Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText, Topic, or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
"WP:TD" redirects here. For TemplateData, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/TemplateData.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Closing instructions

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

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

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

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

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

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

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

Listing a template[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twinkle[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

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

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

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

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

September 1[edit]


August 31[edit]

Template:Voidd[edit]

Unused #if wrapper, of no discernible use. Alakzi (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Feat.[edit]

Single-use WP:FONTSIZE-violating macro. Alakzi (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Echo2[edit]

Unused. Alakzi (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Redundant, get rid. JMHamo (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Howrah - Sitarampur[edit]

Unused, redundant template JMHamo (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:2012 Summer Olympics NOCs[edit]

Unused, redundant template JMHamo (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Argentina Labelled Map[edit]

Unused, redundant template JMHamo (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Doctor Who episode list[edit]

A fork of {{Episode list}}, "with two additional variables" - which, if required, should be included in that template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there something against forks? I've attempted to discuss adding those two parameters for six weeks (first attempt), but to no avail and no replies. Alex|The|Whovian 14:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Edokter. Rowspans and colspans hurt accessibility. You could simply repeat the numbers. Alakzi (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • In response, I'm not seeing the removal of rowspans when it comes to awards tables, and colspans when it comes to series overviews? Alex|The|Whovian 16:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep for the time being. If this template can be merged with another then it can be deleted after the merge but not before. Djonesuk (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • In attempt to inject some sanity into the 'accessibility' debate I would point out that the best standard for creating accessible content is the W3Cs Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. There is nothing in WCAG to prohibit rowspan or colspan provided they are used correctly. If you are unsure what correctly means, the W3Cs Web accessibility initiative provide an irregular headings tutorial. Djonesuk (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no solid reasons for its deletion. Alex|The|Whovian 01:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The primary reason is the redundancy; a secondary reason is the use of harmful rowspans. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Template in question is far from redundant, and rowspans are executed properly, and far from harmful. Alex|The|Whovian 11:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
        • What do you mean they're far from harmful? We're telling you that they hurt accessibility; you can't just deny a fact. Alakzi (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
          • How do you claim that "they hurt accessibility"? I've seen nothing to back this. Alex|The|Whovian 12:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
            • A screen reader would read the story number only once for multiple episodes. For a more thorough explanation, see RexxS' comment here, dated 00:49, 3 July 2015. Alakzi (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
              • Far from harmful. (What happened to not editing posts once someone replied to it?) Alex|The|Whovian 12:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
                • Please do not bother me with disputes you've had with other editors. Alakzi (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
                  • I've had no such issues with other editors. We digress. Alex|The|Whovian 12:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
        • The harm done by rowspans was explained to you on 26 June by User:Edokter: "No rowspans please; they hurt navigation for screenreaders." on the talk page of the template from which you subsequently forked this one. You replied, so saw that post. The redundancy is clear; you forked the template, just to add two parameters, rather than use the solution presented to you in that discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I would request that you don't edit my posts, bullet points aren't necessary. And apparently all that hurts it is that the story number would be read once. Alex|The|Whovian 14:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
            • I did not "edit your post", which reads exactly as it did previously; I merely fixed the indentation, as I have done here, for respectively, clarity and accessibility. That changes the underlying markup, of which bullet points are just an incidental manifestation, for some users. You may learn more at WP:LISTGAP and WP:TALKOAndy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Djonesuk. --torri2(talk/contribs) 19:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Pigsonthewing: Explain your request for reopening reconsidering the close of this discussion - the result is clearly no consensus. Alex|The|Whovian 10:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • <col>s and <colgroup>s can't be used on Wikipedia, so Djonesuk's argument about accessibility is not any argument at all; and if a table is not linearly navigable by screen readers, it is fair to call it "harmful". There's no question that {{Doctor Who episode list}} impedes accessibility. The question is whether we care; or whether we care more about collapsing a couple of rows to please the eye. Alakzi (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


Template:Identity[edit]

Single-use experiment which wraps the lede of Psilocybin for no apparent reason and to no apparent effect. Alakzi (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Hasdot[edit]

Unused overcomplication. Alakzi (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

August 30[edit]

Find sources templates[edit]

Propose merging into Template:Find sources.

Similar templates; no need for more than one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Leaning support – provided that the various links that are not currently present in {{Find sources}} (e.g. NYT, et al.) are actually merged into it. North America1000 23:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional support: It needs to be a complete merge, no loss of searches. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The reason for creating a separate template for AfD was because Template:Find sources was causing some of the daily AfD logs to go over the post-expand include size. This may not be as much of a problem now that Template:Find sources multi has been replaced by Module:Find sources, but we should keep it in mind. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    I had a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 24 using both of the different templates. With Template:Find sources AFD the post-expand include size was 1257200/2097152 bytes, and with Template:Find sources it was 1319754/2097152 bytes. So we are talking about a 5% increase in post-expand include size if we merge the two templates, and on this AfD log at least, they are both well within the limits. I'd be interested in seeing how they fare on some bigger AfD logs - does anyone know where some really meaty logs might be found? I looked for the ones that triggered the creation of Find sources AFD when they broke, but I couldn't find them. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    I've found the relevant discussion: it's at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 67#Daily AfD pages are getting too long. One of the log pages that is mentioned there as being over the post-expand include size limit, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 16, is actually smaller than the one I tested above. It comes out as 948283/2097152 bytes for Template:Find sources AFD and 993205/2097152 bytes for Template:Find sources. So there should be no problem merging the two, and there should even be room to add a couple of extra links if desired. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    Also, I shouldn't infer a 5% increase from the above - it's misleading, as the text in the AfD discussions themselves is counted towards the total. The real difference is about 660 bytes for Find sources AFD versus 880 bytes for Find sources (the exact length depends on the article title) multiplied by the number of AfD discussions in the day's log. This week we seem to have been averaging about 120 AfDs a day, which makes a difference of about 26kb between the two templates, or about 1% of the limit. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Administrative comment The small "see tfd" notices at the top of {{Find sources AFD}} is making AFD discussions look downright ugly. I think Wikipedia can live with the ugliness for a week but if the discussion starts to look like it could close early due to WP:SNOW, please consider this an argument in favor of closing early rather than on time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support for any merge that won't break the Wiki or reduce functionality (I'm envisioning parameters so existing templates can be replaced with no change to their output). Strong oppose for any change that will break the wiki, oppose any change that will change existing functionality for templates that are in use, neutral for any change that will change functionality of templates that are not in use. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Update: Oppose any change that will reduce existing functionality for existing templates, Weak oppose to any change to the functionality of templates 3 and 4 (3 and 4 each have hundreds of tranclusions). After this TFD is over with, a discussion on changing the behavior of 3 and 4 or simply making their behavior identical to the main template can be handled on the appropriate template-talk page. Be careful changing the behavior of the AFD template, as anything that changes its appearance could be disruptive to AFD pages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    As I understand it, this proposal is to merge all of the listed templates into Template:Find sources, so that they would all have exactly the same look and functionality. A merge that won't break functionality is essentially what I've already done with Module:Find sources (see my comment below). — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Recommended method of merge: Expand {{Find sources}} to include all sources in the other templates, add a parameter "style=" so the few hundred pages that transclude {{Find sources 3}} and {{Find sources 4}} won't change, then replace the latter 2 with the former. If {{Find sources AFD}} can be merged in in a similar way as "3" and "4" without breaking the Wiki, do it. Note that there are 2 links on the main template that aren't useful for the AFD version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    This is pretty much how the templates already work - take a look at the documentation for Module:Find sources. The main difference from the way you describe is that instead of using one template with different parameters, it uses one main module with different template configuration modules, each of which is output through a different wrapper template. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with davidwr on all counts.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note to closing admin: I changed my comment above after Jeff G. made his complete endorsement. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Catcross2[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Jujutacular (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Unused template that contains link to toolserver. Author agrees that template should be sent to TfD. GoingBatty (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Broke with Expensive Taste track listing[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G7 at author's request. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Another one, per previous consensus on these kind of templates, they are to be deleted —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 05:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete (Author request) scrap it, I'm pretty sure my !vote as author makes the template eligible for speedy deletion. Azealia911 talk 07:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: IndianBio, it may be worth you leaving an advisory note at {{Extra track listing}} to not create these particular kinds of templates if there's a broad consensus on past examples as you say there is, (for whatever reason that is, you didn't actually provide one other than other templates like this have been deleted in the past. I'd also like to see a few of these past TfD examples.) Azealia911 talk 09:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
IndianBio, fair enough, I've reinstated my delete request so unless I'm wrong, the template now qualifies for speedy deletion under G7. But repeating what I said before, it really would be worth leaving a comment on the talk page, or even the template documentation of {{Extra track listing}}, explaining that album track listing templates are redundant and likely to be deleted in cases which the artist of the album has their own template with links to the songs in the track listing template. If there was something like this implemented way back during the 2013 mass deletion, I would have definitley not pursued to create the template and everybody's time would have most definitely been saved. Azealia911 talk 13:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree absolutely. I will implement it in the template once this one is closed. And you can nominate for G7 too. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 13:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

August 29[edit]

Template:Nrhp source1[edit]

Reference template that we don't use anywhere in article space. Keeping the template around is misleading, as the site it links is a mirror of official National Park Service data and any links should be to the relevant NPS page instead. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 20:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Personal issues[edit]

Redundant to other wikibreak templates. A random sample of its 50 transclusions shows it is used on the pages of editors who last edited, variously, in 2007, 2008, and 2010; and one on the user page of an active editor, who placed it there in 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant to {{Busy}} per WP:PRIVACY; we should not be encouraging editors, many of whom are very young indeed, to reveal their personal issues publicly, or - even - the mere fact that they are experiencing personal issues, which the assholes of this community are going to have no reservations to use as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a dispute. Alakzi (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Largely the same response to these multiple nominations: A survey of transclusions at a particular point in time isn't going to tell us anything except that some people have never come back from these breaks. They are, after all, templates intended to be used just for a short period of time. I'm pretty sure I've seen all of them on otherwise active users' pages (i.e. used as intended). As they communicate quite different things about a user's possible [in]activity or scenario, I don't agree they're redundant. In fact, I found these nominations because I added Template:Attempting wikibreak to my talk page just yesterday. That I'm here commenting at TfD instead of being on a wikibreak speaks to the distinction between that template and the other busy/wikibreak templates, I think. I also find the WP:PRIVACY rationale for deletion bizarre. Of all the user page templates, categories, etc. that disclose specific and sometimes very personal information about the user, it's this one -- the one that talks about vague "personal issues" -- that's problematic? I suppose I could support something like a merge to have a single Template:Busy with a parameter to display one of a set of preset messages/designs, but it doesn't seem necessary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge into {{Busy}} per Alakzi, and also because it's actually somewhat to the {{Busy}} template, anyways. --I dream of horses (T) @ 04:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think this is a privacy issue since it's quite vague. It gives a particular message that {{Busy}} doesn't. Non-removal by inactive editors should not affect legitimate users of the template; moreover "undefined period of time" technically does include long-term placements. BethNaught (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:No Internet[edit]

Redundant to other wikibreak templates. A random sample of its mere 19 transclusions shows some on archived talk pages, on the pages of editors who have not edited since, variously, 2007, 2008 and 2010, and one on the user page of an active editor, who placed it there in 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

MIght be worth having USer:Epicgenius'input since he uses these templates for his mammoth switch statement. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC).
  • Keep - Largely the same response to these multiple nominations: A survey of transclusions at a particular point in time isn't going to tell us anything except that some people have never come back from these breaks. They are, after all, templates intended to be used just for a short period of time. I'm pretty sure I've seen all of them on otherwise active users' pages (i.e. used as intended). As they communicate quite different things about a user's possible [in]activity or scenario, I don't agree they're redundant. In fact, I found these nominations because I added Template:Attempting wikibreak to my talk page just yesterday. That I'm here commenting at TfD instead of being on a wikibreak speaks to the distinction between that template and the other busy/wikibreak templates, I think. I suppose I could support something like a merge to have a single Template:Busy with a parameter to display one of a set of preset messages/designs, but it doesn't seem necessary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It is distinct from most to all other Wikibreak templates. --I dream of horses (T) @ 03:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Attempting wikibreak[edit]

Unhelpful and vague template, A random sample of its 67 transclusions shows it is used on the pages of editors who last edited in 2006 (in one case for an editor blocked since that year), 2010 and 2013. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - Largely the same response to these multiple nominations: A survey of transclusions at a particular point in time isn't going to tell us anything except that some people have never come back from these breaks. They are, after all, templates intended to be used just for a short period of time. I'm pretty sure I've seen all of them on otherwise active users' pages (i.e. used as intended). As they communicate quite different things about a user's possible [in]activity or scenario, I don't agree they're redundant. In fact, I found these nominations because I added this very one to my talk page just yesterday. That I'm here commenting at TfD instead of being on a wikibreak speaks to the distinction between that template and the other busy/wikibreak templates, I think. I suppose I could support something like a merge to have a single Template:Busy with a parameter to display one of a set of preset messages/designs, but it doesn't seem necessary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I will be using it for the next two days. --I dream of horses (T) @ 04:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: this is a more honest wikibreak template for some users and conveys a message others don't. Per I dream of horses, it is in legitimate use and the fact that some old users have not removed it is not relevant. BethNaught (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:User temporarily inactive[edit]

This was part of a recent multi-template TfD, which closed as "no consensus". I'm re-nominating it separately so we can have a more focussed discussion.

