Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

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

Closing instructions

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

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

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

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

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

Templates should not be nominated if 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. ~~~~}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twinkle[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

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

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

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

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

April 25[edit]

Template:Infobox Dune character[edit]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. (Has only 30 transclusions.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox James Bond character[edit]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. (Has only 35 transclusions). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Jane Austen character[edit]

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

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

Template:505 Games[edit]

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

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

Template:Histrefm[edit]

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

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

April 24[edit]

Template:Tpcleanup underway[edit]

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

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

Template:Infobox CFL team[edit]

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

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

  • 'Keep - the CFL is not American football. In addition, the delete notice on the infobox has broken the infobox so it can't be used. - BilCat (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Oakland, New Jersey Schools[edit]

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

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

  • Delete. Templates like this should be used for navigation. The articles for this one, for the most part, haven't been created, and probably shouldn't be created (a redirect to the school district page should be enough). Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: The elementary school names were intentionally not linked. However this template does not only have those elementary schools. It also links to the senior high school and the Japanese school, which do have articles, and it has a redlink to Barnstable Academy. If need be I can expand this template to all aspects of the city of Oakland so other things are linked. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Lacrosse team infoboxes[edit]

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

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

Template:Infobox NWSL College Draft[edit]

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

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

Template:TemplatePromoter[edit]

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

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

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

Template:MUBI film[edit]

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

Advertising spam adding links to a film forum. See [1] and [2] as examples. Betty Logan (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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

April 23[edit]

Template:Resident Evil chronology[edit]

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

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

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

Template:Angelyne[edit]

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

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

Template:Rooney Garland films[edit]

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

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

  • delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Bud and Terence[edit]

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

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

  • delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Fred and Ginger[edit]

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

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

  • delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Laurel and Hardy filmography[edit]

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

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

  • Keep: This isn't merely an "actor" navbox, but a series, or genre, like {{Carry On Films}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per POTW, this is an act like the Andrews Sisters, or Monty Python, or The Beatles, or Aerosmith, not an actor filmography. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Hope and Crosby[edit]

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

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

Template:Tracy Hepburn films[edit]

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

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

  • delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:125 greatest hurlers of the GAA[edit]

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

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

Template:Fort Worth Cats roster[edit]

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

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

April 22[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:IoEgrade[edit]

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

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

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

Template:Aviso borrar[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Ficha de organización[edit]

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

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

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

Empty template with a non-English title. Lacks context and purpose. - MrX 12:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Tekkaman[edit]

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

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

Template:Physical oceanography/sandbox[edit]

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

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

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

Template:Sustainable energy/sandbox[edit]

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

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

Template:WP Pakistan AaA[edit]

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

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

Template:Infobox Transperth train station[edit]

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

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

Template:TP Train Depot[edit]

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

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

Template:Transperth Line[edit]

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

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

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

Template:TransperthTrains[edit]

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

Unused; too few links. Alakzi (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:TP Bus Station[edit]

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

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

Template:Istanbul Metro M1 route diagram[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Chrislk02 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

April 21[edit]

Template:Killinaskully[edit]

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

This template just links to the same section repeatedly. That section has been tagged for four years with "unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter." It is not very clear why it should exist. Greykit (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as useless. The article already has a table of contents. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: totally self linking. ww2censor (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Tennis at multi-sport events[edit]

Template:Infobox tennis at multi sports events (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox tennis at biannual multi sports events (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox tennis event (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox tennis at multi sports events and Template:Infobox tennis at biannual multi sports events with Template:Infobox tennis event.
Generally redundant to {{Infobox tennis event}}, save for the team fields and year intervals. Put together, these two have only got about 30 transclusions, so it should be effortless to merge - especially now that I've converted the generic infobox to use {{Infobox}}. Alakzi (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom, provided that any specific functionality of the to-be-merged templates is carried across. The biannual template, for instance, jumps two years forward to the next edition.--Wolbo (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge, with the caveat that Wolbo's concerns, and any concerns of WP:Tennis regarding functionality, will be addressed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:European Association for Chemical and Molecular Sciences[edit]

Template:European Association for Chemical and Molecular Sciences (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Chemistry societies}}, which has wider scope. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. Alakzi (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:April Fools' Day RFC[edit]

Template:April Fools' Day RFC (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This template is not used anywhere; listed on Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates/1. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:HK route nav[edit]

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

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

Template:From Camera-wiki[edit]

Template:From Camera-wiki (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

GFDL 1.3 text might no longer be allowed to be used at wikipedia. Jarekt (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Station level[edit]

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

Unused. Alakzi (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox station/stripe[edit]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox station/Header OASA}}, which is used with the other two Athens Metro lines, and {{Infobox station}}'s |style= parameter. Alakzi (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox station/Iarnród Éireann[edit]

Template:Infobox station/Iarnród Éireann (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This footer contained a link to Iarnród Éireann and anchors to each section in List of railway stations in Ireland, which I've removed as excessive - Iarnród Éireann is wikilnked three other times in Ireland station infoboxes: in the "Owner" and "Operator" fields, as well as the {{Rail-interchange}} icon. The remaining link to List of railway stations in Ireland can be placed in a "See also" section as is customary. Alakzi (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Marlon Jackson[edit]

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

With only articles for one album and two singles from that album, navigation amongst the 4 articles here is satisfied without the aid of a navbox. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

April 20[edit]

Template:Theory of Everything based on Levels[edit]

Template:Theory of Everything based on Levels (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Useless unused template of literally Everything. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unused template; scope would be way too broad. APerson (talk!) 05:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Correct about broad scope. Hajme 09:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:The Armenian People-Vol I[edit]

Template:The Armenian People-Vol I (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Hard-coded citation template. It only has some parameters, allows some other parameters to parse through and other parameters would create an error. Unnecessary complication and with this and this edit, now orphaned as well. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Why it was even created? Hajme 09:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:United States Template Group[edit]

Template:United States Template Group (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

unused wrapper. Frietjes (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete unsed template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete too big and unused. Hajme 08:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Various Hemingway navboxes[edit]

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

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

  • Note. Seems we already had consensus for this a year ago. See Talk:The Sun Also Rises#Proposal. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Placing the entire {{Ernest Hemingway}} on Hemingway's works is appropriate. However, placing it on adaptations of his works such as movie or ballet adaptations of his works is inappropriate use of the template. For an adaptation of his work, the only other links on the template that are relavant are the source work and other adaptations of that work. Thus, the need for the smaller works templates at discussion here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not how navboxes work. If that is the case, then the adaptations should be removed from the main Hemingway template, but per the previous discussion, that was decided against. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Templates work that way at almost every author. Look at the adaptations of the works of the most important authors like Shakespeare and Dickens. The adaptions of their works have templates dedicated only to adaptations of those works. Hemingway is the only author that I have seen where his adaptations could have individual works, but those works have been merged back to the main author template. You are setting a dangerous precedent trying to use a one size fits all template for adaptations of works.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that "one size fits all". You have two options here - merge to one template and delete all the little templates as redundant (which they are), or remove the adaptations from the big template, and just have the smaller templates on the adaptations, and not the main template. Either is fine with me, but there is no point in having the little templates if all the links are on the main template, as the navigation is already covered. The first course of action was already agreed upon, yet the little templates remain. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and incidentally, most of the adaptations currently have both navboxes on (which is of course correct per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL). --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

April 19[edit]


April 18[edit]

Template:Lesenswert[edit]

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

There was previous consensus that duplicates of {{Iw-ref}} should be deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 17#Category:Interwiki translation templates, but this one got missed. It is only currently used on user drafts, not on any articles. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

delete, I am the one who removed it from the articles, after making sure that {{translated page}} was on the talk page. Frietjes (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Chechen people mosaic[edit]

Template:Chechen people mosaic (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

now merged with the article. problematic due to the fact that non-free images can't be used in templates (see edit history). Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, too many images. Hajme 04:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:The Spicy Effect[edit]

Template:The Spicy Effect (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

provides little useful navigation, and record label templates are generally deprecated. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Record label rosters are unsuitable for navboxes anyway, but as this only has two links, it's also pointless. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Lyon Metro icon[edit]

Template:Lyon Metro icon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Rail-interchange}} (which this template is now a wrapper of). Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Uw-restore[edit]

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

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

That's it? Just a vote? --TL22 (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
These templates are not as useful, there is other template that would cover more advice and warning than these. Hajme 00:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, but please always remember to put a reason on your vote. --TL22 (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

April 17[edit]

Template:Infobox tram[edit]

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

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

Clearly, the tram infobox has some categories of information that are specific for trams and that are currently not used in the infobox train. Unless all of the categories, such as minimum curve, axleload, steep gradient, are implemented into the train infobox, the tram infobox cannot be called redundant. These are all information that are extremely relevant as regards the possibility of use of certain trams in given cities.
The distinction is somewhat blurred with some light rail systems, but not as regards tram vs. train per se. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Specifically, the train infobox does not have the following parameters: articulations; assembly; class; designer; driven wheels/wheels driven; lowfloor; minimum curve; predecessor; steep gradient; and successor. The train infobox does have an axle load parameter. Alakzi (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge as redundant. Only several parameters to be merged (which, as both templates use {{Infobox}}, would be trivial). Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 06:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge the important parameters per above. Hajme 11:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Longest-running Indian TV Shows[edit]

Template:Longest-running Indian TV Shows (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Doesn't meet the criteria of WP:NAVBOX. This template groups a loose collection of subjects that share a common characteristic but that don't otherwise refer to each other. The information in the template is or could be already covered in List of television programs by episode count or in a standalone list for Indian serials. Psychonaut (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete Templates should not be treated as substitute for articles. Hajme 11:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Longest-running Broadway shows[edit]

Template:Longest-running Broadway shows (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Doesn't meet the criteria of WP:NAVBOX. This template groups a loose collection of subjects that share a common characteristic but that don't otherwise refer to each other. Besides this, the list is too long and unorganized to be realistically useful for navigation. A list article is more appropriate here, and in this case one already exists. Psychonaut (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete. It was usurped from me anyway, back in June 2013. Best, --Discographer (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Discographer: We don't use support/oppose here since it is unclear if you support the template or support deletion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete same reasons as above, templates cannot be treated as substitute for articles. Hajme 11:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

April 16[edit]

Template:U.S. Highways in Indiana[edit]

Template:U.S. Highways in Indiana (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This is redundant to List of U.S. Routes in Indiana, which is linked from the bottom of every infobox on a highway in Indiana. A similar box was deleted for Washington State in July 2012, and similar boxes for Interstate Highways were deleted for several states were deleted in January 2012. The template is also redundant to Category:U.S. Highways in Indiana Imzadi 1979  22:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Support per precedents.  V 19:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - The list and category better handle the need. Dough4872 03:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Venezuelan Summer League Reds roster[edit]

Template:Venezuelan Summer League Reds roster (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Defunct team, no need for current roster template Spanneraol (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per Spanneraol's nomination rationale -- no need for current roster for defunct team. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Window managers[edit]

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

This is a grab bag template with no focus or reason to exist. Template:X desktop environments and window managers is a superset of this template and more focused on X window managers (OS that don't use X typically don't have a concept of window managers) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OMPIRE (talkcontribs)

Template:Cinemassacre Productions[edit]

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

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

April 15[edit]

Template:Greenwood Productions titleholders[edit]

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

Template about the works of a non-notable (i.e. no article) pageant organiser. Advertising though the back door. The Banner talk 21:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. --NSH002 (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Future Productions states[edit]

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

Template about the works of a non-notable (i.e. no article) pageant organiser. Advertising though the back door. The Banner talk 21:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. --NSH002 (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Pageant Agency titleholders[edit]

Template:Pageant Agency titleholders (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Template about the works of a non-notable (i.e. no article) pageant organiser. Advertising though the back door. The Banner talk 21:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. --NSH002 (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:RPM Productions states[edit]

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

Template about the works of a non-notable (i.e. no article) pageant organiser. Advertising though the back door. The Banner talk 21:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. --NSH002 (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Vanbros states[edit]

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

Non-relevant pageant organiser getting its name out. Advertising through the back door. The Banner talk 20:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. --NSH002 (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Vanbros titleholders[edit]

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

Non-relevant pageant organiser getting its name out. Advertising through the back door. The Banner talk 20:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. --NSH002 (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Bollywood actors templates[edit]

Template:Asin sidebar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Abhishek Bachchan sidebar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Kamal Haasan sidebar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Saif Ali Khan sidebar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Vikram sidebar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Arjun Rampal sidebar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Prakash Raj sidebar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

As per previous consensus with only three links which are already present within the article, these sidebars are redundant. They were just missed in the previous nominations. Cowlibob (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Stick to usual sidebar. Hajme 13:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Midland Metro stops[edit]

