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. ~~~~}}

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]

March 3[edit]

Template:Indo-European migration[edit]

Template:Indo-European migration (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

In accordance to my reason for other 3 same templates. A template must not include any maps but only links to other articles. Hajme 00:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ptl[edit]

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

overly complicated method for linking to a portal. Frietjes (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2[edit]

Template:Tlxplain[edit]

Template:Tlxplain (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Tcplain (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

unnecessary variants of {{tlp}} and {{tlf}}. Frietjes (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Lua module categorization[edit]

Template:Lua module categorization (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Padl\r documentation[edit]

Template:Padl\r documentation (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Pad left[edit]

Template:Pad left (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Pad right (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

redundant to other methods for adding padding (e.g., {{px1}}, {{thinsp}}, ...) Frietjes (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep they are not redundant, they can produce a variable size of padding, and their naming makes sense. Further, they are of a series with an unnominated template {{pad left and right}} -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Aside[edit]

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

non-standard template for inserting endashes in prose. seems less opaque to just use the standard method for adding endashes. Frietjes (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Haysi Fantayzee[edit]

Template:Haysi Fantayzee (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Very few topics, no prospect for expansion. Topics are already well-connected (or could be if not already, and don't need the navbox for it). WP:NENAN. LazyBastardGuy 22:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Section references[edit]

Template:Section references (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

rarely used. Frietjes (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • delete used in four articles; non-standard citation method: I know of no style that uses anything like this; move current uses into the section test --  Gadget850 talk 21:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a relatively new template. Restrict to non-article-space. This should not be used in articlespace, as all references should be in the main references section. However, this would be useful in discussions, so use in WP-space and talk-space would be good. Document into the reference template system -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Paragraph references[edit]

Template:Paragraph references (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • delete unused; oddball referencing method --  Gadget850 talk 21:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:→[edit]

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

nearly unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • delete Unused (only used in see also for another template); redundant with → in the CharInsert toolbar below the edit window. --  Gadget850 talk 21:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox country/check capital[edit]

Template:Infobox country/check capital (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Infobox country/image+caption (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox brewery/beer list[edit]

Template:Infobox brewery/beer list (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Born–died[edit]

Template:Born–died (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

rarely used and unnecessary. Frietjes (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • delete one article use; simply adds non-breaking space and n dash --  Gadget850 talk 21:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Present[edit]

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

unnecessary variation in font size and styling. Frietjes (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Fake tag[edit]

Template:Fake tag (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

not needed. Frietjes (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:No visibility[edit]

Template:No visibility (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

redundant to {{0}}. Frietjes (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • delete unused and redundant --  Gadget850 talk 21:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment {{0}} is poorly named, it should be called "no visibility" since it isn't restricted to statistics use and wraps an HTML entity. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Compare[edit]

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

we already have enough hatnote templates. Frietjes (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Champions League/European Cup winning squads[edit]

Template:A.C. Milan squad - 2007 UEFA Champions League Champions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:A.C. Milan squad - 2003 UEFA Champions League Champions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:A.C. Milan squad - 1994 UEFA Champions League Champions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:A.C. Milan squad - 1990 European Cup Champions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:A.C. Milan squad - 1989 European Cup Champions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:A.C. Milan squad - 1969 European Cup Champions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:A.C. Milan squad - 1963 European Cup Champions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Real Madrid C.F. squad - 2014 UEFA Champions League Champions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Real Madrid C.F. squad - 2002 UEFA Champions League Champions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Real Madrid C.F. squad - 2000 UEFA Champions League Champions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Real Madrid C.F. squad - 1998 UEFA Champions League Champions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Real Madrid C.F. squad - 1998 UEFA Campions League Champions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Real Madrid C.F. squad - 1998 UEFA Cgampions League Champions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Real Madrid C.F. squad - 1966 European Cup Champions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Real Madrid C.F. squad - 1960 European Cup Champions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Real Madrid C.F. squad - 1959 European Cup Champions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Real Madrid C.F. squad - 1958 European Cup Champions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Real Madrid C.F. squad - 1957 European Cup Champions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Real Madrid C.F. squad - 1956 European Cup Champions (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

I think that the templates are not really useful, they are just tagged at the end of a players articles without providing new information. If a player won the Champions League/European Cup this can usually be found in the Honours' section. Jaellee (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - Uh, am I missing something here? As an American, I can't say that I have an in-depth knowledge of the various European football/soccer championships, but it is a well-established practice among the major sports WikiProjects to create roster navboxes for individual teams that win major championships. Are these not major football/soccer championships? I think we need to notify WikiProject Football regarding this TfD discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Football has been notified [1]. Up to now such templates were only provided for national teams participating in a World Cup or Continental Cup, not for club teams. --Jaellee (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I, for one, will defer to WikiProject Football's more restrictive standards regarding championship team navboxes, if that is the established practice of WP:FOOTY. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all - in association football/soccer we do not have/need these kind of 'champions' templates like there are in US sports (NBA, MLB, NFL etc.) - I think the reason why they are acceptable in those sports is because (and forgive my ignorance if I am incorrect) but there is only one major trophy to win each season, whereas in football there are many (see often three but sometimes more) so it's simply not practical. GiantSnowman 20:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • That is correct, sir. Only one championship trophy per customer per year/season in MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL and WNBA professional leagues and NCAA college sports. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per the Snowman's rational immediately above and the established practices of WP:FOOTY. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Col-10[edit]

Template:Col-10 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Col-9 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Col-8 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

unused, redundant to {{col-break}}, and fixed large column counts are bad for narrow screens. Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • delete unused and redundant --  Gadget850 talk 21:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Tlib[edit]

Template:Tlib (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Tli (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Tnfpad (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Tpad (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Tlpadb (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Tlpad (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:TlxU (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Tcplainb (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

generally unused. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • delete all per nom. --NSH002 (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete these are variants of {{tl}} (of which we have a plethora of variants) that just add padding or other useless styling --  Gadget850 talk 21:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC) :PS: {{Tnfpad}} did not get tagged.

Template:TodaysFABar2006[edit]

Template:TodaysFABar2006 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

unnecessary frontend (note, did not notify retireduser2). Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:MiddleTennesseeSports[edit]

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

This template should be deleted because it is redundant to Template:Tennessee Sports. All teams listed in this template are also listed in the state template. It's pointless having two templates that accomplish the same task: listing other sports in the area. For an example, see Tennessee Tech Golden Eagles. Tavix |  Talk  14:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator's rationale: redundant to statewide sports navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding notice - @Tavix: Please provide notice of this pending TfD to the template creator. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneTavix |  Talk  15:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Tavix. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Members of the European Parliament 1999–2004[edit]

Template:Members of the European Parliament 1999–2004 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Members of the European Parliament 2004–2009 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Members of the European Parliament 2009–2014 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Way too vast to be useful. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - A large number of links are not an automatic disqualifier for a navbox, if the navbox is coherent, well-organized and satisfies the WP:NAVBOX criteria. That being said, this is the largest number of links I have ever seen in a single navbox: almost 800 primary links to articles about MEPs, and over 1,000 when secondary links are included. Given these numbers, I seriously question whether there is a better way to organize and navigate these links -- perhaps by creating "sub" navboxes for each EC member country's list of MEPs for use on the individual MEP article pages. As existing people navboxes expand with newly added links each year based on elections, new hires, new HOF inductions, new recipients of annual awards, new winners of annual competitions, etc., this is going to become an increasingly frequent issue for our navboxes, and it is one that deserves some serious discussion (apart from a simple "too big, delete" answer). Clearly, the parent list article and categories/subcategories also have a role to play here as well. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding notice - @Robsinden: Please notify the creator of these templates of this pending TfD discussion. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
User has been blocked for the last 5 years. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, Rob, as far as excuses for not notifying a template creator go, that's a relatively good one. I have notified WikiProject European Union of this TfD discussion: [2]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete these unwieldy navboxes. New ones should be created for each country and kept current, e.g. {{French MEPs}}. I don't think that we need navboxes for past parliaments. Alakzi (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I've created one as an example here. Alakzi (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Good suggestion, Alakzi. I think this may be the way to go here, as long as the information in the navboxes for the past EU parliament sessions is preserved in the underlying list articles. Is there anyone else we should be pinging to join this TfD other than WP:European Union? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
        • WP:POLITICS, I guess. Alakzi (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Done, Alakzi: [3]. While I think your suggestion is an excellent one, it would be nice if we had some buy-in from the editors who actually create and maintain the MEP articles before we completely change their inter-article navigation systems. And someone is going to need to create all of those newly subdivided navboxes, too, if this is the route we choose to go. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - subject to an important proviso. We have some useful precedents for dealing with large navboxes. The largest that I'm aware of is Template:Murinae, the next largest (in its earlier existence) is/was Template:The Beatles. I recommend taking a look at the edit histories and talk pages of these templates. Templates this huge serve no useful function as navboxes, even though they are written using {{Navbox}}. That does not mean that they cannot serve a useful purpose: they become, not navboxes, but instead should be thought of as list articles, presented in a different form. It follows, if we think of them in this form, that they can (and should) be linked to, but should not be transcluded at all, or transcluded on only one or two articles at most. The course of action is: (1) create new navboxes of conventional size (not difficult to do this, as the monsters are already organised by country); (2) remove all transclusions of the monster templates, and replace by the appropriate smaller template (a straightforward but long and tedious job, given the large number of links); (3) the smaller templates may also be added to articles where there is no transclusion of the monster template (4) replace the monster templates with the appropriate collection of smaller templates (see {{Murinae}} for an example). Worth noting that, in addition to the obvious pointlessness of having such huge navboxes transcluded on individual MEP articles, there is another problem, hidden well below the wiki-waterline: the huge number of inter-article links generated, which increases, not linearly, but with the square of navbox size. Another reason why the use of the monster templates as conventional navboxes has to be rejected. NSH002 (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It follows, if we think of them in this form, that they can (and should) be linked to ... Linked to from where? Alakzi (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Wherever appropriate. One obvious place would be the |below= section of the smaller templates. --NSH002 (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Why not link to the list articles, like with my example? Alakzi (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
          • No reason why not, or you could have both, or you could link from the list articles. --NSH002 (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Why do we need lists "of a different form" that duplicate existing list articles? I'm trying to understand. Alakzi (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Tiny ping[edit]

Template:Tiny ping (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Template apparently designed to make 'Ping' names unreadable, through the use of <small><small><small>, and otherwise redundant to {{Ping}}. Such micro-miniaturisation of text is an accessibility barrier, and should never be done. I attempted to resolve this by changes to the template, which were reverted, and then by discussion on its talk page, at which the reverter did not comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. I did not notice the talk page discussion or I would have commented and you could have alerted me by using this template. Doing so would have worked perfectly; that is, this template works without any problem for its intended function of providing an echo notification, which is the point. We don't need large intrusion in text with the relatively recently added ping facility. The facility comes from the notification provided, the red number in the interface informing of a message, who it's from, where it is, and a link to the location – which is its chief function, to provide the notification – not for others to read @NAME on the page. The reason for the template's existence is to keep the displayed end to others with as small a footprint as possible, as I do not want any post of mine to be prefixed by a large @User1, User2, User3:. The users it is intended to alert get the notification and don't need to see their usernames in large relation to text and its use is not intended for readers. This is just the next step up from using a "silent ping", which some have asked for because they want no footprint at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete If we really need such a feature, add it as an option to {{ping}} --  Gadget850 talk 21:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually it does. You just stating "accessibility" as a mantra without analysis is not very meaningful. Everything is contextual, and the context here is that this is not the article mainspace but talk pages, and the text is not meant to be part of the post, but a way to invoke the echo notification system. This text is not meant to be a part of the post to be read. Making it resemble and appear to be part the body of the post – the semantic content of the talk page message you are writing – by its posting at normal size is a distraction, is what it being minimized (but without hiding it entirely); it is a feature not a bug. To the extent your use of “accessibility” refers to issues for vision impaired users, I’m not understanding what you mean. Wouldn’t this have no affect whatsoever on people using JAWS and similar?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. It has the opposite effect to its intention for me. I see a tiny piece of text that is below the threshold of what I can read and I strain to try to read it. It actually draws my attention to it far more than {{ping}} does. Because it is less than the size of text that I can read (without zooming my normal browser settings or using a magnifying lens), it is an accessibility issue for me, and I suspect for many other older readers. It is true that screen readers like JAWS won't notice the effect, but that doesn't help my issue. Personally, I'd recommend putting all this effort into adding a option to {{ping}} to have the display hidden. There are some good ideas at http://snook.ca/archives/html_and_css/hiding-content-for-accessibility --RexxS (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ivy League business school navbox[edit]

Template:Ivy League business school navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Ivy League law school navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Ivy League medical school navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Delete all per previous TfD discussion and deletion of similar navboxes @Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 15; in that prior TfD discussion, we have already deleted navboxes for Southeastern Conference student newspapers and mass transit systems. The subjects of these navboxes are various constituent academic colleges and schools of the member universities of specific college athletic conferences. Colleges of business, law and medicine are not college varsity sports teams, and they are not directly related to the universities' membership in their athletic conferences. The prestige and academic reputation of these colleges and schools are not dependent on the membership of their parent universities in these athletic conferences. To help discussion participants better evaluate these attenuated relationships in Wikipedia terms, here are the five WP:NAVBOX criteria for evaluating whether a particular subject may be appropriate for a navbox:

"1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
"2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
"3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
"4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
"5. You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles."

In my opinion, all of these navboxes fail criteria nos. 2, 3 and 5 -- and these criteria suggest that these are not appropriate navbox topics. Please note that there are related pending TfDs @ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 1#Template:Atlantic Coast Conference student newspaper navbox and @ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 1#Template:Atlantic Coast Conference business school navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

delete, athletics association is orthogonal to academics. Frietjes (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete In addition to the arguments put forth by Dirtlawyer1, the burden of proof is on those who argue that these navboxes align well with how others' classify these subjects or how they classify themselves e.g., active organizations that mirror these navboxes. In the absence of such evidence, the assumption that these subjects are not classified or organized according to the athletic conference of their respective institutions is a natural one that requires rebuttal. I would not be surprised if such evidence can be provided in a few instances where some subjects have created such organizations; however, we still require evidence. That said, it is more a bit disingenuous to claim that the Ivy League is simply an athletic conference without significant cultural and historical associations that extend well beyond the narrow world of U.S. higher education minutiae. ElKevbo (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with the arguments of DL and ElKevbo --rogerd (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete academic departments have nothing to do with athletic conferences (which is what the Ivy League is)--GrapedApe (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Sri Lankan Parliament[edit]

Template:Infobox Sri Lankan Parliament (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Infobox legislative session (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Sri Lankan Parliament with Template:Infobox legislative session.
The two infoboxes serve the same purpose. The generalised template is missing the following parameters: {{{nomination}}}, {{{first_meeting}}}, {{{dissolution}}}, and {{{duration}}}. They should probably be added to it. Alakzi (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge as proposed, although {{{first_meeting}}} and |term_start= may serve the same purpose; likewise {{{dissolution}}} and |term_end =. {{{duration}}} is superfluous to the start and end dates. The Sri Lankan template has six transclusions only. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The start of the term usually precedes the first (plenary?) sitting. The parliament may be dissolved before its term ends. I'm not sure what the exact meaning of "nomination" is in Sri Lankan politics. Is it when candidates are chosen? Alakzi (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Montenegrin Municipalities with a significant Albanian population[edit]

Template:Montenegrin Municipalities with a significant Albanian population (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Redundant, there is already an Category:Albanian communities in Montenegro. No other ethnic minority in former Yugoslavia uses this type of template, and because of NPOV, it should not be used. Extensive population data should be housed at Albanians in Montenegro. Zoupan 02:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment regarding notice - @Zoupan: Please provide notice of this pending TfD discussion to the template creator. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Done.--Zoupan 15:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Thanks, Zoupan. Your cooperation is appreciated. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Country data Sandžak[edit]

Template:Country data Sandžak (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Sandžak is not a country, nor an administrative unit. It has no official use. Zoupan 02:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment regarding notice - @Zoupan: Please provide notice of this pending TfD discussion to the template creator. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Done.--Zoupan 15:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Thanks, Zoupan! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If it doesn't fulfil the conditions delete it. --Ammar Tivari Talk! 15:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC) I have removed the indent from Ammartivari's comment to clarify it was not in response to the preceding discussion of notifying the template creator. If anyone disagrees, including Ammartivari, please feel free to revert.Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

March 1[edit]

Template:Islamism in Bangladesh[edit]

Template:Islamism in Bangladesh (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Misleading title and provocative content carried out by BengaliHindu's propaganda activities as Bangladesh is a Muslim majority country and its state religion is Islam according to constitution. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per rationale above. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 23:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with it? How's the title misleading? Alakzi (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Per nominator. Islam is a major religion of Bangladesh and Islamism in Bangladesh cannot be separated from {{Islam in Bangladesh}}. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 00:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The author should attempt to establish that this topic is worthy of inclusion by creating a draft article. If it's not found to violate policy, then the template can be restored. TfD is ill-equipped to make this judgment. Alakzi (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Solid Keep. For Baal's sake, this is one of the most overtly partisan, WP:BADFAITH noms I've yet seen. (Nom has been aggressively AfDing every article BengaliHindu has created or been extensively involved in.) The nom's own AfD rationale is in fact the strongest possible argument in support of keeping and expanding the template. I.e., If Bangladesh is an Islamic state now, then the topic of Islamism in Bangladesh is obviously notable. Pax 23:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't see anything wrong with the template. The nominator's rationale is entirely irrelevant for TfD, bordering on POV pushing. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Chicago style[edit]

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

Template:Atlantic Coast Conference business school navbox[edit]

Template:American Athletic Conference law school navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:American Athletic Conference med school navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Atlantic Coast Conference business school navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Atlantic Coast Conference engineering school navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Atlantic Coast Conference law school navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Atlantic Coast Conference medical school navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Big Ten Conference business school navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Big Ten Conference engineering school navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Big Ten Conference law school navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Big Ten Med Schools (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Ivy League engineering school navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Delete all per previous TfD discussion and deletion of similar navboxes @Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 15; in that prior TfD discussion, we have already deleted navboxes for Southeastern Conference student newspapers and mass transit systems. The subjects of these navboxes are various constituent academic colleges and schools of the member universities of specific college athletic conferences. Colleges of business, engineering, law and medicine are not college varsity sports teams, and they are not directly related to the universities' membership in their athletic conferences. The prestige and academic reputation of these colleges and schools are not dependent on the membership of their parent universities in these athletic conferences. In fact, the universities' membership in such sports conferences has little, if anything, to do with the universities' constituent colleges and schools: these are college sports conferences, not academic associations. To help discussion participants better evaluate these attenuated relationships in Wikipedia terms, here are the five WP:NAVBOX criteria for evaluating whether a particular subject may be appropriate for a navbox:

"1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
"2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
"3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
"4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
"5. You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles."