The template has 422 transclusions, a large number of these are on the pages of editors who have not edited for years (and so hardly temporary). The wording is bizarre ("This does not imply the violation of any Wikipedia policies."). Finally, it is redundant to {{Busy}} and other "away" templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, preferably permanently. This has been placed on user and user talk pages by third parties, a little less than ten years ago; {{Not here}} would make a suitable replacement. However, editors would be best served by a "user last edited" gadget or user script or somesuch; placing this or any other similar notice on the pages of people who've parted ways with Wikipedia strikes me as intrusive. Further, these notices have got very limited coverage, and are - therefore - unreliable indicators of users' availability. Alakzi (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Largely the same response to these multiple nominations: A survey of transclusions at a particular point in time isn't going to tell us anything except that some people have never come back from these breaks. They are, after all, templates intended to be used just for a short period of time. I'm pretty sure I've seen all of them on otherwise active users' pages (i.e. used as intended). As they communicate quite different things about a user's possible [in]activity or scenario, I don't agree they're redundant. In fact, I found these nominations because I added Template:Attempting wikibreak to my talk page just yesterday. That I'm here commenting at TfD instead of being on a wikibreak speaks to the distinction between that template and the other busy/wikibreak templates, I think. I suppose I could support something like a merge to have a single Template:Busy with a parameter to display one of a set of preset messages/designs, but it doesn't seem necessary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete/merge into {{Wikibreak}}. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Get rid of it somehow, not fussy about a particular way. This is very vague and is redundant to a variety of other templates, both specific and non-specific. Also per Alakzi, if This has been placed on user and user talk pages by third parties is true. BethNaught (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

August 28[edit]

Template:USA Girls Squad 2015[edit]

Template made for a team of underage volleyball players who do not meet notability guidelines per wiki standards. All players are currently listed at AfD. The Undead Never Die (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable. --Osplace 00:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Each of those volleyball players passes WP:GNG as a cursory google search would have shown. The team itself is also similarly notable. The Dissident Aggressor 22:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
U18 players need substantial independent coverage. Maybe after college.--Savonneux (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Turkey Girls Squad 2015[edit]

All the players are listed at AfD for notability reasons. All are underage volleyball players who are not notable. This template will not be needed. The Undead Never Die (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable. --Osplace 00:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Im the afd nominator if that makes any difference, and per WP:NHSPHSATH--Savonneux (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:China Girls Squad 2015[edit]

Every player is a non notable underage volleyball player. Reference this AfD. The Undead Never Die (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Archive box collapsible[edit]

Redundant to {{Archive box|collapsed=yes}}:

-

Alakzi (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – definitely not as functional as {{Archive box}}. --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - So, as I tried to figure out how one would replicate the collapse box using the archive box, some thoughts crossed my mind: how is this better? How is this easier? How is this less confusing? Why would deletion be preferable? I couldn't think of any answers. While both templates ultimately serve the same fundamental role as archive boxes, they are not the same and thus the collapse box is not, in fact, redundant. In contrast to {{archive box}}, {{archive box collapsible}} is notably and uniquely a much more simplistic, visually inoffensive and minimalistic archive box, and having the ability to easily employ something like that serves its purposes; many users prefer it for their personal user talk space alone. In order to replicate it, one would actually have to modify multiple parameters of {{archive box}} from its default state: {{archive box|search=no|collapsed=yes|image=none}} just to get there, not to mention any additional size, style or other parameters that may need to be employed. No thanks! Yes, theoretically we could do away with any other independent archive box templates and could just use one master archive box with all sorts of different parameters, but it would be asinine to require users to use an unnecessarily complex singular template when another one could already do what they want by default. Wikipedia is not paper, and I will again say this isn't an actual issue that needs fixing, and it is instead a solution looking for a problem. Swarm 05:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    • WP:BIKESHED. We separate templates by function, and not by design minutiae. Yes, if people wish to micromanage the look of the archive box, they're gonna have to put in the effort. You should also note that there have been requests for a search box on the talk page of {{Archive box collapsible}}; and the search box in {{Archive box}} was made visible by default in June and so far nobody has complained. Alakzi (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:NCAA Fencing Championships[edit]

A template consisting entirely of redlinks. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, pointless. Frietjes (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:NCAA Rowing Championships[edit]

A template consisting entirely of redlinks. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, pointless. Frietjes (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:NCAA Division II Women's Soccer Championship[edit]

Template consisting entirely of redlinks. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, pointless. Frietjes (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Itaparica tournaments[edit]

A template consisting entirely of redlinks. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, pointless. Frietjes (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Shady[edit]

Ranks pretty high on the list of things we should never do. Alakzi (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cricketer tour biography[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox cricketer tour biography with Template:Infobox cricketer.
Identical to {{Infobox cricketer}}, except for the second header which reads "International matches on tour" instead of "International information". A switch could be added to the original infobox for this purpose. Alakzi (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

August 27[edit]

Template:PDC Top 32[edit]

Unused, never updated since its creation in January 2014. NSH002 (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, not useful if no one is going to keep it up-to-date. Frietjes (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:MusicScore[edit]

Superseded by the <score> tags, see Help:Score. The Evil IP address (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep<score>...</score> is not always the appropriate option; its output is often too big and its use requires considerable expertise. If existing uses of the template are replaced by identical rendering via <score>...</score>, I'll change my mind. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep it's widely used and deleting it would unnecessarily break good pages. Having more than one way to do something is not a problem. -- Fbergo (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:MMOs by Electronic Arts[edit]

Fails WP:NAVBOX as it not a "single, coherent subject" and the articles listed do not refer to each other at all. It's an arbitrary collection: genre by publisher. The MMO (massively multiplayer online) part only says one thing about how it is played, not about the actual gameplay. Soetermans. T / C 09:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

And by that same logic we could have first-person shooters by 2K, action-adventure games by Nintendo or role-playing games by Square-Enix. --Soetermans. T / C 09:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, seems to be better covered by a category. Frietjes (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:ECB reference values[edit]

Template is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of stats. As I've argued at Template_talk:ECB_reference_values#What_is_the_point_of_this.3F, perhaps some content (ie a few examples for illustrative purposes of how the values are calculated) can be salvaged, or perhaps converting it into a graph of historical variations might be useful. But the creator insists on keeping 40 months of raw statistical data for reasons that escape me. In its current state it is WP:NOT in scope of the project. Note that the template only has 2 transclusions as is. TDL (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

August 26[edit]


August 25[edit]

Template:Gambling by country[edit]

Fails WP:NAVBOX 3 and 5.Curb Chain (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep It's quite common for "<topic> in <country>" articles to have a navbox that links to other "<same topic> in <other country>" articles, such as all the navboxes implemented with {{Europe topic}} and {{Africa topic}}. It's likely that a visitor to one of these articles is interested in other similar articles. I don't see any reason why the same wouldn't apply to gambling articles. Toohool (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly meets the navbox guideline. 2005 (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Appropriate navbox, useful to those studying laws and culture of various nations as regards this particular activity. Montanabw(talk) 05:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Leaders of the Tiger Cub Economies[edit]

Fails WP:NAVBOX 1,3,4.Curb Chain (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • This one clearly to me says delete, since the leader is not the nation, and it is the nations that are of interest to the "Tiger Cub economy". --Izno (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Of minimal use, will require constant upkeep, quickly dated. Montanabw(talk) 05:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Countries with Tiger Cub Economy Status[edit]

Fails WP:NAVBOX 1,3,4.Curb Chain (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm going to cite WP:NENAN here in combination with a comment that the nations included in this template are all going to link each other, anyway, for other reasons. A navbox to link them doesn't seem necessary. Delete. --Izno (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I support NENAN for a template with only four entries, but what's the potential for this list to grow... four articles might cross-link, but eight or nine start getting clunky. Montanabw(talk) 05:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:2009 flu pandemic in Oceania table[edit]

Used on it's one respective article; should be substituted and deleted.Curb Chain (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep: It's a template transcluded as a table, keeping the references on the template. It's unusual, but it makes sense in the context it is used; I don't see a policy against its inclusion, it's not being used as a navbox. Montanabw(talk) 05:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
There's plenty of precedent for this (Template:Kurds infobox, Template:Infobox Kosovo War). Wikipedia:Templates: "Templates are pages that are embedded (transcluded) into other pages to allow for the repetition of information". WP:TMP: "The Template namespace on Wikipedia is used to store templates, which contain Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages, usually via transclusion.Curb Chain (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment at the time this was created, data was changing rapidly, and the table was separated to reduce edit conflicts, and improve article and table editability -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after substitution. and possibly, move to articlespace and/redirect to preserve attribution. Frietjes (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:2009 flu pandemic in Europe table[edit]

Used on it's one respective article; should be substituted and deleted.Curb Chain (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep: It's a template transcluded as a table, keeping the references on the template. It's unusual, but it makes sense in the context it is used; I don't see a policy against its inclusion, it's not being used as a navbox. Montanabw(talk) 05:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
There's plenty of precedent for this (Template:Kurds infobox, Template:Infobox Kosovo War). Wikipedia:Templates: "Templates are pages that are embedded (transcluded) into other pages to allow for the repetition of information". WP:TMP: "The Template namespace on Wikipedia is used to store templates, which contain Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages, usually via transclusion.Curb Chain (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
And there is precedent to keep it too, see the elements infoboxes (eg. Template:Infobox hydrogen). Christian75 (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment at the time this was created, data was changing rapidly, and the table was separated to reduce edit conflicts, and improve article and table editability -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after substitution. and possibly, move to articlespace and/redirect to preserve attribution. Frietjes (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • keep per Montanabw Christian75 (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:2009 flu pandemic in Africa table[edit]

Used on it's one respective article; should be substituted and deleted.Curb Chain (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep: It's a template transcluded as a table, keeping the references on the template. It's unusual, but it makes sense in the context it is used; I don't see a policy against its inclusion, it's not being used as a navbox. Montanabw(talk) 05:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
There's plenty of precedent for this (Template:Kurds infobox, Template:Infobox Kosovo War). Wikipedia:Templates: "Templates are pages that are embedded (transcluded) into other pages to allow for the repetition of information". WP:TMP: "The Template namespace on Wikipedia is used to store templates, which contain Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages, usually via transclusion.Curb Chain (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment at the time this was created, data was changing rapidly, and the table was separated to reduce edit conflicts, and improve article and table editability -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after substitution. and possibly, move to articlespace and/redirect to preserve attribution. Frietjes (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Archived Talk page[edit]

Redundant to {{Talk archive}}; suggest redirecting. Alakzi (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:MBC Programs[edit]

This template is useless. 90% of the links point to the Korean Wikipedia articles, which is misleading and useless for Ebglish-speaking readers, plus Wikipedia is not a TV Guide, to change the content of the template every month according to which series is on play at the moment. This goes over the function of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 11:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree with the rationale but do not find it sufficient for deletion. I have cleaned up the template (version nominated for deletion) IAW with our various applicable policies, guidelines, and essays and see no issue with the resultant template (see also WP:NENAN). Keep. --Izno (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Search archives[edit]

Propose merging Template:Search archives with Template:Archive banner.

Identical function, only stylistic differences. No need for two templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support merge: No sense duplicating effort. Montanabw(talk) 05:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

August 24[edit]

Template:Florence tournaments[edit]

A template with zero links other than one to the parent article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Tennis tournaments usually have a navbox with this design. See Category:ATP Tour tournaments navigational boxes and Category:WTA Tour tournaments navigational boxes for numerous examples. In addition to providing navigation (when there are actually blue links), it shows which years the tournament was played and which of those years have articles. Even if that is currently no years, it does give useful information at the bottom of the main article. Tennis tournaments often change name for sponsorship reasons so it's sometimes difficult to figure out which editions have an article. As a tennis reader I'm so used to these systematic navboxes that it's annoying when an article doesn't have it. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment A template that doesn't link to anything serves absolutely no purpose. The tournament articles need to be done first, then the template. This is a classic case of the cart before the horse....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:NTFA (1886-1986) seasons[edit]

All redlinks, doesn't navigate anything. Can be recreated in the event that any articles for NTFA seasons are written. Jenks24 (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Archive navigation templates[edit]

Propose merging all of the above.