Template:Midland Metro stops (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox station}}; I've replaced one transclusion to demonstrate. Alakzi (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Why {{Infobox station}}? Why not {{Infobox GB station}}? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Because {{Infobox GB station}} hasn't got a barebones usage field (discrete year - sans the footnote) and no line or services field which doesn't force the use of succession boxes. By the looks of it, it's only meant for use with mainline stations. Here's a side-by-side comparison of the three. Alakzi (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    Another possibility: merge to {{Infobox Manchester Metrolink station}}. There is a parallel between the two light rail systems. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    We'd have to add a switch for all things specific to Metrolink, like the header styling and the subheader. Would Midland Metro benefit from a merge with the Metrolink infobox? Alakzi (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    The counter-question is "would Midland Metro benefit from a merge with the generic station infobox?", which already has dozens of parameters that are irrelevant to Midland Metro (those Korean ones, for example). Imagine a new line being built, somebody creates the articles for the stops. They copy a blank infobox - it's much less daunting to find a list of 30 or so parameters, than a list of 110+ parameters, where they might wonder what to fill in for params that are actually only present because some other station infobox was merged in. Every merge into the generic station infobox adds to the complexity of that.
    I feel that it's better not to overcomplicate infoboxes, and keep the param list reasonably short. Each system has its own little quirks, so we would naturally need to have something like |system=midland, case-insensitive, which would control the behaviour of various other params; and omitting it (or leaving it blank) would default to the same as |system=manchester, to save updating 100+ articles already using that infobox. Then, once its proven, we can look at Sheffield, Nottingham, Croydon. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    Your first point is addressed in WP:INFOCOL; in fact, the "pro forma" copy for railway stations has got 43 parameters, and there are some more we could chuck. The Korean name parameters, plus quite a few others, aren't gonna be around for long still; see Template talk:Infobox station#Parameter purge. I'm quite averse to display switches - that sort of thing can get out of hand very quickly. I'd say {{Infobox station}} is not complex; simply, it is very long. On the other hand, infoboxes like the Metrolink one are intricate, and their maintenance can become a burden over time. Straightforward wrappers can be practical, but would that be the case here? The only functional distinction between {{Midland Metro stops}} and {{Infobox station}} is that the former's got the name and logo of the network pre-filled. Alakzi (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Redrose64: Thoughts? How should we proceed? Alakzi (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    I simply don't agree with the use of {{infobox station}} as a "one size fits all" solution. I do agree that {{Midland Metro stops}} is superfluous, and I would have preferred that the relevant WikiProjects had been informed that this infobox was being considered for TFD, so that the matter might be discussed and addressed by those who actually use the template. There have certainly been no discussions at Template talk:Midland Metro stops, and I don't see any at any of the interested WikiProjects (WT:RAIL, Rapid transit, WT:STATIONS, WT:UKRAIL, WT:UKTrams or WT:WPWM). If concerns about the infobox had been expressed at its talk page, with notifications being posted to one or more of the interested WikiProjects, those WikiProjects could have looked at carrying out a rationalisation or a merger to a closely-related infobox, and perhaps a formal TFD might have been unnecessary. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    I don't agree with that either; I don't like the fact that we're now saddled with |pregroup= and |postgroup= - or any of the other UK-specific parameters - in {{Infobox station}}. But as {{Midland Metro stops}} now stands, it is redundant to the generic infobox. I've not got my mind set on deleting the template. Perhaps a merge would be beneficial; you're welcome to expand on that possibility, and I'll happily notify all relevant projects. If it can very briefly be demonstrated that deletion would be the wrong course of action, I'll withdraw the nomination. Alakzi (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • One problem I can see is that the replacement says 'Address' which seems like the wrong word to use, and also doesn't specify the local authority. So it's not a complete like-for-like replacement. Also what would be achieved by deleting this? G-13114 (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • We could change the label to "Location", which is what it's called in most infoboxes. Also what would be achieved by deleting this? A consistent look (see principle of least astonishment) and less infoboxes to maintain. We could convert {{Midland Metro stops}} to use {{Infobox}} and Module:InfoboxImage, add microformat classes and a parameter for coordinates, and up the size of the Midland Metro link, which is below the WP:ACCESS minimum; but we could also just delete this infobox when it's so obviously redundant so we've got less infoboxes to apply the next batch of fixes to. Alakzi (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    Well, why not convert to {{infobox}}? I did that to {{Infobox Manchester Metrolink station}}, but before causing any disruption I did announce my intentions. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    What about a UK Metro station template to cover Midland Metro/Manchester/Edinburgh and any others? - X201 (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    That sounds like a good idea. G-13114 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    I've been considering that for some time, ever since I converted {{Infobox Manchester Metrolink station}}. See also my comment of 23:30, 15 April 2015. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    You've not explained why there might be a need for it. What "quirks" would the switch control? Alakzi (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - When every parameter is covered by an equivalent in the standard {{Infobox station}}, there is no need to have a duplicate set. You are not obliged to use every one, only the relevant parameters you need. If a new station article is created simply copy what was done before, since most of what is in the Infobox will be similar. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant; after replacement with {{Infobox station}}. There is no need for a system- (or country-) specifc template (I speak as somone in the Midland MEtro catchment area). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Luigi series[edit]

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

WP:Not everything needs a navbox. As Super Mario fans will know, there is no such thing as a "Luigi series" (which also makes the criteria for inclusion in this navbox subjective); this is merely a trivial and WP:crufty list of games where the character Luigi gets a prominent role.

And as anyone with video game knowledge will know, the "Mario series appearances" section is woefully incomplete as Luigi is a very major character that appears in literally every Mario game, and it would be impossible to list them all. Category:Luigi games also exists, which makes the template redundant as well. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 12:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Entire template is based on WP:OR, this is not referred to as an actual series, it's just a collection of games that feature him in varying degrees. Pretty sure they're already featured in various areas across the massive Mario franchise template too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete and make a category for the Year of Luigi, which would include any games that Nintendo verifiably linked to the Year of Luigi promotion. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 12:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete Definitely original research on the navbox grouping; a category would make more sense in addition to the Year of Luigi titles as NARH suggests. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I am not aware of these games ever being considered to be part of a Luigi series,--67.68.209.200 (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, no need for a template like this, as there is no Luigi (sub)series to begin with. Besides, Luigi makes an appearance in so many Mario games, that having one completed is just too large, together with the regular Mario template. --Soetermans. T / C 13:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, the name was based on other templates like "Yoshi series" and "Wario series". I simply felt that we had reached the point where such a template would be useful, apparently I was wrong. The last section was supposed to be for notable games (which is why I listed Mario Bros. since it is the game that introduced Luigi). SNS (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the luigi series is real it the games that luigi is the man character in! Thats like deleting the mario series because it is called "super mario bros"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:8980:4D2:E50F:EC28:E685:F8CA (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

April 14[edit]

Template:Members of FIMA[edit]

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

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

  • Keep I regret to say that I disagree with the perspective and reason given here. The reasoning given does not establish that things cannot be done the other way round, OR that such a methodology violates Wikipedia policies. Neither has the information been challenged to be untrue, nor can it be said that Wikipedia is but a work in progress. A suggestion can be given to create more articles. Asking for a deletion is simply too much. ~Mohammad Hossain~ 03:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
So, which part of Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia -- you do not understand? 🌞 শুভ নববর্ষ ১৪২২Bengali new year | nafSadh did say 06:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of navboxes with redlinks in them. People create navboxes either before or after the relevant content is created. This also helps note which articles need to be made. If the grouping is useful, why not. See Template:Hospitals in Jordan as example. 103.7.250.251 (talk)
  • Delete as there aren't a whole lot of articles for this navbox to navigate between. Tavix |  Talk  20:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as I said above. 103.7.250.251 (talk)

Template:Infobox college basketball DIII tournament[edit]

Template:Infobox college basketball DIII tournament (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox college basketball tournament}}. Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:MG[edit]

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

Like {{maintained}} and {{WP India AaA}} except far worse; no indication of who the 'assigned maintenance group' is. No indication who assigned them. To contact the editor you need to click on the link, then click on their user name, then click on their talk page link, at which point you can actually write a message. There is only one 'group', and the 'group' consists of only one editor – there has been no interest in this by anyone else, and in all cases it would be just easier to check the template history than use this. The last discussion closed with no consensus, but as we seem now to be going through them so a good time to revisit it. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per the consensus of the {{maintained}} discussion, for the same reasons I presented there. Even if a new template maintained it created, it should be used instead of this for ease of contacting and simplicity. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: This template is currently transcluded on 4565 templates to provide users with a way to get help with the use of templates, updates, corrections, extensions, etc. As there currently is no WikiProject to maintain templates, t The intent is to have several groups of template editors who volunteer to maintain templates with which they are familiar. Currently I am the only template editor who has volunteered, and I have multiple myeloma, a fatal form of cancer. Perhaps a WikiProject should be created to maintain public templates. I am open to suggestions. Yours aye,  Buaidh  14:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    • You mean like WP:WPT ? Not the most active of projects but related discussions often end up elsewhere. WP:RT for requests, WT:Lua for programming discussions, WP:VPT sometimes has alerts about e.g. problems caused by templates, and of course here for delete/merge/replace discussions.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps a reactivated WikiProject Templates can take this up as a project. I've been coding since 1970, and I'd like to leave this to some template editors who care. Yours aye,  Buaidh  15:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, the use in 'Template:User from Switzerland' says 'For help with this template, please contact the assigned maintenance group'. better instructions would be to direct editors to something like WikiProject Templates or Help:Template if, for some reason, the template talk page isn't being watched. Frietjes (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not in keeping with the ethos and policies of Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Believe me. This is not an ego thing. I just want to see these templates maintained when I am dead. Yours aye,  Buaidh  19:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm so sorry about your condition, it truly is a sad thing, I have lost my fair share of friends and family to cancer. That being said, in the kindest way possible, that is irrelevant in this discussion. Templates have (and will continue to be) maintained just fine without another template to facilitate it, that is the way Wikipedia has always worked. Once again, I'm terribly sorry about your cancer, but can we try to keep the discussion on the background Wiki policies and past consensus in this instead of it. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with that. I just wish to see some sort of mechanism to support template maintenance. WikiProject Templates is essentially not functioning. Template maintenance in Wikipedia is currently a nightmare. Yours aye,  Buaidh  22:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 13[edit]

Template:Infobox Grand Lodge[edit]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox organization}}. |jurisdiction= corresponds to |region=. Alakzi (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Redundancy insufficiently explained. No attempt made to inform interested editors of deletion discussion. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Demonstration of redundancy. I've notified the creator, and a notice is shown on every page that transcludes the infobox. Alakzi (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
      • The notice is in the template, so it doesn't come up on a watchlist unless you are actually watching the template. On reflection, it's a bit of a dud, but it needs expanding rather than deleting. I don't believe anything has changed since this last came up for discussion. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
        • What would it be expanded with? Alakzi (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep While I think it would be nice to have more unique things in the Grand Lodge Infobox, I don't believe that region is the same as jurisdiction. Region implies an area, like New England, but jurisdiction has a stronger implication, and binding to authority. Ahwiv (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    • There's also |region_served=, which displays "Region served". A consensus could also emerge to add |jurisdiction= to {{Infobox organization}}, if you were to even begin to consider a replacement. Alakzi (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
      • region_served sounds like the exclusive area for a franchise, like McDonalds - not jurisdiction. Grand Lodges are not a franchise. Ahwiv (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Grand Lodges do not have "jurisdiction", either; this use of the term is specific to freemasonry. "Region served" is very apt, I find, and will be understood by those of us not versed in freemasonry. Alakzi (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Regional information is good, and information on alignment (for want of a better word) - whether the GL is male, female, or mixed membership, and if the practice is traditional Anglo-American, traditional Continental, Liberal, or Memphis-Misraim. This would help correct a slight systemic bias towards the male Anglo lodges who like to pretend that they own Freemasonry. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not redundant to organization; it is in fact a more specialized version of it. Grand Lodges have jurisdictions that may or may not be constrained by geography, as many GLs have Lodges in other countries, UGLE and GOdF being examples in each stream. If we need updates, we should have multiple region tags, and the alignment idea is really good too. Conversely, I've reverted an edit to the template to add Grand Masters by name. The majority of them fall under WP:NN/WP:BLP1E, and it's not easily trackable information. MSJapan (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Then you should change the doc. The update was solely to make the Template match the documentation. Ahwiv (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Alakzi already did that, and did a very good job of overall cleanup. MSJapan (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not overly troubled by a red-linked example, but the other example, UGLE, currently has |jurisdiction=England, wth no mention of other countries. It's not clear from your comment, why |region=England is not an acceptable alternative. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry for the late reply, I didn't have this page wl'ed. All Grand Lodges claim jurisdiction over their own subordinate Lodges, even if they are in other countries. UGLE is actually a good example of why we need expansion lines in that template item, and why region doesn't do it - there are UGLE Lodges all over the world, and they aren't under the jurisdiction of those countries' Grand Lodges. South Africa is a good example of that, and many of the Commonwealth Countries also have multiple Grand Lodges present (generally England, Ireland, and Scotland, plus the home GL). In those three cases, I'd probably just link the external link to their page for it, but in other cases it's also important informationally - GLNY has a Lodge in Irag, GL Texas apparently (and entirely legitimately sourcably) claimed the Moon, and GL Connecticut had a Lodge in Japan (and GL Massachusetts still does, as does the GL of the Phillipines), so it better reflects the actual character of reality to not limit to a "region". MSJapan (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Suppose the English grand lodge is your run-of-the-mill organisation: it's headquartered someplace in England (|headquarters=) and has branches in several other places (|region=). Why can the jurisdiction not be simply absorbed into |region=? It could even be reworded so that it makes sense to laypeople, e.g. |region=Presides over England; also has lodges in X, Y and Z. We should do something about this whole country/location/jurisdiction conundrum regardless of whether the infobox is deleted. Alakzi (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Alakzi: The "X,Y,Z" could get very long in some cases, and sometimes it's hard to get an exhaustive list, but that's a small item. I'm just not convinced "region" is going to be a clear enough term. I'd much prefer "jurisdiction", because it's more accurate - a Lodge under a certain jurisdiction can be in another country, but that Grand Lodge doesn't claim every Lodge in the country. A definition of jurisdiction is "the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments", and that's exactly what we're dealing with here. It's not 100% governance over any and all Lodges in a given area (which is what I think of with "region", only those that are chartered under that Grand Lodge's Constitution. So I suppose it's a matter of precision here.MSJapan (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC) and I'm concerned that just using region will cause just that sort of confusion.