In my opinion, all of these navboxes fail criteria nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 -- and these criteria, including the absence of stand-alone articles for these topics, strongly suggest that these are not appropriate navbox topics. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @TonyTheTiger: No, for the simple reason that the Ivy League business, law and med schools are actually supported by existing list articles, and there is some academic reputational validity to those three groupings, so they are not situated similarly to the AAC, ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC groupings. In fairness, I plan to submit those three Ivy League navboxes in a separate TfD to permit them to be judged on their own merits, without confusing this TfD discussion. (I also responded to your inquiry on my user talk page, tony.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply - @TonyTheTiger: That's not what I wrote immediately above, Tony. I said that the Ivy business, law and med schools should be nominated separately because they do have stand-alone list articles, and they deserve to be considered on their own merits. That is not the same as saying they should not be nominated. None of the 11 templates submitted in this TfD discussion satisfy the five WP:NAVBOX criteria, including the fact that none of them have stand-alone articles for the navbox subjects. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Related TfDs - @TonyTheTiger: For the TfD nomination of the three navboxes of Ivy League business, law and medical schools, please see the related TfD discussion @ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 2#Template:Ivy League business school navbox. As noted above, these three navboxes have been separately nominated for deletion because they are not identically situated to those AAC, ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 conference navboxes listed above. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per criteria 2,3,4 & 5 above. We should maintain a consistent standard. --rogerd (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Related TfD discussions - Please note that there are two other pending TfD discussions regarding similar topics: (1) #Template:Atlantic Coast Conference business school navbox and (2) Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 2#Template:Ivy League business school navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete athletics conference association is not an academic grouping. Frietjes (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete In addition to the arguments put forth by Dirtlawyer1, the burden of proof is on those who argue that these navboxes align well with how others' classify these subjects or how they classify themselves e.g., active organizations that mirror these navboxes. In the absence of such evidence, the assumption that these subjects are not classified or organized according to the athletic conference of their respective institutions is a natural one that requires rebuttal. (I would not be surprised if such evidence can be provided in a few instances where some subjects have created such organizations; however, we still require evidence.) ElKevbo (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Spread of IE-languages[edit]

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

Template:Aspect[edit]

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

Vanity template for non-notable band. Used only on one userpage. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete – Seems to feign notability by adding all the notable artists they've covered on the bottom, but I can't find anything that makes them notable. TCN7JM 20:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    • We might not be notable yet, but we're doing gigs and small shows, and this is a big deal for everyone involved. It's funny, one template is accepted using one method, and the next is not... anyway, I created it so that it adds that extra little bit of information in the form of a template, because that's basically what all other artists use, notable or not. If I'm dedicating a large piece of my user page to Aspect, then I thought a template would be a great way to finish it off. It's just a personal thing that I've added to the page to say that I've contributed in that sort of way. If it were to be kept, within the next year it wouldn't look as simple as it does. Please, don't delete the template. (talk)4TheWynne(cont) 20:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
      • After reading the below, userfication could probably work. TCN7JM 07:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination rationale: non-notable band; all but one of the working links are to articles about those notable bands whose songs have been covered by the subject band. The last link (the subject band's name) is actually a redirect to the article about the lead singer. This violates so many of the WP:NAVBOX criteria I don't even know where to start. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Firstly, it directs to the user page of the bass player. Secondly, if I'm just using it as an aid for my user page (and nothing else), then despite the violations, is it really that big a deal? Can't I just keep it there where it (seemingly) won't bother anyone with its non-notability? (talk)4TheWynne(cont) 21:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dirtlawyer1, or userfy if 4TheWynne wants to keep it for personal use. Alakzi (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I left instructions on 4TheWynne's talk page on how to userify this. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I've tried the idea, and I hope it works. (talk)4TheWynne(cont) 04:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete this is not about aspect; the top link is a user page User:4TheWynne; and all the bluelinks aside from that are not navigational, as bands covered by Aspect are not proper navigation content. Personal templates should be kept in userspace, not tempaltespace. User:4TheWynne/Template:Aspect for instance. Clearly this cannot be used in anyspace outside of userspace, so should not be in templatespace. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 4TheWynne has recreated this template at User:4TheWynne/Aspect, so Template:Aspect can safely be deleted now. Alakzi (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Atlantic Coast Conference student newspaper navbox[edit]

Template:American Athletic Conference student newspaper navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Atlantic Coast Conference student newspaper navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Atlantic Coast Conference student radio station navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Big Sky Conference student newspaper navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Big Sky Conference student radio navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Big Ten Conference student newspaper navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Big Ten Conference student radio station navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Big 12 Conference student newspaper navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Conference USA student newspaper navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Ivy League student newspaper navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Ivy League student radio station navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Pacific-12 Conference student newspaper navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Pacific-12 Conference student radio navbox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Delete all per previous TfD discussion and deletion of similar navboxes @Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 15; in that prior TfD discussion, we have already deleted navboxes for Southeastern Conference student newspapers and mass transit systems. The subject of these navboxes is student newspapers and other student media at member universities of the identified athletic conferences. Student newspapers and media are not college varsity sports teams, and are not related to the universities' membership in these athletic conferences. Here are the five WP:NAVBOX criteria for evaluating whether a particular subject may be appropriate for a navbox:

"1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
"2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
"3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
"4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
"5. You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles."

In my opinion, all of these navboxes fail criteria nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 -- and these criteria, including the absence of stand-alone articles for these topics, strongly suggest that these are not appropriate navbox topics.Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - College athletic leagues not relevant to academic departments/student activities.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per criteria 2,3,4 & 5 above. We should maintain a consistent standard. --rogerd (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Related TfD discussions - Please note that there are two other pending TfD discussions regarding similar topics: (1) #Template:Atlantic Coast Conference student newspaper navbox and (2) Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 2#Template:Ivy League business school navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete In addition to the arguments put forth by Dirtlawyer1, the burden of proof is on those who argue that these navboxes align well with how others' classify these subjects or how they classify themselves e.g., active organizations that mirror these navboxes. In the absence of such evidence, the assumption that these subjects are not classified or organized according to the athletic conference of their respective institutions is a natural one that requires rebuttal. (I would not be surprised if such evidence can be provided in a few instances where some subjects have created such organizations; however, we still require evidence.) ElKevbo (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete athletics association is not relevant to student media. Frietjes (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Timetable of South Asia[edit]

Template:Timetable of South Asia (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

extremely large collapsed table which really should only be used in one article, we already have {{History of South Asia}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:F1 games dino[edit]

Template:F1 games dino (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

unused, unedited since 2010 NSH002 (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

February 28[edit]

Template:Blood Feast[edit]

Template:Blood Feast (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unnecessary navbox for only two articles/transclusions. Offers no additional aid in navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment regarding notice - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Please notify the template creator regarding this TfD, as required by the TfD instructions. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not a requirement but a courtesy, and the author of the template hasn't edited in over 3 months. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
      • "You should notify the creator of the template nominated," per the TfD instructions. Notifying major contributors and concerned WikiProjects is a courtesy; notifying template creators is a requirement. And editors on wikibreaks often receive email notices of user talk page activity. Please take care of the notice. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Since when does "should" mean "must"? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Do you really want to argue the intent of the TfD instructions? We're holding everyone to the same standard -- our XfD processes work best when they include proper notice and procedural fairness. Furthermore, the best sources of information about the history, purposes and uses of a given template are often the creator and major contributors, and they may contribute information to a TfD that otherwise is not presented to the discussion participants. You've been on-wiki for 5+ years; I suspect you know this already. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
            • @Dirtlawyer1: as much as it pisses me off when someone refuses to notify the original contributor of an XfD, I'm afraid that @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: is right: policy doesn't require the nominator to inform the creator. As proof you can take a look at this ANI thread I started in response to a similarly minded IP. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 02:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
              • GSP, I have provided the template creator with notice of this TfD: [4]. There are other ways to get the cooperation of nominators -- providing the notice for theem and then re-listing the TfD from the date of actual notice, and/or voting against TfDs where the nominator appears to have refused to provide notice as an advantage in the XfD process. So much for "courtesy" to our fellow editors, eh? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete this is not about Blood Feast, and there are only two bluelinks on the template -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • DeleteNot everything needs a navbox, and it seems this one is redundant. TCN7JM 20:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Naples landmarks[edit]

Template:Naples landmarks (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
  • The lists are arbitrary and too long.
  • The template format means: What links here loses utility as a method of creating meaningful links.
  • Since there is a category and entry of Churches in Naples: if the template is to exist at all, it should reference one or both. All churches that are landmarks should be in that entry, that is, if they are landmarks.
  • Some of the entries in the landmarks are for profit museums, or places to visit in the surrounding countryside. Selective choices at best, blatant advertising at worst.

Rococo1700 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rococo1700: this entry is malformed and illegible, making it impossible for others to discern which template you want deleted. Could you please clarify? G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 21:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Never mind, it's clear that you meant Template:Naples landmarks, so I have fixed the nom. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 21:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding notice - @Rococo1700: Please notify the template creator regarding this TfD, as required by the TfD instructions. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, way too big. Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not so much because this navbox is "big," but because it is poorly conceived and organized. The template is named "Naples landmarks," but its navbox display title is "Tourism in Naples"; there is no particular reason why any reader would jump from an article about a Neapolitan street to a Neapolitan castle. Perhaps it is not a coincidence there is no supporting list article for the navbox topic, as required by WP:NAVBOX; if there was such a list, it likely would have helped the creator better create a coherent set of related links rather than the ambiguous, incomplete and somewhat random "landmarks." Per WP:NAVBOX, this is not a list of links about a single coherent topic, but a collection of several such lists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Haliplidae reference[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete - author agrees. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Haliplidae reference (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Spam link template with no useful content. As a reference, it doesn't serve to support the articles it has been added to. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 17:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose What reference do you think shows it better? I think the reference is useful in the fact that it proves that these species exist, and gives their authority. I saw on Haliplus canadensis that you added the EOL reference, and for that species it is useful. However, the template is still useful. Gug01 (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Gug01: I don't know what page you are looking at, but the URL provided in the template (http://bug.tamu.edu/research/collection/hallan/) has nothing to do with the species. Also, why do you need the reference as a template? Why can't you just put it on the page like any other reference? G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 17:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Support Makes sense. Go ahead and delete the template. Gug01 (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. WP:G7 speedy per template creator Gug01's agreement to delete immediately above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:10, 1 March 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:Ibid later[edit]

Template:Ibid later (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Redundant to {{harvp}}. Used on two pages, where use is broken due to lack of main reference (already noted on talk pages).  Gadget850 talk 16:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • delete after suitable replacement. Frietjes (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

February 27[edit]

Template:Phil-sources[edit]

Template:Phil-sources (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Template to list possible reliable sources. Only used at Talk:Acatalepsy. I think the template isn't necessary and could be better served with a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Reference resources in the WikiProject template or something. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox US Army[edit]

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

Wholly redundant to {{Infobox official post}}. Alakzi (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:List of animated films: 2000s[edit]

Template:List of animated films: 2000s (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

redundant to {{Animatedfilmlist}} and {{Animationfilmlist}} and more ... Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment regarding notice - @Frietjes: Please do not forget to notify the template creator of this pending TfD discussion. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nominator's rationale: redundant to other existing navigation templates. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – Redundant to other templates. TCN7JM 20:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

February 26[edit]

Template:Barfamily[edit]

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

Template that tries to hardcode an entire sources section. Terrible idea as it locks the entire section from being used. With 1, 2, 3, and 4, now orphaned. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete not a proper use of template space. Each source should be individually listed, and should not include a header. That's only if the sources can be used in a plentitude of articles -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cite cochrane[edit]

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

Very complex citation template that is only used in some userspace draft articles. If any of the users feels a need for them, I suggest moving this template to userspace but otherwise it could be substituted. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup support. Cite journal is better. We need fewer not more templates. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cite airliners.net[edit]

Template:Cite airliners.net (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Citation template used in four articles but containing esoteric parameters (the access date for some reason doesn't require the first two numbers of the year, there's a default author name) that can be better done with a basic cite web citation. It's not even clear this would qualify as a reliable citation though. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Dont think it is needed, the one example of use I looked at the citation doesnt match the article source, nearly all of airliner.net has been copied from elsewhere so it would be better not to use it as a source. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Andrijich-MargRiver-2003[edit]

Template:Andrijich-MargRiver-2003 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

With this edit, now orphaned citation template. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep: I have undone the edit. The template has been created for use in multiple articles. The book provides reference material about a lot of wineries, and I will add the template to other, winery, articles soon. I am just taking a break from winery articles at the moment, because I have been uploading photographs to commons recently instead. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:WWW-MV[edit]

Template:WWW-MV (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Template's intended use was for references imported from German wikipedia with the parameters not changed into English. It's used on a single page. Parameters should be converted to the English ones and the template deleted. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep and convert to a wrapper for the English equivalent if you can find one, as is standard practice. This will useful as we translate more and more articles from German Wikipedia. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Fez[edit]

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

only two subarticles. the articles are easily connected by see also and/or normal linking. Frietjes (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • It is sparse, though I do think it's helpful. Not worth the argument, though. I was going to delete it myself under G7, but I repurposed it into an Indie Game: The Movie navbox, which should allay your concerns. I recommend reaching out to the primary author before taking it to TfD next time. Keep and speedy close as repurposed. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar  18:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment now that the template has been renamed, the template name {{Fez}} should be deleted as a redirect because it is not about Fez -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Tefillin scrolls[edit]

Template:Tefillin scrolls (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Only one transclusion. This is article content in template space, and should be subst'd. NSH002 (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

merge with article per nom. Frietjes (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

February 25[edit]

Template:BCA 2011[edit]

Template:BCA 2011 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Citation template used only at Stefano Pelinga. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral, with no prejudice against later re-creation. This is a routine single-source citation template, intended to be used more broadly, of course, but WP:CUE has few active editors, so that might not be for some time. It does no harm as a template, but isn't seeing much use yet.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:AZBilliards[edit]

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

Citation template used at one article. As it states, all it does is provide the publisher, location, and work parameters within cite web. I also get some warnings when I try to access the website which I'm not certain constitutes a reliable source. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, and if it were deleted or userspaced there should be no prejudice against later re-deployment. This is a routine single-source citation template, intended to be used more broadly, of course, but WP:CUE has few active editors, so that might not be for some time. It does no harm as a template, but isn't seeing much use yet. This one in particular could see immediate broader use, replacing and consistently formatting other citations to this source, and there are many of them, especially in pool (pocket billiards) player bio articles. And, yes, the source is known to be reliable; it's one of the top four editorially controlled pool and billiards publications in the US, along with Billiards Digest, Inside Pool, and Pool & Billiard Magazine. The fact that it's online instead of on dead trees doesn't magically make it unreliable. (All of the other three also have online editions, BTW.) Questions of source reliability are a WT:RS matter, not a TfD matter. The URLs in the template, as with any template referring to an external online source, need to be checked regularly and, if necessary, updated to compensate for changes at the target site. That's a template maintenance issue for the template's talk page, not a TfD matter.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Gazette QLD[edit]

Template:Gazette QLD (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

All this template does is save on typing "work = Queensland Government Gazette" within a cite news parameter and a somewhat unique use of volume and page for page. It's also problematic as using "T"itle as listed instead of title leaves an error that must be corrected. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Also note that while the documentation doesn't say it, the URL parameter does pass through. This is why creating templates of citations which nevertheless use the citation style 1 templates is problematic. It must be precise to keep from breaking in the various bits and pieces. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (As creator) Not so much about saving work as about standardising the format to ensure one doesn't get wildly inconsistent citation formats, and ensuring the form of the citation complied with the source guidelines from the publisher (the Government of Queensland). All the instances of it worked when coded, but obviously there's been changes to the software since which it hasn't accounted for. I'm happy to look at better ways of doing this if someone with more knowledge in this field has any ideas. There's at present 182 176 transclusions of the template. Orderinchaos 03:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Orderinchaos, is there some URL link that's needed? I see some if I search within http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au I think. Then I would understand the need to use a template (in case the website get reorganized or something) but is the template just for the work parameter at the moment? There's also Template:Gazette WA and Template:Gazette VIC but I didn't want to list all three right now until I better understood this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
      • As most of the citations are to actual books (the online ones only appear from 2001 onwards I believe, plus the historic ones Kerry refers to below from pre-1900), then for the most part, no. And WA would have much more than 176 transclusions and would be significantly harder to replace given the variety of uses. Orderinchaos 22:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. With 176 transclusions, this is a useful and sensible way of marshalling citations to a single source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the "Title" instead of "title" in Shire of Booringa that User:Ricky81682 corrected was just typo on my part when I was adding a lot of citations to articles on former local government areas. I don't think it's a problem with the template itself? Kerry (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It is minor I admit but isn't this just the cite news template with the work parameter filled out? Is this required to keep these citations together? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I like being able to use AutoWikiBrowser to perform tasks over every article in a category or every article that transcludes a particular template. If they were all just stand-alone citations, I could not do that. Having some "commonality" makes tool use feasible for housekeeping. Finding those 176 articles would be a lot harder without the template transclusion. Also, the Qld Govt Gazette is being digitised. You can find the the pre-1900 ones at [5] so keeping it as a template facilitates adding the URL. There's a lot more benefit from using templates than just the transclusion. And even if the only benefit was still the transclusion, I'd still appreciate any saving in typing when you use lots of those citations as I do. I have a permanently broken arm so, while savings in typing might not be very important to you, such saving are important to others. If you look at my user page, you will see many of my frequently used citations ready for copy-and-paste to reduce my typing effort, as well as my partiality for using tools. Kerry (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I note that in Wikipedia:Accessibility dos and don'ts it says "All users, regardless of disability, should be able to read, navigate, and contribute to Wikipedia easily" (my emphasis).Kerry (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
In my view, having the parameters within cite news and easily visible to all editors is a better way to allow contributions than to have various articles stored within other templates. I'm not sure how more users can contribute if they see Cite Gazette QLD but that's just me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Lynch 1901 Vol 2[edit]

Template:Lynch 1901 Vol 2 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Citation template only used on a single archived article talk page. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Thomson 1978[edit]

Template:Thomson 1978 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Citation template previously used on two articles. With this edit and these edits it's orphaned absent one use on an archived talk page. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Fritsch1945[edit]

Template:Fritsch1945 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Citation template previously only used at one article. With this edit, it's now orphaned. It's particularly problematic because the citation at Kelp was [6]:226 which I presume referred to page 226 but this template hard-codes page 939 so I don't know which is correct (or if 226 referred to something else). Ricky81682 (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox medical condition[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. Alakzi (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox medical condition (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Authority control (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox medical condition with Template:Authority control.
An authority control template masquerading as an infobox. The merge would involve (a) incorporating all authority control parameters of the former into the latter template; (b) adding {{Authority control}} to the bottom of all articles containing the infobox; and (c) removing authority control parameters from the infobox itself. The infobox would then develop as a proper infobox, as envisioned. During (b), authority control key–value pairs would be cut-and-pasted into {{Authority control}}.

