Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

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

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

Closing instructions

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

Shortcuts: WP:TFD WP:TD

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

[edit] How to use this page

[edit] What not to propose for discussion here

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

Stub templates

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

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

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

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

List at Redirects for discussion.

[edit] Reasons to delete a template

Shortcut: WP:TFD#REASONS

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

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

[edit] Listing a template

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

I

Tag the template.

Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:

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

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

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

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

II

List the template at Tfd.

Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

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

For deletion:

{{subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
For merging:

{{subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

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

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

{{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

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

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

{{subst:Catfd2|category name}}

III

Notify users.

It is considered civil to notify the creator and main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then add

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

to the talk pages of these users, as well as any related WikiProjects (look on the template's talk page), so that they are aware of the discussion. (There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: you should write a personal message in these cases.)

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

[edit] Discussion

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

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

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

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

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] March 3

[edit] Template:Infobox FEI World Equestrian Games

Orphaned; superfluous to {{Infobox games}} (with which I just replaced the only 7 instances) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox HK District

Only 17 transclusions; redundant to {{infobox settlement}}, to which it should be made a front-end, then SUBSTed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox storm

Only 9 transclusions; redundant to {{Infobox hurricane}} (though this template has the better name), See also the ongoing Infobox winter storm TfD Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox criminal

Redundant to {{Infobox person}}, which has direct equivalence for all parameters save |motive=, which can be added to the latter (as |criminal_motive=), if widely use in the nominated template (this tracking category should confirm). Here's a sample conversion, though the full job would best be done by front-ending then SUBSTing, perhaps followed by a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Fb team Undy Athletic

No Content in Manual of Style Rahul Mothiya ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 03:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Nominator's rationale doesn't make sense; used in one article; part of a rather complex series of football templates. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ophiuchus

all the recordings are redlinked. Frietjes (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It 'll be created later by any other user . So , not a big deal . Rahul Mothiya ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 03:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete this is not about Ophiuchus. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment the title {{Ophiuchus}} should be redirect to {{Stars of Ophiuchus}} 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Weak keep and clean up; we could plausibly end up populating this. This is a navbox, for navigation. It shouldn't list every member of the band unless they're intended to have articles. Also, it may be a good idea to move this per 70.24's suggestion. --N Y Kevin @778, i.e. 17:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] March 2

[edit] Template:Infobox European Union agency

redundant to {{Infobox organisation}} (sample conversion) losing only the over-large and unneccessary map; and the undefined "signed" date, but adding the "type". Only 32 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox WFYS

Orphan; I've replaced the only 7 instances with {{Infobox summit}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Archie Comics character

redundant to {{Infobox comics character}} or {{Infobox character}}; only 21 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox winter storm

Redundant to {{Infobox hurricane}}; only 84 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Currently using this infobox for the extratropical european windstorms, and don't think it is redundant to the hurricane infobox as they are quite different phenomena.Lacunae (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- which parameters of the nominated template can you not use in the 'hurricane' alternative? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: here is a sample conversion for a European cyclone. Note that {{Infobox hurricane}} works from raw numbers in some parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
See also: My nomination for Infobox storm (it has only 9 transclusions). All three templates should probably be combined at that name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- First issue is the loss of information for where wind speeds occurred. Second would be the raw numbers part I think, as information about the storms comes from a variety of sources in a variety of units, as there is no central authority. 350 million became 350000 billion. storm type doesn't appear in the info box, which may cause ambiguity with tropical systems. Also damages are often not given in USD, as Euro or GBP may be more relevant.Proposal to move to a storm template or extratropical cyclone template may be more appropriate, or a merger with Template:Infobox_cyclone to an extratropical cyclone template.Lacunae (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:The Doon School

What is this template trying to achieve? What is its purpose? At the moment it is simply a badly grouped set of links (many of which are in groups of just one). The template serves no purpose and should be deleted. Bob Re-born (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This template is trying to achieve exactly what Template:Hudson River School & Template:Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney are trying to achieve, though in a more detailed and correct manner. In fact, the Doon School template was inspired by this template : Template:Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney after CT Cooper (the admin of schools portal) suggested that the Doon School page should look at Presbyterian school's wiki page to improve. That's what we did. This template is absolutely necessary as it achieves to compile many Doon School related articles under one roof for the ease of the reader.

As for changing the colours of the template, your decision was in bad taste, I'm afraid. As the template colours are always inspired by the school colours. What would you then say about Template:University of Oxford? The colours earlier used were much more easier to read, as a matter of fact. As dark blue and white share a better contrast than your light grey and white, simple colour-sense. Anyway, I am not here to annoy you, contradict you. You are entitled to your view but all I have to say is that this template is for greater good and greatly enhances the quality of the Doon School page. There are many other schools who have this sort of template, but of much poorer quality. Therefore, I will be grateful if you can revoke this deletion request. Also, in all humility, please sort this matter out as soon as you can. It is not worth of your precious time (even mine). I have many other big contributions to make in this wonderful place (I'm a highly excited newby here :P) So, please, can you repeal this? Many thanks! [[User:Merlaysamuel|Merlaysamuel]] (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox architect

Redundant to {{Infobox person}}. Has only four fields not in the latter, which can be converted thus:

|practice= = |organisation=
|significant_buildings= = |notable_works=
|significant_projects= = |notable_works=
|significant_design= = |notable_works=

using {{Plainlist}} to separate multiple entries. Also lacks many of {{Infobox person}}'s useful parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep – As someone who has created at least a dozen articles about architects, I've found this template to be useful and user-friendly (which cannot be said of the full version of "Infobox person"). The four fields unique to this template have value. Canadian2006 (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've switched the template on William Tuff Whiteway (and added some sub-templates, independent of either infobox). Please can you explain how what's there now is less user-friendly than what went before? Can you give an example of where the additional parameters add value? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  - Your changes to William Tuff Whiteway are invisible and I have no objections. I've used some of the other parameters in articles about Walter William LaChance and Paul Bartholomew, to name two. For many architects, it's sticky to separate the person's work from that of a partnership, and the infobox highlights this information, as in the LaChance article. At a glance, this communicates the pattern of LaChance's career. In the Paul Bartholomew article, the infobox distinguishes between "Buildings" and "Projects", the latter being an entire village that this architect designed. Canadian2006 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    - Thank you. I've converted each of those articles, and I'd again ask you to kindly review them, and say how the information is any less clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
      - I'm not inclined to fight to the death to preserve this infobox, but I do wonder about the conversion process. I regard the proposed deletion as a cost/benefits issue. Is there a way of seamlessly converting all Infobox-Architects to Infobox-Persons, without having a user look up and manually change each one? If not, do the benefits of dropping Infobox-Architect outweigh the hassles of conversion? Canadian2006 (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
        
        Yes; it's the sort of job usually done by a bot, or someone with a script. We have a few colleagues who are old hands at the process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep - not everyone (in fact few) people are conversant with amending info boxes. For editors creating architect articles, the architect info template is pre-set up and useful. As the proposer admits, the infobox has additional pre-sets which are tailored to architecture articles. Sionk (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've addressed the redundancy of the supposedly specific parameters, in my examples above; and note the simplified pro forma copy of {{infobox person}} at [Template:Infobox person#Blank template with basic parameters]]. Please explain how that (or something like it, tailored for architects, on a project page) is more confusing than the nominated template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep This template is not a "replacement" for Template:Infobox person, it amends it for ease of use in a certain type of article. It is NOT a completely separate template. In that regard, I think it's a perfectly cromulent use of the template space. Circéus (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:1997–98 Honduran Liga Nacional squads