  • @MSJapan: This infobox isn't used for lodges. What does |jurisdiction=England actually mean, if anything? Alakzi (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Alakzi:The field list countries where Lodges chartered by the Grand Lodge are located. It is not the same as claiming jurisdiction over all Lodges in England. MSJapan (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, we're going around in circles. Whatever subtlety there is to "jurisdiction" is lost on me. Alakzi (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge as redundant. Only a few (if any) parameters needed to be merged into {{Infobox organization}}. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Samuel L. Jackson sidebar[edit]

Template:Samuel L. Jackson sidebar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

As per previous consensus on these type of sidebars. This is redundant to the main article with only three links that are all contained on main page and thus this template should be deleted. Cowlibob (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as the rest of these sidebars for actors were deleted, this one just fell through the cracks LADY LOTUSTALK 19:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Lady Lotus. MarnetteD|Talk 19:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant and per precedent Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Star Parivaar Awards[edit]

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

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

  • Keep per this edit. Chander 16:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The "categories" link to other navboxes? Still nothing worth keeping there. Alakzi (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after the changes, we now have the opposite problem that there are few working article links that aren't redirects. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Pan Celtic Festival[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 21:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Pan Celtic Festival (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

A hodge-podge of song contests, Celtic nations, Irish counties, Irish towns, 44 contest years, none of which has an article or ever will, 44 winners of whom only nine have articles, the Eurovision portal and more. Even the parent article is a potential candidate for AfD. Scolaire (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep: This is clearly a case of I don't like it especially after the nominator demonstrated it in this edit summary. I had also checked with an admin about whether a navbox would be needed for Pan Celtic Festival in which they said "seems like a good idea to me". And to say the main article itself is a candidate for AfD. Sounds a bit petty and threatening. The parent article is currently a GA nominee. The festival falls under Project EUrovision scope. The Welsh show Can I Gymru is the selection for the Welsh participant for PCF. And there are plenty of sources to produce annual articles for each of the events, so that this navbox will be transcluded across more articles. Wes Mouse | T@lk 10:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, obviously I wouldn't nominate it if I did like it, but I have given solid reasons for my nomination, so WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't apply. The festival, as a festival, has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so the parent article fails WP:GNG. Simply nominating it for GA doesn't make it a good article. My remark was neither threatening nor petty. This is petty. Scolaire (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Well it the parent article clearly fulfils WP:GEOSCOPE which states "events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article". The event has been taking place every year since 1971, for the Celtic nations - which is a regional aspect, as well as a societal group. Thus the parent article is presumed to be notable. There are loads of reliable independent sources that have covered the event, including BBC News and Eurovoix.com, plus Irish and other Celtic nation's press websites that have also covered the event. The template, even if it does only contain a only few links, is what's up for debate here and now. Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete. This is a collection of links many degrees removed from the parent article; it falls short of all of WP:NAVBOX's recommendations, bar one. Specifically: the articles within the template do not relate to a single coherent subject; the subject is mentioned in none of the articles; the articles do not refer to each other, at all; and we'd want to list probably none of them in each one's "See also" section. Alakzi (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Alakzi. Far too unwieldy to be of use. It should also be noted that navboxes are not meant to be list articles - some of the sections in this one have few or no links to other articles. MarnetteD|Talk 19:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per above, too broad to be useful. Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - The overwhelming majority of the content of this navbox is unlinked text -- that's not the purpose of a navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As template creator, I am changing my vote! from keep to speedy delete. The template perhaps is a case of too much, too soon. There are only a few other articles linking from it, and they can easily be accessible from the main article. However, some of the other articles don't seem to mention their links with the festival, and perhaps now that there are sources to verify on the PCF article, then maybe it would be idealogical to make reference on the other articles about their connections with the Pan Celtic Festival. Wes Mouse | T@lk 11:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Volunteer[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by MelanieN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 05:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Unused gibberish template. I can't see any sense or purpose in it. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
  • Comment it's a bluelink again, is the current usage different from the deleted usage? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

April 12[edit]

Template:Interwiki if redlink[edit]

Template:Interwiki if redlink (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Interlanguage link multi}}. Only one mainspace use. Other two uses are in user talk page archives; these could be substituted. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

April 11[edit]

Template:Cite tweet[edit]

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

There are very few cases where something on Twitter should be used as a citation. We should not be encouraging people to use Twitter as a source by having a specific citation template for it. What it does is encourage additions like XXX celebrity said this on Twitter, if a statement is notable enough to be included in an article it must be covered in a secondary source. In the rare instance where twitter would be required as a primary source, the standard Cite Web is sufficient. kelapstick(bainuu) 23:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, Per WP:UGC, tweets are generally not acceptable as a reliable source. This template would encourage using Twitter as a citation. Nakon 23:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep If there are any cases (and there are), then the nomination rationale is invalid.
As to encouragement, then this is like {{YouTube}} - it's better to control it than to let it run free.
Use of this to cite a primary source (and probably a tweet by a BLP subject themselves) is of itself sufficient to justify this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the point that the existence of cases where Twitter can be used as a source warrants a specific template for it. While I understand your point about being able to track Twitter usage better with the specific template, I don't believe it to be necessary. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep—while {{cite web}} can do what this does, that doesn't negate the benefits of this template. If the APA has issued guidance on how to cite social media, and they have, then it's valid to standardize the output of citations to this source. The existence of the template does not encourage using Twitter any more than the existence of cite web encourages the use of web sources over paper ones. Imzadi 1979  00:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:TFD#REASONS: "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." And not having this template isn't going to stop people from citing tweets inappropriately, I would have thought that most of those would be from less experienced editors not using templates or using cite web from the Ref Toolbar menu. - Evad37 [talk] 02:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Clarifying the documentation won't prevent this template from being abused. There are bots that prevent additions of tweets to articles with regular links. This template bypasses the bots and enables further abuse. Nakon 02:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Really? Which bot(s)? In any case, it doesn't seem to be working, a search for url=https://twitter.com/ (i.e, in templates) within the text of articles shows 5,857 matches – mostly individual tweets cited with {{cite web}}, judging by the first few pages of the results. Searching for external links beginning with https://twitter.com/ gives 6,498 results, and again, many seem to be for individual tweets. - Evad37 [talk] 03:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If Nakon is correct, then we really have a problem. As it is, delete as a useless template for a typically useless source. Let's all try and pretend we're working on an encyclopedia, not a tool to track famous people as a social experiment. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • See my reply below. This is not a social experiment, this is a discussion about a relatively new, yet already widely recognized media platform. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 14:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you claim that, Twitter can never be cited? If so, putting forth the policy that states that would be helpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Tweets often become notable, because of reliable secondary sources drawing attention to them. Thus, Wikipedia should have a standard method of citing them, which this template provides. To repeat what others have said, I really don't see how having such a template encourages editors to cite Tweets. If this template is deleted, if an editor thinks a Tweet is worth citing, he or she will just use the "cite web" template. Thus, the proposal for deletion is utterly without merit. Secondary sources which mention Tweets often do not provide a link to them, so Wikipedia has to provide the links itself for the sake of completeness. – Herzen (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    Then the valid sources should reference them, not use tweets as a primary source. If an editor cites a tweet, a bot will revert it. This is why the template is dangerous. The template overrides the bot that prevents non-reliable sources from being added. If this continues, the bot will need to be updated to block the template in general. Nakon 03:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree that documentation for it (and perhaps the underlying design, too) should be improved, though. MureninC (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    How can the documentation be improved? Since the template is very easy to include, anyone will use it regardless of whatever large red box tells them not to. Nakon 04:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    The current documentation doesn't appear to require (or even suggest) for a real name to be included, for example. Also, to counter your argument (about a large red box), the template doesn't work unless you use the specific non-obvious params (just using `url` doesn't fly), so, it's not like anyone is just going to use it without ever going to read the docs. MureninC (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Social media is rapidly expanding, and even prominent figures, like the President of the United States and Pope Francis, use it to issue statements. This template should definitely stay and possibly expand to include other platforms, such as Facebook. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 10:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment since initiating this discussion I have removed {{cite twitter}} from Vitiligo - where it was used within a "notable cases" section in reference to a living person, someone's whining about passport renewal times as at Russian passport as a source related to delayed renewal times, and I quote the tweet "papa rome's back ! Who missed me??" as a source related to Rome Fortune being released from prison. The fact that we actually have a citation template for twitter legitimizes its use as a reliable source, when in greater than 99.9% of all cases it is not a reliable source. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply to comment Care to prove your "statistic"? If the twitter accounts belong to Bryan Danielson and Papa Rome then the citation is legitimate. In the passport case, it would have been legitimate to use the twitter account of the embassy, for example; using someone's anecdotal evidence is just silly, regardless of whether it is on Twitter or not. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 11:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Come on--silly question. What you really need to ask yourself is, if the pope has a newspaper, besides a website, and is always followed by an echelon from the press corps, why on earth (as it is in heaven) you'd have to resort to citing a Twitter feed. And even if you're reporting on a Tweet by His Holiness, you'd have to cite secondary sources that discuss (and probably cite) the Tweet in order to establish that it's relevant and that it's discussed properly and neutrally: so I have yet to see a reason to cite His Tweets directly, via this template or otherwise. Drmies (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Nope, not silly at all. No one is "resorting" to Twitter, the whole point is that Twitter has grown large enough to gain reputation in official circles as well. The CIA has an account. The White House has an account. Senators have accounts. All that in the US alone. Presidents, Kings, Prime Ministers - many have accounts as well. It's not "resorting", but rather expanding our sourcing options. This is me, "getting with the times". I suggest you do the same. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
        • In fact, citing a tweet from an official account is exactly like citing a televised appearance. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
          • You're totally missing the point: Tweets are primary. We cite secondary sources. At least, we should. I understand that's not the most important requirement for those thinking of WP as TMZ, bu it's still policy. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
            • Since I already told you that the "social experiment" is an irrelevant commentary and you followed it with the TMZ remark, I'll tell you right now: I consider this a personal attack. Twitter has nothing to do with gossip and low social standard. See my replies above. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 02:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
              • By the way, we still need primary sources, as the secondary sources serve to reinforce them, not to replace them. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment—some of the comments relating to usage relate to the first-party/primary source nature of tweets, yet we allow official press releases. We have {{cite press release}} to handle those, and a tweet from an official account to make an announcement is like a press release with a 140-character limitation. Deleting {{cite press release}} won't stop people from citing those; in fact many people have used {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} for press releases. At least by encouraging people to use these specialized templates, we will clearly mark the citation as using a "(Tweet)" or a "(Press release)" so that readers and other editors can better judge the reliability and potential bias of the sources. Imzadi 1979  13:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: The presumption that this template will cause more tweets to be cited; and conversely that deleting it will stop (or reduce) tweets from being cited, is made without evidence. However, this template allows us to easily track such citations, and check them for appropriteness. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • A valid reason Andy, however it seems like my removal of inappropriate Twitter sourced content is seen as a pushing a personal agenda (note two usages of this template on two articles is being discussed at WP:BLPN). --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{cite web}} and add notation in the template documentation that Twitter can be designated as the source by either using the website parameter (e.g. website=Twitter) or the type parameter (type=tweet). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, per the arguments provided by Andy Dingley and Andy Mabbett above. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The criteria for deleting the template (WP:TFD#REASONS) are not met. Further, even though tweets are not generally acceptable as a reliable source per WP:UGC, they are sometimes appropriate under WP:SELFSOURCE. I agree that tweets are cited far too often in Wikipedia. But I don't believe that tweets should NEVER be cited. The existence of the template doesn't encourage people to use more tweets in citations, and removing it will not stop them. The editors who do this are simply not paying attention to the content guidelines. The deletion of the template may result in users poorly documenting their citation or not documenting it at all. That would be to the detriment of the Encyclopedia. I recently stumbled upon this template when I saw a tweet cited as a reference in an college basketball article to which I was contributing. The editor who cited it had documented it poorly as a simple external link. My initial reaction was to find a better source and remove it. After digging further, I concluded that for the first time after roughly 10,000 edits, it was appropriate to cite this particular tweet.[1] It so happens that the tweeter, Jason Quick, is a journalist for The Oregonian who covers the Portland Pilots. He posted this tweet a day before he wrote an article for the newspaper confirming it. Jason Quick is clearly a reliable source for this topic. The existence of the template made it easy to document the source and produced a clear reference. What is wrong with that? Taxman1913 (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
References
  • Seems like you should cite the article that he posted the next day, which is way more valuable to both readers and editors, since it will have much more detail. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I find the keep arguments unpersuasive:
    • For citing tweets which themselves reference an underlying opinion/news piece, we should cite that opinion/news piece directly.
    • For citing tweets that became something noted in reliable sources, we should cite that reliable source directly. This has the additional value of providing the context necessary to satisfy WP:WEIGHT/WP:NPOV as well as our general encyclopedic purpose in that we are a tertiary source (i.e. we should always attempt to target a secondary source).
    • All other tweets are unlikely to be worth citing per WP:WEIGHT/WP:NPOV/WP:NOR (noting the exception at WP:SPS, which itself calls out tweets as generally unreliable).
    • Uses of this template can be replaced wholesale by {{cite web}}. This essentially means the template duplicates already-existing functionality.
  • Tracking the usage of Twitter directly can be performed using a standard search using insource: looking for website = or even type = or |url=https://www.twitter.com (or similar). --Izno (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Izno: WP:TWITTER gives specific examples of where Twitter is a useful and acceptable source. As an example of where Twitter is a useful source, this is a reliable secondary source that mentions a tweet by a notable subject (Anthony Watson), but doesn't quote it or link to it. It's useful for the reader to see the additional context of the original tweet, so citing that in addition to this secondary source seems entirely appropriate. —me_and 15:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per the well thought-out questions and answers by Drmies and Izno above. Bottom line: Twitter is rarely a reliable, independent source. Twitter exercises no editorial control, and precious few tweeters are professional journalists, authors, historians, etc.; all of the characteristics that make a blog questionable as a reliable source also apply to tweets several times over. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - These are old and chewed arguments that have been proven wrong earlier. Twitter should be used with caution, and only in cases when the account owner is notable. Since more and more notable people use Twitter to issue statements directly, we should use it more AS A PRIMARY SOURCE, while keeping in mind the utmost importance of secondary sources - again, with the same amount of caution. These are not mutually exclusive. I would rather cite a @WhiteHouse tweet than the New York Times, for example. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    Except they aren't proven wrong, and your assertion otherwise is incorrect or at least untruthful. No one disagrees that Twitter is a primary source nor that it should be used with caution; what is disagreed on is the need for this template, and specifically this template. See my previous response for specific reasoning for a particular set of cases; can you think of one I missed which might make this template necessary (keeping in mind that {{cite web}} makes this template a duplicate). --Izno (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    Claiming that "{{Cite tweet}} is superfluous because {{Cite web}} exists" makes no more sense than claiming that {{Cite web}} is superfluous because anything which that can do, could equally well be written in bare wikitext. The purpose of these templates, even the nested or subclassed ones, is abstraction. Citing specifically as a tweet, rather than as a generic web link, allows its processing to be made more specific. It is easier to use, as its parameters can be simplified. It is more specific, thus its output can be tailored more to suit tweets alone. It can even categorise articles as those citing tweets. This sort of nested abstraction is second nature to anyone with even simple programming experience – and MediaWiki is after all still an IT system. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    The slippery slope doesn't hold water. (That's an amusing sentence that appears to be true out of context.) That we have templates to permit us to automatically format simple strings of data is an accepted part of citations on Wikipedia (and that we have templates at all is accepted as good reuse), so that line of argument simply doesn't take you anywhere.