We might also want to consider adding a switch between broad thematic categories (e.g. medicine, history, etc.) to {{Authority control}}. At present, it only caters to biographical resources. Alakzi (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose firstly, the two medical condition templates were to be merged, per a previous TfD. This has yet to be done (the merge was reverted; and a deletion review is still ongoing), but one has been deleted, with no TfD, and the other renamed to this name. That merged template should have regular infobox parameters, as discussed in This infobox is incomprehensible; and that should be done first. We have similar identifiers in the templates {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}}; if this is to be changed, there should be a centralised RfC. Secondly, the current {{Authority control}} is for people, and should stay that way. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • This has yet to be done (the merge was reverted; and a deletion review is still ongoing), but one has been deleted, with no TfD, and the other renamed to this name. Yes, I commented on that at the DRV. I thought it might just be better to, uh, let it all slide. It would seem that (some) people are adamant not to accept the previous TfD outcome. There's consensus for an infobox that'll basically duplicate the old {{Infobox medical condition}} in the talk section I linked to above. What I believe should've been done is to reverse the merge, and convert {{Infobox disease}} into an {{Authority control}}-derivative, but I chose the path of least resistance (or so I thought). Secondly, the current {{Authority control}} is for people, and should stay that way. Would it then be preferable to fork {{Authority control}}? Alakzi (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose Why merge? What is the benefit / purpose? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • {{Infobox medical condition}} is a collection of authority control identifiers, which is what {{Authority control}} is for, though restricted to biographical catalogues. Infoboxes are meant for presenting articles' key facts; and external links shouldn't sport so prominently. Alakzi (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
      • None of those authority controls apply to medicine. So this is not an improvement. Template infobox disease has existed since 2005. It contains what it contains through years of discussion and consensus. To change it further requires significant discussion. We as the community who work on medical content decide what "infoboxes are meant for presenting" Remember WP:IAR Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
        • None of those authority controls apply to medicine. Yes, none do and hence the merge proposal. Do note, the contents of it will not change; its appearance and placement will. This is what {{Authority control}}, which is customarily placed below navboxes, looks like:
It contains what it contains through years of discussion and consensus. ... I've not suggested to steamroller any change through without the infobox's maintainers' consent. In addition, there's been plenty of discussion about changing it in some way or another on the template talk page (see Template talk:Infobox disease#Perhaps this infobox should not be the primary medical condition infobox, Template talk:Infobox disease#Adding further parameters and Template talk:Infobox disease#This infobox is incomprehensible). Alakzi (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah so you are proposing eliminating the medical infobox and instead having a template at the bottom with the control identifiers? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, except for eliminating the infobox. That'll depend on if there's consensus to add any new parameters to it. If not, then yeah, it'll have to go. The picture will be placed in the article the usual way. Alakzi (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "We as the community who work on medical content decide what "infoboxes are meant for presenting"" That is not the case. We do not subdivide our community in that manner; and policy is that the community at large makes such decisions, by consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose a) The content of the recently re-named {{Infobox medical condition}} is in no way related to the content of {{Authority control}}. The whole point of the Medical Condition infobox is that it contains only information that relates to the domain of human medicine. i.e. it is specific to a particular subset of articles. b) The information in the infobox is instantly understandable to me without clicking any of the links, whereas I doubt that anyone has the ability to do this with the Authority control set of data items. c) Authority control has a specific bibliographic purpose. Merging it with the Infobox would create an unwieldy conglomeration of disparate fields from different domains. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support merge of the identifiers only. I thank the nominator for his/her bold proposal. I agree that for the majority of users ICD and other disease codes do not have a benefit other than as authority control. I don't support merging any other parts of the infobox though. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes I am fine with adding the identifiers to the authority template. But it should not involve merging the template in question. Per Blue Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: Nether of the templates is tagged for merging. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I can't edit the templates. Will some kind soul do it for me? Alakzi (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this proposal. The two templates to be merged are mentioned (but not tagged, ouch), but the nom also introduces strong suggestions and requirements for other templates. Clearly ideas have not been fleshed out, and other ideas have been left out. As we experienced just last week with an earlier imposed merge-because-of-TfD in this, TfD can not make an infeasible situation feasible. I note that the topic is huge, also for the 'receiving' template (new parameters are shoved into that one, the first non-person's at that). Best to nullify this TfD, and build consensus at the involved talkpages first. -DePiep (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • This procedural oppose has no basis on any policy, guideline, norm, or practice. TfD isn't Atlantis; I'm sure that interested parties will be able to find their way here. Alakzi (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Building consensus on a talkpage first is common and preferred practice. -DePiep (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support idea oppose this proposal There should be no merge into the authority control template. This template is already serving a purpose and the medical information proposed for a merge is not the same kind of authority control as the library authority control links that this template currently hosts. However, I would support the creation of a different template to capture the medical equivalent of "authority control". Right now, Infobox disease is already serving that purpose mostly, but the future of that template is still being discussed in other places. I think the idea of collecting medical links is good. My intuition is that the best way to do that is with some clarification on the use of Infobox disease. Infobox disease is imagined to be a typical Wikipedia infobox, but it is not serving that purpose right now, and instead doing something more like this authority control template. There should be a plan to cover several related interests before anything is moved, merged, or changed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Eloquent. -DePiep (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment If there is a desire to change the infobox disease, massive amounts of work will be required. While many feel that the current one is not perfect, something better is needed before I would support getting rid of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 26 February 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:Housecroft&Sharpe[edit]

Template:Housecroft&Sharpe (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Citation template used in just one article. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see any problem with that .. it is used, could be used elsewhere as well. Hence, it is not useless, it avoids to have to write this out, and it is used: Keep. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should have a naming scheme for these? Something like "cite prefilled ...". Editors would then be able to search for citations using prefix:Template:cite prefilled. Alakzi (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
There's a category for them, Category:Specific-source templates. Eventually I assume we'll move like I think it's the French wikipedia or something and possibly have all sources organized through wikidata or something but that's not being done right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I forgot incategory exists. Thanks. Alakzi (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – It's a keyboard macro that does nothing except save keystrokes. Needlessly complex, as other editors won't recognize it and will have to look it up. Requires a separate template for every edition. Embeds a hard-coded Citation style cite, which may not be compatible with the citation style in other articles. I used to write keyboard macros for boilerplate like this, but gave it up because they are too hard to remember. Let's just write out a normal cite that everybody can understand.– Margin1522 (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete - Delete per nom. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Massa2nd[edit]

Template:Massa2nd (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Citation template used in exactly one article at the moment. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see any problem with that .. it is used, could be used elsewhere as well. Hence, it is not useless, it avoids to have to write this out, and it is used: Keep. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – Hard-coded keyboard macro that introduces needless complexity. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete - Delete per nom. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:29CFR1910.1018[edit]

Template:29CFR1910.1018 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Citation template used in one article alone. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see any problem with that .. it is used, could be used elsewhere as well. Hence, it is not useless, it avoids to have to write this out, and it is used: Keep. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete - Delete per nom. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:RXNO cat[edit]

Template:RXNO cat (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

This template is just a replacement for text that is placed on a number of categories stating that the categories are part of a classification scheme from elsewhere. Beyond the fact that it's just text, I'm not sure why it's important to mention where the classification scheme came from: either it's a relevant classification scheme here or it's not. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:March7th[edit]

Template:March7th (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Template is not used in any articles. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see any problem with that .. could be used elsewhere. Hence, it is not useless, it avoids to have to write this out: Keep. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – Hard-coded keyboard macro that introduces needless complexity. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete T3 --  Gadget850 talk 16:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:March5th[edit]

Template:March5th (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Other than as a potential template, this is used in exactly one article. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see any problem with that .. it is used, could be used elsewhere as well. Hence, it is not useless, it avoids to have to write this out, and it is used: Keep. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – Hard-coded keyboard macro that introduces needless complexity. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • keep per User:Beetstra Christian75 (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Loudon4th[edit]

Template:Loudon4th (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Excluding sandbox usages and a listing as an template that could be used, it's used in exactly two articles and could be subst and deleted. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see any problem with that .. it is used, could be used elsewhere as well. Hence, it is not useless, it avoids to have to write this out, and it is used: Keep. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – Hard-coded keyboard macro that introduces needless complexity. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete - Delete per nom. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Elschenbroich3rd[edit]

Template:Elschenbroich3rd (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

As with second edition, hard-coding of a citation that is used in one article and otherwise listed as part of the templates that could be used for articles Ricky81682 (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see any problem with that .. it is used, could be used elsewhere as well. Hence, it is not useless, it avoids to have to write this out, and it is used: Keep. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – Hard-coded keyboard macro that introduces needless complexity. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete - Delete per nom. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Elschenbroich2nd[edit]

Template:Elschenbroich2nd (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Hard-coding of a citation that is used in one article and otherwise listed as part of the templates that could be used for articles. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see any problem with that .. it is used, could be used elsewhere as well. Hence, it is not useless, it avoids to have to write this out, and it is used: Keep. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – Hard-coded keyboard macro that introduces needless complexity. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete - Delete per nom. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:BLB11th[edit]

Template:BLB11th (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:BLB11th/doc (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

It's not used in any articles. The only current usage is a listing at part of the deprecated Chemicals style guidelines and Chemistry list of references. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see any problem with that .. could be used elsewhere. Hence, it is not useless, it avoids to have to write this out: Keep. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Why not require it to actually be used? By that logic, we could write templates for every book in existence in case they are used. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – Hard-coded keyboard macro that introduces needless complexity. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete - Delete per nom. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Mylo Xyloto track listing[edit]

Template:Mylo Xyloto track listing (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Per previous consensus on templates like this, it should be deleted as well —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to an example of the consensus? That would make it easier to discuss. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Here you go. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 13:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Commment The deletion of those templates, and I believe it's the rationale being applied here, was because of the existence of a songs template for those artists; in this case, {{Coldplay songs}}, making navigation redundant. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete redundant to other forms of navigation. Frietjes (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:SIRIUSChannels[edit]

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

Unused template of defunct radio lineup (Sirius has long become Sirius XM), already replaced suitably by Template:Sirius XM Channels (music) / Template:Sirius XM Channels (music). Moreover, the channel numbers present on the template violate WP:NOTDIR, but that's secondary. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, it is redundant. Spumuq (talq) 11:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

February 24[edit]

Template:Virginia/color[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. G7. Magioladitis (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Virginia/color (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • This was my attempt to do with Virginia Templates what had been done with Template:California/color. Didn't really catch on. I'm in favor of deleting it. --Zackmann08 (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per statment of template creator above. Speedy per WP:G7. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:19, 25 February 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:Talk page watcher[edit]

Template:Talk page watcher (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Redundant copy of existing {{Talk page stalker}} template:

{{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 22:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - this was tagged for speedy deletion and I untagged it, without seeing that the functionality had been added to {{talk page stalker}}. The use of "stalker" on Wikipedia to refer to anything other than the actual crime related to harassment has been deprecated as a result of a discussion at the harassment policy some time ago. I had suggested quite some time ago that we should not use "stalker" in this template any more because of inappropriate context, but that didn't seem to have gone anywhere until just recently when NeilN created the "watcher" template as a substitute. Since the "watcher" functionality has been built into the "stalker" template, I think it would be fine to redirect the one to the other. I would prefer if it were possible to call {{talk page watcher}} on a page and have {{talk page stalker|w}} be invoked, because then I can avoid the use of "stalker" altogether, but I don't know if that is technically possible. (I tried in my userspace and it didn't work). Ivanvector (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Note The w flag was created after Template:Talk page watcher was created. More discussion here: Template talk:Talk page stalker. --NeilN talk to me 22:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The deletion nomination misses the point—while the "stalker" joke can be amusing to the cognoscenti, many users find the term confrontational. That particularly applies to new editors who are the only people who need to see what the template produces—those upset editors have a point because conflating "stalker" with "watcher" is inappropriate. The solution is to keep {{tpw}} and encourage editors to use it; a technical solution of adding mumbo jumbo options to {{tps}} is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Adding parameters doesn't solve the perceived problem, as the "stalker" term is what they are concerned with and that would still be visible on the page when it is being edited. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I didn't specify in my earlier comment, but if there is not a technical way to make a redirect work like I said, then my preference is to keep this and work towards deprecating the "stalker" templates. Actually, that is my preference anyway; a redirect would just be a crazy workaround. Ivanvector (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As a note, TFD is a discussion, not a !vote like AFD is...

    I might suggest that there should be a {{talk page watcher|s}} producing all the fun outputs of the stalker template and then deprecating the stalker template (or family?). --Izno (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

    Not a !vote like AFD - the other discussions seem like AFD with their keep/delete/merge !votes. I think we need to keep tps the way it is or have a bot subst all the present occurrences of it or other editors will object to their posts being changed and some conversations being rendered nonsensical. --NeilN talk to me 04:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think all of that is necessary. If {{tps}} is deprecated then the instructions can simply be changed to discourage use. For example, {{note}}. Also, if the goal is to transition to "watcher" as preferred terminology, then providing a "stalker" switch at the new template is counterproductive. Ivanvector (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    I'm puzzled by counterproductive. There are some people who want to use the terminology "stalker" (for better or worse), and I don't think a template should inhibit that decision (good luck getting consensus, for the same exact reason there wasn't a consensus to delete WP:STALK in late 2013). I certainly don't think you will be able to find consensus regarding a merge of the two templates without offering that as a potential option. And straight keeps for both templates is just bad template practice. --Izno (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Counterproductive to the goal of encouraging the use of "watcher" over "stalker". The goal itself might be lofty. I'm quite sure that many users will go on using {{tps}} regardless of any discussion we might have, and it would be wrong to force them, not to mention breaking its nearly 10,000 existing transclusions. That seems to have been more the reason for keeping the WP:STALK redirect: that it would be technically disruptive to delete it, rather than any strong feelings about its use one way or the other. But none of that means we can't encourage users to use the less offensive template (see the text "please avoid using this shortcut" at WP:STALK). Ivanvector (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: wording less confusing than the tongue-in-cheek "stalker". I saw this in use, liked it, went to read about it and found this discussion. Using "tps" with a parameter is not a good alternative. PamD 05:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree that this is an improvement over the "stalker" terminology. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Though I like the TPS terminology and would not wish to see that template deleted, I think that users should have the choice to use this phrasing instead. BethNaught (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Keep and delete/deprecate the old-fashioned and overtly hostile "stalker" template. It is time to keep up with the times. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Make the new template a wrapper for the old one, with the "W" switch set. And while we're at it, simplify the myriad of options with which each of them serve to confuse the uninitiated. Goodness me; more heath than light here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep both and allow users to choose. The closing admin should note the discussion at WP:VPP#Encourage use of "watcher" in place of "stalker" on talk pages (I don't think this was linked above). Killiondude (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:FN and Template:FNZ[edit]

Template:FN (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:FNZ (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

These two were imported from German Wikipedia (see de:Vorlage:FN and de:Vorlage:FNZ) and are redundant to {{ref}} and {{note}}, as demonstrated here. Alakzi (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Questions:
1. {{ref}} and {{note}} appear to be deprecated, so are they the right replacements?
2. Why would deletion be better than the normal wrapper solution for these templates? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I would've personally used {{efn}} and {{notelist}}, but {{ref}} and {{note}} were the most alike in functionality. I don't know if it would be better. Alakzi (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Footnote3 is deprecated but still in use with almost 20k uses of {{ref}}. But {{FN}} is Footnote1 which I went through and updated to Footnotes a few years ago. --  Gadget850 talk 23:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete and update to Footnotes. Closer: Ping me and I will update. I still have my AWB regexes for this. --  Gadget850 talk 23:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • What should be used? Grouped <ref>s? Alakzi (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, but change to be a wrapper of the most relevant templates, to avoid manual conversion when translating articles. That is standard practice. If need be a bot can come along afterwards and replace them as with Template:Infobox mountain for example. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
These templates have been around for two years and are uses on only 32 pages. As demonstrated at Thuringia, updating to the current system is not an onerous task. If needed, I can do a help page. --  Gadget850 talk 21:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Interlanguage link templates[edit]

Template:Interlanguage link (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Interlanguage link multi (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Interlanguage link forced (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Interlanguage link Wikidata (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Link-interwiki (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Red Wikidata link (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging this family of related templates, in which there is a great deal of redundancy and duplication, and a small degree of unnecessary stylistic variation, as well as inconsistency in naming and parameter ordering. We need to take a bold approach to resolve these inconsistencies, and to provide the necessary output format(s) while reducing the bewildering choice currently offered to editors.

In particular, {{Interlanguage link}} is utterly redundant to {{Interlanguage link multi}}:

Charles Darwin (fr) ({{illm|Charles Darwin (botanist)|lt=Charles Darwin|fr|Charles Darwin}}) Charles Darwin (fr) ({{ill|fr|Charles Darwin (botanist)|Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin}})

Please see the previous discussion, which I have closed in order to discuss all the affected templates. (Notifying Magnus Manske — Jane023 — Michael Bednarek — Margin1522 — Peter coxhead — Jc86035 — Dirtlawyer1: from that discussion.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge (into {{Interlanguage link multi}}) per nominator. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Nice. Rolling them all in to one seems like the sensible thing to do, but I'm not sure TfD is a sufficiently broad platform to discuss this. When these templates change, the way we do interlanguage links effectivly changes, and that is a MOS issue I guess. Before I comment further, what are the current usecases for making an interlanguage link to an article that has a title on en.wiki? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    • You mean as done currently by {{Interlanguage link forced}}? I have no idea, and we may need to do away with that functionality - but it does have 205 tranclusions; for example the last entry in John Woo#Other works (blue link) or the first sentence of Jay Chou#Personal life (red link). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes. I think the entire thing is un-useful and should be deleted, and its functionality not ported to a merged template. But if that's what stands in the way of a merge, sure, port it under a force=true parameter or something. {{Interlanguage link multi}} does seem to do everything the other templates do as well, other than the Wikidata Redlink resonator functionality. For that, I think it's best to have an additional paramter resonator=true which toggles visibility. At first, we could make that dependent on the presence of a WD parameter in the invocation, but I can also imagine it would be possible to automatically derive a Q value from the linked other language link. So for the people who like when participants in a discussion use bold markup for part of their comments: merge resonator parameter into {{Interlanguage link multi}}, delete {{Interlanguage link forced}}, retiring the functionality entirely (but I can live with adding a force=true parameter if we need that for consensus to merge), and either make the rest into convenience wrappers, or just redirect them (with a preference for just redirecting, but if people are used to the ill format/positional parameter order, I don't mind accommodating that). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Pigsonthewing: I think what you are suggesting is a sensible and productive approach, and I support it generally. Frankly, I have no practical experience in using these templates (these TfD discussion were the first I had heard of them), nor the technical expertise in manipulating the coding, so I cannot yet comment knowledgeably on the details. I am happy to endorse what I believe is a consensus decision after discussion, which I trust will include an explanation of the present and proposed future functions of these templates. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle - merging is a good idea, certainly. However, I'd like see a draft template before giving full support. The functionality of the various templates includes:
  • linking to one or more other language wikis via two character language codes – the "one or more" feature can certainly be handled by a single template
  • linking to other language wikis via the Wikidata table – {{illm}} handles this, so a single template can
  • hiding the link to other language wikis when the English one exists versus forcing the other language links to display regardless – I guess a single parameter like |always-display=yes will handle this.
Andy: I suggest you prepare a version of the merged template, perhaps in user space, so we can see how it would work. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I am still unsure about this. I suppose all the interlanguage link templates can be merged, but a link to Wikidata or to reasonator is like linking to Commons. You don't get an article, but a page with other information that is perhaps fascinating, but not the same as an article. So the link to Wikidata or Reasonator should be left out of the mix. Also, there are many more people using the interlanguage link templates than are using links to Wikidata, because most people don't even know that Wikidata has tons of items without any language sitelinks at all. Jane (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Notice A similar proposal was made a year ago: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 2#Template:Link-interwiki. It was closed as keep-for-now because no one presented an example of how the completed template would work. @Pigsonthewing: I strongly recommend you create what the merged template would look like to avoid this result this time. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I'll be happy to create a stalking-horse in a sandbox; but I'd like to see more discussion first, about what features people want it to include. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not very versed in these matters, but wouldn't it be easier to rewrite (and keep) all existing templates as wrappers to a canonical template, which seems to be {{illm}}? E.g., an invocation of {{ill|fr|Charles Darwin (botanist)|Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin}} would find a template which invokes {{illm|1={{{2}}}|2={{{1}}}|lt={{{3}}} }}: Charles Darwin (fr) -> Charles Darwin (fr). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi Michael, did you see my comment above? That's basically what I was suggesting too, with the addition of a resonator parameter and (if we must) a display-always parameter. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support partially – I suppose there are some templates that could be merged to {{interlanguage link multi}}, with additional switches. I oppose anything that makes the default two-letter language code – like (de) – longer, or adding any functionality related to Wikidata. I don't think we should be sending users to Wikidata. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Superiour[edit]