Identical purpose. No need for more than one template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I've struck {{Archive banner}} - wrong type, sorry. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I've added {{Talk archive}}, which I'd previously overlooked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge, though I have absolutely no idea how this will be accomplished since these templates all have different builds. Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 12#Template:Talk archive navigation, a discussion which resulted in consensus to merge Template:Talk archive navigation with Template:Automatic archive navigator ... though at the present time, they seem to still be two separate templates. I recall the discussion (I was the nominator); the major concern with this was that the option of whether or not to have a redlink for the next archive page that has yet to be created ... was a topic of controversy. Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • ... though at the present time, they seem to still be two separate templates. Possibly because the templates haven't been tagged with {{Being deleted}} or listed at the holding cell. Alakzi (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Once upon a time, they were, but I think a different route was taken after the templates were Lua-ized. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
        • The only two differences between the two are that TAN defaults to showing red links and a maximum of 3 links at a time (instead of AAN's 7). Let's just make red links the default for AAN, redirect TAN to AAN and be done with it. Alakzi (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes. The previous TfM gives a mandate for that (though TAN was the preferred name). The wider merged prose above still requires discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Alakzi (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • As someone who frequently archives talkpages, and consults the archives, I have a strong preference for the functionality of Template:Talk archive navigation - it contains a redlink to facilitate speedy and accurate creation of the next archive page, and it allows scrolling back and forth one page at a time, which is all that is required. For me, Template:Automatic archive navigator is limited, as it does not contain forward linking to the future archive, and at the same time has too many links, set out in an unhelpful and distracting manner. There are six links. They don't display the first and last archive - it's a mix of the next two in either direction, plus - after skipping two archives in either direction - the archives five pages forward and five pages back: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 10. The most usual form of scrolling is one page at a time. To go to a particular page, it's quicker and easier to go back to the talkpage, and select the page number from there. aan gives a disjointed navigation scheme that offers confusion and wastes time. If some users wish to keep six links, then I would oppose a merge, if it's agreed that after the merge it is the functionality of tan that is kept along with just one link forward and back, then I have no objection. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Alternatively, you could show some flexibility. You get your three links; you can try to ignore the other two/four that other people find useful. Alakzi (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather keep tan as it is. My position at the moment is that I don't see an advantage in having six links - especially of the complex type currently used by aan, though am open to hearing arguments for the desirability of having six links. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I myself currently use {{Talk archive navigation}} – is there a parameter that can be added to the merged template that could allow the user to control how many Archive pages links are displayed by the template? And I agree with SilkTork that I too find the "forward" linking functionality useful, and would prefer that stayed in the merged version (as least as a parameter 'option', if not automatically)... Also, as a practical matter, I think the final merged template should be at {{Talk archive navigation}}, not at {{Automatic archive navigator}}, as I find the former name much more intuitive than the latter name. --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That parameter already exists: |links=3. Both templates have "forward" linking functionality. Are you referring to the red link? My proposal is that it be made the default. I'd suggested {{Automatic archive navigator}} as the name for no other reason than that's what the module's called; it makes no functional difference so long as the two templates are merged. And I tend to agree that "Talk archive navigation" is a better name. Alakzi (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, sounds like, overall, your proposal is still pretty solid then, with the one caveat about the final destination name for the merged templates. --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Recalling the previous discussion on this - Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 12#Template:Talk archive navigation - the consensus was to merge aan into tan (as tan describes what it is: a talk page archive with navigation), and to keep the link forward into the future archive. Looking at the technical aspect of that discussion, I suspect the merge didn't take place because of the concern that merging the six link functionality of aan would result in potentially three forward red links, and the unknown consequence of that. Unless there is a strong preference for keeping six links I think the best option would be to simply redirect aan to tan, and keep tan exactly as it is. It works well, and is the most popular choice for human editors. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
This is false. Module:AutomaticArchiveNavigator, which both {{Aan}} and {{Tan}} use as a backend, is programmed to only show one red link at all times: Special:Diff/677842701. ... and is the most popular choice for human editors. As shown by all metrics. Alakzi (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep All - As redundant as many of these may seem to the nom and others, let's face it; Not every type of archive tag works for every user. I originally used {{archive box}} when I started archiving my messages. I can't expand it, and it crowds up one side of my talk page, so it doesn't serve me anymore. {{archive box collapsible}} helps me avoid that. Other users might feel differently about this, and for them it or some other archive tag might be alright. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:MWSS[edit]

Promotes an arbitrary categorization based on original research (see also Talk:Outlook.com#Requested_move_17_August_2015), redundant to other navboxes such as {{MSN services}}, {{Microsoft Office}}, {{Windows Live}} ViperSnake151  Talk  18:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. Not great on the formatting either. {{MWSS/collapsed}} should go too. Cloudbound (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep, we are currently having a discussion over at the Outlook.com Talk Page. Also, Window Live is no longer a brand used by Microsoft, Microsoft Office does not encompass Outlook Mail, Outlook Calendar, Outlook People, Outlook Tasks, OneDrive, MSN, Bing, etc. And the Microsoft navbox is too general for this purpose. It can be kept at the bottom of the page, but does not serve this purpose exactly. Anyways the template is a work in progress. Ians18 (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment This is not Original Research these are the items that appear in the app lists of each of the products. Please see here Ians18 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
How? Microsoft officially announced that Outlook.com, Windows Live Contacts, Windows Live Calendar, and Microsoft SkyDrive would be parts of Microsoft Office Online, and this by extend added OneDrive Groups, Windows Live Profile, and others, Docs.com is also officially a part of Microsoft Office Online, and the Outlook brand is a part of Microsoft Office, if you'd go to this page you can see Outlook.com and Microsoft OneDrive listed among Microsoft Office Online applications. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Nominator is right on both accounts. First, we have an excess of navboxes already. {{Microsoft Office}} works admirably well. (Our navigation is deliberately not aligned or compatible with Microsoft's scheme.) Second, yes, it is a special kind of original research better known as WP:SYNTH. I think the original author, Ians18, has acted too soon based on what I perceive as his own fancy. He keeps showing me the same sources over and over again, but no matter how many times I look at them, I don't see what he claims to be in them. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment Are you serious? Outlook.com and Microsoft Account are not even part of Microsoft Office at all! This is a simple, cleaner template for Microsoft Web Services only. I do, however, agree we have an excess of navboxes, which we should consider reducing. However, this is relevant. We should keep it at least until the preview is over then we can decide what to do with this template. Please look at this again I did not randomly make this grouping up. Also, I didn't make this up either Ians18 (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment Though the Windows Live brand is no longer officially in use, the templates Microsoft Windows Components and Microsoft Office already fill in what's gone, as for all the current services that used to be listed under Windows Live are now either bundled with Windows and Windows Phone (and are in those templates) or are a part of Microsoft Office Online and are well-represented in a lot of Microsoft templates (and I'm serious when I say that Microsoft articles have a lot of them), for some reason every time I add the Outlook Web App it keeps getting removed, if it doesn't fit in the context of this template then what Microsoft services should be included and what Microsoft services should be excluded? Microsoft accounts also work with the likes of Microsoft Photosynth and other Microsoft Research projects, but these wouldn't qualify as Microsoft Web Services.
I added the comment "Don't {{Windows Live}} and {{Microsoft Office}} fill in its purpose for Outlook Mail, Microsoft OneDrive and other services, and Microsoft has a lot of seemingly unrelated online services and web services that could be (potentially) listed but wouldn't make any sense in or even out of context (think Photosynth), while others would like Docs.com. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
We could list those in an other section after I add O365 and fill in the web apps under that section Ians18 (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)" and out of all honesty this template simply seems to unorganized and with all the present Microsoft templates I don't see why this would fit. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Extra comment as Microsoft accounts are indeed a part of every Microsoft Office application since Microsoft Office 2013, shouldn't they be mentioned in the template? and as Windows Live in general has been discontinued the template can better be rearranged to fit the service-types as to whether they're active or not (desktop applications with desktop applications, web services with web services, Etc.) though this is probably not the page to discuss it, but these templates can really use some improvements and I can see why Ians18 created a separate template, anyhow this alone does not justify a new web services template, but it does call for the improvement of the present templates. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@Hoang the Hoangest: Microsoft Office integrates with Microsoft Account, Facebook, Linkedin, Google account and Dropbox. In addition, other Microsoft products that are not part of the Office family also integrate with Microsoft Account, like Microsoft Visual Studio, Microsoft Azure, Visual Studio Online, Microsoft Dynamics, Windows Store, Xbox Live. So, no, Microsoft Account is not part of the Microsoft Office family; Office only integrates with it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa which is the exact reason we should keep this template, correct? Microsoft Account and Office 365 accounts are now HUGE parts of Microsoft. @Hoang the Hoangest, is Bing or MSN part of Office? No. However Outlook.com, MSN, and Office Online are listed there. Office.com is a start page for the MSA Web Services. Why again should this be deleted? The "arbitrary" grouping is becoming more and more evident. Ians18 (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep Still The WP:CLN clearly describes navboxes with "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping." Ians18 (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Technical delete for MWSS/collapsed. Its effect can be achieved by adding a parameter to MWSS. I am not going to add an explicit "Delete" !nv for the other template, cause I have to explain why, but yeah, I think it should be deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
How exactly do you do that? My knowledge of template creation is limited Ians18 (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Simple. Do nothing. Comparison diff says {{MWSS|collapsed}} is already supported. Fleet Command (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete but only the mwss/collapsed one. I have moved all of them to {{MWSS|collapsed}} Ians18 (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Transclusions replaced with {{MWSS|Collapsed}}. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

August 23[edit]

California wildfires navboxes[edit]

These templates could easily be merged in a manner similar to {{Bushfires in Australia}}. SounderBruce 21:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Pros
Cons
  • Template will indefinitely grow. Even if we don't add previous years and just start with 2000, every year a new group of wildfires will be added. Flash forward to 2030 and you have 30 rows in the template. The {{Bushfires in Australia}} is a great template for Australia, but a quick scan of that navbox only shows 2 or 3 fires in the same year. {{2007 California wildfires}} has 9 fires just in one year. Along that thought process Category:Wildfires in Washington (state) has 7 fires list (the 8th page is the list page). I would def support 1 navbox for all 8 of those fires. Different situation there.
  • As hinted at above, this is going to end up being a enormous navbox! Maybe that isn't a big downside, but was one of the reasons I didn't go that route initially.
  • Each season currently has their own category and commons link. Those would likely be lost in favor of the overarching group/commons link. Again this alone is not a reason NOT to merge the templates, but at least worth mentioning.
All that being said, I too support merging them but would like to at least discuss these points. :-) --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Zackmann08: If the California template becomes too large in the future (reserving one row per year), I'd split up the templates by decade (e.g. {{2000s California wildfires}}). A separate navbox for the largest/most notable fires would also be needed after some point (with links to a list of California wildfires by size). SounderBruce 00:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
NOTE: Merger is completed.... --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, but that's overly complex. A single, simple navbox would suffice (with one per decade as time progresses). The colours also have inadequate contrast to meet WP:COLOUR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Face of Denmark 2015 titleholders[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G8 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 12:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

failed template with advertising. There is also no article about "Face of Denmark", if it is a pageant at all The Banner talk 20:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Hard-coded instance of a red-link template. Doesn't quite fit WP:T3 but it appears to serve no purpose. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD G8. The template transcluded by this template does not exist nor it has ever existed. --TL22 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Teahouse invitation TW[edit]

Unused fork of {{Teahouse invitation}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge to the primary template. Personally, I think the standard template is rather childish, and seems aimed at inviting immature people to come and talk with poorly worded "awesomeness", while the TW version seems like a proper invitation, instead of some adult pretending to have a teenager's awesome messaging skill. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • The wording of the widely-used template should be disused on its talk page, and is not a reason to keep an unused fork. (I agree up to a point; I don't find "awesome" childish, but it is an Americanism, which may not be well-understood elsewhere.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't know if it's what you're referring to but a bot apparently erroneously added a "please sign your posts" message to the template. I've undone its edit and contacted its operator. benzband (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Pigsonthewing: I created the fork with the necessary changes for it to be used with Twinkle (see Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#welcome). It probably isn't linked from many pages since Twinkle substitutes it. I've just welcomed myself to provide an example. (PS. please mention my username in your comment or leave a note on my talk page if you reply) benzband (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge, maybe use as default text. Eman235/talk 20:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge, for basically the same reasons. Like the text of this template over the other, but should leave an option to select which text to use. (Also, the TW template has a wikicode syntax problem that the main template does not have.) JaykeBird (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge, the template is very similar and its only purpose is for users to choose an alternative. --Stranger195 (talkcontribsguestbook) 10:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Thank You IP[edit]

While I understand this template is in honor of WP:IPHUMAN, this is sort-of redundant to {{welcome-anon-constructive}} and even if it wasn't, it would still be unnecessary, because a simple thanks by clicking the "thank" button in the diff is all that's needed. TL22 (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. As the creator of this template several years ago, I have used it countless times to thank IP editors for helping in our efforts against vandalism. It is not a welcome template, and so is not the same as the Welcome-anon-constructive template and can be used even on IP talk pages of editors who have already been welcomed. Also, I've never seen a "thank" button on IP diffs, but only on diffs of registered users, so am I missing something? – Painius  16:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete redundant to {{welcome-anon-constructive}} (and to {{Thank You}}, or indeed simple text), as used by Twinkle, and which can be used more than once as edits made using IP addresses may be by different people. This template has a mere seven talk-page transclusions, all but one of which either have either no welcome template, or had it used before a welcome template was added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, this template should be substituted, not transcluded, so the vast majority of its usages will not appear on the What links here page. Also, I often place this template at the TOP, before the Welcome template I use with it, so the IP will see it first. – Painius  23:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Muchas gracias[edit]