    These are true statements, but they don't take into account the practices at Wikipedia. Even just below this discussion is one where we are removing templates for duplicating similar or the same functionality. In this regard, {{cite tweet}} neither provides extending functionality, nor does it need to as the entirety of functionality which could be provided by the template is already captured by existing functionality in other forms. --Izno (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

    Citation templates, however, are by their very nature an exception: just about every citation template on Wikipedia is in fact a hardcoded instance or substantial duplicate of another template. CS1 meta-templates and CS1 specific-source templates are all just built on top of the main Citation Style 1 templates, which are in turn redundant to using {{citation}} with |mode=cs1. The advantage of having a separate template for tweets (or anything else) is standardising the output of citations, having more sensible parameter names, and having specific documentation for the specific source or type of source. Cite twitter provides parameters for both real names and usernames, where there isn't obvious way to include both in cite web; shows in its documentation that the title should be the whole of the tweet (per APA and other style guides), which isn't obvious in cite web; sets "Tweet" as the type rather than placing Twitter in the publisher position (which it isn't as tweets are self published), which isn't obvious in cite web (which has an attractive |website= parameter to misuse – as it is merely the content provider, Twitter should only really be in the |via= parameter, if at all present in the citation). Cite tweet also implements its own error checking (e.g. requiring the date, as all tweets are dated) – this could be expanded to require a real name, as suggested above. As also noted above, the documentation could be improved, e.g. to warn/inform of when citing tweets is and isn't appropriate, with links to policy – this would be too much specific information for one type of source for cite web, which already has very lengthy documentation. - Evad37 [talk] 01:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Used as primary source WP:SELFPUB in many cases, including articles covering an event because of someone's tweet. It's a cleaner wrapper for formatting the tweets than cite web which causes confusion as to whether to put work=Twitter or type=Tweet. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Summary 10 keeps, 3 deletes, and 1 redirect. Looks like a keep. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    The outcome is not based on the number of votes. It is based on a review of the arguments made for the various outcomes discussed. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep is also what I think (make that 11 EZCHI). I find this a very useful template which helps to cut down on the amount of text needed to input on a page. More importantly it also standardizes the listing of tweets, and standarization of references is a valuable thing to do. It costs little space to have this template up, there are enough uses of tweets as references to warrant it. See WP:SELFSOURCE we are allowed to cite Twitter and Facebook and Tumblr, otherwise why would we be told that requirements apply to these sites? Ranze (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: I found this template wanting to cite a tweet which had been reported in secondary sources but where I thought it would be useful for readers to see the original tweet being referenced as well as the secondary source (which had no direct link or verbatim quote). I think it's absolutely correct for the documentation to warn that tweets are rarely good sources, but people will cite Twitter with or without this template, and looking for its transclusions (or even having the template automatically categorize articles using it) may be a useful way to find improper use of Twitter as a source. —me_and 15:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    Adding: WP:TWITTER makes it very clear that Twitter can be an acceptable source. —me_and 15:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be pretty circumstantial though. I got an edit redaction and a 12 month topic ban currently under dispute over using a tweet on a BLP from an account already verified belong to the person when we already use tweets from the same account to support other information on the article. Ranze (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox UK Fire and Rescue[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was merge

Template:Infobox UK Fire and Rescue (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (0 transclusions - Excluding the transclusion on the documentation page)
Template:Infobox fire department (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (374 transclusions)
Template:Infobox county fire service (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (0 transclusions - Excluding the transclusion on the documentation page)

Propose merging Template:Infobox UK Fire and Rescue and Template:Infobox county fire service with Template:Infobox fire department.

"Infobox fire department" is US-centric. Meanwhile pages like Tokyo Fire Department use {{Infobox Organization}}. We should merge the three nominated templates into one template suitable for international use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose: {{Infobox fire department}} has 305 transclusions and is heavily used. Perhaps renaming it Infobox US fire department but it has been heavily customized with information that is needed for fire department pages. --Zackmann08 (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Why is "305 transclusions and heavily used" a reason to oppose this suggestion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Mine was a poorly framed argument. After looking over the two templates, I feel that they are distinct enough that it would not be beneficial to merge them. This is my opinion, if there are others besides Andy Mabbett who have an opinion on this matter, please chime in! Also, just to be clear, Mr. Mabbett, not saying I only care about the opinion of those besides yourself. Just saying you've made your argument, I've made mine. Now I'd like to hear from others. :-) If there are others that support merging the templates, then I will not only bow to WP:Consensus but will help merge the two. --Zackmann08 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding notice - WikiProject Fire Service has been notified of this TfD: [3]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think that we should list all equipment, or all administrative divisions separately. The former should be placed in a table in the body of the article. The latter should be trimmed; a complete breakdown can be found in settlement articles. If we're gonna merge these, I'd prefer to selectively incorporate some fields in {{Infobox UK Fire and Rescue}}, which is the tidiest of the three. Officer titles will differ from country to country, so the labels should be customisable; cf. {{Infobox government agency}}, for example. Alakzi (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Alakzi I think you make a good point about the location. My rationale for that is that (at least in the United States) fire service is largely based on mutual aid that runs up the chain of locations. So for example, Santa Barbara City, responds with Santa Barbara County which in turn responds with the State of California. I would also argue that the breakdown of equipment is vital to understanding the department. A department on the east coast of the US, in a major city is going to have a vastly different fleet of vehicles than that of one on the west coast in wildfire territory. Just like a department in the heart of London would be vastly different than one out in the countryside. I use this all the time. This information helps those interested in the subject to understand it. Otherwise I think your argument could be applied to almost every Infobox on here. For example {{Infobox automobile}}: no need to include the wheelbase, height, weight, etc. in the infobox, it will be listed in the article. You see my point? To be clear (I know tone is so hard to read from plain text) I do not mean to personally attack you in any way! I am simply trying to point out the flip side of your argument. Looking forward to continuing the discussion. --Zackmann08 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete county fire service. I removed one transclusion because it was only being used to provide the service's phone number, and that means that there's only one remaining transclusion: we shouldn't have single-use infoboxes. No vote on the other suggestion. I do agree with Alakzi that we shouldn't go listing all the types of apparatus separately, and for anything except a very local department, listing the various administrative jurisdictions is also a bad idea. Let's just give the place where it's based (for example, my parents live down the village street from the fire station, so give the name of the village, but omit the surrounding townships that the department serves) and a single number for the total number of vehicles of every type of apparatus. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Any other thoughts on this? Would like to reach a consensus... --Zackmann08 (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Additional comment As the {{Infobox county fire service}} is no longer in use and is being replaced by one of these two templates, I have nominated it for deletion HERE. --Zackmann08 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note the {{Infobox county fire service}} template has been deleted, please continue discussing the merger of the other two. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as is - {{Infobox fire department}} has been changed dramatically since this was first listed. The template can now be used for any department in the world. That being said, {{Infobox UK Fire and Rescue}} has been customized to work specifically for fire & rescue departments in the UK. I see no reason why those cannot co-exist. --Zackmann08 (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC) (Changed my mind, see below)
    • You have just explained why: "Infobox fire department... can now be used for any department in the world"}}. We don't need country-specific templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge—if {{infobox fire department}} can now be used for any department in the world, then there is no reason not to merge in the UK template's uses. Imzadi 1979  15:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Merge - @Plastikspork and Imzadi1979: my previous comments made a lot more sense in my head... and late at night... Rereading that I would have to agree with you. No point in having multiple templates when one template can be used. I support merging the these two templates. That being said, I don't think that any modifications need to be made to {{Infobox fire department}}. Do either of you (or anyone else for that matter)? Seems like the instances of {{Infobox UK Fire and Rescue}} can simply be replaced at this point. Thoughts? --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
      • How so? It's missing nearly all of {{Infobox UK Fire and Rescue}}'s parameters. Alakzi (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Comment map, area, size & population don't belong in this Infobox anyway. The infobox is about the department, not the community. These are all features of the community that the department is responsible for. This is why they are not in {{Infobox fire department}}. --Zackmann08 (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
        • UK fire service boundaries often do not correspond to any other authority's; see, for example Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service and Special:Diff/631875126 (no, Humberside is not an extant county). Alakzi (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
          • @Alakzi: that is a fair point and one that is not unique to the UK. For example, see Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue which is in Oregon. Definitely something that should be addressed. What would you propose? I feel that the multiple subdivision options allow you to specify the communities (be it counties, cities, towns, etc.) that the department is responsible for. Do you feel that is not sufficient? Personally I don't see the need to state the population or the area the department is responsible for in the Infobox, but that is of course just my opinion. Let me know what your thoughts are. I want to be sure this template works for all departments regardless of country. --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Update Shall we go ahead and call this resolved? The templates have been merged. --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we get an admin to resolve this? --Zackmann08 (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:MuscleLoyola[edit]

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

A poor quality source that fills external link sections. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Plus the link seems to be a dead link! Scolaire (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Periodisation of Indian History[edit]

Template:Periodisation of Indian History (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Periodisation of Hinduism (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

should really be used in only one article, and not collapsed per MOS:COLLAPSE. far too many details for a sidebar. also partially duplicates other sidebars like Template:Part of History of India and others. Frietjes (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment regarding notice - @Frietjes: F, please notify the template creator of this pending TfD. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Notice to template creator provided by nominator: [4]. (Thanks, Frietjes.) Notice subsequently deleted by creator. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The table is currently transcluded in only two articles, and the effort saved by creating a template simply does not justify the cost paid in terms of accessibility; difficulty in editing; and the reader being confronted with a completely parallel (and duplicative) set of references. The table itself also has issue of due-weight, neologism (ACMM), and problems with mixing and matching of sources (creating, in effect, a novel periodization of Indian history on wikipedia, that you will not find in any source), and over-simplification of information (see also my comment below). Because of the latter issues, I would argue that the table should be deleted from both articles even if the discussion of this TFD is to keep the template; the article talk-page is appropriate place for that discussion, although I'd wait for this discussion to be decided first. Abecedare (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Spread of IE-languages[edit]