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

Unused, and redundant to <sup> and {{sup}}. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"lle" is superior, "42" is superscript
  • Actually superior letters are distinct from superscript: 8{{superiour|th}} “M{{superiour|lle}} Blip”{{sup|42}} ⅝ H{{sub|2}}O (x{{supsub|2n|0}}); gives 8th “Mlle Blip”42 ⅝ H2O (x2n
    0
    ); Ain92 (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • That seems to conflict with Subscript and superscript, where superiour is used synonymoulsly with superscript. In HTML, we only have <sup> anyway, and we should also avoid typesetting characters that are smaller than superscript to ensure legibility. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I asked the author to comment. Personally I see no problem in using a style not defined in HTML standard. Ain92 (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete Unused and redundant. Ironically not used in Superior letter which is referred to in the template documentation. --  Gadget850 talk 13:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Sorry, I had no time to do it on the day I created the template and forgot about it later. Ain92 (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Kde crystalsvg eraser.png Undone. It is not a good idea to seed this template while it is under discussion. If there is need for this template, it badly needs a rewrite anyway. In its current state, it is unfit for article use because it lacks semantics.
  • Keep, but advise against using except for where superior letters are discussed (i.e., at superior letter and subscript and superscript). As per MOS:ORDINAL, ordinal indicators are not superscripted. Alakzi (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep per Alakzi, for limited demonstration purposes —PC-XT+ 12:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Giant[edit]

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

Used only on two inactive user pages. Readily replaced by {{resize}} if there is a valid need.  Gadget850 talk 08:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Initial[edit]

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

Unused.  Gadget850 talk 08:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Bigbold[edit]

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

Combines <big> and bold markup. Used in one article. MOS:BADEMPHASIS.  Gadget850 talk 08:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Bu[edit]

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

Use of underline violates MOS:BADEMPHASIS. Per MOS:ACRO "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses." Used only on a few template documentation pages.  Gadget850 talk 08:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as formatting tool - Disclaimer - I was the template creator - intent was to use especially on template documentation pages, not in article space, to help novice users understand wiki shorthand abbreviations. Easier to use a template to format in a consistent manner instead of hardcoded html tags. — MrDolomite • Talk 19:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Film[edit]

Template:Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Actor (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Actress (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Director (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Minor critic award templates which are not big enough to deserve one. Fails WP:NENAN. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_15 for previous example. charge2charge (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all - Marginally notable, minor film awards. "Online Film Critics Society?" It may be marginally notable enough to survive an AfD for the article, but we do not need more cruft like these navboxes for the bottom of actor bio pages. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all little notability. VandVictory (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

February 23[edit]

Template:Jack & Jack[edit]

Template:Jack & Jack (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

A navigation template is for use between multiple articles. This template has only one article to navigate between. The Banner talk 21:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Navbox with nothing to nav. Sometimes it might be ok if we can be sure multiple entries are notable despite not presently having an article. That is not evident here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per The Banner's nomination rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Churches in Bristol[edit]

Template:Churches in Bristol (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Not useful because it only contains Anglican churches (and thus excludes the New Room which is arguably more notable than a lot of the entries in the template), only contains parish churches (and thus excludes the chapel of Foster's Almshouses, Bristol) and only contains churches older than a seemingly arbitrary cutoff point (and thus excludes Redland Chapel). Also many of its functions seem to have been subsumed into Template:Culture in Bristol, although arguably the list of churches there is unmanageably large and unstructured - certainly neither contains every entry in Category:Churches_in_Bristol, Category:Former_churches_in_Bristol and their subcategories. Also, I'm not sure how to substitute the former with the latter without some sort of script. --Quentin Smith 20:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC))

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: options that may also be considered: keep, and include non-Angligan churches, or keep and rename to {{Anglican churches in Bristol}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Quentin Smith: Admittedly, I know virtually nothing about churches in Bristol, but I cannot help but wonder if the best resolution to this TfD would be to restructure the existing idiosyncratic navbox to better provide a navigational aid among these closely related article subjects. I would start with deleting the double navbox title/header, and create one or more subheaders and/or subsections within the navbox itself to better organize the links, and add whatever article links you believe should be included but are presently omitted. What do you think? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding notice - I have notified WikiProject England of this discussion on their project talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Central Asian American[edit]

Template:Central Asian American (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Middle Eastern American (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Central Asian American with Template:Middle Eastern American.
Fails WP:BURDEN, there is not racial or ancestral category presently recognized by the Office of Budget Management or the United States Census Bureau as "Central Asian American". According to this reliable source Afghan Americans are considered to be Middle Eastern Americans under the White race. According to this reliable source Uzbek American are considered Asian American. As such, there is no basis for this categorization in reliable sources that I have found. Therefore, it should be merged into one or several existing references based on what reliable sources state. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @RightCowLeftCoast: RCLC, I note that you have not yet notified the creators of these templates of the proposed merge. Before we get too deep into this discussion, can you do that, please? Template creators and major contributors often have good knowledge of the history, architecture, intended purposes and uses of the templates, and may contribute significantly to TfD/TfM discussions for the benefit of other discussion participants. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I had place a notice on the talk page of the template in question, but I will go ahead and do as suggested above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Done.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, sir! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Several times I posted the four ethnic groups of the Template:Central Asian American in the Template:Middle Eastern American, but they were deleted of there, because weren´t considered Middle Eastern American (except Afghans). So, I decided created the Template:Central Asian American to include these groups and make them more easily findable. In the Template:Middle Eastern American, they usually be deleted. This is the problem.--Isinbill (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Based on reliable sources at least one of them can be added to Template:Asian Americans. Some of them might actually fall under White Americans.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
And added to both templates.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that without a reliable source to know the racial consideration that have the US Census Bureau about the Kazakhs and Tajiks, it will be difficult to include them in any particular group. If we include them in the template "Middle Eastern American" probably they will be deleted, as has happened several times, because the rejection of many people to consider them Middle Eastern (on one occasion, even someone said it in the Talk:Kazakh American page). So, we need a reliable source that indicates that these people are really "Middle Eastern Americans" according the United States Census Bureau and indicate the reference. Anyway, I included the Kazakh Americans in the template "European Americans", since a small part of the country belongs to Europe (anyway, most of the country itself is Asian, so the Kazakh Americans should also be included in any category that meets the Americans whose origins are in the Asian continent).--Isinbill (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
However, we don't have any reliable sources saying that Kazakh or Tajiks are Asian Americans as defined by OBM or USCB. Just cause a nation is on the Asian continent that doesn't make those who immigrate from there, or whose ancestors come from there, Asian American. Example are Turkish Americans who are not Asian American. Without a verified source they don't belong in Asian American articles or templates.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, so if we remove this template, we can not include some of the groups that appear there in any other template, at least for now. Even I might consider that template as temporary, until we find reliable sources to help us know in which template of racial group we should include them according to the US Census Bureau.--Isinbill (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
However, as a categorization that fails verification it is not one that meets WP:BURDEN and thus shouldn't exist, and those that belong in other template should be placed there (as has been done).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I could accept easily removing the template Central Asian Americans now without problems, if you will consider it opportune(although I would recommend to know the racial groups to which they belong before remove the category, to include these groups in any existing specific template like Asian or Middle East American, having the Central Asian American template temporaly, because of the contrary some of the groups that are in the template "Central Asian Americans" will not be incorporated into any other template and we only can find them in the categories because we do not know to which racial groups from Asian continent (ie, Asian, Middle Eastern) they belong).--Isinbill (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Well technically "Middle Eastern American" fall under the white race categorization. Thus why there is a not of one ethnicity that was re-categorized as white in the Asian American template.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Central Asia is a distinct geographic region. The peoples of the region collectively generally aren't considered a distinct ethnicity, which is why there isn't many sources using the exact term "Central Asian American". Instead there are are two broad ethno-liguistic groups grouped into Turkic peoples (Turkmen, Uzbek, Kazakh, & Kyrgyz) and Persians (Tajik & some Afghans). As noted, Afghanistan is a region that is variably considered part of Central Asia or as part of the Middle East—similar to how Turkey is sometimes considered part of Europe and sometimes part of the Middle East. Furthermore, of all corners of the globe, this is probably the one with the fewest immigrants in the US (per capita), but apparently they are the second largest group of visa lottery recipients after Africans ([6], [7]). In New York, there are enough immigrants from Central Asia to have a couple of media outlets ([8]). Here are sources that group Central Asians as a regional grouping:
  • [9], "Ethnic identities can be referenced in the aggregate e.g., Southeast Asians or disaggregated e.g., Cambodians...Notions of ethnic and national identity carry political, social and familial meanings too complex to analyze here...Central Asians: Afghani, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Georgians, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Mongolian, Tajik, Turkmen, Uzbek." (I don't agree that people from the Caucasus are Central Asians, though...Aremian, Azerbaijani, & Georgians)
  • [10] "U.S. immigration was opened to Eastern Europeans, Asians, Arabs, South Indians, Iranians, and Central Asians, creating a microcosm of the world."
  • A couple religious sites discuss Central Asians as a distinct group of immigrants: [11], [12]
Those are just sources that discuss "Central Asians" as immigrants to the US. Race and ethnic identity is hard to define discretely and Central Asia is an "in between" region between the groups usually considered "Asian" to the east/southeast, European (most Russian peoples) to the north, and "Middle Eastern" to the southwest. It may be a geographic region of similar people, but using that criteria is not very different from using countries, eg. Indian American including Tamils, Hindi, etc; French American including some Basque people; South African American including black Africans, Afrikaners (whites of Dutch descent and a long history in SA), and whites of relatively recent ancestry in SA. I think that the template should consider Central Asians as just the former Soviet countries (Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Tajik, & Turkmen), including red wikilinks for Kyrgyz Americans & Turkmen Americans. AHeneen (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the different footer templates, such as Template:Asian Americans, Template:European American, etc. are organized along racial and ethnicity lines and not linguistic lines. Such a grouping, would fall outside of that categorization scheme. Now if the template were renamed so it specifies that it is for specific linguistic groupings, a whole set of Ethnolinguistics footers could be created, and I might drop this.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I am agreed with the proposal of AHeneen. That would allow a category for Central Asian groups from the Soviet Union, making all of them have a template, and that they are more easily find and can not only be found in the categories, while (the template) does not reject the ethnics (Europeans, Asians, Middle Eastern, et.) accepted by the US census bureau of official way or invent other (Central Asian American). The template name could be something like "American groups of former-Soviet Central Asian origin" (that exclude the Mongols).--Isinbill (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't the above be a request move than, and also would it meet verification requirements? As Central Asian American, isn't really a recognized racial categorization of all those listed at the beginning of this discussion. Another alternative is to create a template, or rename this Template:Emmigrants to the United States from former Soviet Republics, and add all the other former Soviet Americans (one example of its usage).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not know exactly what's wrong in name the template something like "American groups of former-Soviet Central Asian origin". The term "Central Asian" not is recognized as a racial categorization by US census bureau, but they are the inhabitants of Central Asia, a place recognized by him. It would be a template that refers to a group of American people whose origins are in a particular region that belonged to the Soviet Union, as with the Template:North Africans in the United States.--Isinbill (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We should not limit template names and categories bases on American government definitions but rather on real world applications and definitions. Of course there are Americas from Central Asia as its a real place....as is the Middle East (they are not the same place) Not sure why we would excluded anyone. In the real world the term is used in all kinds of situations even food... Robert Ji-Song Ku; Martin F. Manalansan; Anita Mannur (2013). Eating Asian America: A Food Studies Reader. NYU Press. p. 254. ISBN 978-1-4798-1203-5. . This classification of people based solely on an American Government POV has got to stop. -- Moxy (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cheape1985[edit]

Template:Cheape1985 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

With this edit, now an orphaned template for a single particular book citation. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as unused; we don't need a template for one reference like this —PC-XT+ 12:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Said-Vassallo-Acknowledgement[edit]

Template:Said-Vassallo-Acknowledgement (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Template used on one old talk page to inform people that this was based from one particular user from whom, based on this, we are better off not having met. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete? Yikes —PC-XT+ 12:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ref Great Aircraft[edit]

Template:Ref Great Aircraft (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Orphaned unused template that only takes a single book's citation and makes it more complicated in my opinion. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - We recently deleted a template that was a passage of text used in two articles. Likewise, we do not create templates for individual references. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Someone needs to review Category:Specific-source templates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I just learned something new today. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as unused —PC-XT+ 13:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ref Stockholm[edit]

Template:Ref Stockholm (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

In line with the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Template:Geographic_reference, I think this template should be deleted with its references being either hardcoded as text or if someone wants, as individual separate templates. While helpful to have these references near each other, that information could be done with a single talk page listing the individual markups for each one. Knowing that these particular sources can be found by "Ref Stockholm" first and kept that way creates a block of templates that may have its unique syntax and structure that operate outside of the rest of our citations. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment This is currently used on seven pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination rationale and my comment in Ref Great Aircraft TfD above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ref Ethiopia[edit]

Template:Ref Ethiopia (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

In line with the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Template:Geographic_reference, I think this template should be deleted with its references being either hardcoded as text or if someone wants, as individual separate templates. While helpful to have near each other, knowing that these particular sources can be found by "Ref Ethopia" first and kept that way creates a bizarre block of templates that may have its unique syntax and structure. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment This is currently used on fifty eight pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This was an experiment, based on a suggestion by @LA:, to improve monitoring of sources. ISBNs often get mangled & contributors to Wikipedia have been known to either invent sources or content in known sources that are not familiar or easily accessible. Having a central list of sources judged reliable not only helps in part with this problem, it also aids another goal of Wikipedia: to enable its users to extend research beyond its articles. I admit that this experiment failed to gain much traction, but if the consensus is to delete this template I suggest it instead be marked as inactive & archived as a failed experiment, since it's likely that someone will come up with the same idea again & will learn something from this experiment. -- llywrch (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    It's been done before. The geographic references template used to have calls ("1", "2", etc) to each separate source. It had eleven sources in total. The problems became that changes to one or another source or another piece and it becomes an unwieldy complex mess. If you end up with 30 sources, that's an nightmarish template and will completely scare of any new users. Why not create a category (like Category:Medieval studies source templates at Category:Specific-source templates) and then templates for each individual source (like Template:Cite AClon). It keeps the material separate and is something that's closer to manageable as each one could be protected and separately watched. Or better yet, have the Wikiproject manage these as part of its template space. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    There's a very practical problem with this concept: what if another editor wants to add another reference that is relevant to one article, but not all of the articles where this template is transcluded? How does he or she put the added reference in alpha order? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    I'm somewhat puzzled by the suggestion that archiving it is preferable to simple deletion, as it does not seem to fit the general template standards regardless. The information in the template (the value of it, as you're arguing), might be useful for what I might suggest: a WP:WikiProject Ethiopia/Sources page (based on WP:VG/RS, especially WP:VG/RS#List or such) where that information (and more!) can be gathered. --Izno (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps subst and move to project subpage, then turn into a list of sources? —PC-XT+ 13:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Personal correspondence with son Charles Styblo, September 2012[edit]

Template:Personal correspondence with son Charles Styblo, September 2012 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

This template is used to replace the text within a single reference on a single page. While it makes the markup on that page a lot cleaner, it will be more difficult to (a) watch this template page for vandalism and (b) to find this wording if other editors want to edit it. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - We do not create template for quoted passages of text or individual references. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete as single-use template —PC-XT+ 13:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Orphaned now after this edit. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

February 22[edit]

Template:Borndied[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete as redundant and unused. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Unused and unnecessary. There are a huge amounts of templates for this; see Template:Birth, death and age templates. This one adds nothing, contains outdated formatting such as linking dates, and could be used accidentally.  Liam987(talk) 23:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • delete unused --  Gadget850 talk 07:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination rationale. Redundant to "death date and age" template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant. Mikepellerintalk 01:27, 28 February 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:Lubbock highways[edit]

Template:Lubbock highways (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Added clutter for articles, better served by a category. See precedents at WP:USRD/P#Other debates and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_14#Template:Valdosta_highways. Rschen7754 18:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete—per the precedent of the Valdosta deletion and my reasoning there. Imzadi 1979  18:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: As I almost always say, I think these are very useful and needed. Yes, I know there are categories and -- in some cases -- actual pages that also show the roads, but these templates are a more visual representation of that information. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per the Valdosta discussion. These templates are clutter and better handled by categories; in addition, this metropolitan area is too small to warrant such a template. Dough4872 02:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The case here isn't much different from the Valdosta template's, so the same result should occur. TCN7JM 03:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Valdosta precedent.  V 04:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination rationale and outcome of previous "Valdosta" TfD discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:StrategyWiki[edit]

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

Listing for deletion per recent deletion of template of another game guide template at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_8#Template:GameFAQs. In that it is unreliable being a wiki, and and does not meet WP:VG/EL. Lorson (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Currently has 513 transclusions. The template should not be deleted until it is shown that there is consensus to remove each of those links; whether they be references or in 'External links' sections. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    1. Transclusion count is irrelevant. 2. This is removal of the template, not the individual links. 3. There is already consensus to remove gameguide links from EL. 4. This template is for external links, not references, besides there's already consensus it's unreliable WP:VG/RS. 5. If you had actually bothered read the page linked in the nomination, you'd know all this already.--Lorson (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    If the links are not being removed, then they're better kept in the template; and your "unreliable" claim becomes irrelevant; as it is if the template is used for ELs, not references. This is about StrategyWiki, not gameguide. WP:VG/RS does not mention StrategyWiki. And your attempt to guess what I have and have not read has failed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    Andy, I think you miss the mark with shown that there is consensus to remove each of those links, as I think a discussion such as this one can do just that. What would your comment have been in the case of GameFAQs? --Izno (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep until few articles have links to this site, as templates add benefits over simple links in such cases. For instance, the wikia template was kept. —PC-XT+ 23:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I see nothing in WP:ELNO which suggests that this an inappropriate link (nor for that matter nothing regarding the GameFAQs link—the only commenter's opinion I happen to agree with is Hahnchen, of all people's). The comment about WP:WEIGHT is bogus. I'm struggling to see how such a link is WP:LINKSPAM as well. I probably need to pay a visit to WP:VG/EL because it doesn't look like that guideline is in tune with WP:EL (and particularly WP:ELNO). --Izno (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:WW2InfoBox[edit]