This is the English Wikipedia, and as such messages here must be written in English, no matter what (see {{uw-english}}). This template violates that. It's redundant to {{Thank you}} anyways. TL22 (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Appears to have no more than about 4 transclusions outside of the documentation of other templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is English Wikipedia, the general commenting templates should be readable by an user of English, the only sort of competency which is expected for any reader/editor on Wikipedia. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd say delete, but not per nom -- I understood this immediately and would say that "gracias", at least, is a loanword. Actually, I'd prefer a merge to {{Thank you}}, along with all the other smiley templates listed here. Eman235/talk 20:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Not everyone speaks non-standard English, or should be expected to; or code switches (we don't all live in Florida, SoCal or Spanish Harlem) The readership should be considered to perhaps use English as a Second Language, and the first language being unrelated to Spanish. Or live in someplace unrelated to Spanish territories, such as Transvaal or Stewart Island. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge with {{Thank you}} template (or {{tyvm}}) per Eman235's rationale above. I prefer a full merge complete with a parameter to change the wording of "Thank you" to "Muchas gracias" if the user so desires. If such a merge may not be performed, then keep – I would use this template as a courtesy to respond to a {{Done}} performed by an editor with Spanish ancestry. – Painius  05:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: per IP 67, we should communicate in English and not make any assumptions about whether a particular editor's variety of English has had Spanish influences. Of course users could still type "muchas gracias" if they wanted in an appropriate situation. Moreover, redundant to {{thank you}}. BethNaught (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It assumes that the reader knows what gracias means. Plus, {{thank you}} is more common. --Stranger195 (talkcontribsguestbook) 11:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

'Portal selected' templates[edit]

Archaic templates of trivial points of history. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete this are no longer used in the way they where before....we have a generic one that works just fine. -- Moxy (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form nomination templates[edit]

This is the only Hugo Award category to have these separate nomination templates. The winner already has the Template:Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) template. No need for an extra one. charge2charge (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  • tentative Keep, I personally liked the only one I've looked at, 2011, and quickly used it to make an addition to another template (have never heard of the video Fuck Me, Ray Bradbury, watched it, and it seems template-worthy and a nice tribute). Maybe the only question is "should nominees be included on a major award template", or do other major awards have yearly nominee listings on any of their templates. I'm not familiar enough with them to know. Randy Kryn 20:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Women's soccer templates[edit]

These are the only two women's soccer tournaments that have separate templates listing every team that participated. No reason to keep them. charge2charge (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

August 21[edit]

Template:NNDB[edit]

NNDB is not a reliable source - we should not be using it at all as a source, as has been established many times at RSN; there should not be a template to make citing NNDB easier. Because it is not reliable, we shouldn't be using it for ELs either. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC) (add a note to deal with its intended use (not only use) as an EL Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC))

  • @Jytdog: This is an external link template, not a citation template. In the articles I checked, it was used in the "External links" section, not as a reference. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out! I became aware that this template existed via this dif where someone used it in a ref calling it the "canonical template". I still favor torpedoing it. Jytdog (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep – There are many templates to standardise linking to external sites, many of which are not reliable sources – {{IMDb name}} springs to mind. This is one of them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
IMDB template was made by the same editor and is also unreliable as it is a Wiki; I thought about also listing it but didn't want to be too aggressive. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
That's not how I read the two templates' history. IMDb was created in August 2004, the creator of NNDB started editing in September 2006. As I wrote, I'm aware that IMDb is not a RS, but I wouldn't describe it as a Wiki – contrubutors must be registered and IMDb exercises some editorial control. Anyway, IMDb was just an obvious example; {{Find a Grave}} or {{YouTube}} are others. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
No, IMDb should be kept, unlike NNDb. I know that's not the point of this TfD but just wanted to share. IMDB info regarding cast, credits, episodes, dates, etc, is utterly reliable and, I think, indispensable. It is only personal info (which they have now tightened up considerably on) that was user-generated and thus subject to being OR or unreliable. Quis separabit? 14:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep for various reasons. First of all using a "canonical template" ensures a consistent format for external links and allows all kinds of useful manipulation. Second, this template is hopefully going to be used by someone at Wikidata to extract NNDB data in order to store it over there. Given that the diff quoted above was mine, I might have appreciated it if you had let me know so I could tell what I was doing, so we could work together. It would be more sensible to move usage of this template to External links if you don't like using it in a reference, but simply deleting it is losing information unnecessarily. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    So now do I have to go back through the work I have been doing finding where you have deleted this template without saying anything, or was this the first time? —Phil | Talk 17:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    I removed its use in one place, where it was used in a ref. That's all. And god forbid that we extract data from NNDB. It is not reliable per many, many threads at RSN. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    It would seem that the people voting "delete" have misunderstood the purpose of External link templates and are under the delusion that if those templates were unavailable nobody would ever link to those external sites they class as "unreliable". I understand the view—and mostly agree with it—that uncorroborated information from NNDB should not be used in articles: part of what I am doing is to replace instances of {{cite web}} with {{NNDB}} so that the latter can be scanned for Wikidata. Maybe it would be a better idea if people who don't like this being used as a citation tried finding better sources and moved it to external links instead. —Phil | Talk 20:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Phil Boswell why would you want to pull data from an unreliable source? Real question. I am baffled. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep nomination rationale does not match the purpose of the template. It isn't a citation template, it is an external links template. If the destination is an acceptable WP:EL external link, which is widely used, then making a consistent presentation would be a good idea, as well as making it easier to prevent linkrot, whenever the link format changes. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The nom is absolutely correct. Frequently fails WP:ELNO #2. Not remotely a reliable source of information that we want to steer readers to as it frequently notes fringe "facts" that are flat out wrong. Recently encountered example at William Colby (notes cause of death as "murder" when William Colby died in a boating accident), J. Edgar Hoover (notes Clyde Tolson as his boyfriend), and Lyndon B. Johnson (notes Madeleine Duncan Brown as his mistress and takes her claims at face value that Steven Mark Brown was their love child); Barry Seal is essentially a work of fiction. - Location (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: examples cited by @Location are sufficient to convince me the template is insufficiently reliable. Quis separabit? 13:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete since source is unreliable to begin with, and per Location's rationale Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - i just nominated this site to be added to the blacklist. I should have done that first; then this would have been moot. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Why do you want to nominate NNDB for the blacklist?! Wikipedia allows youtube videos. NNDB is not THAT unreliable as to be blacklisted. I don't think NNDB is any less reliable than IMDb. I am a (desultory) contributor to IMDb. Although it is not a Wiki, it is definitely full of user-generated content. It is owned by Amazon. I wasn't aware that there was any editorial control at all for IMDb, whereas NNDB is accurate as far as date of birth, parents, religion, spouse and other basic life events for those individuals who are listed.--FeralOink (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
RSN pretty much universally disagrees with your assessment of NNDB. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Blacklist sounds about right, particularly given the incestuous relationship it has with Rotten.com noted at the bottom of many pages. One tame example, Richard M. Nixon (NNDB) links directly to Richard Milhouse Nixon (Rotten.com) which begins "Perhaps best known for faking the Moon landing..." Changing gears with a different url to absolve itself from crap information doesn't cut it for me. - Location (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:The Walking Dead video game episodes[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

All the episodes of S1 and S2 have been merged/redirected to the respective season articles, making this box unnecessary. MASEM (t) 16:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirect to {{The Walking Dead}} -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment those redirects are incorrect. They are also episode titles, so should be disambiguation pages. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete the template in question. The {{The Walking Dead}} is a more comprehensive template and retains all information contained in the template being discussed.
  Bfpage |leave a message  10:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:SAFF U-19 Championship[edit]

First tournament has only just started. In a few years time when there have been more tournaments this will be a useful aid to navigation but currently it is not. The two links in the navbox are already found in both the articles themselves. Fenix down (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - there is no harm to the encyclopedia by retaining this template especially it will be expanded in the future. It is encouraging to editors to continue writing articles they know they will be used in a template. Deleting it now will only mean that it will have to be recreated in the future.
  Bfpage |leave a message  10:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Announcements for future host will be made soon, and a template will be remade if this is deleted. There is really no point in deleting it, other than pushing a deletionist ideology. Ayoopdog (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cite CIH[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was subst: and delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Clicked too fast. Hard-coded instance of cite book used in a single article. - Ricky81682 (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

*Delete, grudgingly - this template is used on only 6 pages at this time but it is sure a great idea that I will probably use in my future editing for inserting a highly cited source that I dread entering into an article or dozen that I edit or create.

  Bfpage |leave a message  10:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@Bfpage:, see User:Ricky81682/Template:Johnson for how you can format it in your userpage (including automating it within the reference tab which is usually the ugliest part. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:White - American railroad freight car[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hard-coded instance of cite book used in a single article. Doesn't allow for most parameters (page number for example) to pass through. It would be easier to just use cite book rather than this wrapper template. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete per nom -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – This is another template that I created when I started editing. The source reference is widely known in rail transport history as reliable, but there has been more than enough time for other editors to find and use it and its low transclusion count since then is a strong indicator that other editors have either not known of its existence or have chosen not to use it. Slambo (Speak) 11:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    Suspending my delete decision, awaiting further input from other users as noted below. Slambo (Speak) 11:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Begging Slambo's pardon, but I've expanded the template to include the necessary passthrough parameter and added it to two articles which already used the book but with plaintext markup. See especially [1]. More will follow. Mackensen (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    Now at 32 tranclusions. It's a popular source for freight cars (as is The Great Yellow Fleet) but the template just needed a little work. Mackensen (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - this template is used in about 70 articles and would disrupt editing by a number of editors who have found it useful.
  Bfpage |leave a message  10:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:0809sbwildfires[edit]

Really no need for this navbox... Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

August 20[edit]

Template:Harry Potter family tree[edit]

Regardless of the complexity of the text here, this is simply a giant pile of hard-coded text used in a single article (Harry_Potter_(character)#Family_tree). The template itself requests citations but it's impossible for editors to navigate it from the article unless they learn how to navigate into the template itself (from which the template forces a particular reference style which could differ from the article). It may be much uglier but I think the template should be hard-coded into the article (if it belongs at all anyways). Ricky81682 (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

keep - its nice to have big complicated text (which doesnt change a lot) in template space. The editor can press the "v t e" to edit the template. Christian75 (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:White - America's most noteworthy railroaders[edit]