Template:Spread of IE-languages (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Indo-Aryan migration (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Spread of Vedic culture (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Template must not include any maps but only links to other articles. Hajme 17:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment regarding notice - @Hajme: Please notify the creator of these templates of this pending TfD. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all as nominator suggests. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Useful oversight of Indo-European and Indo-Aryan migrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Mildly support deletion I think the four maps do a good job of succinctly presenting the spread of IE languages. However, templates are navigation aids, not mechanisms for content delivery and perhaps there are more appropriate ways of conveying the same information. --regentspark (comment) 15:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't see any policy or guideline that says "templates must not include any maps". So, this is a spurious TfD as far as I am concerned. These templates are eminently valuable for transcluding a standardized collection of content across several pages. It might be that nobody ever used templates to transclude images but, if so, JJ deserves an award for innovation, not a TfD! Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    Kautilya3, JJ has done a splendid job with the maps and I quite like the succinct way in which the information is presented. It is definitely very clear.. But, it is not a good idea to use templates for content purposes because they are indirectly adding content rather than directly doing so. Where, for example, would we debate the accuracy of the content of the template? In the less traveled template talk page or on some content page? If on a content page, then which one? If it gets debated and removed from, say, History of India then what about the (presumably) less traveled Hinduism in Iran page? Content should always be included clearly so that it is open to debate and consensus formation and this - just looking at the long list of pages where it is transcluded - doesn't meet that requirement. The view presented by JJ on IE migration is the generally accepted one and I agree with that part of the content, what I disagree with is the method by which the view is being disseminated. It is not appropriate. --regentspark (comment) 19:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    You certainly have a point that the template's talk page would be less well-travelled. But the counterpoint is that the template makes it possible to keep all the pages consistent. If the material is duplicated on several pages, then it would be harder to maintain. You can fix it in one place, but you have no idea where else the same problematic content has been duplicated. A template is a better way to maintain consistency. Moreover, important templates get a lot of traffic too. See for example the revision history of Template:Sangh Parivar. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. R3venans (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There's also {{Indo-European migration}}. Alakzi (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not a good use of {{sidebar}}, and content should be collapsed only sparingly, if ever. If there's not enough space to float these images, they should be placed in a WP:GALLERY. Alakzi (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    I have read pretty much all the pages where these templates appear. I can vouch for the fact that they work brilliantly, brining to life the various geographic regions mentioned on the pages. I haven't found any problem with the templates being collapsed or expanded. (There was a problem initially when it wasn't clear that it was a template, but JJ fixed it.) Kautilya3 (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    This is what happens to sidebars on mobile. Also, collapsed content is bad usability. Alakzi (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    I think this template is undue on that page, not to mention the whole topic of Indo-Aryan migrations. However, the template seems to have broken some formatting code. After I checked the history and reloaded the page, the problem went away. I don't know if that is what you meant by "this is what happens." Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    Sidebars are hidden on mobile; mobile users can see none of these images. Alakzi (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete One of the most frequently used map of these templates has a number of mistakes, it should be used in lower resolution. Till November 2013, it used to be the main map of the alternative {{Indo-European topics}}. Last one, concerning the so called "spread of Vedic culture", is extreme and superfluous, it refers to a book whose first line starts with the doubt and offers no support to the template. Templates are not for illustrating a point. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per above. Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion I don't see any problem with templates with maps in them. Is there a policy against them? If it doesn't work on a page, remove it or reformat it to not be a sidebar, but I see no reason to delete it.  Liam987(talk) 16:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. These templates in their uncollapsed state are far too big and obtrusive, getting in the way of the content of articles to which they are only marginally relevant. And as pointed out above, it's normally bad form to collapse article content like this. These templates should be reframed as regular content in one article to which they are highly relevant, and other articles should simply link to that article. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The main reason to keep these non-navigational templates IMO would be that (a) we should be open to innovation in presentation, and (b) they solve the problem of keeping common information synchronized across articles. However, I eventually come down on the side of deletion because:
    • This information really belongs in a central article, where it can be properly sourced, and presented in context, rather than as a sort of sidebar commonly found in magazine articles. Instead of duplicating information in that article, a simple link or a short summary should suffice.
    • Many of the included maps also have unclear sourcing, potential synthesis issues, as has been mentioned above; and the source cited in the image page often differs from the ones cited in the captions. We do allow some degree of WP:OR in images, to balance our sourcing and WP:NFCC policies, but we should be especially carful when dealing with an academic subject (as opposed to popular culture topics) so that the reader can easily verify the content of the maps shown.
    • Main issue In presenting the information through bare images with some added notes thrown in, the templates flatten the subject, and leave the mistaken impression that the geographical boundaries shown and the quoted dates are somehow universally accepted facts, ignoring the varying schools of thought on the subject. And no, I am not talking about fringe ideas such as Indigenous Aryans. Rather I am referring to, to pick an example, the differences between Christopher I. Beckwith and J. P. Mallory/Douglas Q. Adams; looking the information in the template one would not even realize that these eminent scholars have substantially differences views on when and how PIE started breaking-up (see The Indo-European Diaspora section and Appendix A of Beckwith's book). And this simplification, bordering on misinformation, is not really the fault of the template/image creators (many of whom I have collaborate with and respect), but an unavoidable feature of trying to present complex information predominantly through graphics (Cf, the usual jokes about shallowness of Powerpoint presentations).
    • The templates, especially in the default collapsed form, also raise accessibility issues, and are in my experience almost unreadable on mobile platforms. The problem is several orders of magnitude worse for an editor to edit the information in these templates.
Abecedare (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Kurds infobox[edit]

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

This template is only used on two pages (Kurds and Kurdish population), and thus could easily be returned to those pages as sections rather than a template call. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

  • the fact that it is used on two pages alone is sufficient to keep it (as opposed to maintaining the complex references situation in two separate instances). Even if it was only used on a single page, you would not "delete" it, because you want to preserve the edit history (you would instead "merge" it, leaving behind a redirect). --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • merge with Kurds, and use a significantly reduced version (without the detailed population information) in Kurdish population. Frietjes (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is being used on two pages which is enough reason to keep it. Maybe make the list of countries collapsible? ~ Zirguezi 20:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • comment the detailed population information in the infobox duplicates the more informative Kurdish population#Statistics by country and there is nothing keeping the two in sync. what would be better would be have a simple anchor link at the bottom of the infobox in Kurdish population to point to Kurdish population#Statistics by country for the detailed statistics. then, I could see, making the image array a separate template, but otherwise, there would be little duplication left. Frietjes (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, has two transclusions. Could be changed to just the image array being the template (and the population information removed) though. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't care, but please be careful to make sure that all of the images therein are free content, and not ones used under a claim of fair use as per WP:NFCC#9. (In reference to [5]) --B (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Included to multiple pages. Hajme 16:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Borneo-Philippine languages[edit]

Template:Borneo-Philippine languages (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

See WP:NENAN. A navbox is far too cumbersome a tool to demonstrate the structure of a language family. The list in the "classification" section of Borneo–Philippine languages is sufficient, and much clearer. NSH002 (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. I condensed some branches and merged them under a larger subfamily. Is this sufficient for the navbox to be retained? Nuclear Malayo-Polynesian has its own navbox, so I think the other Malayo-Polynesian subfamily deserves its own as well. If not possible, can I create two separate navboxes for Philippine and Bornean instead? Pansitkanton (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
That's much better. Will wait to see what others think. --NSH002 (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The problems with the navigation box were resolved. Dimadick (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Citation needed by[edit]

Template:Citation needed by (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The template lends itself to abuse. By setting a date in the past it could very well be deleted immediately. Unless a bot is somehow able to discern how long a tag has existed anything like this can always be abused. Jerodlycett (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep Absurd WP:BATHWATER nomination that does not indicate any valid WP:DEL-REASON. Nominator has failed to provide evidence of actual abuse. Nominator admits to one WP:ATD, namely that a WP:BOT could detect and counteract any attempts to pre-date this template. Even if such abuse were to occur, vandals can be reverted and blocked as required (again, WP:ATD). Any template is open to abuse, do we therefore delete the entire template namespace? Vandals would probably consider {{citation needed by}} to be an inefficient and pointless way to remove text; they would probably just delete the text directly. Dl2000 (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not talking about using a template incorrectly here, I'm talking about using it maliciously. There are actually several alternatives, we could just perma-lock the wiki and only allow Jimbo's friends to edit it for example. The three options we have are, hope someone creates a bot to fix the template, by putting it unknown months into the future (unless there is a consensus on how long to leave an uncited statement before deleting, in which case, that should be the only option for this template); we create more work for everyone by having to make sure this template has a future date or reverting a mangling by a bot every time someone adds it to an article; or we delete this to prevent work that would be better spent improving Wikipedia. Jerodlycett (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Nor was I talking about using a template incorrectly. Again, [citation needed] as to when there has ever been actual malicious use of the template - substantiated risk rather than the straw man; proof rather than paranoia. Dl2000 (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete As far as I know, Wikipedia has no deadline. The Banner talk 02:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
This would be WP:DEADLINE, an essay which provides several conflicting assertions; not a basis for a WP:DEL-REASON. Dl2000 (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per The Banner. I can't think of a reason why you would need to have a citation by a certain date. Tavix |  Talk  16:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Some reasons were indicated in the previous TfD discussion. Dl2000 (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Who gets to decide how long a statement is allowed to go unsourced? --BDD (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I too am against automatic removal/hiding of text. Also, the point of adding a Fact template is to draw attention to the fact that the statement needs a source; hiding the statement means losing that option. Debresser (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete still. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Every statement needs a source but it is better to retain that information until someone finds one (or have a fixed amount of time before hiding), rather than having a completely arbitrary time at which the statement will disappear. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Article style[edit]

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

It's contrary to WP:MOS to require administrator action to change article style, and the template takes up too much valuable screen space. Screen space is at a premium while editing articles because of the need to refer to facts and bibliographic information in other windows. The screen space point could be made about other edit notices, but the apparent intent of this template is to add it as an edit notice to every article, rather than articles that require exceptional care in editing. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose—it is not only administrators who can create or edit the edit notices. Those with the template editor right can as well. As for the rest of the nomination statement, I find it all false or not convincing as a reason for deletion. Imzadi 1979  22:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't need to list stylistic choices inside edit notices. People get too stuck up on technicalities as it is. Alakzi (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Delete, though not entirely for the nominator's reasons. I feel like this template is redundant to simply taking a look at the wikitext itself and seeing what conventions are used there. APerson (talk!) 02:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • deleted Since only admins can set article style. Category:Varieties of English templates needs to go as well. -- Gadget850 talk 07:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: Following the abovementioned review discussion, this discussion is relisted.  Sandstein  20:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Replying to several points above:
    • "only admins can set article style" is false. The article styles are initially set by the first editor who creates a page. They can be changed through consensus in a discussion on the article's talk page, or based on strong national ties (using American-style dates on an article geographically related to the United States, for example). It is true that one needs to be an admin or hold the template editor user right to create or change an edit notice for an article, but this is not the same as setting the style in use in the article.
    • Article styles aren't changed that frequently, so I can't imagine that it's that much of a burden that should a talk page discussion warrant a change to an edit notice that someone can't be pinged to make the edit. {{Edit template-protected}} would handle that nicely.
    • Use of this template is optional, but it can serve as a good reminder for editors. Featured Articles/Lists are reviewed for internal formatting consistency, and yet editors don't always take the time to look to see which styles of dates/citations/etc are in use. I've had to mop up after well-meaning editors who have added content to FAs because they haven't taken the time to match the dates they've added to the format already in use. If this template gives that that little reminder and saves others from clean-up duty, then it's served its purpose.
    • No one has demonstrated a policy-based reason against including this information within an edit notice. There is no policy of which I'm aware that would prevent me from hand-writing an edit notice without using this template to note what style dates are in use in an article. Imzadi 1979  21:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. While it can only be added by template editors or admins, having an edit notice is better than having a hard-to-notice {{Use dmy dates}} which doesn't even show up in sections. This could be particularly useful for high-traffic articles. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Chicago style[edit]

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

This needs to be changed to an edit notice, not a section notice. Used in one article.  Gadget850 talk 21:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Generalise, perhaps? Per WP:CITEVAR, changing an article's citation style is discouraged. If it's to be kept, it should be made an edit notice. Frankly, I don't think that it's needed; notices ought to be reserved for more grievous offences. Therefore, I'd also support deletion. Alakzi (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Though certainly permitted, and I would certainly argue that it should continue to be permitted, the use of this style is relatively uncommon here for most types of articles, and the template is needed to prevent people from incorrectly trying to change it. This is sipper and clearer than any generalized template could be. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep the notice permanently in the article itself? That's not a sacrifice I'd be willing to make. Alakzi (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete. this sort of thing should be a comment in the wikitext, or in the edit notice, not a large banner in the article. Frietjes (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • comment Created {{article style}} as an editnotice. -- Gadget850 talk 16:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    Not sure about having an edit notice for what I'm about to suggest, but one could probably merge the {{use dmy}} family to it also. --Izno (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @Izno: Added some more styles; expand or discuss on the template page. -- Gadget850 talk 12:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Edit notices are nearly useless because most editors are not administrators or template editors, so it will be too cumbersome to get them added to a significant number of articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn by nominator. -- Gadget850 talk 01:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep—the nomination was previously withdrawn by the nominator, so a relist should not have been necessary. However, I agree that the formatting of this should be changed, or the documentation made clear, that this template should be used in edit notices and not in the article itself. Imzadi 1979  15:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Imzadi1979: Why not merge it with {{Article style}}? Alakzi (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • That would be preferable in the long term, but for the short term, it should be kept in some form. Imzadi 1979  15:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Canadian school district[edit]