Template:WW2InfoBox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

This template is used only in one article (World War II). By the definition of the template, it should be used in more than one article, otherwise it is useless. I propose to substitute the template in the WWII article, and than to delete it. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I see a discussion without a consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Subst and redirect to preserve history. (a) This infobox is tiny, compared to WWI's. (b) The protection argument is invalid, as both infoboxes are unprotected, whereas the articles are forever semi-protected. Alakzi (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Srnec. It's quite common for large templates meant for large articles to be moved elsewhere so that the article is less huge and unwieldy. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep useful template that has no need to be merged. Very active talk page just about the template its self. Has been working well to resolve conflicts. -- Moxy (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • merge with the article and delete, can preserve the edit history behind an article redirect if necessary. The Banner talk 21:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Query - It is rather odd to have a template for an infobox used in a single article. Is there a good reason why this was done? I note that the infobox appears to be transcluded on a large number of user pages, and that is also unusual. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • It's only transcluded in two user pages, one of which is an 8-year-old draft. Alakzi (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Subst and redirect per Alakzi's rationale above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with Alakzi as well. --Izno (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Kim Jonghyun[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete as a navbox that doesn't aid navigation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Kim Jonghyun (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Jonghyun did not release enough singles/solo material to have his own template. He is notable for his solo career and has done activities outside of SHINee, but he does not need his own template as of yet. Even Sandara Park who released more singles than him does not have a template of her own yet. We need to wait until he has done few more solo releases before he gets his own template. Until then, it's just simply WP:TOOSOON to have his own template. Tibbydibby (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. One single and it doesn't even have an article.  Liam987(talk) 23:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nomination rationale: not enough content to justify a navbox at this time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Only has one link to Jonghyun's only album. Not enough content. --Deoma12(Talk) 06:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - As per nomination rationale. Mikepellerintalk 01:22, 28 February 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:Taemin[edit]

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

Taemin is another one here. He is notable outside of SHINee, but he has not released enough material as of yet for him to have his own template. Maybe if he releases another single or two, then perhaps he can get his own template when the time comes. Until then, I suggest that this template gets deleted for now. Even Sandara Park does not have her own template and she has released a few more singles than him. Tibbydibby (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete As per nomination rationale. Mikepellerintalk 01:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

February 21[edit]

Template:Infobox astro object[edit]

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

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

  • Strong oppose We would then lose a template for astronomical objects that do not have specific template for itself. And we have many cluster articles, so it should have its own infobox template, and should not be merged into astro object either. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • No, we would not. We would have one template suitable for use for both clusters and other objects. The requirement for separate infoboxes in contingent on the necessary parameters, not the number of instances (which, at 160, is in any case quite small). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Your proposal nomination doesn't indicate which way the merger is to proceed, (such as merging astro objects into cluster). Merger into the generic will greatly complicate parameterizing open star clusters and consistency between the various star cluster templates. The generic template should not support parameters for values for a specific type. Template maintenance should be open to members of thw wikiproject, not so restricted as to not have members available to maintain the wikiproject's own templates. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
        • The nomination doesn't indicate which way the merger is to proceed, because that is something for this discussion (note: it is a discussion, not a vote) to decide. Nor is this necessarily a question of merging one template into another; we could, for example, merge both templates into a new one, with a new name. Or we could merge the parameters of Infobox astro object into Infobox cluster, hypothetically supposing the later had better technical features, but then give the resultant template a new name, or call it "Infobox astro object". And note that these templates are not owned by any wikiproject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional support – it may be, as long as there are other templates for other unknown objects. For instance, Hanny's Voorwerp. SkyFlubbler (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • There are many more object types than we have specific infobox templates for, and not every object currently has an infobox, so if we eliminate the generic box, we will no longer have an infobox to use on such articles. We do not have a void infobox AFAIK, for instance, nor one for LQGs, black holes, objects of unknown character, etc. While we have many open star cluster articles, so should easily be able to support a separate infobox type for its own articles. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose – "Most instances of the 'astro object' template are on articles about clusters" means the original editors didn't use the right template (probably b/c "infobox: cluster" is vague and currently up for renaming to "infobox: open cluster") and someone needs to edit those pages; it doesn't mean the infoboxes should be merged. Would you propose a merge between 'infobox: globular cluster' and 'astro object' if most astro objects referred to globulars? (the answer should be a resounding NO) 'Astro object' is very broad, 'Open cluster' is not. Both are useful within their respective scopes.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  14:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • No, it means that the templates are largely interchangeable, because most of their parameters are the same. Note also that the astro object infobox has a |type= parameter which can take a value of [[Open cluster]], or whatever". You advance no reasons was to why separate infoboxes are needed. The requested move you cite was made after this proposal, by the first objector to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
      • The purpose of an infobox is to immediately identify the type of object to the reader. A merge destroys this, no matter how well-intentioned.
        'Infobox: cluster' is not distinguishible simply b/c no one put links to open cluster information on the bottom yet, as is normally done on {{infobox globular cluster}}, {{infobox galaxy cluster}}, {{infobox supercluster}} templates. I support an edit to put links to open cluster info at the bottom of 'Infobox: cluster' before I support a merge of cluster and globular cluster, before I support a merge of astro object with cluster. I also support an edit to 'Infobox astro object' to include a broader set of parameters applicable to disparate phenomena than I do any merge. Also, the community should do what best serves the reader, common sense, and organisation than arbitrary nomination times.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  15:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
        • The purpose of an infobox is to immediately identify the type of object to the reader I have no idea what led you to believe that, but no, it is not. Even if it were, the |type= does that adequateley. Merging redundant infoboxes best serves the reader, common sense, and organisation, as explained at Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
          • From the WikiProject:Astronomy. Your reference is to an essay. This is not policy, as noted in its header, and I believe reasonable control should be left to the parent WikiProject (excessive use aside; i.e. your other recent noms here seem justifiable).
            From Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation: "A separate infobox isn't a measure of importance, but of difference from other subjects." Open clusters are very different than an infobox which literally refers to all other astronomical bodies which don't yet fall into a template. You missed several key parameters which exist in {{infobox astro object}} but not in {{infobox cluster}}: "propmo", "radvel", "pecmo". The former 2 can, in fact, arguably be incorporated into cluster with little problem. The latter, however, refers to objects at cosmological distances, which in no way applies to clusters. If this escapes you, please stop merging outside of your scope. In fact, I could, and should, add several other parameters to astro object to be even more all-encompassing, and potentially EXclusive of open clusters, be it applied to some non-cluster object.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  19:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
            • I didn't say it was a policy; I said it explained why merging similar infoboxes is a good thing, which it does. But thank you; as its author, I've clarified the wording. And no, having some parameters which are not mutually common does not prevent us merging infoboxes where a large number are used mutually. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
              • If/when {{infobox astro object}} is fully developed (ideally it contains most/all parameters from all other existing astronomy related infobox templates, as its description suggests), then, by your logic, all other astronomy infoboxes should be merged into {{infobox astro object}}. I hope you see the exception to your rule in this case.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  22:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
                • If their parameters are largely overlapping then yes, they should. Do you contend that that (overlapping parameters) is the case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: The following is a complete list of parameters which are in {{Infobox astro object}} but not in {{Infobox cluster}}: |image=, |caption=, |credit=, |mass_msol=, |age=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • You missed |propmo=, |radvel=, |pecmo=; |pecmo= being the most relevant to this discussion.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  22:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
      • No, I didn't - but I have the two template names the wrong way round. That should read: parameters which are in {{Infobox cluster}} but not in {{Infobox astro object}} = |image=, |caption=, |credit=, |mass_msol=, |age=. The image parameter set should always be available; which leaves just two parameters distinguishing the cluster infobox from the more generic one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose; the purpose of the two templates is drastically different. One is a specific template for open clusters, the other a generic template for all astronomical objects without a better category. By this logic, merging {{Infobox astro object}} with any astronomy infoboxes would be good, which is clearly false. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • 50-50– I think they are very distinct, one is for clusters and one for objects not yet having any category (or with an unclear nature). But for all of the 57 billion celestial objects discovered to date, I think it's unlikely that they're very unusual. Astronomers already classed them, and we have the templates. I also think it would be very unlikely that Template:Infobox astro object will be used, since we already knew a lot about our universe. But comment, there are no infoboxes concerning LQG's, stellar streams, and others, so if they are notable then we can create them. However, we must note that of all the dozens of LQGs discovered to date, only three have their own articles (Huge-LQG, U1.11 and the Clowes–Campusano LQG). So the choice is yours, my friends. SkyFlubbler (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • you already lodged an opinion, this is a second !vote, you should change it into a comment instead. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying that we should create a separate template for every object, only for those that we have significant number of articles for which a separate template can be supported (such as open clusters) separate from a general template. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment– If the intent here is to, over time, migrate templates to have some sort of awesome connectivity with WikiData, then great, lead with that. However, a full and clear explanation of that intent, WikiData, and a project timeline should be made, and not a weak "well... the parameters are kinda the same" excuse. The reactions from the community will be vastly different.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  21:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • You're confusing two issues. The two templates should be merged, regardless of Wikidata. And we're likely to move toward importing data from Wikidata, regardless of whether or not they are merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No parameter mapping is provided, so the proposal is incomplete=incorrect. Listing a difference (which was added later) is a start, but does not prove or explain what or how content is to be merged (semantics, knowledge). -DePiep (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
    • No parameter mapping is required. Once again, you are inventing "rules" on the fly. You have nothing to say about the merits or otherwise of the proposal; your objection (one of several made within the space of a few minutes; and like many you have made previously) appears vexatious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
You have nothing to say about .... 'Nuf said. I propose procedural close as no consensus, for nom disruptitive discussion behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge to infobox astro object or a new name, and everyone here needs to assume good faith and quit calling this stuff "disruptive." Focus on the efficiency of not having 10 gazillion templates for every nuance. add parameters as needed, no need to make the changes before the proposal is decided, obviously. Montanabw(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Asking comment— If we merge this, what would be the templates for other astronomical objects? Just for example: Green Bean Galaxies, hypervelocity clouds, dark clouds, galaxy filaments, SCP 06F6, etc. I assure this would simplify templates, but you cannot mix oil and water. I would be an absolute faggot if I created an article which scientists say as very mysterious and very rare, and finding no templates. Just to assure you there are dozens of types of astronomical objects with no templates. So what will be the implications and effects if you merge them? SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 10:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
    • What template would you use at present? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Comment— I'm not sure, but did you put into consideration the distinction of the two templates? I think you are saying like: "Hey! I propose something. Let's mix oil and water because they're both liquids.". Let's put it again, in a very broad perspective. If we merge astro object with star clusters, that would cause a giant problem on the WikiProject Astronomy. There are other objects with no templates, and they need the astro object infobox. You are trying to mix a cat and a mouse. Please give us the sinister implications and reasons why we need to merge this. Their similarities in the data does not necessarily mean we must merge them. But just to be honest I don't see significant similarities of the two templates. Regards? SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 14:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Rather than discussing your overly-vivid imaginings, lets return to your specific question: You're not sure what template would be used, now, but you want to have an answer to that question for some hypothetical future? That's not relevant to the issue at hand. Please, though, explain, exactly, how merging these templates "would cause a giant [sic] problem on the WikiProject Astronomy"? Regarding your latter question; I have already referred to Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Okay, you want to know the problems when you merge this? I will plan to make a big project for the branch of large-scale structures. I am now researching about papers about the Komberg–Kravstov–Lukash LQGs. They are about 20+ LQGs there. I plan to make a single article discussing all of them: "Komberg–Kravstov–Lukash LQGs". And not only that, I will plan to create articles about superclusters, galaxy filaments, and notable voids. I will start at early March and it will be 40+ articles. Now, as far as you are concerned there are no templates for LQGs, voids and galaxy filaments. There are no templates for associations of objects other than galaxies. There are lots of them, associations of nebulae (Lyman-alpha blobs). All of them need the infobox astro object template. That's why it will cause a giant problem. purpose of infobox astro object is to be the template of unusual and rare astronomical objects with no templates on Wiki. If we merge them, surely the unusual astronomical objects will have no more templates. SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 22:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
        • No. You again assert that there will be a problem, but do not say what it will be, nor why you supose that there will be a problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Okay. "What"– Many astronomical articles that need the infobox astro object template would lose it. "Why"– The infobox astro object has very specific reason and purpose. It is very different from star clusters. I suppose that there will be a problem because infobox astro object has a very different use. SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 00:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
            • "Many astronomical articles that need the infobox astro object template would lose it". False, Please don't invent reasons to object, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
              • What?!? You're just ignoring me. What makes you think that I will invent reasons? That is true, as many articles really need that template. Merging them would do more harm than good. And what do you mean I've invented it? It was the same as IP 67.70.35.44's comment: "We would then lose a template for astronomical objects that do not have specific template for itself". Many astronomical articles would be affected by this merge. They're made for very different purposes. SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 13:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
                • SkyFlubbler Just to (hopefully) clarify; I oppose merging myself, but I'd like to stress that if we would add the properties of infobox cluster to infobox astro object, which is what a merge would entail, nothing would happen to existing uses of infobox astro object. With a switch on the "type" parameter of astro object, we could even make it so that the colors scheme of infobox cluster would be used, and the see also added to the bottom if the infobox is used with type=cluster (or type=open cluster). Note that I don't support that merge, but that it's not at all the case that anything would break. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose; Keep. Unique template to clusters and not to celestial objects generally. Having gone through the entire listings for 12/21, I openly question whether you have any knowledge of basic astronomy. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    • While I openly question whether you have any knowledge of basic Wikipedia template function, the key issue is whether the the similarity of the parameters in the nominated templates, not the differences between clusters and (other) celestial objects generally. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Like what I've said, you cannot mix oil and water just because they're both liquids. The same as this: their identical parameters does not necessarily mean that they must be merged. Obviously you are like merging a shoe store to a book store. If you merge them into one, it's either they will ran out of books or they will ran out of shoes. As far as you know they have both parameters because they're both astronomical objects. In astronomy, many objects are similar, in parameters and characteristics, but they're distinct in a way. They're not as identical as you might think. I checked the two templates and the one links to astro objects and the other to star clusters. Regards? SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 22:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Your analogies are false. A better analogy would be merging a template about buildings that are shoe shops with a template about buildings that are book shops. And we have: {{Infobox building}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
          • My analogy is "false" because you don't get what I'm saying. Infobox astro object has a very different purpose. Colloquically speaking, these templates are both for astronomy; they have parameters for absolute magnitude, epoch, coordinates, etc., because those are the basic data for an astronomical object, so expect that they will have very similar parameters, except for one. The star cluster templates link to star clusters at the very bottom, whil infobox astro object is for astronomical object article. Suppose an article about a void has the infobox astro object. If we merge it, one will read the article about a void but in a infobox about a star cluster. That would make confusion. SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 00:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Your analogy is false because it does not apply here. What "books" or "shoes" would a merged template run out of? Your assertion that "one will read the article about a void but in a infobox about a star cluster." is equally false. Since you continue to make such unfounded assertions, I'll be devoting less of my time to replying to them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
              • I just applied it to show what would be the problem when we merged this. That analogy is not on Wiki, it is like an illustration. Okay, let's apply it to Wiki. Suppose the infobox galaxy and starbox templates. They have data on classifications, magnitudes, epochs, etc, but should we merge them? Certainly not, because a galaxy is a kingdom of stars, while a star is just a star. Please take into consideration their distinction. Infobox star cluster is for small groups of stars, while infobox astro object is a serving template for different astronomical objects. But wait a minute, you said my assertion is false. Why? (bold for extremeness) Why those assertions are false? I answered you with utmost respect, but all you can say is my reasons are false? As far you are concerned you are against WP:CIV. At my review in your comments, you are not displaying an appopriate behavior. You can just say: "SkyFlubbler, your assertions are not quite true because....", not those kind of comments. Explain it to me. SkyFlubbler (talk with me :-D) 13:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Infobox astro objects purpose seems to be to provide an infobox for rare objects for which no other infobox works properly. For astronomy, I don't think that having a very broad base infobox of which other infoboxes can derive is a good idea; the base thing that all astro objects have in common is that they're not on earth. A hypothetical {{Infobox something on earth}} would be far narrower in scope than an infobox astro object. That, even for me, goes too far. The only reasonable properties you can assign to such an unknown thingy are the basic physical quantities: mass and angular momentum, and observational data. While those properties are also used for other objects, it's for me too broad to be a suitable base for further modules. Having the same base for e.g. a supercluster and an exoplanet is for me a bridge too far. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Pigsonthewing is banned from "discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes": see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Pigsonthewing and infoboxes. I am counting a "Merge" as a removal. However I think it is better if we just oppose this. As we need a general box for things that slip between cracks, that are not clusters. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Merging is not removal; and this proposal will leave a template which is suitable as a "general box for things that slip between cracks, that are not clusters". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't understand your assertion "general list that slip between cracks". As far as you are concerned, astro object infobox hasgalactocentric radial velocity, redshift, luminosity distance and its own category, which makes them entirely distinct, making it impossible to mix them to form a general list. Regards? SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I count:
Strong oppose: 4
Oppose: 3
Neutral: 1
Conditional support: 1
Support: 1
What exactly is the definition of "unclear consensus"?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  20:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I should've left a note. The nominator questioned my close on my talk page, so I've undone it. Alakzi (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    • We have consensus, close this; why was this relisted? -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This isn't a vote, and a number of points raised during the discussion remain unaddressed; not least that the cluster infobox has very few parameters that are not in the more generic template; and whether the parameters you added to the latter during the discussion are actually used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    • It's irrelevant that parameters were added during the discussion; that is, after all, how the GA/FA/etc. processes, and WP in general, work.
      If the main issue is "very few parameters that are not in the more generic template", then table this arbitrary template discussion (inititiated by other editors' mistaken transclusion over {{Infobox open cluster}}, now fixed, all of which makes it seem like you're fishing to try to find a legitimate argument) and open a wider one comprising all astronomical templates which meet said criteria, if that's what you really want to accomplish.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  18:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Request - This is one of a series of recent TfD wherein merges have been proposed to create a generic "master" template for a group of related uses. Sometimes, such a master template makes sense; sometimes, it does not. I don't pretend to be an expert, or even a particularly well-versed generalist, regarding astrometric subjects, but I think I can make a pretty good layman's common-sense determination how to balance the maintenance convenience of a master template vs. the ease of use of a specifically-tailored template in a particular. In order to make that determination, I ask the nominator (or another proponent of this merge) to provide a post-merge parameter map; I also request that the editors who oppose this merge provide a list of parameters that are inappropriate to share between the generic and specific templates. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa[edit]

Template:Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa topics (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa with Template:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa topics.
Geography of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa topics can cover its districts. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @Redtigerxyz: I have notified the creator of Template:Kyber Pakhtunkwha topics of this pending TfD merge discussion. In the future, please notify the creators of both templates to any proposed merge. Template creators are often among the best sources of background information regarding the architecture, background history, purposes and uses of templates, and my add to the understanding of other TfD participants. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not really a good idea since we have these district templates for all provinces. The template can exist by itself as it is useful in its own right and is easier for navigation of district articles. Besides, there's no real need to further clutter Template:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa topics. Mar4d (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Sambassadeur[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete as undisputed request Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

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

One link and one transclusion, both the same article. I redirected the album article as it was unsourced and the same info existed in the main article. No navigational use. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 10:41, 21 February 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:Miss Universe 2015 delegates[edit]