Specific source citation template that is just hard-coded text. In particular, it's hard-coded text of a range of pages. I see from User:Slambo/Railroaders that the range is a very, very useful source and while it is six pages and that's not particularly difficult, the fact that no one can edit this without figuring this out if they want to be more particular is not helpful in the long term. This template is called on a number of pages but it seems to be in the references section as the editor didn't use in-line referencing. Suggest that it be userified and User:Slambo can substitute the citation manually to save themselves time but someone else may prefer to break out the specific page number especially if there's an article that involves multiple references to the range. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  • keep – Thank you for notifying me of this discussion. This is one of the templates that I started way back in 2005 before we had {{cite journal}} and the references extension (the <ref> tools were added in 2006), which is the main reason why it wasn't used as a footnote reference in many articles that were also created around that time. I have a copy of the journal noted in the template in my personal library, so I can go back to the pages that call it to make more precise use of it with current citation tools. In 2007 the template was updated to use the citation template for formatting consistency with other references. As to it noting a specific page range, I may be biased with a degree in computer science and background in programming, but it's not that difficult to add a conditional parameter for subsequent users to list a single page instead of the default page range for this journal article. I understand that the validity of the source itself isn't under question (the author of the article being cited, John H. White, Jr., was a curator at the Smithsonian for almost 20 years), but I don't see how userfying this template will help to improve it or its use. Slambo (Speak) 22:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The point is, of what use is this template? I have a similar background and I too create my own templates for books I refer to but I also keep those in userspace and substitute them so that the actual text is there in the article. These kinds of templates have been problematic for years here. First issue: do you plan on adding a documentation subpage (which is overkill), even if you do, you require that anyone else who wants to refer to this journal article must also understand how your citation template work. Let's take your current proposed solution: if you plan on adding a page number parameter, I presume you won't go with option (A) some unique, esoteric choice (even if it's {{template:white|2}} that's esoteric but the basic citation templates don't do that). If you want it to keep the current page numbers as some default, that's more complicated. Now, with or without documentation, people are not always going to want to keep citations in the same format forever and people creating templates using their own parameters and other fun is cute but enormously head-aching inducing (and that template had a documentation subpage). Then again, your second option is (B) use page or pages so that it's just further existing as a mere wrapper of cite journal with certain parameters of text hard-coded for your convenience. Great, so you have a template that hard-code some parts of the most common template, has some parameter and has some parameters that do not pass through. And the only way anyone will figure out that someone will figure out that this template (unlike say, Template:White - American railroad freight car, recently of yours) does happen to pass the page parameter while the other one doesn't is by pure trial and error or by learning the particular choices you made in the template at the time you made it. Point being, what is gained by all this? This is literally all text you could copy and paste into a citation, it's all easy for you to understand but if somehow, we find an editor who (1) has the same interest, (2) wants to add to one of the rail transportation articles, (3) sees your reference (4) understands WP:V and wants to help, that's not particularly out there but that person also must (5) must also learn exactly how in the world templates in general work (not just cite journal which many people still have a fit and consider too complicated) but this particular template's formatting. This isn't new, this kind of stuff has existed here for years and at some point, people decide that the formatting needs to be changed and then the editors who created it get their talk pages full of hundreds of notices to be told "we're hard coding this into the article but one person's personal preferences as to what is easier or not is not the way to go." Ricky81682 (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. With the addition of some Harvard notation this template would be easy for others to use. The solution here is to improve the existing template to be more similar to the other templates in Category:Rail transport book citation templates, not userfy or delete. Mackensen (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You're forcing Harvard notation through this format. That's fine and all but it isn't in every article and I'm pretty sure the main CS1 template allow for it already. Are we better off with template that force various notation formats? At some point, we may change formatting and then it's another game of finding hundreds of various templates that force one or another and stripping that out. I don't get what is so special about that category. A user comes by and wants to help on rail transportation articles. It's not "here's a list of books, websites, journals that we use for our articles that are good sources," (which the project page could have) it's "here is a list of somewhat cryptic names that refer to templates, go review these templates to see the citation its referring to (and from find the book you want to use? or is it once you find the book, you figure out its template? i don't get it) and then maybe you can figure out how to use the citation (maybe its like this version that hard-codes a particular set of pages, maybe it's like the change Slambo will make that doesn't, maybe it's like Template:White - American railroad freight car that is a call to cite book but if you try to cite the pages parameter, it won't work). Again, you're adding layer upon layer of work for new editors to learn to be able to help. And why? Are citations that aren't in a template worse in some way? If I want to cite a book but the book has a template, must I use the template? If the citation doesn't use the page parameter, can I not use it or do I have to learn about the template language to fix it? Wouldn't a list that contained both the citations in template and the citations with just cite book be more useful? Should every book that is a source be made into a citation? My point is, if someone is referring to this book repeatedly, find, use the thing in their own place like I did with User:Ricky81682/Template:Johnson but don't force everyone else to use the template just because you designed one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Wonderfullife[edit]

Citation template consisting entirely of a wrapper for cite book template. Doesn't include the ISBN number and there's no way to pass the page number into the template (which is asked for here). Excluding the 3 redirects, it's used in six pages and just makes the citation harder not easier. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete with the {{pn}} template attached, since these are missing pages -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Vapereau[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was subst and delete. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Single used citation template of hard-coded text (other than the random call to "Articletitle" which is not something that should be fixed and not changeable. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Charles[edit]

Orphaned citation template that consists entirely of hard-coded text. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Admin request[edit]

Propose merging Template:Admin request with Template:Admin help.
Per outcome of recent discussion of {{Admin request}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge per my comments in the previously-referenced discussion. These two templates are rather identical to each other, and if they can be merged together to allow use on any discussion page (talk, etc), then the need for both of these is unnecessary. However, these two templates put their tagged pages into two different categories: {{Admin help}} uses Category:Wikipedians looking for help from administrators, and {{Admin request}} uses Category:Wikipedia requests related to admins. Maybe a namespace check can be implemented into the merge to have the former appear when the tag is in the "User:" (incorrect placement, but still...) or the "User talk:" namespaces, and the latter appear on all others. Heck, maybe even just have what is currently at Template:Admin help run when the template is in either one of those two namespaces, and have Template:Admin request run for all others (though I'd really like to see one of the categories disappear since the categories seem redundant.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As mentioned in the previous discussion, a merge could probably be done without any loss in functionality, and I would support that if undertaken properly. IMO the merged template should use Category:Wikipedians looking for help from administrators, which is a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia requests related to admins, and the merged template needs some wording tweaks to encompass the processes that each template currently creates. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:ASTM standards[edit]

The inclusion criterion is unclear. There are hundreds of standards in list of ASTM International standards, and if they are going to be included in the navbox, then it will become too large. Moreover one can simply go to Category:ASTM standards to find other standards. Quest for Truth (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment WP:CLN -- Categories display articles by their name, if the ASTM stadnard is also a standard for another standards organization, it may appear under a non-ASTM name. We don't have hundreds of articles on ASTM standards, so the List lists more than what we have articles on. The template would then only list those where the standard appears in an article on Wikipedia, under its ASTM name and not some other name. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that the template includes only the ASTM standards which have their articles? Such inclusion criterion is arbitrary, and may mislead the readers about the total number of ASTM standards. The template is also replaceable by the category, as category only shows the standards that have their own articles. For the name issues, if a standard goes by another name because it is also a standard under another organization (actually can you name such an example?), a redirect from the ASTM name to the alternative name should be created. --Quest for Truth (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
      • It is not arbitrary inclusion criteria, it is the basic criterion for templates. Templates do not include links to topics that do not exist. Templates are for navigation between articles. If the article does not exist, it should not appear on a nav template, because that is not the purpose of templates. See all over this TfD page, where templates are deleted for not having links to articles, having links to non-existent articles. All nav templates work this way. All nav templates are this way, we don't list everything just because only articles matter in a template. It is not misleading to indicate that only certain topics have articles, it is how all nav templates work. Nav templates cannot work any other way. Creating a redirect and adding that redirect to the category, and making sure all pages are sorted properly are all other types of maintenance, and not related to the template itself, per CLN. Indeed, if the template is misleading for not having entries for non-existent article then the same can be applied to categories that don't hold non-existent articles to standards that have no articles. Isn't it just as misleading to not have every standard in the category? Isn't it the same kind of misleading? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:British Albanians[edit]

Does not fit into an existing template scheme as far as I can tell. It serves the same function as Category:British people of Albanian descent and is better suited as a list. Nymf (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ce-flux[edit]

This template is not used on any pages (this can be confirmed by seeing which en wp pages the image[2] is used on). Deleting this would be removing unnecessary wp infrastructure. For background to this template see discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Archives/2012#new_template.2C_useful.2C_or_just_good_practice_of_my_photoshop_skills.3F. DexDor (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC) (Link updated DexDor (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC))

Template:British passports[edit]

A somewhat convoluted template of specialist interest useful to a very few, except perhaps in Hong Kong; certainly not those in the United Kingdom. Largely created by two persons who do not live in the United Kingdom or the rest of the British Islands (where the vast majority of holders and bearers of British passports presumably still live). I hate to sound this as a personal criticism, and I am no doubt far from faultless myself, even in the course of my edits within Wikipedia, but the fact is, their knowledge of the subject, in fact, seem somewhat limited, given that they obviously do not know that passports, issued either by the Lieutenant-Governors of the Crown Dependencies on behalf of the Passport Offices of the executive branch of the respective Assemblies ("States") (or the Passport Office of the respective Government, in the case of the Isle of Man) of those Crown Dependencies, or by the Governors of the British Overseas Territories (directly; or perhaps indirectly, in the case of Gibraltar and of the Falkland Islands) on behalf of the Passport Offices of the respective Governments of those British Overseas Territories, since they are not passports issued by sovereign and independent Countries, they are not referred to by the names of those Crown Dependencies or British Overseas Territories in the adjective instead of the noun. It is certainly going to take me a good few hours to clean it all up this morning (in BST), which I certainly can do without! I think, personally, that, it probably started off as a expansion of a WP:Content fork for the British National (Overseas) (BN(O)) status (GBN) and the British National (Overseas) passport, which had since gone a little out of hand. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment it's a template, not a CFORK; it navigates between different articles on "British Passports" and those places with customs unions with UK (such as the Crown personal unions), so... it seems to serve its purpose. Most of the articles are called British Passport (xyz) so conform to the nominal topic. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep seems to do what it says. If you dispute the content of the various articles, delete those first, the come back here when you've deleted the articles. If you believe that the Crown Possessions should not be listed... then that's an issue for debate here. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Orthopaedic Eponyms[edit]

I propose this navbox is replaced by either a list or a category system. It does not provide any navigational benefit as currently stands. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. A list might be appropriate (e.g. like the other lists at Medical eponyms, but that's tagged under GNG). Medical conditions (etc) should be categorized by characteristics of the topic - not by characteristics of the/a name used to refer them. DexDor (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

August 18[edit]

Template:Non-free use rationale video game screenshot[edit]