Unsourced, basically unused and non-notable Koppapa (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Pghmetrocats

Unused cat page boilerplate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Jutsus A-Z

Hardcoded TOC only used on three ancient userspace content dumps, now themselves at MfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Category A-Z TOC

Hardcoded instance of {{category TOC}}. Code is simple enough to transclude directly. Recommend substitution of existing examples. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. It's so much easier to type and remember {{CatAZ}} then {{Category TOC|numerals=no}}. Dawynn (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- We don't keep bad templates just because they have convenient names; but once it's deleted, we can set up a redirect at the old name, or something equally short. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete, but re-target redirects to {{Category TOC}} if they have a use as shortcuts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Gaza Flotilla Raid

If Gaza flotilla raid is going to get the infobox it needs, it won't be this one. Besides, this is not the way to make a template anyway. The template is based on a subst of Template:Infobox civilian attack, and that template can be employed when editors wish to equip that article with the requisite infobox. The nominated template is never going to be used and we don't need to retain it for historical reasons. meco (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Subst: and Delete Go ahead and use the template in the article (or {{Infobox civilian attack}} using this info) and then delete it per nom. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete in favour of using {{Infobox civilian attack}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- You do realize the template is a {{Infobox civilian attack}} that was moved to its own template page? Circéus (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
subst and delete "it takes too much room" is not a reaosn to move a single article's infobox to template namespace. Circéus (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Harvrefcol

Rename to Cite LSA. This is a citation template that use the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) style. The name is confusing, as the other Harv templates are inline. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. Renaming is OK; before I came here I thought you guys were on the deletion warpath again (standardization into One Template to Rule Them All is very definitely Not OK). If you rename this, there are other Harvcol templates to rename as well (or should be, unless some Valued Editor deleted them). Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Getting Twinkle updated from deletion to discussion in on my list. What other templates are related? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] UK + GB station infoboxes

Propose merging Template:Infobox UK disused station and Template:Infobox UK heritage station into Template:Infobox GB station.
Redundancy. Merge, rename if needed, remove navbox-like links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree with merger, all can easily be covered by a single template. --Bob Re-born (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Yet another instance of the all-infoboxes-are-redundant-to-each-other culture that is going through TFD. But if this does go through, you must be very careful: some similarly-named parameters have different purposes. For example, {{infobox GB station}} has |manager= which is for the present-day manager of the station. However, the same parameter in {{Infobox UK disused station}} is a legacy parameter treated as a synonym for |pregroup= - the owner of the station prior to 1 January 1923. There will be a lot of fixup work to do: just look in Category:Unusual parameters of Infobox station template for those which might be misusing the |line= parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- The issue with synonymous paramters for different purposes is symptomatic of the problems caused by forked/ redundant templates such as these. Looking at the specifics, the parameters in {{Infobox UK disused station}} are very badly named, and a good first step would be to run a bot, changing, say, |line= -> |founder=; |manager= -> |pre_grouping= ;|owner= -> |post_grouping=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  - I would not trust a bot to make the changes, especially if it means introducing yet another set of parameter names (founder, pre_grouping, post_grouping) which none of these templates presently use. Each article's infobox should be separately considered, because in many cases a simple one-for-one swap is unsuitable. In {{Infobox UK disused station}}, the parameters |original=, |pregroup= and |postgroup= were relatively late additions, intended to replace |line=, |manager= and |owner=; in the time which has elapsed, some station infoboxes now have all six parameters present, usually with some blank, but with all kinds of odd combinations. That is why I set up the tracking category Category:Unusual parameters of Infobox station template - initially I would sort out |line=, because this one sometimes does have a legitimate use in conjunction with |original= - see Alphington Halt railway station for example. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    - My suggestion wasn't to introduce new parameters, but to rename those which already exist, more meaningfully, to resolve a problem which you yourself have raised. It applies whether or not the templates are merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - The two templates serve different purposes. {{Infobox UK disused station}} and {{Infobox GB station}} are complementary. When a station opens or closes the template can be changed to reflect the new status, for example Alloa. As for {{Infobox UK heritage station}} this is again complementary. There are a few stations which are dual Heritage and open National Rail. These are taking the National Rail by default, however get messy due to dual owner, only part stats, etc (eg Minffordd). --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 08:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please could you explain how they are "complementary" and how merging the templates would produce a worse result? Your dual-use examples seems to emphasise the need for a single template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- The key is the title at the top of the infobox they say what they are. Keep it simple. If a station reopens, change the infobox. Simple. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 14:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox UK police

Flagged as deprecated, in favour of {{Infobox Law enforcement agency}}, since April 2008; only 34 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox UK feature

archaic markup and geographically- rather then subject-focussed. Used on a variety of articles which could use better, topic-specific templates such as {{Infobox lake}}, {{Infobox river}}, {{Infobox railway}}, {{Infobox park}}, {{Infobox building}}, or {{Infobox museum}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we probably don't need a general-purpose infobox here, though I think the cleanup here goes beyond that which TfD normally involves. This probably needs to first be deprecated and flagged with a tracking category, as all of the existing transclusions will need to be manualy migrated to whichever specialist infobox best fits them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I am the author. What I wanted to provide was a very simple general purpose template for simple features, so that the average user does not have to struggle with the (sometimes) very complex correct templates. I think it serves that purpose very well, and those who want to can migrate onto the correct template. The format is the same as Template:Infobox UK place so that all UK articles can be consistent. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox HM prison

Only 129 transclusions; scope for few more. Redundant to {{Infobox prison}}, which has all the necessary parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox UK street

Only 31 transclusions; redundant to {{Infobox street}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't see the need to delete this infobox. I prefer it as it is more concise than the aforementioned alternative and more attractive. I vote to 'keep' - also I wouldn't want to have to fix up those 31 pages if it is deleted. --TBM10 (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- We don't keep duplicate or forked templates for aesthetic reasons; the other template should be improved if it is deficient in that regard. Nor do we ave duplicate or forked templates just for conciseness; you can keep a pared-don pro-forma in your user space or a project page if you wish. Replacing 31 templates is a trivial task, for an editor with a script, or eve without. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox UK property

Only 87 transclusions. Most could use {{Infobox building}}, a few {{Infobox museum}} or {{Infobox park}}. Best approach probably to replace the latter, then blitz what's left by front-ending and SUBSTing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WrestleMania venues

The linked articles are very weakly linked to each other. WrestleMania is a one-day event, and not a major part of the identity of any of these venues. It's quite improbable that any particular reader of, say, Staples Center, is there because of an interest in WrestleMania. The link to WrestleMania in the article body is adequate. In contrast, a navbox like Template:NBA Arenas is more appropriate because a sizable portion of readers might be interested in the arena's role as an NBA venue, and want to compare it with other NBA arenas. Toohool (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. This is the template equivalent of OCAT performer by performance. Reso lute 14:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:JEL code

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

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

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) 05:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete as non-standard; use categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] March 1

[edit] Template:Now Commons (MtC drive)

This is a totally unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Admins are supposed to check to make sure transfers are done correctly before deleting local files anyways, that's why the CSD F8/nowcommons backlog is the longest of the CSD backlogs by far. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: Ebe123 has apparently resigned from doing drives, so the future of this drive is uncertain. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

~~Keep~~. The template started as a small part of the MtC drive as an alternative to the normal {{Now Commons}} - see this post.