Template:Miss Universe 2015 delegates (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

template of participants without parent article The Banner talk 00:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • weak keep, this won't be used for about 10 months, but is a useful place to collect the names of the contestants who will be appearing in this future pageant. Frietjes (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry, forgot to mention: created by someone blocked for sockpuppetry. Extensivelky edited by another editor blocked for sockpuppetry. And the parent article is deleted as being a crystal ball with no date known. The Banner talk 13:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as part of a series of very useful navigational templates. Crystal ball concerns are alleviated by long history of this annual event with roughly zero chance of not being held, just like other upcoming competitions with uncertain dates such as the 2024 Summer Olympics or the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. - Dravecky (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Please note that there is no "Miss Universe 2015"-article any more as it is removed as crystal ball. The Banner talk 21:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Acme aircraft[edit]

Template:Acme aircraft (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

The purpose of templates is that it improves navigation between related article. This template navigates between only one article and its parent article. Normal wikilinking can solve this, no need for a navigation templates that does not help navigating. The Banner talk 00:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per The Banner's nomination rationale. We don't keep navboxes with two working links. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I don;t think the company even needs an article, it could just be rolled into the aircraft article, since that's all there is to the company. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete clearly no need for this navbox. The two articles that use the template, one of which is a one line stub, are linked to each other so it serves no useful purpose and is redundant. --AussieLegend () 07:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: as established in the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_discussion/Archive_16#Request_for_Comment:_WP:NENAN and also at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_38#Mass_nomination_of_aircraft_manufacturer_nav_boxes_for_deletion the decision was made to retain all WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes regardless of the number of links, as they form part of a set of standard page layouts that provide a uniform experience for readers. The nominator was part of both those discussions and is well aware of the outcome of those consensus debates. - Ahunt (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I note that the WikiProject Aircraft discussion linked to says "Here on WikiProject Aircraft we have had a longstanding practice of creating nav boxes for manufacturers who have two of more aircraft models" (emphasis added). This template includes only a single aircraft. Why is such a template worth having? --AussieLegend () 16:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as explained by User:Ahunt part of a series of navboxes as discussed previously. MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment - @Ahunt: @MilborneOne: Guys, I do extensive work with several different WikiProjects, and I favor giving the projects the latitude to design their own graphics, navboxes and other linking systems, but I do not favor giving the projects a veto over well-established guidelines of Wikipedia-wide general application. With two working blue links to existing articles, you do not get a navbox, and we have deleted other navboxes with three and four links, and those with more red links to non-existent articles. Please review WP:NAVBOX. This navbox does not serve a valid reader navigational purpose. Period. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: User:Dirtlawyer1: if you read the very extensive debates at the links I provided you will see that we have a wide consensus to do just that. There is no policy or even guideline that is being broken here. - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Your "wide consensus" is that wide that you need the not-relevant NENAN-discussion to give your arguments a glimmer of hope... The Banner talk 21:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep – While it may be counterintuitive to have a navigation box which doesn't do much navigation, WikiProject Aviation's MOS at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Navigation templates proscribes their use as "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." This is consistent with the WP:MILHIST project's use of the Campaignbox template. And just as some military campaigns may have few battles, some aircraft manufacturers may have few planes. The way in which these templates are used by both projects (and, I'm sure, other projects), these are something more than merely navigation templates. Mojoworker (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • There is a difference between "a few" (= more than one) and "one". The Banner talk 20:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator's reason. Hajme 14:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:!-!![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 nom. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:!-!! (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:!-! (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Br!-! (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

unnecessary templates, when escaping a pipe is needed, we have {{!}}. Frietjes (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all please. Tables are sufficiently complex without introducing pointless alternative methods that will only confuse editors. Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • SNOW delete after dealing with the only transclusion on Johnathan Gray. Seemingly pointless and unused templates. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 03:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per all the above. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment {{!-!}} has been around since 2006 -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    • ...but is no longer used. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Pointless and confusing. Templates are to save typing, these only require more typing and more template knowledge. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    • More typing?
{{!}}-
{{!}}
is 12 characters while
{{!-!}}
is 7; etc. And the only people using these would be the ones that have template/table knowledge since they work for escaping the pipe and bang. Though they may indeed be not necessary. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • And
|-
|
is only 4 characters. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Which is impossible as a template parameter, since pipes are special characters. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
That is not the primary purpose of these templates. The docs state they are there to replace wikicode. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
That would seem to be the primary purpose for all templates of this type (ie. descendants and derivatives of {{!}} (template named bang which creates a pipe) ) for use when wikicode interferes with itself. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
{{!}} (which is built-in and no longer a template, by the way) is essential because tables use the pipe symbol in the syntax. The templates recommended for deletion here are confusing because to use them an editor needs to understand the underlying syntax and the new syntax introduced by these templates. Further, many editors understand basic tables but would not understand what these peculiar variants do. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 24 February 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.

February 20[edit]

Template:Scoutbasketball[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, without replacing the invocations. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Appears to be a non-notable website with no evidence of being reliable, with the template being used for possible WP:Spam. Created by User:Ricardomm2 (suspected WP:SOCK), and used by User:Ricardomm (suspected sockmaster). —Bagumba (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete it's a dinkie site, and it looks like the creators have gone around trying to promote it. Definitely doesn't deserve its own template. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ricardomm has explicitly said that they're editing to try and gain more visits to their site. Blatant promotion. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 15:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I expect this will be deletion without replacement by bare links? —PC-XT+ 07:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
That's my !vote, PC-XT. "Scoutbasketball.com" is not the same thing as the widely known, used and cited recruiting evaluation service "Scout.com." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Deletion without replacement seems appropriate, here, due to the promotion and sock concerns as well as the source, itself, being questionable. —PC-XT+ 19:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete Sorry, it's my faul. I'll read carefully the conditions before editing. Ricardomm (talk) 21:03, 26 February 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.

English association football captain navboxes[edit]

Template:Leicester City F.C. captains (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Bolton Wanderers F.C. captains (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:West Ham United F.C. captains (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Thames Ironworks F.C. captains (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Newcastle United F.C. captains (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Further to recent consensus, this is FANCRUFT and not a useful guide to navigation. GiantSnowman 18:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete All - per previous consensus, being team captain is not significant enough. JMHamo (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per the Snowman's nomination rationale. (And thank you for the thorough job in notifying the creator of these templates five times.  ; ) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox GP2 team[edit]

Template:Infobox GP2 team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

It's unnecessary duplication of the Template:Infobox motor racing team. Also in the case of ART Grand Prix which will join Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters, I think that DTM will be definetely more important series than GP2 Series. Cybervoron (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment regarding notice - @Cybervoron: Please do not forget to notify the template creator about this pending TfD. You may use the templated TfD notice on the TfD instructions page. Thank you for your cooperation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The creator of this template last edited in August 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I have provided notice of this TfD to the template creator on 21 February 2015: [13]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant, after replacing the mere 20 transclusions. Note: I have renamed the template to {{Infobox GP2 team}} in the interim. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not a particularly well designed template to be honest. The creator did not seem to take into account how the template would work on ex-teams, where it's far easier just to use the generic team infobox. Also consider the fact that the vast majority of GP2 outfits run teams in other equally notable motor racing series, which makes the focus this infobox places on GP2 rather unbalanced. QueenCake (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)del

February 19[edit]

Template:J. Tune Camp[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete as not (yet) needed Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:J. Tune Camp (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

The label/agency and artists are linked to each other already, and I don't think a navbox is necessary to link the artists together. Plus, it seems like overkill to have a navbox for only four links. Random86 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Don't delete: Even if it is deleted now, in the future, when the company has more artists on the roster, it will have to be created again. So why not just keep it and see how it goes? --Deoma12(Talk) 15:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Far too few links to justify a navbox. If there is need for one in the future, just remake it. Shinyang-i (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Exactly, too soon and these few links doesn't need a template. Noteswork (talk) 07:39, 1 March 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:Blakey 65moll.jpg K/T impact site[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete as uncontroversial request, may be recovered through WP:REFUND if anyone still wants to recover it Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Blakey 65moll.jpg K/T impact site (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

The image that went in here was deleted from Commons, so whatever this is supposed to be or do, it doesn't do it anymore. Herostratus (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox sport event[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox sport event (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (130 transclusions)
Template:Infobox championship event (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (59 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox sport event with Template:Infobox championship event.
Very similar templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete template:Infobox championship event -- this template is built with HTML table entities ; replace all instances with template infobox sport event, which uses template:infobox -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Pigsonthewing: Andy, I am inclined to support your proposed merge because it appears that we have two small templates that are performing nearly the same set of functions which can be easily combined into a concise survivor with few, if any issues. That having been said, I have two requests before moving to "support/merge":
  1. Can you please notify the creator of the second template, User:Arsennik, that this TfD is pending; and
  2. Can you please provide a list of the identified parameters for proposed surviving template?
Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Dirtlawyer1: The first you can do yourself. The second is a matter for discussion here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @Pigsonthewing: Fair enough. User:Alakzi has notified User:Arsenikk, as the creator of Infobox sport event, of this TfD [14]. As for my second question above, yes, I agree that it is a matter for discussion here. As the TfD nominator, and presumably as the template editor who would implement the proposed merge, could you describe/discuss the dozen or so parameters you foresee as those of the surviving template after the merge? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose, for now, would be better to merge Template:Infobox multi-sport competition event and Template:Infobox championship event, (see the example in both templates). Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The curent proposal would not prevent that merger from taking place subsequenlty. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Andy, it's been 6 days since I made the request above for a list of the parameters of the surviving template of this proposed merge. Heck, I'm inclined to support the merge, but I cannot vote for a "pig in a poke," if you'll pardon the unfortunate pun. Per Frietjes, perhaps this TfM discussion should involve three or more templates that are best considered at the same time, with a proposed list of parameters (and displayed field labels) so that all TfD participants may understand what we're going to get at the end of the day. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:22, 19 February 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:Proof of Suspension[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete Per CSD:G2. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Proof of Suspension (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

I didn't understood how this template works nor I understood how it is useful. Created by a new user. I think G2 also applies. Jim Carter 13:40, 19 February 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:Latest stable software release/X.Org Server[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete; still may have a useful purpose. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Latest stable software release/X.Org Server (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

I declined speedy deletion as not qualifying under CSD T3. The following reasoning was given on the speedy deletion template: "Not needed. The version upgrade is now manually managed. See Talk:X.Org Server#"frequently updated" parameter in the Infobox software?". Safiel (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • delete unused and unneeded; having it part of the article as it is makes much more sense.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep ( and restore to X.Org Server article ) delete/G6. Unused, housekeeping. Template:Latest preview software release/X.Org Server should also be deleted. PaleAqua (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Striking until Xephyr is taken care of. While it was planed to replace Xephyr in a future release, this has not happened yet and it has received updates in recent releases including in 1.17 for caps lock issues. Given that, I am reconsidering replacing this template as it is easier than keeping multiple articles in sync. PaleAqua (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm now leaning keep and restore to the X.Org Server article. Template is easy-enough to change and probably the best way to make sure the Xephyr article stays up to date. PaleAqua (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Template is still transcluded at the article Xephyr. That needs to be appropriately updated before this template falls. Otherwise, though I failed to state as much when I transferred this to TfD, I support deletion. Safiel (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Satellite awards[edit]

Template:Infobox Satellite awards (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Infobox film awards (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Satellite awards into Template:Infobox film awards.
Satellite awards are "film and television awards". Note that {{Infobox TV awards}} redirects to {{Infobox film awards}}. The TV-award parameters in the 'Satellite' box would seem useful in a more generic template. Best resolved by making a wrapper then substitutions. The 'Satellite' box has only 19 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

I've made a start. There are some issues to consider, not least since one template is undocumented, the other incompletely so. Numbered for convenience of discussion, not order of importance:

  1. Is |best_directon= the same as |best_director= ?
  2. Can we find a better parameter name for |best_comedy/musical_film=?
  3. Do we need both of the Satellite Awards box's |best_film= and |best_drama_film=?

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Auto change[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 with {{Alarm clock}}. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Auto change (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unused Bgwhite (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite, are you sure it is unused if it is always substituted? Frietjes (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Frietjes I'm an idiot and as always, you are right. Keep and close discussion. Bgwhite (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Bgwhite, I think we should still consider deleting it, given the age, the time last time the creator edited here. could we find substituted versions using a database search? Frietjes (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can see this being useful, e.g. for automatic updates of info. -- P 1 9 9   18:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge to {{Alarm clock}}. Auto change has a few extra features, and I think a redirect is helpful (because "auto change" is more intuitive than "alarm clock" IMO). -- P 1 9 9   15:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:51, 19 February 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.

Railway icon 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 Keep. There is consensus that at least some of these templates may be useful when translating articles where they are used in the source article, and concern that merging will lead to a difficult to maintain central template Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:BJS icon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:BLNMT-icon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:CRT icon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Dresden S-Bahn (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:GZM icon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:HK-MTR icon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:LACMTA icon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Ligne STIB (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:MOSMETRO-bull (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Nuremberg S-Bahn (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:OASA icons (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:ÖPNV Berlin (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:ÖPNV Frankfurt (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:ÖPNV Innsbruck (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:ÖPNV München (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:ÖPNV Salzburg (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:S-Bahn-Basel (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:S-Bahn-Bern (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:S-Bahn-Hannover (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:S-Bahn-Karlsruhe (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:S-Bahn-Kassel (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:S-Bahn-NRW (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:S-Bahn-RheinNeckar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:S-Bahn-Stuttgart (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:S-Bahn-Zürich (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:SHM icon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:SPBMETRO bull (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Stadtbahn-S-U (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:S-train service small (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:SZM icon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:TJM icon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Whmetro-logo (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:WHM icon long (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:WMATA icon (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Rail-interchange (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging the templates listed above with Template:Rail-interchange.
This set of templates should be merged into the standard {{rint}}/{{R-I}} template (which has over 7,500 transclusions); there is no need for a separate template for each city with a rapid transit system.

In addition, {{NYCS time 2}}; {{Taiwan line}}; and {{China line}} could be merged but they would require some new named parameters.

Jc86035 (talkcontributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. IMO, the template is already long and un-wielding as it is, with various nested switch statements. And with 7,500 tranclusions now, the possibility of merging and adding more parameters would make it even more of a high-risk and a possible target for vandals -- since one typo could screw it all up. If it is merged, I would like to see it be converted to a Lua module (since it is commonly used in multiple instances on a page displaying a rail line diagram) and/or increased to template protection (editing is only semi-protected at the moment). I view this template's purpose similar to {{jct}}, which generates icons for road interchanges, and has been already converted to use a Lua module. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I would also support some sort of sub-template system, like {{Flag}} and {{S-line}}, where data is pulled from a specific sub-template. In this case, {{Rail-interchange}} would be converted to a master template, and all the other templates above would be moved and converted to sub-templates of {{R-I}}. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Converting to a module is probably necessary for this template—it's already 76KB. Also, converting would help with adding extra abbreviations and standard image sizes. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree. I am not convinced by one-size-fits-all templates. At best they are cumbersome to use; at worst they screw things up or just fail to deliver the requirements of specialised templates. Reaching consensus is much more difficult and, if they're locked, which mass-use templates are, making changes is slow and requires persuading a handful of privileged editors to make the changes. Finally, these templates are mainly imported from their "parent" Wikipedia and can easily copy changes there. You cannot do that with a global template. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mainly for the last reason given by Bermicourt. Most of these templates are mirrors of equivalents on other wikipedias. Such mirrors make it a great deal easier to translate articles from those wikipedias into English. It is also easier to update the mirror than it would be to update a one size fits all template. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't mind if the template works much the same. I am not entirely sure that it is worth the work involved.--Grahame (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose WRT {{MOSMETRO-bull}}. Unlike {{rint}}, that one is also used to generate line names, interchange hints in tooltips, and is highly customisable in itself. The functionality is pretty much the same as in ru:Template:MOSMETRO icon, for which a dedicated ru:Module:MoscowMetro has been created, so interwiki synchronisation should be preserved as much as possible. Possibly some complex system of Lua modules can be implemented that would deal will all such variations, but I'm not sure if it is worth the trouble. Similarly for {{HK-MTR icon}}, which uses Module:MTR (and similarly zh:Module:MTR). Are you ready to do all that combination/re-combination work across a dozen Wikipedias? YLSS (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Each template is very different from the others and is highly customized to the railway system whose articles the template is placed on. {{LACMTA icon}}, for example, is different than {{HK-MTR icon}} because the latter uses a module, unlike the former. Epic Genius (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • A Lua module or the master template approach would be a very good idea, but generally, I'd support this proposal. While it's right that every railway system is different, this is about simple interchange icons that mostly just have different looks. See the plenty of networks already served by the unified Template:Rail-interchange – it works for either of them. Template clutter with every template taking a different approach is a usability nightmare, so the less templates, the better. I would have proposed though to discuss the template mergers case by case, so people don't fear losing functionality, but this remains a Plan B if this proposal should fail. --PanchoS (talk) 23:16, 21 February 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.