As with the recent television screenshot template (which is now in the process of being deleted) and others of a similar ilk, this template should be deleted because it is a template rationale for a class of non-free media for which "canned" rationales are not appropriate. Unlike, say, non-free album covers on album articles or non-free logos on pages about corporations, there is no presumption in favour of non-free screenshots on video game pages. On the other hand, I'd say that there was a presumption in favour of non-free cover images. If a screenshot is justified (which is by no means a given!) it will require a specific, tailored rationale- what does this image add to that article. Template:Non-free use rationale should be sufficient for this; I cannot see that the nominated template serves any positive purpose. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Shouldn't Template:Non-free use rationale software screenshot be bundled with this nomination too, based on your rationale? – czar 23:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think so. I'm not really familiar with what is standard on software articles, but it certainly seems to be typical to include a screenshot in infoboxes. I suspect there is a separate discussion to be had about when/if that template is appropriate to whether this one is. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: This template is not about generating "canned" rationales. It was designed to make it easier to perform rationale tagging on large numbers of images that are being used for a common purpose. There was a big push a number of years ago to justify the use of every video game image that was used in an article, and a number of us found it tedious to have to type exactly the same thing over and over again (eg. "to identify (game name) in its article" or "to show an example of this game's graphics"). It seemed unreasonable to force editors to type those phrases every time, especially when most tried to take shortcuts and ended up creating incomplete or inadequate rationales. I suspect that if you delete this template, someone in the future is going to just create another one to perform the same task. (Or, they will just copy/paste rationale templates from existing images and likely forget to change something, such that the new rationale doesn't actually apply to the image in question.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Also, comment: Many game articles use screenshots of their title screens (especially arcade games that don't have separate cover art), so I don't agree with Josh's argument that screenshots have no presumption of validity in most articles. Further, many game articles that meet our standards for Good or Featured status invariably have at least one screenshot showing in-game graphics, and articles on game consoles and hardware often also feature screenshots to show examples of their capabilities or most notable titles. Generally speaking, I believe the question of whether a particular screenshot is valid for a particular use is separate from how the non-free use rationale for that image is created. And when you've eliminated most of the screenshots that aren't providing value, the ones you're usually left with are all used for the same relatively small set of purposes in their respective articles - hence why I created this template to begin with. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Keifer, you opened your comment by saying that this is not about canned rationales, and then went on to describe how great this template is for producing canned rationales. What you are saying would be fine if we took it for granted that video game articles can and should contain screenshots pretty much by default (as we currently take it that video game articles can and should contain cover art pretty much by default) but that is not the case (your slightly unusual example about title screens possibly being an exception to that). You also seem to be unclear on what the purpose of a rationale is. You give some examples of when video game screenshots are useful additions to articles, and say that they will often be useful additions. No one is disputing that. But if and when they are valid, we use rationales to explain that. A bunch of generic buzzwords might look nice, but they don't actually do a good job of explaining. Is the image there to display how good the game's graphics were? How bad the game's graphics were? The complicated interface? The colourful art style? The monochromatic art style? A typical example of the genre? A typical example of the game's output? This template can't pinpoint that, and that's exactly what we need from a rationale. For example, this rationale might tell us that the image is there "To identify and illustrate the game or program in its own article or a closely related article" or "To show an example of software within a series", but these do nothing to explain why, how or if the image meets NFCC#8. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I guess we disagree on the definition of "canned" rationale. As I mentioned, at the time we found ourselves saying exactly the same things in virtually every screenshot. Screenshots were usually included in articles for one of about five main purposes, with few exceptions. At the time, more general statements of purpose like "to identify the subject of the article" were broadly considered acceptable by the VG Project. I can certainly understand if that's changed more recently - if so, and a template that makes this process less tedious is no longer acceptable, then so be it. I just don't agree with your reasoning - I believe you're still going to find the majority of editors who fill out NFCC are going to end up in the same situation as before, so if the NFCC rules are stricter now, they'll require stricter policing either way. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment/Discussion: Lemme address the most common uses of VG screenshots more specifically:
    1. Title screens used in the Infobox: Same purpose as video game covers. We prefer cover art when available, but in some cases, that's not available and a title screen is the next best thing. This is typical of articles on arcade games and some computer software. In some isolated cases, the title screen is more notable than the cover art - those are handled on a case-by-case basis. In all cases, though, using a screenshot in this area meets NFCC-8 by giving a visual reference to the article's title and subject. A typical rationale would be "to identify (name) in its article", and the template covers this case.
    2. Typical gameplay: Shows an example of the game in action, to supplement prose in the Gameplay section of the article. For example, a screenshot from Sonic the Hedgehog would likely show a blue hedgehog in mid-jump next to some rings, with part of the environment visible, one or two enemies nearby, and the score, time and life counters displayed. A typical rationale would be "to show an example of gameplay." The template covers this case.
    3. Typical graphics: In articles on hardware, screenshots (like the one I just described for Sonic) are often used to show an example of the graphics on that console, and/or to show the console's most notable games in action. (Sonic is a great example for the Sega Genesis, and Super Mario World serves the same purpose for the SNES.) Rationale is usually "to show an example of graphics on (hardware)", covered by the template.
    4. Typical of genre: In articles on video game genres (eg. shooters or platformers), screenshots are usually used to show an example of a game in the genre - again, particularly notable examples are usually used. (Super Mario World would make a good example for the platforming genre, for example.) Rationale is usually "to show an example of typical gameplay in this genre" or "to show a notable game in this genre", both of which are covered by the template.
    5. Entry in series: Again, an example of a game within its own series is a common accepted use for a screenshot. Any one of the Sonic games would be a good example for the article on the Sonic series. A typical rationale would then be "to show an example within this series." The template covers that.
    6. Other uses: There are some cases in which the use of a screenshot doesn't fall into any of these categories - it serves a much more specific purpose. The two examples that come immediately to mind are a screenshot of the ghost-flickering in the Atari 2600 version of Pac-Man, and the kill screen in the arcade version of Pac-Man. In both cases, the behavior being described is itself notable enough that a screenshot demonstrating the case is warranted. The rationale for such a use would be specialized and not covered by this template, and I would openly discourage the template's use in generating a rationale for it - the template wasn't designed to cover every case. (I've also told editors in the past that they can always go back and edit the resulting rationale template to tweak wording or add details as necessary.)
  • I see your point in how the rationales given may be a little too generic (phrases like "game or program", for example). We can definitely tweak that a bit, though if it required too many more parameters to make rationales specific enough, the usefulness of the template would be severely diminished and we may as well just do each template manually, as you suggested. So I would want to know if the problem is with the descriptions being too generic and just needing some tweaking, or if it's more fundamentally that the use of a template helper is a bad practice in general. If the consensus is that we really don't want editors using "helper templates", then I'll agree to deleting this template. I just want to be clear on that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep but needs improvement I will disagree with "there is no presumption in favour of non-free screenshots on video game pages" - unlike television, the bulk which involves live actors in readily-envisioned situations, nearly every video game has allowance of one screenshot to demonstrate, at minimum gameplay, but also can include elements like art style, UI/HUD, etc. And gameplay in nearly every notable (read: has been reviewed by a reliable source) game discusses the gameplay so that bare minimum is met. That said, specifically looking at the "purpose" keyword, this simplifies the need for uploaders/reusers for using NFCC far too much. The major issue with canned rationals like this is that they take out the need for the uploader to think about NFCC#8, and it gives the impression that any number of screenshots can be used as long as this is added. If the purpose field was one that had no pre-defined fields, or , to my first point, that presumed that the use was basically to illustrate the nature of the game's gameplay alongside sourced discussion of gameplay (in more detail), but which could be overridden with more specific or different uses, that would be more acceptable. The other aspects that the rationale template does, to help populate the game title, developer/publisher, etc. are all good things to be more accurate about that takes a bit more work for the standard rationale approach. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Masem: I'm not saying I agree (or disagree), but do you perhaps want to make those improvements? My fear is that if it gets kept, no one will ever get around to making those improvements. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
      • There should probably be some engagement with the VG project to help flesh out a better "default" rationale, but I would say that if this ends up kept, I would try to make it a priority to fix up the rationale aspect ASAP (and figure out how to grandfather existing images). --MASEM (t) 16:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm not at all opposed to making improvements to this template. I'd be happy to help out when I have time. It's worth noting that, used as intended, this template is subst'd into the main template, so there is no real way to tell which images were rationalized using this template (that I'm aware of). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
          • I found the substituted templates by googling for a string of text from one of the stock rationale fields. But as posted on the template's talk, I'm not seeing a compelling reason to substitute, especially considering circumstances such as this discussion – czar 18:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Uw-ics4im[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete as author-requested [3]. MusikAnimal talk 21:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright is confusing, especially for new users and users used to sites like Facebook, Tumblr, and Imgur where images are routinely uploaded without any sort of copyright or source information. Users should get the series of warnings before a block. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless somebody, such as Gamingforfun365 (talk · contribs), can show where the creation of this template was discussed beforehand. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete every mistake which I have made, for I really should have been reflecting a consensus. I am sorry for my error. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete- doesn't reflect policy. Bazj (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This does not comport with WP:BLOCK policy.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Uw-speedy4im[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing speedy deletion notices, while disruptive, is a common mistake made by new editors and shouldn't be subject to a final warning. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless somebody, such as Gamingforfun365 (talk · contribs), can show where the creation of this template was discussed beforehand. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete- doesn't reflect policy. Bazj (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree when it comes to new users, but what about for seasoned users or those who have been blocked for other things before and are now unblocked doing the same things? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This does not comport with WP:BLOCK policy.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Uw-npov4im[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that a single incident of violating WP:NPOV is serious enough to warrant a final warning. Users should either get the series of warnings or get something like {{uw-vandalism4im}} Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless somebody, such as Gamingforfun365 (talk · contribs), can show where the creation of this template was discussed beforehand. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete- doesn't reflect policy. Bazj (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree when it comes to new users, but again what about for seasoned users or those who have been blocked for other things before and are now unblocked doing the same things? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This does not comport with WP:BLOCK policy.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Uw-nor4im[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that a single incident of violating WP:OR is serious enough enough to warrant a final warning. Users should either get the series of warnings or get something like {{uw-vandalism4im}} Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless somebody, such as Gamingforfun365 (talk · contribs), can show where the creation of this template was discussed beforehand. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete- doesn't reflect policy. Bazj (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree when it comes to new users, but again what about for seasoned users or those who have been blocked for other things before and are now unblocked doing the same things? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This does not comport with WP:BLOCK policy.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Uw-plotsum3[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Jenks24 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 14:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This template misrepresents WP:SPOILER. Saying that we shouldn't add excessive details to plot summaries because "Wikipedia does not spoil every moment of stories by substituting originals" is plain false. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless somebody, such as Gamingforfun365 (talk · contribs), can show where the creation of this template was discussed beforehand. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete- doesn't reflect policy. Bazj (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I must have misinterpreted the policy's warning. Other than that, just, remove them all. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Uw-attempt4im[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate as an only warning, since users would likely have no idea what the context is unless they already got a {{uw-attempt2}}. It seems like this would be covered by {{uw-vandalism4im}} anyway. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless somebody, such as Gamingforfun365 (talk · contribs), can show where the creation of this template was discussed beforehand. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete- doesn't reflect policy. Bazj (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This does not comport with WP:BLOCK policy.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Uw-unsourced4im[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 13:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is terribly useful, as addition of unsourced content by itself is unlikely to be severe enough for an only warning (and if it is, it will likely fall under something like {{Uw-vandalism4im}} or {{Uw-biog4im}}. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless somebody, such as Electricburst1996 (talk · contribs), can show where the creation of this template was discussed beforehand. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, what if the user had been issued a Lv. 4 warning, was dormant for a while, and then resumed adding unsourced content? Otherwise, Delete. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 16:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Then it would't be an only warning, it would be a final warning, or you could leave a non-template message. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 04:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete- doesn't reflect policy. Bazj (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Does not comport with WP:BLOCK policy.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Dark Horse tracks[edit]

Per precedent set by numerous such templates which are considered redundant, for eg: here. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 13:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't understand – why would this template be considered redundant? Each of the album's tracks are the subject of an article, so that makes it useful surely. JG66 (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Barquote[edit]

Propose merging Template:Barquote with Template:Quote.
Fork for variant style. If it is consensus that the new style should be adopted, it should be applied in our global CSS; or at least available as a switch in the more common template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Not sure it this is the right place to discuss. I see the quote template displaying "‹See Tfm›" out of the blue. This should only affect Barquote? As that template is proposed to be merged in (and appearance of it will change/be same as for quote I guess?), while no changes will be noticed/intended(?) for quote? This was an interesting trivia for me, but I actually didn't know about barquote, and likely, never needed to know.. comp.arch (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • {{Barquote}} is a template is it not? This is Templates for discussion. The change could potentially affect all instances of {{Quote}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I didn't mean that barquote should be discussed, I'm sure there's a need (and I'm not against merging). I however see no need to discuss quote (that will work the same as always, right?), thus do need to(?) to affect displaying of all the pages where it is used. Just merge quickly then.. I meant that the technical issue of NOT displaying might not be wanted here. comp.arch (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge {{Barquote}} (only one page uses this template) into {{Quote}} or replace it entirely, and remove the TfM notice from {{Quote}}. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Barquote should be removed, it serves no purpose except for its different (ugly, in my opinion) style. If there is consensus for a new style, it should be set in global CSS, not fought out page-by-page using direct formatting. And please remove the stupid See Tfm link from Quote because it's a very common template and the link now disfigures a lot of pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.82.82 (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree with the IP on the removal of see tfm link from quote. I was just shocked when it showed up on a page I maintain and I had no idea what it was. I use it often, in FAs. I don't want the reader distracted.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge into {{quote}}. It's an interesting and attractive style, and making it available as a styling option for {{quote}} would be an ideal thing to do with it. How can we do this in an extensible way? Perhaps a "style=barquote" parameter that could then be used for other options? I like the idea that the use of the {{quote}} template would be semantic, with the presentational style of the quote factored out into its own parameter. This would also allow the style change to be migrated to site CSS without changing the template's interface to the user. -- The Anome (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • The Anome, if I understand correctly, the purpose of merge is tat the behaviour would be exactly the same – that would be the immediate action. Then it seems you want to oppose.. What you propose could be added later as a parameter, but then you're back to square one and might as well continue to use barquote? If in the vast majority of cases you want the quote-style used/conformed, merging would to that, and you would still keep the "history" (know where barquote was used as pages (in edit mode) would stay the same). Then you could selectively go back. comp.arch (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Not so. There are three ways to merge: To apply the new style to {{Quote}} to replace the current style; to apply it as an option that an be turned on; or to apply it by default, with an option to turn it off. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm proposing the second: that the "barquote" behavior be made an option that can be turned on, but that the normal default {{quote}} semantics should not change in any way. -- The Anome (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just delete {{barquote}}. We have no need to "merge" every random style idea someone has. Left and right indentation of block quotation is standard practice in text media. Vertical grey bars aren't standard in anything, it's just a "look, I know some CSS" experiment. If there were to be some site-wide change in block quotation style, that's something that would be determined at WT:MOS or WP:VPPRO, and implemented at Mediawiki:Common.css. The last thing we need is a core template of this sort doing random stylistic things that people are applying inconsistently from article to article, even all over the place on the same page (we already have one problem of this sort that needs to be dealt with, affecting hundreds of pages, despite MOS and the template's own documentation saying not to use it for block quotations). WP is not your blog, nor a Web design sandboxing site.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete {{Barquote}} per SMcCandlish. The look of block quotes shouldn't be altered on a per-article basis. Alakzi (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • merge, and use it to fix the excess style statements in Female genital mutilation, Brown Dog affair, Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Hulda Stumpf, Germaine Greer, Lemmons, Val Plumwood, Christian Science, Colin McGinn, Vivienne Haigh-Wood Eliot, Carnism, Lizzy Lind af Hageby, Cancer Ward, Wilhelm Reich, Ceratonia siliqua, Night (book), Rudolf Vrba, Jack Sarfatti, In Our Time (short story collection), Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol, Rhythm 0, ... Sure, I can see a case for having all articles use the same style, and hence make this template less flexible. however, this apparently means that editors will resort to using excessive markup in the articles to impose a particular preferred style. I would rather see a common pattern templated, rather than copy-and-pasted. Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Uw-virusblock[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Both a a snow deletion and a G7 deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a newly created block template for "illegally promoting spam links to computer viruses". This sort of disruption is so exceedingly rare and specialized that it doesn't warrant its own custom template, and listing this custom template along with the commonly used ones only creates clutter. Our existing {{uw-vblock}} template is already perfectly appropriate for this sort of vandalism. Psychonaut (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. I've been an administrator since 2007, and I can't remember ever blocking someone for this reason. It's definitely not common enough that it needs its own template. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Delete. -- The Anome (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless somebody, such as Gamingforfun365 (talk · contribs), can show where the creation of this template was discussed beforehand. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is just cluttering up the project. I am sorry. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Uw-virus[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 14:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe this user warning template is useful. Apart from some significant issues with the wording (which conflates viruses in particular with malware in general, and which unduly focuses on legal issues specific to the US), I don't believe it's helpful to merely warn people actively attempting to disable or hijack the computers of readers and editors. This is the sort of behaviour where the perpetrators need to be indefinitely blocked immediately to prevent imminent harm to others. In those exceedingly rare cases where the behaviour was mischaracterized or unintentional, the issue can be sorted out after the block is in place. Psychonaut (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete: I do not know of what I was thinking, and, in this case, I agree with you. I should have been thinking about the fact that everyone knows better than to do that, so delete it. I am thinking about doing a block version of it. Is that okay? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Deleted, since Gamingforfun, the only significant creator, asked for deletion here. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:DJ JY[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The subject of this template was deemed non-notable per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ JY (Artist), and I deleted the article. As such, there is no need for this template. I have also nominated Draft:DJ JY (Artist) for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:DJ JY (Artist) for the same reason. North America1000 01:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Isn't this a speedy candidate, since the article to which it pertains was deleted at AfD?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ankit Fadia[edit]

