn the definition of "disruptive". There is no plagiarism. The modified work was done by a different editor at User:AxG/Sandbox/12. So I would appreciate that you retract your allegation that I have plagiarised anything. And the new template is not any intention to disrupt these TfD's. You even noted that none of these nominated templates would be merged/deleted until a replacement was made. We have the replacement, now live with it and move on. Wes Mouse | T@lk 15:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Oh look! AxG created {{Infobox Eurovision}}. AxG created the new {{Infobox Song Contest}} in which he even notes on his own talk page that the design was completed and that I can copy it over to the new template. Wes Mouse | T@lk 15:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#Template:Infobox Song Contest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox student media[edit]

Template:Infobox student media (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (Only 21 transclusions)

Superfluous, variously, to {{Infobox radio station}}, {{Infobox television channel}}, {{Infobox website}}, or {{Infobox broadcasting network}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Sherlock Holmes short story[edit]

Template:Infobox Sherlock Holmes short story (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (Only 57 transclusions)

Superfluous to {{Infobox short story}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support: You have got to be kidding here, there is a totally separate infobox for this? Absurd! Montanabw(talk) 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose, it's already a wrapper for {{Infobox short story}} and this is not a merger discussion. Frietjes (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, the 'Set in' date in the wrapper is particularly important information here which isn't really suitable for merging. geeoharee (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: duplicate infobox, and some of the entries shouldn't even be there. For example, what's the point to keep 'Set in' when the date of most stories is controversial? Saying "1890, according to William S. Baring-Gould" is not that useful, since his opinion is just as valid as everyone else's, so it is better to discuss the issue of the date in the article itself. --Newblackwhite (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • On the one hand, more parameters of {{Infobox short story}} may be useful, but on the other hand, this wrapper could be expanded or perhaps modularized. —PC-XT+ 00:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC) 00:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox pictish stone[edit]

Template:Infobox pictish stone (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (Only 20 transclusions)

Superfluous, probably to {{Infobox artifact}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • No strong opinion It has some features that {{Infobox artifact}} doesn't have... but are these important? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but merge parameters into infobox artifact so relevant material can be incorporated. Fewer than 50 transclusions. Montanabw(talk) 01:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • keep, not entirely redundant, and this isn't a merge proposal. Frietjes (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, though I would probably support merging —PC-XT+ 21:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Only Fools and Horses[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Only Fools and Horses (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per nominator's rationale. Montanabw(talk) 01:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • comment it's unused because I orphaned it. Frietjes (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant and unused —PC-XT+ 21:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned and unused Ghana fb templates[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete per prior consensusPlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Fb team Aduana Stars (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Fb team All Stars F.C. (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Fb team Asante Kotoko SC (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Fb team Bechem United (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Fb team Ashanti Gold (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Fb team Berekum Arsenal (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Fb team Berekum Chelsea F.C. (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Fb team Ebusua Dwarfs (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Fb team Hearts of Oak (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Fb team Liberty Professionals F.C. (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Fb team Real Sportive (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Fb team Real Tamale (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Fb team Tema Youth (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Fb team Tudu Mighty Jets FC (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

These templates are unused or ophaned. They should be deleted. MicroX (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox Satellite awards[edit]

Template:Infobox Satellite awards (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (only 19 transclusions)

Redundant to {{Infobox film awards}} . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • keep, not entirely redundant, and this is not a merge proposal. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only differentiation with the film awards infobox is singling out the individual big winners. While that saves a viewer trying to find it in the tables, the Satellites are broken down even further this year. Its infobox would need tweaking for every ceremony. — Wyliepedia 19:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • keep, not entirely redundant, DirkVE (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Indian awards[edit]

Template:Infobox Indian awards (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (Only 153 transclusions)