February 16[edit]

Interlanguage link templates[edit]

Re-listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 24#Interlanguage link templates. Alakzi (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:2012OlympicSailingSchedule[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete as unused. If anyone would like this userfied for single-use substitution, feel free to ask me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:2012OlympicSailingSchedule (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unused, abandoned template JMHamo (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Subst into Sailing at the 2012 Summer Olympics at the schedule section, underneath the current table -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    Comment - How do we know the information included in this template is accurate before it's used on an article? JMHamo (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is obviously a better graphic presentation of the 2012 Olympic sailing schedule than that currently used in the article per IP user 70.51.200.101's suggestion above. That having been said, JMHamo's query above needs to be answered -- it is disturbingly common for these schedules to be inserted into articles for Olympic events (and other sports tournaments, too) with no sourcing. WP:OLYMPICS (and other sports WikiProjects) need to tighten their sourcing standards for such. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:43, 16 February 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:Ameri-Cana Ultralights aircraft[edit]

Template:Ameri-Cana Ultralights aircraft (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

The purpose of templates is that it improves navigation between related article. This template navigates between only one article and its parent article. Normal wikilinking can solve this, no need for a navigation templates that does not help navigating. The Banner talk 13:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, there is the locally reached consensus again. But we also have Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates which states: Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia. Mind the phrase "multiple related articles". As far as I know, "one" is not the same as "multiple". The Banner talk 22:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
That is just "an editing guideline" and in this case has been overruled by two consensus discussions, so does not apply. This is also not a "local consensus" but was reached here at TfD, so is global for WikiProject Aircraft templates. - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
That NENAN-discussion is not applicable here as WP:NENAN was not used as an argument at all. The other is a locally reached consensus. The Banner talk 17:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as explained by User:Ahunt part of a series of navboxes as discussed previously. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Sorry, guys, but two-link navboxes serve no navigational purpose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: As described in the two consensus discussions linked above it does serve in providing a predictable reader experience across all aircraft type articles and does show that the manufacturer in fact built only that model, so it does serve at least two useful purposes. As noted we have two consensus discussions that resulted in the decision to keep these. Trying to nom individual boxes again and get them deleted against consensus is not the correct way to proceed. If you want to revisit the issue then start a new consensus discussion and let's debate it all again from scratch. - Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
As said before: a locally reached consensus is not valid wiki-wide. And this is not a WP:NENAN-discussion but one based on the Guidelines. The Banner talk 17:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The guidelines do not set a minimum number of links for a nav box so this template does not violate the guidelines, nor does it violate any Wikipedia policy. Your nomination seems to be just based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Deleting it would go against two established consensuses, though. - Ahunt (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The Guideline states "multiple", not one. The Banner talk 00:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
So I guess it is a good thing that the template has two links and not one, then. - Ahunt (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You are so funny... The Banner talk 11:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You have a flawed understanding of what WP:CONLIMITED says. What "generally accepted policy or guideline" do you believe is being violated by the WP AVIATION MOS? Mojoworker (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep – While it may be counterintuitive to have a navigation box which doesn't do much navigation, WikiProject Aviation's MOS at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Navigation templates proscribes their use as "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." This is consistent with the WP:MILHIST project's use of the Campaignbox template. And just as some military campaigns may have few battles, some aircraft manufacturers may have few planes. The way in which these templates are used by both projects (and, I'm sure, other projects), these are something more than merely navigation templates. Mojoworker (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • There is a difference between "a few" (= more than one) and "one". The Banner talk 20:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete a navbox with only a link to the parent and the article is silly. This in no way aides navigation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Please read the above arguments, this nav box serves more purposes than just navigation and needs to be assessed in that light. - Ahunt (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I have read your arguments, but didn't find them compelling. I like consistency in styling. Consistency is good. But using a useless navigational template for consistency is not. As for this navbox being the quickest and/or easiest way for the reader to discover this is the only airplane manufactured by this company, well, if that is true, there is something very wrong with the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
In this case it is not the only way the reader has of telling how many designs the company produced, it is described in the text. The nav box does provide consistency in the presentation of articles to readers of the series of articles about aircraft types, which now number about 20,000 articles. This is why we have two well-debated consensuses to keep these boxes, regardless of the number of links. - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm seeing two heated discussions, non concluding that all navigational templates for aircraft manufacturers should be kept. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I think this discussion does establish a consensus to keep these nav boxes as standard for the project articles. I can start a new discussion on WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes to arrive at an even clearer consensus one way or the other if that would be helpful for future reference. Regardless, there is clearly no consensus here to delete this one and a lack of consensus to delete means it should be retained. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree that that discussion shows that consensus - many arguments presented say that the navbox is useful to quickly see what other airplanes have been made by the manufacturer. This one doesn't have that function. Navboxes with only a single airplane are neither explicitly nor implicitly discussed by anyone in that discussion.
This discussion is a discussion to find consensus on this template. I don't agree with argument that arguing to delete the template is invalid because there is no consensus for it in the very discussion that looks for consensus for it either. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Well as I noted above there is clearly "no consensus" here to delete this template, so it should remain. As I also noted above, I am perfectly willing to start a discussion about WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes to explicitly consider and create a consensus either way about the number of links acceptable, if that would be helpful in future cases like this. - Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I see three people belonging to WikiProject Aircraft making a lot of noise but with dodgy arguments. Unfortunately for you guys, this is no vote but a balancing of arguments. The Banner talk 17:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've read all the arguments, but I have to side with the delete faction. Just overkill. Ratel (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Template is a bit redundant with only one article. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 12:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note. This discussion has been reopened out of process. Here is the original close rationale. Alakzi (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • In fact, you should not have closed this TfD in the first place. The Banner talk 12:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Maybe so, but this is not the place to debate that. Alakzi (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Hey, it is you who is running everywhere to complain about my bold action. The Banner talk 13:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete. What is effectively a one-link navbox is wholly redundant. The aircraft article links to the manufacturer, and the manufacturer links to the aircraft. I'm not sure what else can be said. Huntster (t @ c) 19:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Link GA[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete as obsolete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Link GA (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Per Magioladitis below, Link GA should now be handled by Wikidata; it has only 80 transclusions left to be replaced. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete after replacement —PC-XT+ 12:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Refer to my remarks at the deletion for Link FA (next section...not duplicated here to keep discussion in one place). AHeneen (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete not needed. --Rschen7754 18:00, 22 February 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:Link FA[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete as obsolete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Link FA (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Now unused. Link FA/FL/GA is now handled in Wikidata. I nominated this separately from Link FL since Link FA seems to be more popular in other Wikipedias. I think that if the English Wikipedia does the first step to delete this template many more Wikipedias will follow. Many bots already remove Link FA/FL/GA links in all places. Magioladitis (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 03:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose/Comment Please provide clear evidence that this is handled on Wikidata and that there are no outstanding bugs that may require this template to be included on a WP article until the bug is fixed. Help:Interlanguage links#Featured articles and good articles states that "Wikidata does not currently have a way to represent featured or good articles", but has a note to [15] (bug listed on Phabricator, redirected from Bugzilla) which says the problem is resolved. However, a comment on that page links to meta:Wikidata/Development/Badges. That page also says that the use on Wikidata is in the future: "bugzilla:40810 will allow to power this feature with MediaWiki itself, via Wikidata: see d:Wikidata:Development plan#Badges". Searching Wikidata (Wikidata & Property namespaces), I can't find any information about how badges are implemented (ie. how can I edit a WD item so that the badge will appear on Wikipedia articles?). I have not edited Wikidata and don't know much about it besides the purpose it serves. I found this deletion nom from the notice at the top of Template:Link GA. All documentation regarding the List FA/GA/FL templates must be updated before deletion! For example, Help:Interlanguage links#Featured articles and good articles only mentions Template:Link FA or Template:Link GA to show badges. Browsing through the "What links here" of LinkFA and limiting to the Wikipedia namespace, it is mentioned on several content pages and many discussion/help archives. I don't feel like spending time finding the important pages where the Link FA/GA/FL templates are mentioned. If the templates are deprecated, given the large number of links, can the template pages remain as a soft redirect to a Wikidata page about Badges (and maybe a note that the template is deprecated)? That way, someone who searches for and reads any discussions/help mentioning the templates can reach those pages and understand what has happened to them. I oppose deleting this template until:
  1. it is clear that this is handled on Wikidata and there is no need for it on WP (eg. due to bugs),
  2. someone goes through "What links here" on the template and finds documentation which should be updated and updates that information
  3. the template is no longer used. That doesn't just mean that someone removes the template from every page where it is used. If removed from a page, the badge still needs to work (make sure Wikidata has the information). Don't just remove this template from a page, such that the badge no longer appears as intended.
AHeneen (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

AHeneen thanks for your very useful comments. I left a message at wikidata:Wikidata_talk:Development_plan#Link_FA.2FGA.2FFL_templates_now_in_TfD_in_English_Wikipedia. I updated the Help documentation. there is a bot, Dexbot removing Link FA/FL/GA links only when the badge exists in Wikidata. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata can store badges. They are used to display badges next to the links to other language versions in the left sidebar. See for example that there are no badges defined in the source of Berlin. They are coming from d:Q64. You can see them next to the links in the right sidebar there. Hope that clarifies what is possible. If you have more questions please let me know. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:55, 22 February 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:Editnotices/Page/Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete as obsolete Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Filming has already begun, and the draft has been deleted. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:03, 16 February 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:Paris Metro/transfer[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete as obsolete Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Paris Metro/transfer (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Paris Metro/transfers (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Paris Metro/transfers with logo (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:RER/transfer (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:RER/transfers (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:RER/transfers with logo (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Paris tramway/transfer (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Paris tramway/transfers with logo (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Transilien/transfer (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Transilien/transfers (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Transilien/transfers with logo (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Redundant to {{Rail-interchange}}. Only a couple of transclusions—mostly in the line infoboxes and navboxes—have more than one line symbol. [Edit: All transclusions replaced with {{Rail-interchange}}. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)]

Jc86035 (talkcontributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 03:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This RFD appears to have completely broken articles relying on these templates. (for example, Paris Métro Line 14) 67.182.146.5 (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed all the infoboxes. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:23, 17 February 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:World football transfer record[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 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:World football transfer record (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Unsourced OR... JMHamo (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Templates don't need to be sourced do they?--Mishae (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete fancruft The Banner talk 13:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per The Banner's comment. There is way too much bottom-of-the-page cruft in our sports articles already. We don't need to be inventing more of it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as utter fancruft. GiantSnowman 13:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - as cruft but also specifically noting that none of the historic transfers are adjusted for inflation so are not comparable and there is no clear rationale why £ are used as opposed to the transactional currency translated at a spot rate on the date of the transfer. Fenix down (talk) 11:14, 18 February 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.

February 8[edit]

Template:Infobox SBTVD standard[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was merge; no objections Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox SBTVD standard (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (8 transclusions)
Template:Infobox technology standard (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete) (33 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox SBTVD standard with Template:Infobox technology standard.
Similar templates. No need for a specific SBTVD variant.

(See also proposal to merge Infobox W3C standard) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Note: My preference would be to drop the Spanish and Portuguese titles, but I'm happy to hear alternative suggestions. If kept, the merged temate could use a single, generic, |native_name= parameter, with the titles for SBTDV standards entered using {{Lang-pt}}/{{Lang-es}} within {{Plainlist}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Hi. These two template seem to have very little in common. But I am asking myself: Is it bad to have author, organization and other technology data in SBTVD pages? A little consistency isn't bad at all; it enables better machine readability for infoboxes. Still, all these seem to have no immediate ROI. But again, is it bad? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox South Korean musician awards/music show[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G8 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 14:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

unused, may be a subtemplate of template:Infobox South Korean musician awards, but cannot confirm since that template is deleted. Frietjes (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Canberra Capitals 2014/15 Roster[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 in favour of the current roster template Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Canberra Capitals 2014/15 Roster (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Canberra Capitals 2013/14 Roster (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Canberra Capitals 2012/13 Roster (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Canberra Capitals 2011/12 Roster (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Canberra Capitals 2010/11 Roster (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

This navbox has been determined to be redundant to Template:Canberra Capitals current roster per previous TfM discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 12#Template:Canberra Capitals current roster. The standard practice of the major league sports WikiProjects is to maintain current roster templates, not year-by-year annual roster templates. Apart from the current team navboxes, the only annual roster navboxes should be those for teams that win major national or international championships; in this case the 2014/15 team navbox needs to go. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

[Please note that the second through fifth templates were added to this TfD discussion on 9 February 2015 in response to Rikster2's comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)]
  • @Rikster2: Sorry, Rik, I missed these because the 2014/15 roster navbox was not categorized. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Frietjes:@Hawkeye7: Please clarify if you think we should delete all five of these annual rosters. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
yes, but, in the event that per-season articles are created, it would be good to either (a) merge the content with the talk page, (b) merge the content with the article, (c) merge the content into the edit history of Template:Canberra Capitals current roster, or (d) move them all to article space as "20XX-YY Canberra Capitals season" , and redirect them to the various sections of the main article. basically anything that preserves this information for use later. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 9 February 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:Colourbox[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 redirect to {{colorbox}} Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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

appears this never caught on, and just fixed at least one place where it was confused with {{colour box}}. if this is really needed, it should be merged with {{league icon}}. suggest deleting and redirecting to {{color box}} or {{colorbox}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete/ redirect per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment there must be a better way to name {{color box}} and {{colorbox}} than the existence of a space. Can those be merged? -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If deleted redirect to template:colorbox per matching non-spaced version -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't delete per 70.51.200.101; it's quite clearly a plausible redirect for {{colorbox}} if its present condition be deemed unnecessary, and there's no problematic content that needs to be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Deutsche Bahn station[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was merge {{Infobox Deutsche Bahn station}} into Infobox station, taking care the wrapper at {{Infobox Bahnhof}} doesn't break Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox Deutsche Bahn station with Template:Infobox station.
As with {{Infobox China station}}, is redundant to {{Infobox station}}. No features that aren't already in Infobox station, and aside from locale, ds100 and exits could probably be substituted. Should be merged first using wrapper and then substitution and cleanup.

In addition, if Infobox Deutsche Bahn station is merged, {{Infobox Bahnhof}} should be modified to fit Infobox station. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox Paris metro[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 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox Paris metro with Template:Infobox station.
As with {{Infobox China station}}, is redundant to {{Infobox station}}. No features that aren't already in Infobox station, although the use of subtitle is unclear, as there is a complete lack of useful documentation. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox China station[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was merge. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox China station with Template:Infobox station.
{{Infobox China station}} is quite similar to {{Infobox station}} and contains no parameters specific to Chinese railway or subway stations. [EDIT: Except station-code (pinyin), which could be added in a new section for "Chinese name", similar to the "Korean name" section. Some other parameters, such as bus and airport, could be transferred into existing parameters in Infobox station, such as connections. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)]