We have {{Move to Commons}} for files that have a free license and therefore may be eligible for Commons. If someone find that the file is ok for Commons and move it to Commons they should add the normal {{Now Commons}} and an admin should check and delete if (s)he agree.

{{Now Commons (MtC drive)}} was intented to use on files we as a test moved some files with a free license to Commons WITHOUT a human checking if they were ok. Admins should NOT look on these files or delete them before someone has checked the file. The plan was that if we move some files to Commons then it is easy for users to join the MtC drive because they do not have to move the files - all they have to do is check. Once all the moved files were checked we could evaluate if it was a succes or not. --MGA73 (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom. This template really does add more bureaucracy to the process. I understand the desire to get more people involved in drives, but it adds another step to the process and you have to edit bots to process another type of file. Just unnecessary clutter. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Why should this "add more bureaucracy to the process"? --MGA73 (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Original process: Someone does a transfer > admin reviews transfer and then deletes the file if the transfer is okay

This process: Someone does a transfer > a user reviews the transfer and then changes the template if the transfer is okay > admin reviews transfer and then deletes the file if the transfer is okay

The admin still has to review it because the ultimate responsibility for the deletion is the admin's, and "someone else cleared it" won't fly if he gets it wrong. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The original process is still the main rule (if you ask me). The new process is an exception for a limited number of files.

Lets see the full process:

* Normal process: A bot adds a mtc > someone reviews the file (first review) and transfer if ok > admin reviews transfer (second review) and delete if ok.

* This process: A bot adds a mtc > a bot transfer the file and does some cleanup > someone reviews the file (first review) and marks it as ok if it is ok > admin reviews transfer (second review) and delete if ok.

So we have 2 reviews in both cases.

Perhaps what is confusing is that Ebe123 suggested that this template was also added on files moved via normal process. --MGA73 (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If this is only being used for bot transfers, it's misnamed, and has been misadvertized. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep. And that is not the only mistake made in the MtC Drive this time. As you have noticed things got a little out of hand. Personally I don't need it because I have my bot and can move 10, 100 or 1.000 files in no time if I want to. It was ment as a help for users that have problems moving files to Commons.

But since the drive seem to be dead there is no longer a need for the template. So I change my vote to delete. --MGA73 (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh the irony. I had just removed the TfD per your keep only to see that you withdrew the keep. For what it's worth, I'm quite sorry to see the drive fall apart, I've set forth a reboot proposal that'll hopefully fix things. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Chrome TOC

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Unused template. I can't see where it would be necessary or useful. Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:PrefectureTOC

Hard-coded hand-hacked TOC: can be replaced with a {{horizontal TOC}} on each of its four transclusions without negatively impacting layout or readability. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - {{horizontal TOC}} is better. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note: Someone might want to trawl through Category:Japan-related lists looking for other articles where this would be handy. I've added {{horizontal TOC}} to List of cities in Japan. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. The new template also has better accessibility and standards-compliance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ColorTOC

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

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

update I created {{List TOC}}; the doc example shows how it would replace {{ColorTOC}} in the article with a minimal footprint. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I was about to close this as no-consensus, but it appears that the new List TOC may satisfy everyone as a suitable compromise. It would be great if we could discuss the merits of that template as a replacement. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
delete and replace with {{List TOC}}} per example. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment about {{List TOC}}. (I !voted above). This template looks good to me and I think it would usefully replace {{ColorTOC}} at List of colors. I think its appearance is good, even preferable. However, I would still defer to any consensus of the editors at that article. I am often doubtful about the wisdom of generalising templates and so having more and more parameters (maintenance and naïve use become more complicated) but in this case that does not seem to be a problem. {{Horizontal TOC}} remains a useful template. Thincat (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- This has been an area of the project which has sorely needed generalising (and indeed, remarkably, has already been through several rounds of it). I'd originally hoped to avoid the need for more than one new general template, but if this does enugh to overcome the reservations of those who feel {{horizontal TOC}} is too limiting in this case I'm more than happy for that to be the result. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The newer template also has better accessibility and standards-compliance, which reinforces my delete !vote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
the new {{List TOC}} looks good, we should go with that one, and delete the {{ColorTOC}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I appreciate the work put in so far. It looks good on the talk page - can we do a trial run? It's a tough article to work with, however your new template looks good...Modernist (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete – As we develop generic templates that meet higher standards of accessibility, then it is only sensible for them to supersede the older ones. List TOC is a direct replacement which returns an improved experience for those using screen readers, and is also available for other uses as it contains less hard-coded content. --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
New {{List TOC}} looks good, a better replacement than {{Horizontal TOC}}. Nice work, guys. Alarbus (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
As long as the new template works as well as the old template to get you to where you want to go in the article, then it is OK. Keraunos (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete, striking my earlier keep, for the reasons in my earlier !vote and subsequent developments. An unusually productive discussion. Thincat (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Pleasedonotcomment

Unused template without any potential use. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

delete Unused and not useful. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
delete Not used at all - created as only edit remaining from new user. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 14:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:NASA

PD or other free-use copying should be attributed using an articlespace attribution template. This isn't an appropriate use of a talk banner. Redundant to {{include-NASA}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Support, but with a reservation about timing --- before deleting, we should have a bot run through and insert {{Include-NASA}} in the reference section of all articles whose talk pages transclude {{NASA}}. My AWB skills are quite rudimentary: I can try to do this, but I am not sure I will succeed. Chris: are you an AWB user? —hike395 (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That work is implicit in the closing of the TfD, and yes, it'll be necessary: currently this template has nearly five times as many transclusions as the correct attribution template, so lots of pages will need migrated. I don't have AWB myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete as redundant after the editing mentioned above has been properly completed. Thincat (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:AAFC

This template provides links to other articles only, therefore it does not serve useful purpose on articles. Callanecc (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the rationale. Isn't "providing links to other articles" the whole point of navigation sidebars? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

delete Really should be a navbox, so merge into {{Australian Defence Force}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was that with only linking to three articles, it would be of more help to have the links in the "See Also" section or to use a navbox. Callanecc (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Amanda Blank

Template of a musician who only came out with one album, no-notable singles, and the main article barely claims notability, template is a too soon case Delete Secret ^account 05:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. "Too soon" is what I'm thinking as well; the template navigates very few articles. Gongshow ^Talk 04:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] CFL team seasons navboxes

Only duplicates a section of their parent navboxes, (Template:BC Lions, Template:Calgary Stampeders, Template:Ottawa Renegades, Template:Saskatchewan Roughriders), the Ottawa Renegades is the worst with only five links. These were previously nominated for deletion, being lumped in with clubs that existed before the CFL. 117Avenue (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep as per everything we have already talked about. The result was no consensus. In terms of the best way to reduce redundancy, I would suggest deleting the seasons sections of the parent navboxes. Cmm3 (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I could get behind that, except for the Ottawa Renegades. I don't think navboxes are needed for so little articles. 117Avenue (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Liberia District

Orphaned, obsolete infobox (superseded by Template:Infobox settlement). Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sale el Sol