Superfluous to {{Infobox award}} (which has 3,764 transclusions). None of the parameters are specific to India. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support: The Academy Awards use the generic infobox, no reason to Balkanize the rest of the world. If there is a need to merge any parameters into the main infobox, I suggest doing so. Montanabw(talk) 01:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • keep, not entirely redundant, and this is not a merge proposal. Frietjes (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • keep, not entirely redundant, DirkVE (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Mosconi Cup[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was do not mergePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Mosconi Cup (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (only 20 transactions)
Template:Infobox individual snooker tournament (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (385 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Mosconi Cup with Template:Infobox individual snooker tournament.
Though pool is not snooker, the formats are similar.There is no generic "Pool tournament" infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Propose creating universal infobox: I suggest creating {{Infobox cue sports}} to encompass everything. Avoids potential US/UK bias.Montanabw(talk) 01:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Response to Pigsonthewing There are many differences in pool and snooker. These infoboxes can never be merged. Gcjdavid (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Only a few of the parameters are same, many of which you would find in most infoxboxes anyway. Snooker is not going to have a use for | home = , | away = , | homecaptain =, | awaycaptain =, | MVP =, | homescore = & | awayscore =. Snooker and pool have far more differences than they have similarities, just because they're both played on a table doesn't mean they should be merged. Shall we merge rugby union and football because they're both played on a pitch, no. I don't see how this benefits the users working in both fields, in fact it could be a hindrance, especially to new users. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose using common sense as the formats of the two infoboxes are very different and would result in a lot of wasted parameters. GyaroMaguus 17:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose, seems pointless given the complete generic nature of the parameters in Template:Infobox Mosconi Cup. better to merge that template with some sort of generic {{infobox sporting event}} template. Frietjes (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with the opposition. It is hard for me to find enough commonalities to support a merge, especially given the idea of merging Mosconi Cup to a sporting event infobox, instead. —PC-XT+ 02:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Equity Awards[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Equity Awards (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

unused and almost all redirects. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

December 3[edit]

Template:Animal anatomy[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Animal anatomy (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

This is a nomination for deletion based on the result of this discussion. Epipelagic (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per linked discussion —PC-XT+ 02:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists/row[edit]

Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists/row (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment The Lua implementation of {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}} could be considered a derivative work of this template. If it is, it should be kept for copyright reasons and just marked historical. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Mark Historical per Jackmcbarn —PC-XT+ 02:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

List expand templates[edit]

Template:List expand top (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:List expand mid (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:List expand end (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Little used (only 13 sets; just three articles) and overly complex; redundant to other collapse templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Hide comment[edit]

Template:Hide comment (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Little-used (only four transclusions) and redundant alternative to other collapse templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Hidden section top[edit]

Template:Hidden section top (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Relatively little used and redundant to other collapse templates; forked from {{Hidden archive top}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • @Pigsonthewing: I take it you meant to nominate the template itself, not the /doc page? If so, merge to Template:Hidden archive top. The templates are very similar, so a merge shouldn't be difficult. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: This template isn't just used for archiving, in fact, I've never seen it used for archiving and most often I've seen it used (via the {{Hst}} redirect) to add a chunk of code to a discussion that may or may not be directly relevant. At best I would support merging Template:Hidden archive top into this template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    • In what way is that use not redundant to, say, {{Collapse}} or {{Collapse top}}, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
      • The use case may be similar, but the formatting of the templates is different in each case. Different colors, different layout, different usage of wikitables and divs, just different. Even if they were all merged into a single meta template with an array of parameters that could be set for all of those things, templates like this would still need to exist as wrapper templates for backwards compatibility. There are currently 203 pages transcluding this template directly and 173 of them are using the redirect {{Hst}}. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 04:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
        • None of these templates should use tables. Formatting variation (if needed - I doubt it is) can be done through switches in a single template. 203 is a relatively trivial number of templates to SUBST: or otherwise replace; and certainly not high enough to warrant a separate template, nor a separate template design. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the slightly selfish reason that I use it extensively myself, including to hide things on my User page. It is a simple code, in contrast to many of the increasingly complex wikicodes being developed by the Wikipedia technocracy. When in doubt, keep it simple! Sionk (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Sionk: It is no more complex than {{Collapse}} or {{Collapse top}}. Here is an example replacement which proves that, and demonstrates the redundancy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I prefer the default text of 'Hidden section top'. I don't understand the need to get rid of it, particularly because it isn't "little used". Sionk (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
        • That seems to fail the WP:ILIKEIT test. Also, {{Hidden archive top}} has 202 transclusions; {{Collapse top}} has 20,925. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
          • What I'm saying (and you must surely realise this) is that a "Hidden section" is not an "archive", it is simply something hidden from view. When anyone hides a large part of a User page or Talk page they are often doing it to ease navigation and legibility, not archiving it. To delete the "Hidden section" templates will create confusion. It fulfills a function in a straightforward and easily understandable manner. I can only speak from my own experience. Sionk (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Deprecate and convert to wrapper of {{Collapse top}}, as I think both fork and original are redundant, but these may be used as shorthands. It could be merged, deprecated or something, later. —PC-XT+ 09:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • After hearing further conversation, I have added support for deprecation to my !vote, rather than leaving it for later. —PC-XT+ 09:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Not much reason to get rid of it. If anything it's a slightly borderless version of {{Collapse top}} LorChat 02:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep or refactor to utilize a subtemplate or module with parameters. — xaosflux Talk 00:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Consolidating all of these similar templates into a single template with a series of parameters and switches will inevitably break pages that use the template as they may exceed the transclusion limit size. Let's keep these types of templates that are likely to be on such pages to prevent this issue. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 00:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • convert to wrapper. In answer to the concern immediately above I can only imagine that happening to a handful, if any, in which case they'd be easy to find and fix. But the limit is pretty high so it seems unlikely. to be a problem.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The biggest concern is transclusions from PERM, UAA, RFPP to the {{Admin dashboard}} which I've had to make adjustments to and fix twice for this issue upon request. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 06:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
      • None of these three acronymed pages appear to be using the nominated template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Not directly, but I've seen them used in discussions on those pages, which means they will get transcluded in during those times. Also, since this is leaning towards merge, merging the content of this template into the other will bloat the other which is directly used. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 01:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Then maybe mark it as deprecated, to discourage use. This will happen anyway to some extent as editors realise it's no longer a separate template and {{collapse top}} does everything needed. But it could be made more formal with a note in the documentation. When it's no longer being used all instances remaining can be substed and it can be turned into a redirect.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Yes, making it into a deprecated wrapper might make more sense than merging. We don't need excess parameters. ekips39 05:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge to {{collapse top}}, or something like that. Make it so that {{hst}} will be a redirect to {{collapse top}} and work the same way, whatever you call it. I don't see a big reason why the latter can't do everything that hst does; aside from the different colors, they look identical. It's quite different from {{hat}} because the latter has the warning of "this is an archive; do not modify", while {{hst}} is just for collapsed text. Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge to {{collapse top}} (or better yet, convert to wrapper [05:21 19 Dec]). I don't see why we need both of them, unless there's a good reason for different default text or colours. Both templates have relatively few parameters, so I also don't see why they would hit the transclusion limit (but would be happy to see a demonstration of how they do). ekips39 22:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Source code[edit]