There would be issues with the logos, but checks could be performed for all of the common combinations using a parser function (replacing with symbols in {{Rail-interchange}}) and the rest could be dealt with manually. Merging should be performed by first changing the template to a wrapper for Infobox station and then substituting all instances and replacing any parser functions. The template could be retained as just a modified wrapper (e.g. replacing the logos with the symbol implementation), if preferable, as there are over 1,600 transclusions. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. No need for a separate, near-identical template for one country. I see no need to keep as a wrapper, but would keep the title as a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. I would much rather see general "transliteration" parameters that supersede the "Korean name" parameters and could be used for this templates station-code parameter as well. For me, having three different transliterations in an infobox is overkill, and IMO a single one should suffice, but I can live with having three different ones if we must. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:54, 16 February 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:GameFAQs[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 remove external links using this template, substitute other uses, and delete. This is a difficult discussion to close, because very few arguments are brought forward on why to delete or to keep the template. There is consensus in this discussion that GameFAQs should not be used as an external link. But TfD doesn't traditionally concern itself with whether or not something should be used as an external link, and is the wrong venue to hold that discussion - consensus found locally at TfD about the issue could normally be easily brushed aside by anyone on procedural grounds. That said, during this discussion, changes have been made to our external links policy, which seem to have found consensus and is the correct venue, and the discussion here reaffirms that consensus.
There is a clear numerical majority that says we should delete the template, so the outcome of this discussion is delete. The large number (1000+) of current transclusions have to be either substituted or removed before deletion. With the consensus that GameFAQs is not suitable as an external link, substituting the templates when used to create an external link would be unhelpful and against the spirit of the discussion here, and the only reasonable action is to remove all external links that use this template. When this template is used for anything other than an external link - which probably only comes down to references, if anything - This discussion doesn't show consensus, and the safe thing to do is to substitute the template in those cases. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • Delete - In any good video game article, every piece of useful information provided by GameFAQs (release dates, developer info, explanatory screenshots, and a compilation of notable reviews) should be included anyway, and with reliable sources to back them up. So there's no reason for GameFAQs to ever be included as an external link, much less have its own template.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template generates a link that is not sanctioned by WP:EL. Once in blue moon, GameFAQs can be used as a source for something very trivial. But this template doesn't help that case either. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - WP:VG/EL is wrong in assuming that external links must abide by WP:ISNOT. That assumption would preclude Wikimedia sister project links. GameFAQs includes a lot of information that Wikipedia deems minutiae such as release and ratings data, credits, yet are still useful for comprehensive coverage and further study. I'd treat GameFAQs links the same way as imdb or MobyGames links. - hahnchen 12:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: GameFAQs isn't used as a WP:VG/RS on Wikipedia, because the information provided is user-submitted without any oversight. If we would add release dates, credits or ratings to articles we have to look elsewhere, so why link to GameFAQs for that kind of information when we've decided for ourselves that we can't use it? Besides, WP:ELYES no. 3 reads: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" and WP:ELMAYBE no. 4 reads: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." GameFAQs is solely user-submitted and we can't check if the material provided is accurate. --Soetermans. T / C 13:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
imdb and MobyGames relies on user submissions and are not reliable sources. Wikipedia is better with links to them. - hahnchen 16:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
True, but they're not the same, are they? As far as I know, those two provide content unlike any other websites. There are hundreds of websites that offer the same content as GameFAQs. --Soetermans. T / C 17:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm inclined to agree with User:Hahnchen. That a website is created with user-submitted content shouldn't be related to usefulness as an external link. For example, the user-generated IMDb is one of the most popular film-related websites, and nearly every film or actor page you will find on Wikipedia lists their IMDb page as an external link (and FYI, someone did once propose Template:IMDB for deletion at here. Why should Wikipedia's video game articles and popular video game websites be any different? Canuck89 (talk to me) 05:33, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
Note: Again, they're not the same. As far as I know, IMDb provides content unlike any other website. The film industry uses IMDb too, so that's another reason. I have cited several Wikipedia guidelines, I'll summarize them thematically.
  • GameFAQs is a website that mainly provides gameguide material. WP:VG/EL states: "external links should not be added to include material that explicitly defines the gameplay on certain aspects of the video game". That's just what GameFAQs provides, cheatcodes, walkthroughs, maps of collectables, you name it. That fails WP:ELYES no. 3: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". To understand Halo 3 you don't have to know about Achievements, enemies, vehicles or what cheats there are. Other stuff, the board, answers, images and videos, are all easy to find elsewhere. It shows a Metacritic summary, developer, publisher and releasedate. All the stuff we as an encyclopedia also try to provide, only with reliable sources.
  • GameFAQs isn't reliable source because it depends on user-submitted material which cannot be checked, even for other content besides gameguide-like material. That fails WP:ELYES no. 3: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", because we can't check if it is accurate, let alone well-written or understandable. It doesn't pass WP:ELMAYBE no. 4: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources and WP:ELNO no. 2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." We cannot be sure that the content provided is the least bit true.
  • GameFAQs isn't unique. There are hunderds of video game websites out there, so favoring GameFAQs is giving it a bigger spot than it deserves in the External links section. --Soetermans. T / C 10:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The information GameFAQs provides isn't in the interest for a general reader of Wikipedia. So to argue that it is reasonable to link to GameFAQs for the other information it occassionally offers besides gameguides doesn't make sense: if we Wikipedians say it isn't reliable, why should the general reader use it? --Soetermans. T / C 15:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Both this discussion and the one originally cited are founded on extremely bad information, and therefore I think it'd be best to summarily dismiss this proposition of deletion. It's blatantly false that GameFAQs has no editorial oversight; unlike even Wikipedia, all content on GameFAQs undergoes editorial review and ratification (not the message boards, obviously). Additionally, one would be quite mistaken in presuming GameFAQs is not a unique resource. Comparing it to MobyGames -- the template of which is not currently being discussed for deletion -- there is similarity insofar as they both offer fundamentally the same types of information; assuming the same game is documented on both sites, neither provide data that can't be found or submitted on the other. Moving past that, it is true that they're not the same, but the distinction of exceptionalism lies with GameFAQs, not any other that incidentally offers the same type of content. The simple fact of the matter is that GameFAQs is the single most complete and comprehensive games database in the world. You might as well nominate IMDB's template for deletion because both IMDB and Star Wars fansites bear cast, release and trivia information for Star Wars films. The point is IMDB's by far the most comprehensive site of its kind in the medium of film, and the same goes for GameFAQs vis-à-vis video games. GameFAQs' data may not be critically necessary for many known and modern games, but there are many thousands of games for which GameFAQs may be the only resource, hence the utility of the template. And again, there is no particular reason to doubt them as a resource since there is an effective and reasonable editorial oversight in place. ZZanimar (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Reply: Could you provide a reliable source that would prove "GameFAQs is the single most complete and comprehensive games database in the world"? How is it the "most complete"? Or can you show that it does in fact have editorial oversight? Can you explain how it is unique? What does GameFAQs provide what others do not? I'm sorry, but you say a lot of things without backing any claim up with a valid source or argument. GameFAQs provides "how-to" guides to play (and finish) video games. I have to repeat myself yet again to say that the information provided in the first place simply isn't notable to link to. WP:ELYES no. 3: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". I looked up Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) on GameFAQs, to see what other information it provides. Release dates, which are user-submitted, FAQs (walkthroughs, passwords, boss guide, map images), cheats, reviews (the user-submitted aren't notable), the critical reception is copied from GameRankings. Images, videos, a Q&A forum and the board. Nothing substantial that would provide a greater understanding, there is no background information, no character sketches, no developer logs, no cultural impact. --Soetermans. T / C 13:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: relisted on request, after originally closed as no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - gives the website undue weight (there are dozens of them); the website should at least instead be used as a source; and even as an external link, should be substituted. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, doesn't add much, and there are already so many sites like this. Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Game-based wikias are fine - in which the knowlodge of the masses does help to assure the details are approach, but GameFAQs is not a wiki - it is a collection of text files and forums, and lack the knowledge of the commons that we'd like to see. I would delete, not so much that it fails ELNO, but simply that nowadays, wikis offered by Wikia or from a site like IGN or Giant Bomb are better maintained. --MASEM (t) 04:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm in favor of liberal external link laws anyway, but GameFAQs is useful for finding release detail-type stuff that other sites don't, particularly for older games. It'd be nice if they were more transparent about their methodology, if indeed they're not just pulling it out of their butts, but maybe there's just no standardized way to cite your sources there so they don't bother. Either way, it's better than nothing. Tezero (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Soetermans' sentiments. Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just to note, nom edited the VG MOS to remove GameFAQs from acceptable templates and added the site to inappropriate links after nominating template for deletion. I assume good faith - indeed Soetermans was involved in a WP:VG discussion and asked if editing the MOS was acceptable (neither a yes nor a no was received). But it's worth noting for anyone weighing in on this topic by referring to the MOS as I was. I'm also puzzled by the bit "Additionally, Wikipedia is not a game guide - external links should not be added to include material that explicitly defines the gameplay on certain aspects of the video game." It's vague and can be used to justify inclusion of virtually any link as any external link would inevitably talk about how a game plays. It also refers to WP:NOT, which defines content on Wikipedia, not external links, so it is flawed in that respect. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Reply Hi Jtalledo, thanks for your input. As you can see here, I changed the WP:VG/MOS on Feb 5, while I proposed the deletion on Jan 28. I actually did ask if editing the MOS was okay, to which I didn't got a reply. The 'opposed' arguments were WP:DOESNTHURT, WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:LONGTIME. Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, I exhaustively have been citing Wikipedia's guidelines on why having GameFAQs in a template is not okay and that a couple of experienced editors agreed with me, eventually I just boldly changed the MOS. That paragraph could use some work, thanks for pointing that out. --Soetermans. T / C 18:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay. Thanks for clarifying. That MOS reads that is is permissible to link to the IMDb, MobyGames and Wikia on a case by case basis, all of which rely on user submissions. Is there is any difference between GameFAQs and those sites GF should be verboten but the others okay? --Jtalledo (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
        • If we have to make a comparison, the film industry itself also uses IMDb and as far as I know, that actually is the most well-known film-related website. MobyGames solely collects information for its database. I'm not saying that MobyGames should stay, but it does provide basic information about games, even if it is user-submitted. In the reply to Zzanimar I looked up Sonic the Hedgehog on GameFAQs. On MobyGames, it shows credits, a trivia section, other titles, that kind of stuff. So for the argument that GameFAQs can be used for credits and release dates, we already have MobyGames (which, unlike GameFAQs, doesn't provide walkthroughs). Dedicated wikias often provide more information besides gameplay. Take for instance the Fallout wiki, which also functions as a gameguide, but also provides additional in-universe information and behind-the-scenes stuff. In the original discussion at WT:VG, I made a comparison with IGN, which also provides gameguide material. If I were to add IGN to video game articles, you'd be right to cite WP:LINKSPAM. My reaction then would be "Yeah, but what about GameFAQs?" You'd be right to cite WP:OTHERSPAM, which just proves that GameFAQs itself is also not an appropriate link to have. --Soetermans. T / C 13:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
          • I've never linked to GameFAQs because I prefer Mobygames. If an editor in good faith believes that IGN is the best external link for an article, then they can link to that, and they can use a template. The presence of a template is not an endorsement, it's just there for convenience so that if ever the target databases change, we don't have to go through every instance of the link. With GameFAQs, and in your Sonic example, one might prefer its compilation appearances data which may not feature elsewhere. To lobby for deletion of the template is essentially saying it is never appropriate to link there. As I said, my personal preference is for Mobygames, but I'm not seeking to enforce my personal preference onto others. - hahnchen 19:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
            • Personally, I don't see anything wrong with MobyGames, because it has more background information and doesn't provide walkthroughs. Thing is, the Sonic the Hedgehog article itself has a section on alternate versions and ports, of which one subsection also links to the article Compilations in the Sonic series. For argument's sake, let's imagine that we don't have that section and article: should we link to general page of Sonic the Hedgehog, just so that the general reader of Wikipedia might know about which compilations the game also appeared? I don't think so.
I think you're exaggerating a bit when saying that deleting the template is the same as saying linking to GameFAQs is never okay. We can still link there, without having it in a template form. I'd be happy to go through all the article on which the GameFAQs template is used and check whether or not it actually worth having as an EL. --Soetermans. T / C 16:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
If it's OK to link to GameFAQs, then you should keep the template. The template is not an endorsement. You can go through the ELs right now with the template still in place. An editor can in good faith link to GameFAQs, the Sonic page doesn't just show the compilation data, it shows the release data and credits. An editor in good faith could choose that combination; Mobygames might not have the corresponding data for other games. I argue to discourage the use of Gamerankings when a Metacritic score already exists, but I don't argue for the deletion of Gamerankings altogether. - hahnchen 18:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying it is inherently wrong to link to GameFAQs, what I'm saying again and again is that:
1) The content that GameFAQs generally provides, walkthroughs and cheats, is clearly not for the general reader of Wikipedia. I don't think anyone would disagree with me there: gameguides shouldn't be linked, right? Then we have the rest of the information that GameFAQs provides.
2) GameFAQs isn't a reliable website, because the information is user-submitted. We can't check if it's factual. If we want to add release dates and credits we have to look elsewhere, so why should we direct readers to an entry on GameFAQs, not knowing whether or not it's true? About the credits, Wikipedia usually shows the most important people working on a game. A long list of credits doesn't seem like "relevant to the encyclopedic understanding" of a video game to me. And because it relies on submission by users, not every entry there has a credits listing. Rage, a relatively new game, has no credits for instance, while Skyrim mentions director Todd Howard. For articles about older games that use the template, the classic Castle Wolfenstein was released in 1981, GameFAQs says it was released in 1983. It mentions a total of three people working on the game. Adventure (1979 video game), a game I've never heard of, has a pretty decent article. The designer is mentioned, and the release dates, just as Wikipedia. I'm not going to be a dick about it and removes those two, just to make a point though.
3) There are dozens of other websites just like GameFAQs that have the same information. You say it is not an endorsement, but I do think it encourages people to use it, otherwise why would have it? --Soetermans. T / C 19:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
There may be situations where linking to a FAQ is useful. Some may provide detailed plot synopses; in Forza Motorsport 5, our stupid application of WP:GAMEGUIDE means we list the tracks on the soundtrack, but omit the tracks that are actually part of the game. Credits, cast lists, release data is absolutely "relevant to th encyclopedic understanding". It's why we link to imdb and MobyGames, how we you know they are correct? Clearly there are other sites like GameFAQs - I've stated my preference for MobyGames, yet I'm not arguing for the removal of all link templates aside from Mobygames. - hahnchen 20:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If anybody would stumble upon a GameFAQs entry that has a better plot summary than Wikipedia, that would mean we, the editors, haven't done a very good job. We'll have to work on the article, not to link to another website! Again, Wikipedia does show release dates and the most important people working on a game and I also said "A long list of credits doesn't seem like "relevant to the encyclopedic understanding" of a video game to me." Ken Levine is an important figure, but BioShock programmer Jake Etgeton has no other credits as far as GameFAQs is concerned. So even if some games have a credits list, even if they're factual, how is that "encyclopedic"? Person X worked on Game X. I'm a gamer myself, and I haven't gained any better understanding of one of my all-time favorite video games, knowing that Jake Etgeton programmed it. So how would that help Jane and John Wikipedia-Reader to understand BioShock better? Again, WP:OTHERSTUFF that we aren't discussing like MobyGames and IMDb is brought up. So, again, as far as I know, the film industry itself uses IMDb as a way of communication and actually is the most well-known film website. About MobyGames, its sole purpose is to collect and categorize games for its database. That's it. No walkthroughs, no cheats, no collectables finding guide. --Soetermans. T / C 21:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm not opposed to deleting this, but I think deleting this template is the wrong approach. What WP:VG needs is a standard, consistent policy regarding these kinds of sites. All these arguments - favoritism, accuracy, reliability, reliance on user contributions etc could apply to most of the templates in Category:Video game external link templates. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    I'm glad that you agee with me, Jtalledo, but that's a bit WP:ALLORNOTHING or WP:WHATABOUTX. I think getting rid of a couple of those (for instance, the GameSpot, IGN or Metacritic templates) might be a good idea, in the mean time we could get rid of this one as a kind of jurisprudence. --Soetermans. T / C 16:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is clearly WP:ELNO. And WP:VG/MOS says don't link to that website. I applaud WP:VG/MOS for banning it. Fleet Command (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
See the two posts directly above - the changes to the MOS were only made recently. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
@Jtalledo: Are we good now? Fleet Command (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, we were never bad. ;) --Jtalledo (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete As per my comments in the original WP:VG discussion. I can't see any reason to keep it. I can't see why we allow this external link carte blanche to be added to the bottom of an article regardless of quality, yet links to in depth articles on Edge or Eurogamer for example have to pass the external link tests. Its a left-over from a by-gone era of WP:VG, it should have gone at the same time as the links to MobiGame. - X201 (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - If anyone has access, they might be interested in checking out Issue 2, Volume 6 of International Journal of Digital Curation (pages 109-127). It's all about how fan-created gameguide documents (of which GameFAQs - which is covered in the paper - is arguably the best known host) are as important to historians as the code of the games themselves. I'm torn on the question myself. -Thibbs (talk) 23:51, 12 February 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:Churches in the City of Rome[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Nobody has opposed a rename to basilicas, so that can be done. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

I consolidated my arguments:

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

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

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

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

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

I notified him on his home Italian Wikipedia. —PC-XT+ 06:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a little crowded, but still seems useful as a navbox. Some organisation might help (grouped by initial letter of the name, or municipo), but that could be done on the talk page. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Delete, crowded and not much organization per Martijn Hoekstra. It appears to only include Basilica; should this be renamed to Basilica in the City of Rome? I count two more entries in the template than in the category. Maintenance will be a problem. Are there basilica for which there are no articles? The template could be helpful in identifying what's missing. Basilica of Saint Lawrence outside the Walls is listed here as Minor; however, it:Template:Basiliche patriarcali lists it as Major; is there a definitive answer?
    SBaker43 (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
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) 05:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: unorganized and lacks defined inclusion criteria Jc86035 (talkcontributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, with ~900 churches in Rome, this is better served by a category and list article. Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Rename to "Roman basilicas" or "Basilicas in Rome". If this isn't all of the basilicas, it's most of them and could easily be expanded to being complete. Nothing wrong with having a navbox for all of the city's basilicas. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Rename for Basilicas —PC-XT+ 12:23, 18 February 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:A.R. Kane[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. No consensus as to whether this navbox is a useful navigation aid. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

  • Keep as template creator - five links, not including the one back to the band article. Plenty of scope for expansion, should articles on singles be created. GiantSnowman 12:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @GiantSnowman: A. R. Kane article itself, two albums, and Pump Up the Volume. That's four counting the parent article. The links to MARRS And Colourbox do not count toward WP:NENAN, because those articles do not (and should not) use this template. And explain to me how the singles have potential, as none of them appear to have even charted. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 23:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:NENAN is an essay, not policy - and the other links are valid. GiantSnowman 10:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The other links do not aid in navigation, as the MARRS and Colourbox articles do not use the template. So in your opinion, the template would grow more valid if I larded it out with more links to tangentially connected acts and articles? Why not link an article on Arcanine since it's a Pokémon whose name sounds like the band's name while we're at it? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. Three links does not make for a useful navigational aide, and being a useful navigational aide is the reason navboxes exist - though I'd like to see research on how much our navboxes are actually used. I doubt it's much, but that's a different thing altogether. These links are easily presented in the article proper, and the redlinks are very unlikely to ever turn blue. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • keep, seems fine, and nothing has changed since the last two times it was nominated for deletion. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 8 February 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:Olympic Games opening ceremonies[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 into a combined template, and rename the combination to {{Olympic opening and closing ceremonies}} Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

  • Comment If merged, a new template would be created at {{Olympic Games opening and closing ceremonies}} to indicate the new edit history, with the two old names redirecting to the new name. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I edit Olympic athlete bios frequently, so I am familiar with the structure of our Olympic Games articles and I understand the logic of merging the navbox templates for the opening and closing ceremonies. Having said that, I see a much bigger problem with these templates: 75% or more of the linked ceremonies are red links to non-existing articles, and to my way of thinking, that should never happen. Furthermore, some of these red-linked articles are never going to be created -- does anyone believe that the 1896 opening and closing ceremonies require a stand-alone article? And I'm sure that is true for many, if not most other Olympiads, too. The phenomena of Olympic opening and closing ceremonies as major spectacles/events, notable separate and apart from the Games themselves, is a relatively modern thing. This requires greater discussion, and quite probably should involve a larger discussion of whether we are fragmenting our Olympic articles into too many separate pieces. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Couldn't these titles be redirected to the associated games' article? ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  19:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Frankly, Salvidrim, I think it would be entirely appropriate to condense, merge and redirect the separate articles for opening and closing ceremonies into the parent articles for the given Olympiads. But take a look at the 2012 opening ceremonies article: it's a Good Article, literally with minute-by-minute coverage of the opening ceremonies in excruciating detail. Personally, I believe it's overkill beyond reason; no newspaper, magazine or other encyclopedia would ever publish something like it, but Wikipedia lacks independent editorial control and so these articles grow to almost absurd proportions with no checks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Wrong! The Telegraph did just that near enough after the opening ceremony to London 2012. Having said taht if you look at teh sources near enough all of the major newpapers/news agencies were doing it. 21:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.241.163 (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • merge, the notability of the individual articles can be debated at AfD. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge, and then rename them to "Olympic opening and closing ceremonies" for length reasons; remember that we're dealing with a template here, which need not have a "full" name. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 14 February 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:Firefox release compatibility[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

  • Keep. I've added it to History of Firefox. -Mardus (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Substitute and delete. I cannot foresee any further use other than on the article of its only transclusion, mentioned above. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. To be fair, this template could be used in both Firefox and History of Firefox, although it does need updating. - 72.182.60.18 (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Political parties in Donetsk People's Republic[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete while there are articles to navigate Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

  • Delete per Aleksandr's reasoning. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I find this nomination bizarre as the articles linked to in the template are well sourced. The groups clearly exist and are covered by reliable sources. Is the nominator's real objection perhaps that he considers the organizations to be illegitimate? If so, that's not a valid rationale for deleting them or this template which aids in navigation among them. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • By the way, the template itself is not tagged for deletion. Aleksandr Grigoryev, you need to make a protected edit request in order to do this. Without this tag in place for several days, this discussion cannot be closed. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Psychonaut, the only really well referenced article is on the Donetsk Republic (political party) which in fact is a public movement rather than a political party. It is a technical term, I agree, but it only shows that whoever created the template his or her familiarization in politics of Ukraine. The reason for nomination is the fact that the article is created by a blocked user and the user whose expertise in politics of Ukraine are in question. Other parties like Communists and Novorossiya do not even exist as they were merged. It is clearly stated in their respective articles. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep while there are articles to navigate, without restricting renomination in the future, if this changes. —PC-XT+ 05:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Creating a template that includes only two barely notable Parties does not make a lot of sense. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nominator. Jackninja5 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: only a few transclusions, one on a page which is going through the AFD process. Could be replaced with a "See also" section in all articles (with a proper portal link), as it contains just 7 blue links. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per Jc86035, nom, and others ... can be replaced by "see also" links Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Issues of original research abound. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, because right now it provides useful navigation. We can do a G8 speedy deletion if all of the navigated articles (the two parties, not the portal and the list at bottom) get deleted. Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nominator's concerns belong on discussions about the pages themselves, not this template. As long as the pages for the parties continue to exist, I don't see a good reason to delete the template. The template is also preferable to a "See also" section since it also provides at-a-glance information on the parties' comparative standing. —Nizolan (talk) 17:26, 14 February 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:Electronics industry in the United States[edit]

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

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

It doesn't matter weather it's a company involved with the manufacturing or development of computers, semiconductors, or radio equipment, they are all electronics. Also, what articles are you talking about that are unrelated to template? Seqqis (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of these articles don't have a navbox, but it would be better to narrow down the criteria to direct competitors or otherwise directly related articles. (That is, directly related to each other, not just to the template.) —PC-XT+ 02:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • So split up the template based on what electronics industry the company(ies) deals in? Like a section of the template displaying companies dealing in laptops and another section dealing smartphones or video game hardware? But that may make the template seem too big. Seqqis (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I was thinking of splitting into multiple templates, each covering, possibly, one industry. That would keep each template smaller. One template could cover several related sections as long as the list doesn't become too long, though. That's just my opinion. —PC-XT+ 11:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I tried that before, I've created video gaming industry templates. But someone didn't think they we're necessary, and they all got deleted. Here's the link:Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_11#Video_gaming_industry_in..._templates Seqqis (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Yeah, these things can be hard. It might be best to start by finding a few related articles without navboxes, with one article that ties them all together in a specific way, and make a navbox for them. When there are several related such navboxes, they can be merged into one with sections. Even then, someone will probably complain at some point, but editors will not be so inclined to delete the template if it has specific inclusion criteria. —PC-XT+ 06:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • delete as too broad to be useful as a navigational aid, though I don't oppose orphaning and userfication if the creator wants to use this as a base for one or several more focussed navboxes. Keep in mind though that not everything needs a navbox. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, scope is too broad. Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Split into multiple templates, relative to the industries the companies compete(d) in. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 03:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The category could possibly use splitting, as well. —PC-XT+ 12:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Mental disorders as defined by the DSM and ICD (alphabetical list)[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete as too broad to be useful in navigating Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Mental disorders as defined by the DSM and ICD (alphabetical list) (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Having navboxes that provide alphabetical listings of large topics is not useful. I propose that this navbox, used on only four actual pages, be deleted. I cannot imagine that this sort of navbox helps readers... it should be replaced with more subject-specific navboxes on all pages. Tom (LT) (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, better served by a category. Frietjes (talk) 16:28, 8 February 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:City localisation[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete as unused and redundant Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Unused, redundant template JMHamo (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment template is broken, it's missing a