Why you think the template should be deleted. it only has two links 203.109.161.2 (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment This one is problematic in that it is not completely clear if the IP user or someone else nominated this template. A quick read of the Ankit Fadia article suggests that the subject meets WP:notability requirements, although I did not dig into the sources to confirm they were appropriate sources. The fact that most of the author's works do not (yet) have their own articles is not surprising given the fact that the article is about an author who is from a country where English, while spoken by many, is not the primary language. I think having just two links in the template might be preferable to having a template full of red links. I would be interested in hearing from those who worked on this author's page, especially the template creator, what their intent is regarding articles about the author's other works.Etamni✉   22:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NENAN it has only 3 links, per other navbox deletions at TfD, that's rather low. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

August 17[edit]

Template:Infobox Jainism[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Boldly redirected, per WP:SNOW. Any differences in content or presentation can be resolved on the target template's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not the correct use of an infobox; it is being used by ONE page to (badly) replicate Template:Jainism Ogress smash! 20:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Twelfth Doctor companions[edit]

A rather extreme case of WP:NENAN, this navbox has literally one article (or two if you count Twelfth Doctor in the title). NYKevin 19:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - There will be more eventually... Every incarnation started out this way. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
    • NOTE that the template is also included inside {{Doctor Who companions}}, so while on it's own it may seem redundant, it is part of a bigger whole. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @Edokter: Why can't you just subst it there? --NYKevin 19:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Makes it harder to maintain. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless as-is; let it be recreated once there are enough entries to make the navbox realistically useful for navigation. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough links to provide useful navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:2013 Samsung Lions[edit]

Category:Korean Series championship navigational boxes (edit · talk · history · logs · subpages · delete)

Unnecessary, redundant, and minor. 2013 Korean Series#Roster is sufficient. Sawol (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

August 15[edit]

Template:Jon & Kate Plus 8[edit]

All links go to the same article. Probably no chance for expansion. Fuddle (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose nominator is incorrect, the two parents have articles, as does the episode list, and the show itself, so all except one blue link is a separate article. And indeed, the sextuplets should also have a separate (joint) article because they are notable independent of the TV show, so there is potential for further growth. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Reply/Correction What I should have said was "Every link is the navbox is already on the page for the show." Maybe that's not enough for deletion, either. The box looks empty, I guess that's my issue. :) Fuddle (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
      • The box has seven blue links which are for four articles, plus a Commons category. It's as large as many other templates on Wikipedia. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • delete as pointless. standard inter-article linking works fine here. we don't need a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough links to provide useful navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Collapsible archive box[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was redirect {{Collapsible archive box}} to {{Archive box collapsible}}. The former, it is unanimously agreed, should be somehow disposed of, and given that any merging of unique features into the latter is still possible, I think there is presently consensus to perform a redirect. No consensus with regard to other templates. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Collapsible archive box with Template:Archive box collapsible.
Similar and confusingly-similar names. May both be redundant to {{Archive box}} (38,682 transclusions), or vice versa. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Metatalk[edit]

Redundant to similar talk-page header templates. Only 31 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment which talk page headers is it redundant to? The documentation explains which circumstances this template should be used, and why it shouldn't be used widely -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this template solves a problem and doesn't violate policy. Etamni | ✉   10:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak merge with Template:Off topic warning. They serve similar purposes, although there're some differences. Ctwabn (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Resolved issues[edit]

Only two transclusions. Redundant to other talk page headers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Acecandheader[edit]

Redundant and outdated. Can be replaced with a more generic talk page header. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment has WP:ARBCOM been informed of this? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • By necessity, arbcom doesn't have any direct influence on the running of elections. The correct notice should go to whoever ran the 2014 Arbcom Elections, since they would be the person most likely to know if this is a template that remains useful, or just one that was useful in the past (or whether I'm wrong and it should be blown away). I've notified User:Mike V, who served on the committee for last year's election and may have some insight. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per IP 67 pending WP:ARBCOM confirmation of disuse of this template. Melody 23:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Which template was this redundant to, again? The entire point of using a custom template was because the talk pages for Arbcom elections had additional rules that applied, both to the candidate and to people discussing the candidate. We also, at least in 2008 when this was made, had many many editors who don't get involved in the drama-filled areas of the project, but who might look at the candidates for arbcom. Adding links to the election policies and to the election talk page (mainly for reporting shenanigans) suited the election process at that time. And it seems to have worked well enough for use through 2012. Mark it historical if you like, but I don't see a compelling argument for deleting. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It appears this template was only used in the 2008 election. More recently, we've used a new template for each election. This template contains the same talk page notices, but also has links to the candidate's statement and questions. I have no opinion on whether it is kept or not, but I should note that it is no longer being used. Mike VTalk 17:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Question: So, could this template, and all of the templates used between 2009–14 be merged into one template that has a new parameter for the 'year' of the election? --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Main Music Artists and Bands of Venezuela[edit]

better covered by a category to avoid the "Main" POV classification and redlinks. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I am commissioned to create the pages, quickly, translated from the Spanish Wikipedia, for these no longer red links. I think this template is important because it is a link for people to know which are the best examples and Venezuelan genres, as sound, know that exists via Wikipedia, I know that is not a means of propaganda, by that i place all of the finest examples of genres with songs that are successful, i do not delete any one, if missing some, wikipedia is a medium created by many people so people will providing more bands. In this moment, i am creating Template:Main Music Artists and Bands of Cuba--Vvven (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Vvven: Saying which are best examples is subjective though. These are things can be covered on Music of Venezuela article and categories. Why not just make a to-do list on your userpage so you know which ones have to created? Alternatively, you can also add missing articles to on this Missing articles section on the Latin music project. Erick (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • if but is not the same an artist that have a classic within the genre, with else other than just wrote a CD and that does not know anyone, but has an article on Wikipedia that these templates will help people who do not know nothing of that genres, for that i put "main".--Vvven (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I honestly cannot understand what you're saying. Are you using a Spanish to English translator by any chance? Erick (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

yes, sorry but i fix wrong parts--Vvven (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

added "Main Music Artists and Bands of Cuba". there is a reason why we don't have Main Music Artists and Bands for every country. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:AFC Request[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete without prejudice to recreation in the event of this template being needed in the future. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary, unused, and basically redundant to {{Edit fully-protected}}. Steel1943 (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete As above, it's redundant, I've never seen it used. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I highly disagree that it is redundant, however will still vote Delete as creator because the intended AfC process fell through and has been reverted to anyone join after an RfC. The original idea was to provide a edit count link alongside an edit protected request so admins could easily respond to the requests without hunting down their edit count. As I said, the RfC was overturned and template wasn't needed. Pigsonthewing. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: but if at some point in the future we restrict access to the Helper Script wouldn't this need to be created again? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Mega64[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mega64 episodes (season 1), this template does not link to any articles. Cerebellum (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete there are only two articles for this topic -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pantech phones[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantech Vega Racer, this template does not link to any articles. Cerebellum (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

August 14[edit]

Template:Upcoming events[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Unused. Last updated 2008. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:TVoter[edit]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Spotlight-project[edit]

Unused. Project is defunct. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:SportWB[edit]

Redundant to {{Busy}}, {{Wikibreak}}, et al. (Presently unused.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Stable version[edit]

Lacks community adoption (only 45 transclusions); likely to become outdated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep: It's expected and by design that this would not be used very frequently, because editing battlegrounds don't break out often enough and do so on top of long-stable version, that the template would need to be used frequently. It should probably have a |date= parameter, and be bot-removed or at least be in a maint. cat., so it can be removed, after some particular time defined on its documentation page.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If it's useful, then keep it. I just had a look at Norwich Market, with this diff proving quite revealing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC).
  • Keep per SMcC ; why should we expect that every article is likely to have edit wars? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • This template cannot stop edit wars. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
      • That's not its purpose. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Then why refer to edit wars in your comment? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
          • I am wondering if you read SMcCandlish's opinion or not, since I most definitely citied it in my opinion. Stable versions are useful in pages with edit wars, since it can identify a place to compare from, or to revert to, for status quo ante bellum. And to discuss from, as it would show what has changed and what's disputed in the edit war. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
            • There appears to be no connection between his comment and your rhetorical question. Who says we should "expect that every article is likely to have edit wars?"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
              • Your rationale combined with SMcC's opinion results in a situation where most of Wikipedia should contain edit wars, if this is expected to be widely used. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Sharedipedu 1[edit]

Propose merging Template:Sharedipedu 1 with Template:Shared IP edu; or simply deleting for former.

Very similar (and similarly-named) templates. No apparent reason we need two. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Clearly merge; looks like an inadvertent fork.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Nothing inadvertent about it. Template:Shared IP edu was changed, and I thought (and still think) that there are a few circumstances where the older version was more appropriate, so I saved a copy of it. It has remained for two years, until Pigsonthewing, who seems to have an obsession with deleting templates, decided he or she didn't like it. There is nothing wrong with having two alternatives to choose from, and no reason to prevent anyone from using the alternative if they think there is a reason to do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge. The former is an unnecessary fork of the more-used latter. Also, your info is outdated, {{Shared IP edu}} has 87,856 transclusions, not 87,847. --Stranger195 (talkcontribsguestbook) 10:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is there to merge? Wikipedia:Abuse response is no longer operational. Alakzi (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Spoken Wikipedia In Progress[edit]

A random sample of transclusions of the first template show it remaining on article talk pages for between five and ten years. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Shoutbox sidebar[edit]

Non-standard interface, more than likely to confuse editors encountering it. Redundant in part to 'notifications'. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Nuke from orbit. This was an experiment I ran across, and edited it some to be more functional, then even tried to use it, but virtually no one had any interest in it. I thought it got deleted years ago.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Please be neutral[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was orphan and delete. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Seemingly always used alongside {{Controversial}}, to which it is thus redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)i Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. We have way too many of these things, and people keep dumping them all at once on the talk pages of article they argue at. {{Talk header}} is actually sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are lots of other very similar templates to this. --Stranger195 (talkcontribsguestbook) 10:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete pernom. --201.53.89.217 (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Visibility-WT-Upload[edit]

Single use, in an edit notice, where it should be Subst:. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Uw-spanonblock[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G7 at author's request. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I created this a while back as part of a number of templates for consistency, but it's not used any more. Delete. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be always "Subst"ed so its hard to tell if it's unused. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Translation attribution[edit]