Template:Source code (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unused; bad design (table for layout). I removed the only four instances; two by subst/ replacement and two which were overly-compex wrappers for simple external links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep, but redo: I'd say that the template has a potential to be quite useful, but it should be rewritten properly. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not required; <source>...</source> can be used instead. As an encyclopedia, we shouldn't have chunks of computer code in our articles that are so long they need to be collapsed. Source code examples should be kept short and to the point. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
That's generally true, but I've seen an article or two that had slightly longer code snippets in boxes collapsed by default, and they weren't out of place. Perhaps every rule has its exceptions. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep but redo This template mostly saves the hassle of making a collapse box and setting the language when you want to hide a snippet of code. It might work better with some improvements though. Such as documentation. LorChat 04:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:TransF[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Unused (I removed the only instance, from 7.5×54mm French). Content is </div></div> Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • delete, already userfied. Frietjes (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:TransH[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • delete, already userfied. Frietjes (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Hidden multi-line[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keepPlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Hidden multi-line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Little-used wrapper for {{Hidden}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • keep for now. may be possible to add this feature directly to {{Hidden}}, but that will take some additional time and discussion. Frietjes (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Medical advice[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keepPlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Medical advice (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Little-used fork of {{collapse top}} Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Huh? hmmm.. don't think so. I say keep Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    • You don't think what? That it's little-used (it has just 9 transclusions), or that it's a fork? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree keep Thanks for letting me know about its existence. Will now use it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, as this appears to be more of a useful wrapper than a useless fork —PC-XT+ 10:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Collapsed2[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Collapsed2 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Little-used Unused variant of {{collapse}} Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Template:MEGHDAD[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Apparent duplicate of article Meghdad Mostafaei. No reason for it to be a template. Nick Number (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Maxmostaf, I am responding to your question on my Talk page here. Unless I am missing something, the Meghdad Mostafaei article does not make any use of the MEGHDAD template, so it will not be affected if the template is deleted. Why did you create this template? Nick Number (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as article content in template space, possibly speedily as a test —PC-XT+ 02:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Kettering Town F.C. squad[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Kettering Town F.C. squad (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Does not aid navigation JMHamo (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 12:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Userfy to Jonesy702's workspace. He seems to be actively working on creating and improving many FC Squad pages at the moment, and userfication of this may encourage him to turn another redlink or two into blue and make the navbox useful. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is also worth noting that Kettering Town does not play in a fully professional league and as such should not have a squad template, so the current redlinks if made in to articles, would probably fail WP:NFOOTBALL and be deleted anyway. JMHamo (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • delete not enough useful navigation. Frietjes (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 27

Completed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell

Archive and Indices[edit]