Template:Infobox Canadian school district (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox school district (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Canadian school district with Template:Infobox school district.
Many duplicate, though differently named, parameters. We don't need a separate template for each country. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Right, so, out of nineteen parameters, ten have no equivalent; see my sandbox. {{Infobox school district}} has the following twenty additional parameters: motto; type; grades; region; country; location; coordinates; president; vice-president; asst_superintendent; accreditations; us_nces_district_id; faculty; teachers; staff; ratio; conference; mascot; colors; and schedule. First, I'd like to hear from people who know a thing or two about school districts if all of the parameters of these two templates are worth keeping. Alakzi (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm prepared to assume that Canadian school districts - not to mention those in the rest of the world - have coordinates, grades, a location, a region, a country, teachers, faculty, staff, and a staff/student ratio, at a minimum. |us_nces_district_id= can be re-purposed as a generic identifier parameter, matching the Canadian template's |boardidentifier=, and this made more globally useful. I've yet to find an instance of the template using conference, mascot, colors, or schedule. The example in the documentation suggests that the latter is for values like "M-F except state holidays", which fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge—details can be worked out on the appropriate talk page, but each template is accomplishing the same purpose with a lot of redundancy between the two. Imzadi 1979  15:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox British Columbia school district[edit]

Template:Infobox British Columbia school district (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox Canadian school district}}. I've replaced one transclusion to demonstrate. Alakzi (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge—at a minimum with {{infobox Canadian school district}}, but ideally that will be merged with {{infobox school district}}. Imzadi 1979  15:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    How merge would be important? If anything has to be kept, it would be discussed as there is one already and better. Hajme 17:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    I don't understand what you just asked. Can you use nouns/proper nouns rather than pronouns? --Izno (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft[edit]

Template:Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Not really needed as a navigation aid, just a collection of links that are already in the article and links to proposed sub-systems which is just an aircraft design project. MilborneOne (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The template would be more useful if those red links were actual articles. The template seems useless without those links to actual articles. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  15:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is not the way aircraft nav boxes are supposed to work, the blue links are not to key program articles or to other aircraft types. Given this is only a design proposal the redlinks are unlikely to be written. The use of the poster in the box makes it far to big and detracts greatly. If this were cleaned up properly it would have only two links. - Ahunt (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete has a long image and few red links. Hajme 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't care but it cannot have an image used under a claim of fair use if it is retained. --B (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

April 10[edit]

Template:Unsigned-unk[edit]

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

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

  • Keep Useful. There are times you might not be able to figure out who signed it without undue effort. Is EoRdE6 volunteering to go through the effort on command, or is he just assigning work to other people? Hipocrite (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Presidents of Bangladesh Islami Chhatra Shibir[edit]

Template:Presidents of Bangladesh Islami Chhatra Shibir (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only two of the names have their own articles. Rahat (Message) 16:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is about collaborative creation, not undue deletion. I suggest Ctg4Rahat to help in relevant article creation, rather than singling out specific articles for deletion. Islami Chhatra shibir is one of the large student organizations in Bangladesh, and I believe that a list of its Presidents should not be deleted simply on the logic that only two of the names have their "own articles". The logic presented is absurd, if not laced with vested interest. ~Mohammad Hossain~ 17:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    You should create a list then, not a navbox. Such a list could be presented at Bangladesh Islami Chhatra Shibir until such time as it is necessary to split that content out due to WP:WEIGHT or WP:SIZE. --Izno (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete with no prejudice against recreation at a later date when more articles are present. Navboxes are for navigation within Wikipedia, not lists of not-notable persons. --Izno (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessary --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete First we create articles, then navigation boxes. Not the other way around. Dimadick (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Team form 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 author approval. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Fb cf (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Fb cf t (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Football club form (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

After discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Recent created fb templates all editors that responded there thought it should be eliminated as it is not needed/usefull. QED237 (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - simply not needed. GiantSnowman 16:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessary. --Jaellee (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:FOOTY discussion rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all Not needed. CRwikiCA talk 18:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • OK then, delete them, but pls do it asap. OlJa 18:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WoD mage[edit]

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

mostly redirects or section links, and otherwise duplicates template:WoD. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Palomar[edit]

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

Contained just 2 pages, a band and their one album. Band article has been merged to another. Album article may also be deleted, but the template can go irrespective of that. – Fayenatic London 08:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:MechWarrior series[edit]

Template:MechWarrior series (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:BattleTech Universe (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:MechWarrior series with Template:BattleTech Universe.
At this time carrying basically the same information, and I don't think it's sensible to strip out the BattleTech template to just the non-MechWarrior games. Izno (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. It doesn't seem as though these two subjects are distinct enough from each other to be on two separate lists. Steel1943 (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

April 9[edit]

Template:WoD vampire clans[edit]

Template:WoD vampire clans (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Every page aside from one article (Malkavian) has since been redirected or deleted, which renders this template rather... limited, as a navbox. It's unlikely that any of these could be restored, and Malkavian should probably be redirected itself. It is currently being used by a couple of pages (like Vampire: The Dark Ages), but these articles have no reason to have a clan/bloodline navbox instead of just a general World of Darkness navbox. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox county fire service[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 duplicate discussionPlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox county fire service (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Per a discussion HERE this template is being replaced with {{Infobox fire department}}. Also, this template is no longer used anywhere except on its own documentation page. Zackmann08 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Largest cities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo[edit]

Template:Largest cities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Effectively guesswork and WP:OR. dates for numbers vary too widely to make a useful comparison and judge the size of the cities. The Banner talk 20:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose It needs better referencing, and some inline citations, but I think this is verifiable information.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but at present the info is just unreliable as most of it are estimates. I know, organising a proper census in a country as troubled as the Democratic Republic of the Congo is difficult, but still it is not okay to have things sourced here by newspaper-estimates (Goma!). The Banner talk 10:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the CIA World Factbook "newspaper estimates." But the info here isn't sourced solely to that. I don't doubt that the template needs better sourcing, I just challenge that it needs to be deleted.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I realized that you were referring specifically to Goma in regard to the "newspaper estimates." I'm trying to track down that BBC source to see where it got its information from.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
For sourcing supporting Goma, see the template talk page, where I am going to list what my research found. I found six three other sources that confirm the BBC report. I think this demonstrates that whatever the sourcing problems might be on the template, they are not insurmountable, and thus the template should not be deleted.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Please, look at each and every city and check the date of number of inhabitants. The Banner talk 23:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep So far, we can see that the template needs better sources. But that does not mean its inappropriate or useless. Dimadick (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ancestors of Caroline Matilda[edit]

Template:Ancestors of Caroline Matilda (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This template duplicates an ancestry tree already in the article Caroline Matilda of Great Britain. As it is specific tothe Caroline Matilda article there is no purpose the the template as to include it in the article would just complicated things for the less experienced editor. It is not link to any article. PBS (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - By all means... Although I'll question the fact that it is more complicated for the less experienced user to see a template than to see a bunch of code. --Harthacnut (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Rondel P. Lindayag[edit]

Template:Rondel P. Lindayag (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Who? Fails WP:NAVBOX as the subject of the navbox doesn't have an article. Also, we should only have director filmography navboxes, not for other film roles. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete While I don't see why navboxes should be limited to creators, this particular one lacks a source article. Dimadick (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Brad Pitt[edit]

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

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

  • keep, its his producer role, and the consensus are more than five years old. Christian75 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the consensus has always been that actor filmography template should be deleted, director templates should be kept and writer/producer templates had no consensus. If we are to begin deleting writer/producer templates a discussion should be held at WP:FILM or some place with a lot of eyeballs rather than on a one off basis for templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable film producer with multiple articles to navigate. The consensus is outdated. Dimadick (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep it's not every film he's been in, just produced. LADY LOTUSTALK 16:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin. There is currently a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#RFC: Filmography navboxes to determine consensus as to whether the guideline should explicitly discourage producer and writer navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Scott Rudin[edit]

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

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

  • Support deletion per nom and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep There has been no consensus anywhere that writer/producer templates should be deleted. There has been consensus that actor filmography templates should be deleted and director navboxes should be kept. There has been no consensus on writer/producer templates. I have never seen editor/composer/cinematographer templates and such, but would be apt to delete them. I would likely support writer/producer templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable producer with multiple films to navigate. No reason to delete. Dimadick (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with Tony the Tiger. I don't think all producers and writers need a navbox, but for those that have significant activity the navbox can be useful to readers. Rlendog (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
There's an argument when the producer has significant contribution, but significant activity just means they've produced a lot of films, which is actually more of an argument to delete, as it's likely more indiscrimnate. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Brian Grazer[edit]

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

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

Template:Buck Henry[edit]

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

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

Template:Chinaplanetnames[edit]

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

Hard-coded text citation template that is used in seven articles. The first heading line isn't included but it's including three separate citations into a single footnote. (See Mercury_(planet)#cite_ref-121, Jupiter#cite_ref-141, Saturn#cite_ref-113, etc.) which unnecessarily locks their usage in that manner. If the citations were to be split into three separate footnotes (such as if we broke out the Chinese, Korean and/or Japanese into more than a single sentence), it's excessive and unnecessary complication. It's also odd as the text only refers to Chinese and Japanese at Saturn while referring to "Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese" cultures at Mercury creating more complications. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • split/substitute/delete Frietjes (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:LVFCS Awards Chron[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. MER-C 12:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:LVFCS Awards Chron (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Downstream cleanup following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Las Vegas Film Critics Society (2nd nomination) j⚛e deckertalk 02:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Navigation template that has now been deprecated due to deletion of all subject articles. Safiel (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per AFD closure Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 8[edit]

Template:Category description[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G8 by Mackensen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 15:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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

This existed to place categories into the maintenance category Category:Categories lacking a description, but that has just been deleted per CfD March 29. At that point in time it was transcluded onto two category pages, for which I provided a description today. – Fayenatic London 22:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I can see this being used for potentially confusingly named categories, or categories being used under restricted definitions, thereby needing a description to explain the situation. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, if a bot were auto-populating categories that have no description with this template and placing them in a maintenance category, that would be useful. But since the category is gone, this template does seem useless, so weak delete. --B (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete G8, dependent on a nonexistant or deleted category. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 12:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Royal Ontario Museum iconic objects[edit]

Template:Royal Ontario Museum iconic objects (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This is an adjunct to an Afd nomination for Royal Ontario Museum Iconic Objects. Both are simply derived from a booklet published by the museum itself and have attracted no external notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep The articles are all related under a valid grouping. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The template is no different than those used by other museums to group together articles related to thier individual collections. As stated above, the articles are all related and therefore the grouping makes sense. AngelKelley (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Greek religion[edit]

Template:Greek religion (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Ancient Greek religion navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Greek religion with Template:Ancient Greek religion navbox.
These two navboxes considerably overlap by scope, though largely containing links to different articles. They should therefore be merged and/or completely reorganized in scope. PanchoS (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge: overlap between these two boxes is clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge - Per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge Both navigation boxes cover the same subject. Dimadick (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Neutralitytalk 04:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Translation attribution[edit]

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

WP Medicine version of deleted {{Maintained}} that was deleted per the consensus in this discussion, and is similar to this discussion. Also not used on a single page. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Add at 21:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No this template was for giving attribution for people who may not have made edits directly to Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with the other discussion. The template is not actually for use on En Wikipedia but for use on other languages. Thus will move to my work space. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep This template is used on English Wikipedia to explain projects on other Wikipedias. It is not even being used in live space, so it certainly is not misused in live space, but if it were used in live space, then that would be fine too.
I fail to recognize how this template is being used in a similar way to those others, and because it is not like the others, I am not persuaded by the deletion argument. In the case of the others, the template purports to direct users to a particular user who offers subject matter expertise. In the case of this template, users are directed to people who managed support functions which have no clear relationship to the facts presented in the article, except that one person has claimed to have translated those facts for a new audience and another person copypasted those facts from elsewhere to here.
This template is filling a gap in supplying a method for giving attribution of copyrighted content from off-wiki to on Wiki. Wikipedia's software infrastructure currently has no native functions for giving attribution to contributors who do not have Wikipedia accounts, and whose contributions are integrated into Wikipedia by others. Likewise, when the support volunteers copypaste someone else's work into Wikipedia, the native software implies that they are copyright holders of what they contributed, which is not going to be correct in the cases when this template is used.
This template has low potential for abuse. It is unlike the other ones. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Have you discussed this with the copyright folk? How do non-users waive their rights? In private communication with you? Alakzi (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per BlueRasberry's excellent and incisive critique of the severely flawed logic of this nomination. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • While the nomination may be "flawed", if the template is not used, why is it needed? By the way, I don't know if we have the ability to do so here, but I know for other Wikipedias, when they port something over from English to translate, the article history comes with it. So there are languages that I show up as having edited even though I have never been there and that's because they copied the history from here. That seems like a better way to do it than to have a talk page template with a reference to a contribution history on another wiki that might get moved or deleted. But even if this is the best methodology to be used, it seems that (1) if the template isn't used, it may not be needed and (2) if the template is needed, there should be a generic one that can be used for articles in all disciplines rather than separate ones for each discipline that someone has to maintain. --B (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite the last line to say, "If you would like to help, please do! Add your name here if you like and are helping." Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Multihulls[edit]