Redundant as Shakira's singles template already exist. Plus the template track listing already exists in each of the single for the album. Erick (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Japanese city (no images)

Orphaned, obsolete infobox (superseded by Template:Infobox settlement and perhaps other Japan-specific settlement infoboxes). Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

delete unused

[edit] Template:Menza

no working navigation beyond the band members. Frietjes (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

'delete The title link is to Nick Menza; the only connection is the one album Menza: Life After Deth. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 29

[edit] Template:Faizal Tahir

all red links. Frietjes (talk) 23:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete; template does not appear to be very useful; only the artist's main page has an article. Gongshow ^Talk 04:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox basketball player

Propose merging Template:Infobox basketball player with Template:Infobox basketball biography.
these templates are nearly identical. the only parameters which are in the basketball player template, but are not in the basketball biography template are |nickname= |pro_club= |draft_league= |halloffame= |agents= |updated=. there is also a minor difference with the medals expand parameter being called |show-medals= in the player template. I can add and/or fix all of these parameters, but I know that some other templates have removed the nickname and/or updated field(s), so adding those might be controversial. as for the halloffame field, there are multiple halloffame parameters in the biography template, so its possible that all could be converted to one of those, but will take some inspection. Frietjes (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge, I think it should be done. But I also think that it should leave the nickname and medals as option. Since thousands of articles use the infobox basketball player template and they use the nickname field, and they separate out the medals into a separate template, while the basketball biography one does not have nickname and combines the medals template into it. It is impossible to change the thousands of articles that use infobox basketball player, by editing them all to incorporate the medals templates. Just as so many articles are using basketball biography and do not have a nickname field (seems to be that NBA players are blocked from having this field). So I think it should be made optional that the medal templates not be included, same with nicknames - if they want to specify no for NBA players that is fine). This should solve the problem, rather than trying to change all the articles.173.216.237.132 (talk) 23:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Merge, keep |nickname= (c/f {{Infobox person}}), drop |updated= (not used by most infoboxes). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment "agents" should not be merged. Per WP:IBX, infobox content should contain less info where possible; knowing a player's agent, in most cases, seems trivial to their overall career. "nickname" seem to invite fancruft for names that are not that common. I would not merge that either.—Bagumba (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please see my comment on this matter, below.
Comment I support the merge but I oppose the inclusion of nickname. In my opinion, nickname is not encyclopedic unless the nickname is used more often (by the media and other third party sources) than the player's actual name, such as Shaq, Dr. J, Big Baby Davis. In that case, the nickname could be added to the lead (see Julius Erving) or to its own section (see Shaquille O'Neal#Media personality). Nickname field is also unnecessary because it encourage a lot of editors (mostly anonymous editors) to add unreferenced, unpopular and sometimes self-created nickname for the players. There used to be a nickname field on the old {{Infobox NBA biography}} (which evolves to {{Infobox basketball biography}}) but it was removed following this dicussion. — MT (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- We deal with fancruft by implementing policy (WP:V, WP:RS, etc); and by documenting how the template should be used, not by preventing the inclusion of encyclopedic information. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  - Per WP:IBX, "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." If a field is already known to contain suspect information and it is not pertinent, its best just to not allow them.—Bagumba (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    - I honestly don't think nickname is encyclopedic unless the reliable third-party sources use the nickname more often than or as often as the player's actual name. In this case, only a small fraction of players qualify to have their nickname mentioned in the article. In this case, most of the nicknames are already mentioned (and referenced) in the lead or somewhere in the article and therefore I don't see the need to add a nickname field in the infobox for every basketball players. Anyway, why do we need to put an extra field that is difficult to maintain on an infobox that already has too many fields. See these edits from back in 2008 when nickname field is still in the infobox: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. We're lucky that plenty of editors was watching Bryant and James' articles and therefore these unsourced addition could be quickly reverted. In other articles, unsourced nicknames often went unnoticed for months. — MT (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    - I agree with Bagumba and Martin tamb. I think Andy's view is too idealistic. The nickname field was a constant pain-in-the-neck when it was live, and bringing it back would just add more work for the small group of editors trying to maintain these articles. Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    - Why not just let nickname be the option for players that don't currently play in the NBA, as it is now? Obviously, the players that don't play in the NBA have the nickname field and lots of them have it listed, while none of the NBA players do because it is blocked as a parameter that does not exist in the basketball biography template. I don't see how that is actually any kind of a problem at all. Just merge them, add the nickname field to the merged template, then specify that NBA players don't have the nickname listed. I really don't see a problem there. It's the way it is now already.173.216.237.132 (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment While I think that, in theory, we should only have one infobox, I'm not sure this is something we really need to do now. It will be a lot more work than you think. An important thing to note is that one infobox automatically links the text put into the "team" field, while the other requires you to put brackets around the team name to create a link. If we do merge these infoboxes, we need to make sure we're not left with lots of malformed or broken links. (Look at what happens when I do this.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- The usual way to do this is for one template to be converted into a wrapper for the other, and then transclusions substituted. That usually allows for a bulletproof transition, and should be fairly trivial in this case. As an aside, do we have another more common basketball bio infobox? It seems odd that we only have ~5000 deployments of these templates combined. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  - About possible extra Basketball bio infoboxes: below Category:Basketball players I found ~11400 names (recursion only 4 deep, unique names, using AWB. With depth 3, the number was ~11000. ). -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  - There are some other infoboxes in use: see Template:Infobox NBL player, and Template: Infobox WNBA player. Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment So was it already decided not to merge them?173.216.237.132 (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment I Conditionally Support the merge if we can get a bot to fix the issue that Zagalejo mentioned and I am also interested in having the awards parameter be left justified. Jabari Parker is one of many that look a little bit odd with the awards being center justified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- they are left justified in the 'basketball biography' template, which is the template into which the player template would be merged. I'm sure a bot (or AWB user) can take care of cleaning up the linking issue. Frietjes (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox scholar

redundant to {{Infobox person}}. The nominated template appears to have five parameters not in the latter:

|era= - redundant to birth/death dates or "flourished"
|region= - unnecessary; or redundant to nationality/ residence/ ethnicity
|school_tradition= - redundant to |known_for=, |movement=, or |notable_works=
|main_interests= - redundant to |known_for=, |movement=, or |notable_works=
|notable_ideas= - redundant to |known_for=, |movement=, or |notable_works=

The nominated template also lacks many of the other's useful features. A sensible approach might be to rebuild the template as a front end for {{Infobox person}}; then have a bot SUBST all instances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: the template has only 106 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep For the love of me, I don't understand this idea of merging everything into "Infobox Person", which is the vaguest and most redundant of all templates. It's like proposing we do away with all subcats and merge all of them into "Category:People". If anything, that template would need to go, and more templates like "Infobox Scholar" should be created from it. Dahn (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- If a "scholar" is notable for more than just scholarly works, such that more detail would need to be added to the subject's infobox than is presently supported by {{infobox scholar}}, that means either having an inadequate infobox or forking features out to it. This increases the maintenance burden on the project, leads to problems where similar features are supported with different syntax and semantics on different templates, and increases the amount of knowledge a general editor has to have about templates to work on infoboxes. Not every template can be merged, and IMO there are better ways of including domain-specific material like this in a generic person infobox (I've added "module" support to the main template such that domain-specific detail can be plugged into it), but this is in general a positive trend. The allegory to merging categories is off base as infoboxes are descriptive tools (where forks are purely an accident of history in that we built the encyclopedia from the bottom up) where categories are navigational ones (and are to a large extent designed top-down to cover existing articles). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)Infoboxes are not categories, and are not used for categorisation. Otherwise, we wouldn't need infoboxes and categories. Indeed, the nominated template does not display the fact that its subjects are scholars, which {{Infobox person}} can do. The advantages of reducing the number of such templates (decreased maintenance overhead, reducing the number of unnecessary choices which we currently force editors to make; resolving issues of people who have two or more notable roles) have been made clear on these pages many times. But do feel free to nominate {{Infobox person}} for deletion, so that you can see it snowballed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  - As I see it, the main issue is with infobox person: that is sufficiently vague, crowded and underused as to be entirely unnecessary. Chosing one of the available or future infoboxes is not especially burdensome: I for one was surprised when first using infobox scholar that there weren't already specific ones for historians, economists etc. Glancing through them is not a major problem; assuming that one can fit all is just weird. And I note the paradox that we're debating whether there should be one for scholars, when nobody questions whether we should have one for basketball players. Dahn (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    - What's your justification for saying that over 100,000 instances of infobox person make it "underused"? what about scholars who are also historians? Or economists? Or economists who are also historians? Or people who are all three? I'm also not clear what leads you to say that "nobody questions whether we should have one for basketball players", though it's worth noting that there are specific types of data about basketball players; which there are not for scholars (as indicated in the nomination). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
      - My justification is with the all other instances where it is not used, such as the ones voted on elsewhere on this page. What about scholars who are also historians etc. - pick one, as we already do in countless instances (what about scholars who were also office holders is a good one to ponder). What leads me to say that basketball players get their own infoboxes by mutual consensus is a thread further up on this very page); and there is scholar-specific information to be featured in a special box, once we do away with the non-specific infobox person, with its inane "known for" - an invitation to rant. The least there is to interpret in a given infobox, the better. Dahn (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
        
        We have separate boxes for royalty, politicians and athletes (amongst others) because there are lots of quite genre-specific details on those types of subjects which warrant inclusion in their infoboxes, and because assigning due weight to these details rather requires that less important information be excluded. That is not the case for every profession, and the maintenance burden for cases such as this one (where the genre-specific fields rather smack of having been drummed up to justify the existence of a new template) is greater than the benefit of having them. And there's little point in ranting about a consensus as settled as the existence of {{infobox person}} in 2012. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:BannedMeansBanned

I am nominating this for discussion as I cannot see a legitimate use for it. Created "to restate WP's banning policy where it relates to banned users making edits", it seems to fall between two categories:

It looks like a user status banner, like {{Retired}} or {{Blocked}}, and indeed is used in this manner at the top of user talkpages in many cases. Yet it doesn't declare any status, it's a reiteration of policy.

Its function, however, is as a policy reminder, which is closer to the user warnings class of template such as {{uw-balkans}}. However, it seems to be aimed at watching editors rather than the editor on whose page it is supposed to be placed.

I would suggest that it be converted to an inline user warning template like the rest, but I can't think of a productive use for such a warning. You might want to explain to a third party why you've been reverting what otherwise unproblematic edits by a banned editor, but using standardised templates to explain yourself is inappropriate and condescending anyway.

In short, I see no proper use, current or potential, of this template. Skomorokh 13:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutral: I created this template when I was dealing with a particularly prolific vandal, as we were trying to get through to him that he was no longer welcome at WP. It obviously didn't work as he's still at it. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Banned user arbcom

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 Template:Banned user.

This template is currently only used to refer to two of the dozens of ArbCom-banned editors (Eyrian and Instantnood). It strikes me that if its use is not standard practice by the Committee, its clerks, or other enforcers, it should be deprecated.

Perhaps the best solution is for all bans to be denoted by {{Banned user}}, with parameters to identify the source of the ban as ArbCom, the community or Jimbo Wales. Skomorokh 13:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Or just deleting and re-directing, which I've done. It was broken anyway. I've swopped {{banned user arbcom}} at Eyrian and Instantnood with the current {{banned user}} one. Roger Davies ^talk 14:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Infobox UK ward

Redundant to {{Infobox UK place}}, to which its unique parameters should be added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Weak support for merge. Only 117 transclusions out of around 10,000 UK wards; and wards fit neatly into the higher administrative areas in {{Infobox UK place}}. Also, the current template is a mix of old and new parameter schemes which is confusing for new editors. But needs feedback from users of the other template, in case they object to making it even more complicated than it already is or to extending it to include names of individual politicians (which might well cause maintenance difficulty and notability/NPOV disputes). Merging might mislead editors into thinking they are supposed to include details of multiple wards and councillors for places which cover more than one ward, such as all the councillors in a town. Also, need to clarify whether the existing or merged parameters should cover (in addition to district/borough wards) parish/community wards (which sometimes have over a dozen councillors); county electoral divisions (similar to wards and, in unitary counties, equivalent to wards in all respects); Scottish STV wards (3 or 4 councillors); Welsh electoral divisions (1 to 5 councillors); and NI wards (which are amalgamated into district electoral areas for local STV elections). (I've left a message seeking comment from UK place editors.) — Richardguk (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: last January {{UK ward}} was merged into this one. Hence the multiple options per parameter. To simplify the template, one could make {{UK ward}} and its parameter names obsolete (57 transclusions). -DePiep (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And many pages using this template still have the location map outside of the template. See Bingley Rural for example. -DePiep (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 28

[edit] Template:Libby Roderick

all red links. Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - only the artist's main page has an article. Gongshow ^Talk 04:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:KCO

no active directly related links. Frietjes (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Even if the links for O-Crazy Luv and A Song Is Born (song) are added, the template would still navigate very few articles. Gongshow ^Talk 04:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PUFresolved

Redundant to {{oldpuffull}} (which is more widely used); if the decision is to delete, there are only 60 transclusions, so it should be a simple matter of using AutoWikiBrowser to relink all transclusions to oldpuffull. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Replace and redirect 70.24.251.71 (talk) 06:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WikiMapia

One use; replaceable by {{cite map}}. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox NI Civil Parish

As creator of this infobox, i've merged it with Template:Infobox Townlands to decrease redundancy, and as such request that it be deleted as it now serves no purpose. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, but replace with {{Infobox settlement}}, otherwise keep until the future of {{Infobox Townlands}} is decided. Note that Townlands' recent TfD closed with a recommendation to "refactor the template as a frontend, and then discuss the merits of having the template as a frontend vs. substituting it". That has not yet been done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you checked the template you'd see that {{Infobox settlement}} doesn't have all the parameters required for it to be merged with it. {{Infobox Townlands}} (which i also created) only needed the addition of one parameter for it do the same job as it shares every other parameter and the topic of the two templates is very closely related. Thus it has reduced redundancy.
- Also the future of {{Infobox Townlands}} is decided for now - the result of your TfD was no consensus with suggestions added on what could be done. So please don't refactor the end result to suit your desire to have Infobox Townlands deleted. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Your accusation of refactoring is both false and contrary to Wikipedia policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    - As is your behaviour which is bordering WP:TROLLING in regards to the template that this one was merged with. The accusation of re-factoring isn't false as you failed to mention that the TfD result was "no concensus". Mabuska ^(talk) 16:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
      - I didn't mention that Barack Obama is President of the USA, either. That doesn't make what I did say false, and it doesn't make it refactoring. Your accusation is both false and contrary to Wikipedia policy; as is your accusation relating to trolling. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
        