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

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

  • Comment - Both of these navboxes are extremely large with a high percentage of red links to nowhere. I would strongly urge that someone contemplate converting these navboxes to list articles and moving them to article space. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I have now saved the content to Draft:List of multihulls ({{Multihulls}} does more or less cover {{Trimarans}}). Smartskaft (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I feel this is a fair illustration of the point I make below; ie. now you have 6 pages instead of less than 1 ... and the content is far less readable. prat (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or listify per Dirtlawyer1 - if a navbox gets too big it's usually an indicator that it needs to be broken down, but this seems like an unnecessarily-broad class to base a navbox on and I don't think it could result in useful subdivisions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Revisit later: but for the love of wiki, please don't delete: I've spent a lot of time expanding these, though I did not originally create either of them. I believe the content is extremely valuable as the best on the web with regards to getting a snapshot of the evolution of modern multihulls. Changing the format to a list article will drastically reduce the communicative power of the content. If people see the size of the templates as a huge issue then I am happy to have someone convert them but cannot personally dedicate time at present owing to 'real life' commitments. Another option might be to split the catamarans out of the Multihulls template and have two, more manageable 'Catamarans' and 'Trimarans' navboxes. Still another option might be to ban boats that are not 'production' boats (ie. multiple boats produced of the same type) from the templates, which would shrink them considerably however would necessarily remove most of the interesting earlier entries ... so I'm not really for this treatment. Still another option would be to create decade or other temporally-based categories to reproduce the current grouping visible within the templates in the categories system, however this will lack utility in terms of overview and is likely to become ignored/unmaintained. Honestly, I don't think these navboxes are really such a big problem right now and are very informative, offering a concise overview of the subject at a glance. If they grow to much larger sizes then we could revisit the question later, which would be my recommended course of action at this point. However, as I'm the only one working on them I doubt this will happen as most of the low-hanging fruit / important stuff has already been covered. I would also question why, as the major recent contributor to both of these templates, I was not notified of this deletion discussion. prat (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I note that the length is also very similar to Sailing vessels and rigs. prat (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The fact that another template exists is not a reason for keeping one, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In fact, there is also a major difference between the two, where the scope of Sailing vessels and rigs is clear (types of sailing vessels and rigs) while the nominated ones list everything (concepts, types and individual vessels, sailing and motor) about their topic. This is simply not helpful for the reader, but would be in a list or an article on the history of multihulls. Smartskaft (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually, 'vessels and rigs' is even more vague than Trimarans or Multihulls, which specifically limits to at least a subset thereof. prat (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Sailing competition result[edit]

Template:Sailing competition result (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Medal (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Sailing competition result with Template:Medal.
Redundant to the other template. Same function, less usage. Smartskaft (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Propose whatever The functionality is not the same between the named templates! In medal the function is limited to the gold, silver and bronze. This is not always sufficient! e.g. when you want to record a place on the world ranking list of a certain year. So NOT redundant!_/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33talk 18:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I do not oppose merging the functionality of these templates. I must say, however, that the medal graphics of the sailing results template are far more attractive and far more space efficient than those presently used by the generic medal templates. I think we should seriously consider adopting the sailing graphics for the generic template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Alakzi: Can you take a look at these templates in light of my suggestion above, and see if this is a viable option? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
      • The first positional parameter of {{Sailing competition result}} can take any value; the medal icon is not part of the template. {{Medal}} is not functionally redundant to {{Sailing competition result}}, so long as it restricts the |type= of medal to one of nine predefined options. {{Medal}} allows for some terminological variation (e.g. "runner-up", "silver", and "second"), which would be lost if we were to use the icons. We'd also need to ponder the fate of "disqualified" and "playoffs", which would - presumably - be rid of their distinguishing background colour for the sake of visual harmony. Finally, there remains the question whether places beyond third belong inside medal boxes. Alakzi (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Having examined the coding and template options, I can see now that the medal icons are not tied to the "Sailing competition result" template, but were separate icon templates inserted within the first parameter. The easiest question to answer is your last: no, we should not include results beyond the first three in the infobox "medals table"; the medals table was never intended to list every result, only the highlights and top finishes of an athlete's elite career. I am certain we could find background coloring or other graphic device to account for the relatively rare occurrence of "disqualified" -- the current pink background is less than ideal. I am unfamiliar with the "playoffs" option mentioned by you above, and will have to research its present use (if any). As for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and runner-up options, I would be grateful if you could create tracking categories so we can see how they are presently being used. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Maybe upmerge would have been a better naming for my suggestion. The parameters are not exactly the same, however the design of the |type= parameter of {{Sailing competition result}} only encourages inclusion of results beyond top-three that are cluttering the infobox. Smartskaft (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
            • Merge regardless. We can figure out the minutiae on Medal's talk page. Alakzi (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
              • For me the main thing is that it is not only limited to 'Medals' unmerge, merge, takeover, special to sailing or not or whatever. But that other competition like a year ranking or places lower that 3 can be showed. A beter name could maybe be "template:Palmarès"._/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33talk 16:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support manual replacement with {{Medal}} variations rather than merging, as this is effectively a way of getting anything into the medal templates. Call me old fashioned, but I think we should be actively limiting people's options to medals in an infobox designed specifically for medals which has the header "medals". I also think the move to the numbered images over the written ones is a good one (and a wonderfully bold change at that!). SFB 19:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • And now? In the mean time many entries are messed up due to the extra text added to the template. _/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33talk 11:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Sailing competitor for[edit]

Template:Sailing competitor for (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MedalCountry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Sailing competitor for with Template:MedalCountry.
Redundant to the other template. Same function, less usage. Smartskaft (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Propose whatever The functionality is not the same between the named templates! In medal the function is limited to the gold, silver and bronze. This is not always sufficient! e.g. when you want to record a place on the world ranking list of a certain year. So NOT redundant!_/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33talk 18:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No, this template is exactly the same as Template:MedalCountry. Smartskaft (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
And could be redirected. Smartskaft (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Support merge with {{Medal}}, which is intended to replace MedalCountry and has same function of one parameter. SFB 19:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Sailing competition[edit]

Template:Sailing competition (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MedalCompetition (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Sailing competition with Template:MedalCompetition.
Redundant to the other template. Same function, less usage. Smartskaft (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Propose whatever The functionality is not the same between the named templates! In medal the function is limited to the gold, silver and bronze. This is not always sufficient! e.g. when you want to record a place on the world ranking list of a certain year. So NOT redundant!_/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33talk 18:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment The template is currently not in use in the main namespace. Smartskaft (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Second level domain[edit]

Template:Second level domain (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Was used to store the intro of Second-level domain. No longer used by any articles. Mortein | Talk 07:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • subst and delete templates are not used to store portions of articles, article content should not be hidden in templatespace. As this was already substed... -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Disagree & Template:Agree[edit]

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

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

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

April 7[edit]

Template:Comment from uninvolved editor[edit]

Template:Comment from uninvolved editor (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Well, this template seems to be its own hypocrite. Once a comment is made in a discussion, the editor is then "involved" in the discussion. (However, there are several transclusions of this template, so all existences should probably be substituted prior to this template being deleted in order to not break anything.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I think what it means is that whatever the discussion is about (e.g. an incident that found its way to WP:ANI) is something the commenting editor had no part in. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: Possibly, but how is the reader supposed to determine that based on the text that this template returns? In the template's current state, the hypocrisy stands, and editors who used this template in the past might not have been sure themselves the purpose of this template. I mean, I'm looking through the template's history, and it has only been edited by its creator (whom I respect, by the way), and the text that the template returns has always been set up as "comment from uninvolved whomever". In my opinion, the text would need be changed in some form or another, but either way, all currently existing transclusions would probably need to be substituted since we can only guess the true purpose of other editors who transcluded this template in the past. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't really answer that, but I can say that's how I've always interpreted it. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that's how it's perceived in general, although it can be used to varying degrees of truthfulness so I guess I'm neutral in regard to this nomination. I don't really care what happens to it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I wrote this template back when I was doing a lot of work at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I used it to show that I wasn't involved in disputes I was trying to resolve there. There was a reluctance to call regular volunteers at DRN "clerks" or "mediators" etc., so this wording was an attempt to avoid that while still indicating that the user was attempting to resolve a dispute rather than continue it. It seems to have fallen out of favour at DRN, though, and I personally haven't used it for years now, so I don't mind if it's deleted. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Somewhat related: Wikipedia:Help desk#Deletion discussion box messing up documentation --Guy Macon (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as useless, though I don't agree with the contention in the nomination that commenting defeats the purpose of the template. We have processes like third opinion or requests for comment where uninvolved opinions are welcomed. But a template that doesn't save you any time seems rather useless. I'd get rid of {{Non-administrator observation}} for the same reason - what's the point? --B (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, it should be obvious to the discussion participants who was not previously involved and who wasn't. Daniel Case (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I think the editors who use this template (I use it often myself) use it to show that when there is an ongoing discussion between only a small group of people who are knowledgeable about the subject at hand, that the new editor has no personal stake in it. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Request close[edit]

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

Since the guideline WP:INVOLVED exists, is this template really necessary? In its current state, it seems like an unnecessary, redundant extra push for WP:INVOLVED to be enforced. Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant to guidelines and clutters-up pages where multiple discussions are going at once (e.g. WP:RFD, which is where I saw this template). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As the creator, I had hopes for it as a way to attract attention to discussions in need of close, instead of posts to AN, but it never really caught on, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, which arrived after the template, really does what the template was meant to better anyway. May as well Delete it. Monty845 02:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete with everyone else here; this seems redundant to WP:ANRFC. Although this template came first, ANRFC is what the community uses now. Ivanvector (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Is anyone monitoring these requests? If so, this seems useful and more efficient than listing the discussion on a noticeboard. --B (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @B: I'm not sure; however, if this template (and related category) were to be utilized properly, the wording in the template really should be tweaked slightly to sound like less of an push to enforce WP:INVOLVED and sound more like its initial intended purpose. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how it is "a push to enforce WP:INVOLVED". If it said, in a blinking marquee, "NOTICE TO UNINVOLVED USERS", okay, that's a bit much, but it uses the word uninvolved one time and doesn't seem pushy at all. I'm assuming that the purpose of the template is to attract the attention of someone who is not involved in the discussion and that looks like what the text does. --B (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox LFL team and Template:Infobox WFL team[edit]

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

Redundant to {{Infobox American football team}}, save for the one pre-filled label and field. I've replaced one transclusion to demonstrate. Alakzi (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Replace and delete per nominator's rationale. These templates offer no functionality not already covered by the generic template identified. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete as nominator is correct. I'm sure creating the WFL template made sense to me at the time (5 years ago this week!) but the demonstration proves it's replaceable. - Dravecky (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've now replaced all transclusions. Alakzi (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Old Test Edit Warnings[edit]

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

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

@Mackensen: The wording of some could violate guidelines and confuse new users. For example, {{Test6}} doesn't even mention unblock procedures . {{Test2}} makes absolutely no sense if yo read it, Such edits are considered vandalism and quickly undone. And things like {{Test4im-alt}} say Your recent vandalism has shown you to be intent on doing harm to Wikipedia... you will be reported to administrators which first sounds childish (intent to do harm to Wikipedia?) and then says you will be reported to admins, without explain what happens then, and no links to the blocking policy. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm agnostic on Test4im-alt and Test6 so I'm not sure why you're arguing with me about them. As for Test2, I find I can parse its meaning. The original wording did not include the clause " and quickly undone" and I would support its removal. Mackensen (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nothing has changed since the two previous discussions linked in Mackensen's message. Some of us prefer the old templates' style and continue to use them. Given that they aren't listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace (which would confuse users seeking an appropriate template), their retention causes absolutely no harm.
    These are talk page messages, which needn't be uniform (unlike templates appearing in articles). No "guidelines" require the use of specific wording when conveying information via someone's talk page. Any editor who wanted to could store these templates' text on personal subpages and transclude them at will, but it's far more convenient to retain the longstanding locations (at which they've resided since long before the "uw" series was created). The requested action is a solution in search of a problem (and one that would cause problems for no good reason). —David Levy 19:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@David Levy: My concern here also centers on the wording of some of them, and that ones like the block notices don't give unblock instructions which could confuse new editors and cause accidental socking. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Actual deficiencies in some of the templates' wording can be addressed through normal editing. There's no need to redirect the entire set indiscriminately. —David Levy 19:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • What an insane number of templates, all doing essentially the same thing! Keep Test, Test2, Test3, and Test4, as they do appear to see some use; redirect or delete the others to the more modern and maintained equivalents, as proposed. — This, that and the other (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all but the blocking templates - the objection to the blocking templates (that they don't tell you how to request an unblock) seems perfectly reasonable and those should be redirected to the newer templates. The other templates have a legitimate use, though, for those who want their message to sound like it comes from a human. The uw templates all seem less user friendly and these test templates provide a reasonable alternative for users who desire to use them. --B (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, these are still in regular use and the content doesn't have any major issues. Nakon 00:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Test, Test2, Test3 and Test4 per This, that and the other; redirect the rest. Compromise is integral to a collaborative environment; surely, we can compromise on having two of each kind, but no more? Alakzi (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox multi-sport competition event[edit]