        Whatever, the facts of the situation are mentioned and i'm content on the merits of the arguement given. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
delete as orphaned and redundant. discussion concerning the formatting townlands template is ongoing on its talk page, so how about we discuss it there? Frietjes (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:The Programming Block Barnstar

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

Delete Still trying to figure out how to delete the related wikiproject for this, but yes, we definitely don't need a barnstar for a project with a very niche (and cruft-spewing) purpose. Nate • (chatter) 05:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Single ship class templates

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

Delete all; useless ritual padding. Classes of ships which have lots of members might realistically get their own navbox, category, index article &c; but duplicating that infrastructure for a "class" of ships with a single member is just silly. bobrayner (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete all bobrayner (talk) said it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 18 February 2012‎
Keep and reformat - while as they are the templates are pretty useless and I'd agree that they should be deleted, they can become useful navigational devices, simply by adding "previous class" and "next class" links as I've seen in other ship class infoboxes. A single-ship class is still a class, and providing "directions" like that serves a valid navigational purpose. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Subst and delete all - the navboxes are useful for the reason stated by Bushranger, but that doesn't mean it has to be in template form. See for example USS Wichita (CA-45). Parsecboy (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- If we subst, then any future code changes, accessibility improvements or style tweaks would not be applied. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Then keep them. Parsecboy (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm indifferent if they're kept or not, but they need to be modified as per Bushranger's suggestions or they can be replaced by a table as per Parsecboy's example.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

delete after replacement with a succession box Frietjes (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC) keep all or replace with a succession box. Do not substitute. Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- How about you redact that attack? Parsecboy (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Either Subst with navigation box (as per Parsec), or Keep (as per Bushranger). Do not replace with a succession box. Benea (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 27

[edit] Template:FreeToUse

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

And incorrectly used even if it were. I've just nominated {{NASA}}, its inspiration, for the same reason: attribution belongs in articlespace, not talk page banners. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Template:AP

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

[edit] Template:Cite local authority

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

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Citation parameter legend

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

Delete as per nom. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cite GIS

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

If it is useful at the GL, then keep, but rename. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Immediate keep. Used in about 20 project pages. This template is the bone of Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Resources/Gis sources and palettes, it support the ongoing Wikipedia:Graphic Lab efforts to push forward higher, GIS quality map making. => Immediate keep, clearly. --Yug (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually used on two Wikipedia pages; other uses are because of transclusions of {{Digital cartography tutorials}}. Is this intended to be an article citation template? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You may be right for the inclusion. It may be use in articles, but it's not it first purpose. It's formerly a project's template for wiki mapmakers at the Map workshop. Stay, it's an important template for us, wiki mapmakers to keep these complex GIS satelite sources well structured. I confirm : immediat keep. Yug (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There are only six transclusions of this template, and none of them would be at all adversely impacted by using a regular citation template instead. It is pointless to have ultra-specific citation meta-templates like this, as invariably it takes longer to find and figure out how to use them than it would to simply cite whatever needs referenced using one of the more common templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Adt

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 Nomination withdrawn. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Withdrawn. I missed the subst. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Infobox vodka

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

[edit] Template:Cool World

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

[edit] Template:Citation metadata

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

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

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

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

[edit] Template:Cite/author

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

delete, unused subtemplate. Frietjes (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cite EU regulation

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

Delete: Yes, I created it ages ago. I was going somewhere with it, but haven't yet. More than happy to say goodbye to it. TimR (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete unused, and deletion approved by creator - Happysailor ^(Talk) 14:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:New page

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

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

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

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

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

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

redirect to {{New unreviewed article}} after replacing the userspace transclusions with {{userspace draft}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep if for no other reason to avoid biting the newbees. It takes time and practice to learn the various nuts and bolts of wikilinks, citations, adding categories and so on. It's fraustrating to create an article but within 20 minutes it's slapped with "No Categories", "Bare URLs", "Orphaned Article" tags and such. It's as if somebody is on the prowl just waiting to tell a creater, "Your term paper is incomplete!" Wikipedia's own guide to article creation states that once created it's an ongoing editing process.Mariepr (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- How does that address the repeatedly-stated concern that this is redundant to at least two more widely-deployed templates? Or are you suggesting that this tag should act as some sort of barrier against other editors tagging pages? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  - The later. In the article SS Santa Rosa (1932) the "new page" tag was removed by another editor within the hour and slapped with the above mentioned tags. If, as the text in the template reads, the author appears to have taken no action to tie up the loose threads then any editor is justified the bringing the article up to standards (or nominating it for deletion). While nobody "owns" a wikipedia article, let's give those who have taken the time and effort to write one some courtesy before coming out with the red pens. Mariepr (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    - Couldn't that be dealt with by minor modifications to {{under construction}}? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
      - The current text of the {{under construction}} template reads that it is for expanding or modifying an existing article. A new page however has a lot more technical details that need attention. The {{new page}} tag specifically states it as such and 1) the author knows it requires more work and 2) intends to see that is indeed carried out. I wouldn't mind another editor coming and him/herself doing the fixes. It's the "lighting a fire and running away" by slapping tags and disappearing that is pretty inconsiderate. (Especially when it is done within the hour as it was with one of my recent experiences.) Mariepr (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
        
        IMO that's a failing of {{under construction}} (which is semantically very much more tied to "this is new and being created" than "this is having work done on it" anyway). I've yet to see a concrete argument for why the two situations really need two different templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
        
        We'll have to agree to disagree on this one as I believe that the argument has been made where {{new page}} and {{under construction}} have different uses. There needs to be some tag where the author identifies a page is a work in progress and will the tag-happy sharks please not be so quick to draw fresh blood. Mariepr (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Mama's Family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While creating navboxes, infoboxes et cetera for 100% fiction content and then filibustering the deletion of any part of said cruftweb on grounds of interdependence is not gaming the system? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Without directly responding, let me ask: Who do you see as doing that? - jc37 00:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You implied bad faith on behalf of those attempting to clear up this mess. That's no less specious than implying bad faith on behalf of the editors adding said content in the first place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Mess is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. And your comments by their placement, were suggesting you meant me. Which a simple check to the template's edit history should clear up fairly quickly. (It would appear that you've edited the navbox more than I have...) But while you're calling things "specious"... Everytime I see someone use the word cruft, it suggests to me that the person is someone pushing an agenda, or at least holding a bias. Good luck in disproving that assertion. Now please feel free to say something you presume about me. And please, do like others have and merely look at my user page and my comments in whatever discussion you happen to be in at the particular moment, and make a snap judgement. I've been accused of being both a deletionist and an inclusionist, among many other things. In the end, we're all Wikipedians here, and our goal, last I knew, was to build an encyclopedia. And granted it might be considered Argumentum ad Jimbonem, but: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. Have a nice day. - jc37 04:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
keep, the redirects were reverted, so the template is now useful. Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- A better resolution would be a soft close stating that when someone eventually jumps through the hoops to delete the content in question this can be speedied as housekeeping. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  - I agree with Chris. I just came across some of the articles of the characters and the fictional town - all of which are told in an "in-universe" style biography without any sources. All should be redirected. When the happens, the template can be deleted. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 26

[edit] Template:Placebo singles

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

delete or redirect. Frietjes (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:UnsignedAFC

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

Delete Redundant template, almost deprecated, not in use. Pol430 talk to me 11:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I can't see any point in keeping this template, especially if nobody uses it.--Slon02 (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as it isn't used at all on articles. Aslbsl (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Depreciated template. Subst on any existing uses. A412 (Talk • C) 03:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. depreciated - Happysailor ^(Talk) 14:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 25

[edit] Template:PD-US-LOC

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Template:The Smashup

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

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

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

Delete as its unclear what the template adds. The one link is a redirect back to the band's page. Aslbsl (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per the above. Template contains only a link to the band's main page and a redirect; does not seem needed at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 04:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Old discussions

[edit] February 24

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why not? Those transclusions could be replaced by talk page project banners, correcting the error and making use of this little "database" of existing transclusions, most of which were likely done in good faith and, I can only presume, in most instances with good reasons. Or am I missing something here? --195.14.221.106 (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Fix: per Devil's Advocate Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Expand further

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which creates:

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

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

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

Comments (1) In reference to 70.24.251.71's comment — there's nothing wrong with renominating a page that was recently discussed if the discussion resulted in no consensus. The problem is when someone renominates something that was recently discussed with a keep result. (2) There have actually been two TFDs for this template in the past: 2012 February 2, which the nominator mentions, and 2010 June 23, which resulted in a keep. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Northamerica1000. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep and improve per Northamerica1000. Agent 78787 ^{talk contribs} 00:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep per the discussion above. - jc37 00:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete I completely agree with Seren's comments, but I would add that a tag like this is redundant and unnecessary. We have many different tags to indicate that an article is a work in progress. We also generally understand that pretty much every article, if not every article, is a work in progress and thus all are "incomplete" or need to be expanded. Focus should be on finding specific tags that can more directly address what needs to be done with an article. Tags like what Resolute mentioned aren't inherently a problem as there are many reasons why someone will not or can not make contributions to an article yet still be able to recognize issues the article has, but in this case it is essentially a tag for people who can't think of the specific problem or are too lazy to find a tag for it. It doesn't really achieve anything to say "this article should be bigger" when there are plenty of other tags that will actually say something helpful.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep-this template does serve as a counterpart to {{expand section}}. Unless this template can be combined with the "expand section" template by using a |section=yes parameter, then it should be kept. --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete yet another awful reincarnation of Template:Expand. All non-featured articles could arguably be tagged with this, as all non-featured articles could use additional information. We already have Template:Stub and Template:Expand-section, and they both serve their purpose. However, we don't need a cleanup tag that tells the reader that more information is needed. Specific expansion issues should be brought up on the talk page, not in the article itself. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Heaven forbid, people don't ever want us to admit that an article is woefully inadequate! Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Something has to be kept. I actually personally don't think that {{incomplete}} should have been merged. While most/all articles are incomplete/should be expanded, it is helpful to have a tag to mark an article as woefully incomplete. Take for example this old edit of the article "History of deaf education in the United States". That version (which was the "top" edit until 10 January 2012) covered, at most, 20 years in an article that should have had at least a 200-year timespan. You cannot say that that article couldn't have used some sort of tag saying that it should be much more complete. In fact, the presence of such a tag (along with the incompleteness itself; I noticed the tag first) pushed me to edit the article to include a broader span of the history. And no, not every editor will notice that an article is incomplete just by looking at it, especially if it's something like a history-related article that's missing information off the "front" of its timeline. A template like this one (or the now-defunct {{incomplete}}) is needed for situations like the one I just described. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

-Delete I agree with Resolute. So many lazy editors just plop this in rather than take the time to work on an article themselves.01:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep: merging 'incomplete' template here was ridiculous enough. I've found this template useful in indicating that all the information in the sources is not comprehensively covered in the article and actually used that to add in. Deleting the template is just hiding the issues under the carpet. Also agree with Northamerica1000 and Rich Farmbrough. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Decapitate. It is highly recommended to change it to Expand article. Web+TV+3=WebTV3! (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Golden Threads F.C.

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Delete. A useful navbox would, you know, actually navigate somewhere. Reso lute 04:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It would work fine if there were articles there. Aslbsl (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Dalek video games

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Delete - Subset of {{Doctor Who video games}}. — Edokter (talk) — 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete since even if it should exist separately from {{Doctor Who video games}}, only two of the games are directly about Daleks (by title at least). I believe one of them (City of the Daleks) is not featured on the main template, so it should be added. Aslbsl (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Minnesota Lynx first round draft picks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right which is why I specifically said you would link to the teams draft pick page in the See Also section. Then anyone who wants to look at the other draft pics of the team can. This way there is one single high value link that can contribute more context than what can be found in a navbox. The problem with navboxes that just throw a lot of links out is that you lose all context. Generally its more helpful in situations like this just to link directly to the page that already covers this information in the See Also section. This solves both the ability see the other players if someone does actually choose to and prevents link clutter which often causes the high value relevant links to be hidden in a see of less relevant links. -DJSasso (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally most navboxes have a link to the article on the subject of the template to provide the context that you speak of. In the specific case of Minnesota Lynx first round draft picks, it needs to be demonstrated is such as article could be created and pass WP:LISTN. However, in the general case of a specific team's first round picks (e.g. in baseball project), I fail to see why a template of "Team X first round picks" is guilty of "just throw a lot of links out" if it has a link to Team X first round picks. By that measure, all navboxes "throw a lot of links out" when a "See also" is always an option.—Bagumba (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is exactly the reason that navboxes are supposed to only include links that would already be found on the page if the page were in a "completed" state. Yes many if not most navboxes are misused. Yes the navbox has a link to that page, but what I am saying is only that link should be on the page. Cluttering the page with low value links hides the important ones and hurts the article. Especially for those who are not experts on the topic. -DJSasso (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

To reply to both you and Bagumba - that is one aspect of my definition of closed vs. open loop, yes. In my view the more links you add to a navbox, the less useful it becomes. So yes, a navbox that contains the 30 lists will not expand and is closed. One with players is always expanding, and each new addition carries only marginal relevance to the existing names. Some open loops are unavoidable, however, such as a navbox for each season a team plays.