Template:Infobox multi-sport competition event (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox sport event (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox multi-sport competition event with Template:Infobox sport event.
Very similar templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose The usage of these templates appears to be different. The first template is being used for event-level articles connected to a wider competition. The latter is being used on articles on wider competitions themselves. A better merge target for the "sport event" template would be Template:Infobox sport tournament (and plenty more in that category, like Template:Infobox FILA wrestling event), which is being used in the same circumstance. Between the nominated templates, the purpose and differences in display of champions of two sexes vs. three medallists of one sex is quite major. Also, another merge request with the multi-sport template is ongoing so it's probably not the best time to consider merging of these two different functions. SFB 21:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose, too few common parameters. Frietjes (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • weak support, now that Template:Infobox multi-sport competition event has been moved to Template:Infobox sports competition event, this makes some sense. the only parameters missing are related to prizemoney and champions. not all sport events are tournaments, so merging with Template:Infobox sport tournament may not be the best in all cases. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 10:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Solar eclipse summary[edit]

Template:Solar eclipse summary (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Total solar eclipse summary (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Partial solar eclipse summary (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Annular solar eclipse summary (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Hybrid solar eclipse summary (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

A single sentence of text that is not often changed and has no reason to exist as a template. Should be substituted everywhere and then deleted.  Sandstein  11:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:TG. This is used in these four other templates, which should also be subst:ituted and deleted. Whoever's working on these solar eclipse articles has got to stop sticking every little thing in a template. Alakzi (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep There are hundreds of eclipse articles. Do we want people tweaking intros to each until we have 72 versions of it? If someone is SURE what's a good intro paragraph, and pretend its never going to be edited or improved, substitution sounds good. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    I don't see that as a persuasive reason to keep. There's no reason to be restricting edits to these eclipse articles to a particular template (or 3) that I can see, and obscures otherwise running text. --Izno (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • indifferent. it is useful to have it one place if the language every changes. however, with the availability of bots, it wouldn't be that much trouble to use a bot if the intro every changes. Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete — Obscures otherwise running text, and a single sentence can't be justified for its own template. --Izno (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • keep - its give no sense not to have the same opening. Christian75 (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep so as to be as little nuisance as possible to people editing these articles. Thincat (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Commment: I went and found the relevant guideline at WP:TG wherein it says Templates should not normally be used to store article text.. I do not see this case as an extraordinary one and maintain my earlier !vote for deletion. --Izno (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    Mmm, well. There is a good case for substing this template (as suggested in the nomination) but, to allow it to be substed in future articles, means it should be kept. That is where the nomination goes astray. The relevant guideline is "Templates ... that contain text which is not likely to ever be changed should be invoked with substitution (subst:)." The nomination seems to be making reference to this while not following to the consequence. Thincat (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    It's being transcluded, not substed. If there is reasoning to keep it simply for substing (and I'm skeptical even of that need, for much the same reason as for the applicable guideline), then all current usages should be substed and the template documentation updated. --Izno (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per the guidelines, templates are not normally used for article text. I see no reason to make an exception in this case. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • We should not need to repeat the same information on hundreds of articles. As long as there is a link to solar eclipse in the lead, readers can click that to get information on what an eclipse is. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, as it seems better to redesign the intro so it doesn't rely on templated prose to explain general information, unless a need for this is identified —PC-XT+ 06:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The need has been identified: unlike in most situations, with the solar eclipse articles, we have a basic explanation that ought to be given on all pages in a uniform manner. Some readers can click the eclipse article to get information on what an eclipse is, but some can't, and articles should be written with offline users in mind as well as online. Don't subst, because there's nothing wrong with changing this text: the point is that it shouldn't be changed in just one or two articles, but that it should be the same across articles, staying the same unless it's changed across all. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 10:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Izno. Storing individual sentences of articles in templates is beyond ridiculous. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Copying & pasting into the various articles that would contain this sentence is a better option. The work may be tedious, but if consensus is clear on what the sentence should say, there won't be a need to make sure the hundreds of articles that also contain this sentence reflect whichever edits may have occured to one of them. As I write this, though, I'm a little confused - why not just link back to Solar eclipse and put this sentence in the lead of that article? Why does it need to be placed in so many articles? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've thought about it more and I understand what Nyttend is saying, but I still disagree with it. If someone is perusing a book of Wikipedia articles, obviously they won't have the luxury of clicking on solar eclipse if it piques their curiosity, but I'm assuming if such a book exists, it would also have the main solar eclipse article in it - rather prominently, I might add. I don't really see how a book would contain any of the articles that have this template on it and not have the main solar eclipse article as well. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • One more and I'm done: I also don't see how this should be such a special case. Plenty of books would exist that would mention concepts such as these that would benefit from being linked, but to an extent we trust that the reader more or less knows about concepts like these, which are rather basic, so we don't feel the need to add sentences like these to every article that mentions a topic that the reader might have the slightest chance of not understanding right off the bat. If the topics are connected intimately enough to whichever master topic a template like this describes, it is again very likely that the article on the master topic is included in the book as well (and not in an obscure manner). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

delete, having ordinary article text in a template is pointless, and just confusing for editors of those articles. There is not some style or other guide or rule that says the article has to start this way, and there are many ways to write such an intro – some of which can be seen in the revisions of this template. This should be up to the editor(s) of the article, not be determined by a template which could change any time.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all. It is absolutely ridiculous (and not editor-friendly) to have ordinary text be in templates. I understand that much of the language is boilerplate, but this is a bridge too far for me. I agree with JohnBlackburne. Neutralitytalk 04:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Damon Lindelof[edit]

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

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

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

Template:Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely[edit]

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

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

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

Template:WP India AaA[edit]

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

This appears to be the India wikiproject equivalent of the Template:Maintained template that was recently deleted after a lengthy discussion. It shares the problems of that template and, at least in my experience, serves little purpose. For example among articles on my watchlist that include this template:

  • Talk:Mahatma Gandhi: the editor adopting the page does not seem to have contributed to the article or the talk page; and the template adds to the already immense header-footer clutter on that talk page.
  • Talk:Economy_of_India The editor is indef blocked.
  • Talk:Subhas_Chandra_Bose: At least two of the editors of the three listed are inactive, and most of the main article contributors are absent.

If these were isolated examples, the issue could be dealt locally on each individual page, but I find it hard to imagine a page where a newbie user is not better off simply being guided to the wikiproject talk page and if needed the project's talk-page template could be modified to point this out. Abecedare (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Why not just remove the temnplates from the pages where the users have left? It would take a while, but it would solve that problem.

    I'm also leery of "let's guide a newbie user to a project talk page" as a general principle. We have quite a few inactive WikiProjects; even on those where some users actually edit there is no guarantee that a new user posting a query there will get a response. And really, how ridiculously bureaucratic is this to get help: "To get help, please go to some other page with a complicated abstract name, even though we told you that this is where you should have gone"? It's like calling customer service and having a recorded message give you another long number to call.

    Really, from the logic of this nomination, you'd think Wikipedians were actually trying to make sure the project was hard for newcomers to get into. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Daniel Case:, to address your questions:

  • Why not just remove the templates... I addressed this in the last para of my nom. Also note that this is not a one-time clean-up, since individual editors become inactive (and re-active) all the time; when do we remove their name? After they have been inactive for a month... year ? Would be feasible if we could come up with some guidelines, and could get a bot designed for the task. Though it would still not address cases such as Talk:Mahatma Gandhi where a user added his name in good faith (and, to be clear, their volunteering to help is commendable), but is arguably not the best person to address question on the subject.
    • We can deal with these on a case-by-case basis. In the one where the editor is indefblocked, well what are you waiting for? And as for periods of inactivity, be bold. I doubt they would hold a grudge if they go dark for a few months without warning. Daniel Case (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • We have quite a few inactive WikiProjects... Not the case for the project of interest here.
  • And really, how ridiculously bureaucratic... I actually agree with you on this point. The best, or least primary, place to talk about an article is the article talk-page itself (duh!). ""To get help, please go to some other page..." doesn't make much sense to me either and therefore the template, which guides a newbie to a (potentially inactive) editor's talkpage is counter-productive. My only difference with you is in that I believe that if the newbie editor is to be guided to a different page at all, then WT:INB is a better target (not sure how the length of the page title matters at all on the web, since links are clickable)

Hope that helps explain my reason for nominating the template for deletion. Abecedare (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

April 6[edit]

Template:Number-one singles in India[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 G8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Number-one singles in India (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

All articles listed in this navbox have been deleted. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Edit template-protected[edit]

Template:Edit template-protected (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Edit protected (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Edit template-protected with Template:Edit protected.

Both templates behave exactly the same when applied to a template talk namespace: Identical infoboxes, parameters, categories etc. —capmo (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: the templates are essentially already merged, as their behaviour is all governed by Module:Protected edit request. They do, however, function slightly differently if they are pointed at a page that isn't protected - {{edit protected}} will say it's a protected edit request, but {{edit template-protected}} will say it's a template-protected edit request. So we can't actually redirect the templates to each other without changing this functionality. Also, you need to include {{edit semi-protected}}, which also works the same way and uses the same module. Also pinging Jackmcbarn, who has done a lot of work on the module. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi Mr. Stradivarius, I first noticed this template yesterday, when editing Template talk:R from file metadata link. On that page it is used alongside with {{edit protected}}, and from the tests I made there with both I couldn't see the differences that you cite. They display the same messages and even categorize the page under the same category (Wikipedia template-protected edit requests). Regards, —capmo (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry, now I get it: the slight difference that you cite only appears when they are used on a page that isn't protected. (But in that case, they wouldn't be necessary anyway.) —capmo (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • There's also a 'data-origlevel' HTML attribute that would be affected by the merge, and a "force" parameter that overrides the automatic detection that would no longer function. Anomie 17:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Ping in to @Anomie:, whose very useful bot maintained table User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable could be impacted. — xaosflux Talk 15:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pinging me. Based on the current output of the templates, AnomieBOT would not be affected with regard to normal correctly-placed templates, but would be affected by the lack of the differences noted above. Anomie 17:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Parenthetically, WP:EPH has stopped working with {{Edit template-protected}} since it's been tagged with {{Tfm}}. Much sad. Alakzi (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I noticed this too. Anyone know a fix? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I had originally inserted the tag to the template/doc subpage, but it was moved to the template page. Maybe moving it back to /doc may fix this. —capmo (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment since template-editor and administrator are separate editor categories, the categories implemented should be different, and template-editors should have their own notice list. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    • They do, and I don't think that is gonna change, 65. Alakzi (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
      • We do, and that list is populated by the appropriate {{Edit template-protected}} template. Merging the template in will break that. When Jackmcbarn created the module, I was one of the ones that supported that in hopes of being able to merge them into one template. In order for that to be done, the module would be required to ALWAYS place the template in the correct category and show the correct version of the template on the talk page no matter what template was used. Apparently, this can not be done because I am always finding pages in the wrong category (heck, I even find unprotected stuff listed in the categories for full and semi protected requests, and that should NEVER be. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 09:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there is a way for this template be set up to verify what type of protection is on its corresponding non-talk page. But, then again, what if this template is placed on the talk page of a redirect in a different namespace? The fact that the message in the template displays the proper type of protection level (in practice) is helpful, especially if it is an edit request for a permanently, non-cascade protected page in the "Template:" namespace that a non-admin or admin notices needs its protection level lowered to template protection. Steel1943 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, now that I'm looking at this, the only alternative proposal I could see working is if {{Edit semi-protected}} is added to the nomination, then have all of their respective image, text, and category triggers set up by a parameter. So, for example, the current contents of {{Edit template-protected}} would show up if the parameter was set to "template-protected", or the current contents of {{Edit semi-protected}} would show up if the parameter was set to "semi-protected", etc. Steel1943 (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge. No need for more than one such template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the subtle differences in these wrapper templates make them distinguished enough from each other and the fact that merging would break that functionality. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose for now, seems like there are still issues that prevent one from being redirected to the other. probably better to discuss this on the template talk pages. Frietjes (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • comment The arguments given up till now against the merger have not been able to convince me that two templates (or three, if we include "semi-protected") are necessary, instead of only one. The examples given show that the templates considered for merger act the same in different situations, the only exception being when they are applied to a non-protected page; but why would someone ever consider using one of these templates on an unprotected page, if they can go and edit it directly? —capmo (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Because sometimes people don't really understand what they're doing, see all the people who put requests for edits to articles on pages like Template talk:Citation needed or random policy pages' talk pages. It also happens sometimes when a page is protected but the protection expires before the request is answered. Anomie 22:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Oh, thanks for the examples, I had forgotten that page protection can be temporary. That makes more sense now. —capmo (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Completed discussions[edit]

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

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

Closing discussions[edit]

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

To review[edit]

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

To merge[edit]

Templates to be merged into another template.

Arts[edit]

Geography, politics and governance[edit]

Religion[edit]

Sports[edit]

Transport[edit]

Other[edit]

Meta[edit]

To convert[edit]

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

  • None currently

To substitute[edit]

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

  • None currently

To orphan[edit]

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

Ready for deletion[edit]

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

Archive and Indices[edit]