The major aspect of my view of open vs. closed loop is the number of theoretical navboxes for a topic. A draft picks article really has only two reasonable navboxe uses available: One that links to other lists of the set, and one that links to the team navbox. Player articles have a nearly unlimited potential if you let it happen. I always like to pull out this image in these discussions as an example of what I am talking about. You create a navbox for draft location. You create another for being on a championship team (and frankly, that is arbitrary, if one team deserves a navbox, all do, whether they win or not), another for an award. Another for a more abstract (POV) concept like relation to a "rivalry". Instead of a few links to the most relevant related articles, player bios can become this open loop of literally thousands of links all mashed together. And it is always growing. Individually, I find that navboxes such as the one under discussion is of negligible value. Once you combine them all, I consider them to be of negative value. Reso lute 17:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Derek Jeter has five high-level navboxes, with other navboxes enclosed. By default, they are all collapsed. Still, clutter is a valid concern. My proposed solution has always been to put a cap on number of naxboxes in an article; it's only the highly accomplished athlete where this is a problem, which is a small percentage of articles. I don't believe the solution is to stifle the many useful navboxes due to the clutter in a few articles.—Bagumba (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That is where you and I ultimately disagree. I do not consider these navboxes to be useful at all. Putting a link to List of Minnesota Lynx first round draft picks on each article is useful. Putting links to 20 other players with no real relationship to the article subject is not. Think of what WP:NBFILL says: "a navbox serves the function of a see also section, but does so more efficiently" - but if you wouldn't put those 20 names into the see also section of an article, why would you put it in a navbox? Reso lute 20:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I would not say I completely disagree with you, but I think this is evidence that there are beliefs for navbox usage for which there is no consensus yet. Regarding the essay WP:NBFILL, more links are possible in a navbox because they are collapsible, which is the efficiency and added value navboxes provide over "see alsos". I think there is agreement that notability of List of Minnesota Lynx first round draft picks should be demonstrated.—Bagumba (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Official statistics

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Template:Richard Petty Milestone Wins

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Inline relevance cleanup tags

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

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

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

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

[edit] Template:Isshin-ryū organizations

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

[edit] Template:List of Italian cheeses TOC

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Template:Glossary of boiler terminology/TOC

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

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

[edit] Template:TOC Philippine regions

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

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

[edit] Template:PlayManiaTOC

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G6 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Template:Fake TOC

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep you can use this to link to anchors instead of section heaadings, especially if you use HRs to separate sections. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Can" != "should". TOCs which don't act as they should are confusing to readers. The existing transclusions just link to headers, as they should. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- In what way is this alternative not adequate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  - I have noticed that some articles have significant paragraphs that should be indicated in the TOC, but with the flow of the article, wouldn't fit with building section headers/flow... since it would make alot of section headers, unless you have very small sections following it with "miscellaneous" as a title. This template would be a good way around that. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    - Please provide examples. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
      - Such as a tabular list article with sortable. If you build a table, there are no sections in it, but the base sort is ordered in a particular way, where you can add anchors, and then have this TOC template be used to jump to portions of the list (like entries 100-200) . 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
        
        It is counterproductive to invent new uses for a redundant template simply too keep it around for the sole purpose of introducing even more inconsistency to our handling of TOCs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Infobox Human Rights Abuses

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Template:Infobox Pro Football retired

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. Magioladitis (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC) less than a dozen uses, and can be replaced by template:infobox pro football player, which has over 700 transclusions. Frietjes (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Template:Infobox Canadian

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] February 21

[edit] 2011–12 NBA game logs

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 after substitution Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Subst and delete: Per nom. Tampabay721 (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Subst and delete per previous discussions. Single use templates. Reso lute 15:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Subst and delete all One use templates, without any potential use on other articles. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Mocca

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Template:CompactDocToc

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Template:Infobox Paleontology

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Template:Def

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Template:Daybar

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G6 by Fang Aili (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Template:NHLPlayoffTOC

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Template:American Center for Voting Rights

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. Ruslik_Zero 18:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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.

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Template:ListOfMuseumsByUSStateTOC

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Template:ListByUSStateTOC

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Delete: Appears to serve no purpose not already adequately served by {{TOC US states}}. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
delete Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep. The template is used on one article that I watch, and I think having the map as part of the table of contents is an extremely useful feature. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:TOC nest right

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Template:More plot

This template needs to be discussed, not deleted. Many articles that transclude this template are wrongly tagged, and they already have sufficient plot summaries. The link is to an essay within a template, not to policy, and needs to be altered. Here are transclusions as examples of the problem: [9]. Also, the "More plot" name contradicts the words and doc of this template; so a rename from "more plot" to "copyedit plot" might be in order, and help reduce incorrect usage. Note: this template was discussed in User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions#"No plot" and "more plot"; also, I must give a "thank you" to Begoon for an assistance of this message. George Ho (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Template:Characters on The West Wing

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 for now, but consider restructuring. If there comes a time when there is consensus to redirect all the character articles, then the template will indeed be unnecessary, but until then it has navigational value. However, there is consensus that it should probably not be structured as a fictional US administration chart. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Template:Kevin Harvick Inc.

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Template:THBSOIR

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Completed discussions

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

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

[edit] Closing discussions

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

[edit] To review

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

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 16
- Template:Infobox England and Wales civil parish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) should be replaced as noted in the TfD. JPG-GR (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 7
- Template:Infobox Chicagoland municipality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

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

[edit] To convert

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

None currently

[edit] To substitute

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

None currently

[edit] To orphan

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

None currently

[edit] Ready for deletion

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

None currently

[edit] Archive and Indices

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

[edit] How to use this page

[edit] What not to propose for discussion here

[edit] Reasons to delete a template

[edit] Listing a template

[edit] Discussion

Contents

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] March 3

[edit] Template:Infobox FEI World Equestrian Games

[edit] Template:Infobox HK District

[edit] Template:Infobox storm

[edit] Template:Infobox criminal

[edit] Template:Fb team Undy Athletic

[edit] Template:Ophiuchus

[edit] March 2

[edit] Template:Infobox European Union agency

[edit] Template:Infobox WFYS

[edit] Template:Infobox Archie Comics character

[edit] Template:Infobox winter storm

[edit] Template:The Doon School

[edit] Template:Infobox architect

[edit] Template:1997–98 Honduran Liga Nacional squads

[edit] Template:Pghmetrocats

[edit] Template:Jutsus A-Z

[edit] Template:Category A-Z TOC

[edit] Template:Gaza Flotilla Raid

[edit] Template:Harvrefcol

[edit] UK + GB station infoboxes

[edit] Template:Infobox UK police

[edit] Template:Infobox UK feature

[edit] Template:Infobox HM prison

[edit] Template:Infobox UK street

[edit] Template:Infobox UK property

[edit] Template:WrestleMania venues

[edit] Template:JEL code

[edit] March 1

[edit] Template:Now Commons (MtC drive)

[edit] Template:Chrome TOC

[edit] Template:PrefectureTOC

[edit] Template:ColorTOC

[edit] Template:Pleasedonotcomment

[edit] Template:NASA

[edit] Template:AAFC

[edit] Template:Amanda Blank

[edit] CFL team seasons navboxes

[edit] Template:Infobox Liberia District

[edit] Template:Sale el Sol

[edit] Template:Japanese city (no images)

[edit] Template:Menza

[edit] February 29

[edit] Template:Faizal Tahir

[edit] Template:Infobox basketball player

[edit] Template:Infobox scholar

[edit] Template:BannedMeansBanned

[edit] Template:Banned user arbcom

[edit] Template:Infobox UK ward

[edit] February 28

[edit] Template:Libby Roderick

[edit] Template:KCO

[edit] Template:PUFresolved

[edit] Template:WikiMapia

[edit] Template:Infobox NI Civil Parish

[edit] Template:The Programming Block Barnstar

[edit] Single ship class templates

[edit] February 27

[edit] Template:FreeToUse

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

[edit] Template:AP

[edit] Template:Cite local authority

[edit] Template:Citation parameter legend

[edit] Template:Cite GIS

[edit] Template:Adt

[edit] Template:Infobox vodka

[edit] Template:Cool World

[edit] Template:Citation metadata

[edit] Template:Cite/author

[edit] Template:Cite EU regulation

[edit] Template:New page

[edit] Template:Mama's Family