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

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Will move to my user space. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • comment, see prior discussion.
  • delete/userfy as unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment at any rate, this has a completely inappropriate name. It is not for generic translation attribution, it is for specific WPMED attributions. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Moved It would have been better to contact me as the creator of the templateHmm, I have a similar template somewhere else. I've moved it to user space. Closing this discussion now. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Trains FI[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Calmer Waters (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 14:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Only 8 transclusions. Non-functioning links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - I created this template as part of the maintenance for Portal:Trains. Over the last ten years of editing the portal, especially now that the images used for the selected picture section are all hosted on Commons, this template's need has reduced significantly to where it is no longer used and is safe to delete without problems. Thank you for notifying me of this entry. Slambo (Speak) 18:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - G7, perhaps? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Transwikied to Wiktionary[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was merge Template:Transwiki to Wiktionary Finished into Template:Transwikied to Wiktionary. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Transwikied to Wiktionary with Template:Transwiki to Wiktionary Finished.
Similar purposes. No apparent need for two templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge, to simpler name "Transwikied to Wiktionary".  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC).
  • Merge per above.Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Talk Spoken Wikipedia id-3[edit]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Talk archive navigationB[edit]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge to {{Talk archive navigation}} with a switch to activate alternate text -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. If anybody ever asks for alternative text, it can be discussed on the talk page of the original template. Alakzi (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge; I'm not particular, but its redundancy is obvious. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Horse breeds[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy keep per WP:SOCK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Redundant to the list articles.Algircal (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:CLN; such redundancy is explicitly permissible, because the different forms of navigation are used differently by different people in different contexts for different reasons. However, some of the breed navboxes are in need of redlink cleanup, and a few might be deletion-worthy if they're mostly redlinks (I think one of the goat breeds ones was like this). They should probably be userspaced to whoever has most worked on them. I get the sense that many if not most of the are semi-active works in progress, and I know I've added entries to more than one of them myself, though not in the equine sphere.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Never sure about nav-boxes in general, but if we are to have them, these are as good as any. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC).
  • Keep per SMcCandlish as a standard navbox. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Nominator has perhaps not been here long enough to have read the page cited as a rationale for deletion, WP:CLN, where the first paragraph, WP:NOTDUP, specifically states that it is "neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." That's the case here – the categories, lists and navboxes have different content (for example, the lists contain the references that would be inappropriate in a navbox) and serve different and complementary purposes; that of the navbox is to allow one-click navigation between groups of closely-associated articles and to indicate, in accordance with WP:REDLINK, which articles in the group still remain to be written.
  • Algircal, may I suggest that you take some time to become more familiar with our practices and guidelines before making further deletion nominations? And that if and when you do make such a nomination, you have the courtesy to notify the creator of the page and the relevant WikiProject(s)? Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:45, 15 *Speedy keep: When these were created, it was with consensus after much discussion (and, full disclosure, I originally was kind of dubious, but I've come around to fully support their creation and usefulness). I have come to see them as a helpful tool and useful for those interested in the topic of breeds by nation. The navbox is actually more helpful than a category as it also lists breeds with alternative names and redlinks to those that are missing and need to be created. They have been around for several years now, and given that there is now only one or two editors working on these, they would, I suspect, but glad for help in creating more articles. Montanabw(talk) 19:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Nope: look at the disclaimers at the top of the navboxes: "Many have complex or obscure histories, so inclusion here does not necessarily imply that a breed is predominantly or exclusively German". The navboxes indicate that they are not navigating articles but listing information that should be on a list; in other words, duplicating the list.Algircal (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
      • That was to explain why some breeds might show up in more than one "breeds by country" list- for example Hafingers, with both German and Italian roots. Montanabw(talk) 23:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Filing user Algircal has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Previous account has a longstanding penchant for tendentious editing related to equine articles. renewing speedy close request. Montanabw(talk) 23:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Donkey breeds[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy keep per WP:SOCK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was

Redundant to the list articles. Algircal (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:CLN; see related listing above for detailed rationale and cleanup notes.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per SMcCandlish as a standard navbox. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Misconceived nomination, as above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep: Same rationale as for the horse breed templates above. Montanabw(talk) 19:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


August 13[edit]

Template:FC Bayern Munich squad 2013 FIFA Club World Cup[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Unused, redundant template JMHamo (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - simply not needed. We don't have tournament squad templates for clubs, only international competitions, and even then only the major ones. GiantSnowman 13:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unused and apparently unneeded. - MrX 13:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:MovedtoMainspace[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deleteOpabinia regalis (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Used on only five former-draft articles, so no community uptake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I think this has been replaced by the WP:AFC process -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    Comment: pretty much; it's not like anything's currently preventing drafts from being moved to mainspace. Seems obsolete. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • looks like CaroleHenson uses it? Frietjes (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - It seems pointless.- MrX 13:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:LepTalk[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. BethNaught (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Outreachwiki case study[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keepOpabinia regalis (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Coincidentally, I'm working on expanding this right now, and planning to do a few more. I don't know that the template is vitally important, but for whatever it's worth, it won't be single use for long. -Pete (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Peteforsyth. - MrX 13:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NORtalk[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment has WP:NORN been informed of this deletion nomination? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - The purpose of a template is that it will be used in multiple places. If this is only going to be used on WT:OR, the template code can simply be placed on that one page. - MrX 13:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NFcleanup[edit]

Only 21 transclusions, so lacking community take-up. Undated, so may stay on talk pages far longer than necessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment and how would you adjudge that? This would only appear on articles that use a lot of non-free images. Do we have so many articles that greatly violate image use policy that we should expect a lot of transclusions? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment has WP:NFCR and WP:WPFU been informed of this nomination? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Problematic template since it's arbitrary to judge what would be a large number of pictures removed.Algircal (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Links to a non-existent FAQ and makes some heavy-handed assertions. Also, it does not seem to be widely used. - MrX 13:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ni-eb[edit]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment this should be handled by one of the {{expand}} templates, perhaps it should be rebuilt to be {{expand free reliable source}} with switches for EB1911, CIA World Fact Book, FOLDOC, etc. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - The website is no longer available and the template is only used on one page.- MrX 15:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:PIDSAC[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Has been on Talk:Tourism in Indonesia since August 2006. Unused elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Someone had an idea nine years ago but didn't follow through. - MrX 14:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Past nicotw[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - "___________ of the month" template that was last used nine years ago. - MrX 14:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:House Races 2006[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Leftover from a nine-year old planed project, Wording includes "Please do not put a cleanup tag on this page" and "see the project page, currently a draft." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, I think it would be a good idea to delete that template, since the probability of it being useful at this late remove is approximately zero. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete misrepresentation of policyAlgircal (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete not a real wikiproject. It was userfied. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Edu review[edit]

Used on just five pages, none of which have been edited since 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Last used over three years ago. - MrX 14:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Simpsonsportalarticle date[edit]

Used on just eight talk pages, to indicate that the respective articles appeared on a minor portal, five to ten years ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Last used about eight years ago. - MrX 14:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:2016candidate[edit]

This template has one link. That link should already be present in the text of every article that this template would be placed on, making this template extraneous. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

    • KeepThere is a series box for the 2016 presidential election, which is too large and contains too much information to be placed on individual pages. The intent behind this is to have a sub-series box to demark each candidate's involvement, in a uniform manner, in this election. Creating a series box for each of the 21 major candidates is premature (some have extant ones from previous years), and thus this fills the purpose of marking candidacy. Spartan7W § 17:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I like the usefulness or utility of this template. MaynardClark (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - extraneous, just a continuation of this user's style experimentation.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as extraneous. -- WV 19:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this is clear and helpful for people looking at politicians. Probably best to take all the unsuccessful candidates after nominations by Republican and Democrat candidates. Oscar248 (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It is useful for those who are researching a politician. Also, it may be hard to keep track to the large number of people running for the presidential election.  11Block |talk 21:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as useful for future extensions. Bringem Young (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete This will be more and more pointless as time passes. Within a year, we'll be down to two a few individuals and then once the election occurs, down to a President for whom this is meaningless. I doubt people suggest keeping these for people no longer running (as it will be "was"). People can click on the links from the individual articles and find out more about their personal campaigns which is tons more useful than a general single link to the main campaign page. There's a ridiculous bias in acting as if only the current US president's campaign matters and there's zero need for this kind of template for past year campaigns (would we really need a link to United States presidential election, 1788–89 for all these candidates?) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • There are more than two parties. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This template seems like a useful navigational aid. It is admittedly redundant at an article like Bernie Sanders which mentions his candidacy in the lead paragraph, but almost all of the other lead paragraphs for other candidates lack such a mention in the lead paragraph.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or rename this is extremely WP:BIAS-named. The US presidential election process is not the only place where candidates appear for 2016 elections. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This template seems like a useful navigational aid.--ML (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Never been done for any other election US or otherwise, 2016 or another time. I think it would be WP:Bias and WP:RECENTISM Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete not needed. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep but I think it needs improvements - make 2 boxes for Republicans and Democrats and put there each candidate.Itsyoungrapper (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Will be deleted anyway after the election is over.Algircal (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename and get rid of the year in the template so it can be used for future elections. (Delete redirect, replace all transclusions with new title). Also, either "US" or "United States" should probably be added to the name. Steel1943 (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. One link does not make a navbox, and one fact does not make an infobox. Is this supposed to be some sort of barnstar? Wikipedia should not emblazon biographies with superfluous emphasis, over and above the {{United States presidential election, 2016}} template, in the name of demarking participation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a useless template that simply repeats a fact that is already covered in the article and, considering the length of infoboxes, is almost always above the template that is supposed to inform people of it. Aclany (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete completely unnecessary when election is already covered in article, and how eventually there will only be two candidates Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • KEEP!!!! 96.254.7.229 (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC) :)
    Please read WP:JUSTAVOTE. --TL22 (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Its well built and simple. Beneficial to the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colton1755 (talkcontribs) 00:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Superfluous to articles where they'd be applied. Junky. IHTS (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete this is poorly-conceived navigational aid. The title is sloppy, and the template duplicates categories and existing links to other candidates. It's US-centric and of little long-term value. - MrX 11:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as extraneous Zarggg (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete it looks like a silly page badge. And "2016 candidate" for what? +mt 22:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • You evidently have looked at the name of the template but not the template itself.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Template names shouldn't be ambiguous. There are many elections scheduled next year, see list of elections in 2016. And no, I don't want to see page badges for these candidates as well. +mt 01:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - use a category. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • KeepIt is useful for navigation and people doing research. It also shows that the person is running which is important and there are attempts to marginalize that information on some candidates pages. It helps remove bias among candidates by showing the same content for each one. Jadeslair (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete as extraneous.Djflem (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:STLcollaboration[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete (without prejudice to recreation if the project becomes active again). (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Unused, outdated template for a WikiProject with practically no participation. It would be better for someone to recreate this if needed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - This template is not being used to add recurring messages to pages in a consistent way, to add boilerplate messages, or to create a navigational box. - MrX 15:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:StageCollab[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. BethNaught (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Wording is "This is a current Stagecraft collaboration!". Has been on Talk:DMX512 since August 2011‎. No other uses. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete This was made in 2011, but project has really been dead since 2007 judging from talk page. Better to recreate this if needed. Has no archival utility. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I am doubtful if this was ever useful, but if it was then it has long since been outdated. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Staticip 1[edit]

Apparent fork of {{Static IP}}. Used on only four IP-user talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete Okay to delete outright - fork, not documented, and hardly used Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Staticip_1. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason has been given for deletion. "Used on only for IP-user talk pages" is certainly not a reason for deletion. Nor is "hardly used": I sometimes use it, and what harm does the existence of a template do just because it is not used very often? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, of course I can, but the fact that I can doesn't mean that I have to. I ask again, what harm does the existence of an alternative do? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy - Essentially duplicates an existing template and is rarely used. JamesBWatson can add it to his userspace. - MrX 15:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Student needs help[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Unused. Redundant to {{Help me}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:RHCPCOTWPast[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Narrow scope. Unused. - MrX 15:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Related interface messages[edit]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I intended this template to help with documenting the long tail of interface messages that are too minor to be listed in {{MediaWiki messages}}, though I'm not sure how many groups of interface messages there actually are that use of this template would be appropriate on. If there're enough to justify it, though, the functionality from this template could easily enough be rolled into {{Interface explanation}}, in which case this template would be wholly redundant. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 19:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cite Merck Index[edit]

Unused template. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:New message[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep. BethNaught (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Superfluous to "new section" link. Only 20 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep since it's intended for use on user talk pages, and thus, is a nice template to allow user talk page customization, regardless of it being redundant to a link on the top of the page. Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Steel -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Some editors like to use it, and what harm does its existence do? We don't need to delete something just because there's another way of doing it: having alternative methods is fine. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per JamesBWatson as one of those editors who likes to use it. No harm is being caused by its existence. While I could place the code of the template directly on my user talk or create a userspace template page were it to be deleted, such deletion would harm efforts by others looking for an easy-to-find/easy-to-use "leave a new message by clicking here" link like I was not too long ago. I disagree that it is superfluous to the "new section" link. The "new section" link is easy to understand for editors who have been around a while (even a short while). But, as an editor who often interacts with newer, inexperienced editors, I can tell you that it is not easy to understand for a lot of them. Messages left in unrelated sections, or at the top of the page, or at the bottom of the page without a section heading are very common. The use of this template has significantly decreased the number of improperly-formatted messages on my talk page by giving new users a clear, obvious button to click on to leave me a message in a new section. --Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 16:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • If there is a problem with the talk page interface, it should be resolved for the whole of Wikipedia, not just 20/25,978,047 user talk pages, and 0/4,947,715 article talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Agreed. For now, though, there's no reason to delete this template if its helping some of us. Wikipedia interface changes don't happen overnight. --Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 06:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Jokebook[edit]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - This one is harmless and may actually help lighten the mood. Support placing it on ANI in place of the instructions at the top of the page that so few people read anyway. - MrX 20:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Keeping discussion[edit]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I can move it to my subpage. --Ochilov (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge to the {{talkheader}} and add a switch for turning on the instructions to keep things threaded -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:IRC canvassing[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Motto[edit]

Redundant wrapper of {{tmbox}}. Just 45 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep It is sometimes used, and what harm does it do for editors who like to use it to have the option? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Iwc1-nom[edit]

Trivial 2005 event. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • It seems to be in use. A bit hasty, for no reason other than you don't like it. I would try removing it from those talk pages first; then if no one puts it back, delete as unused. No reason to police what articles can and can't commemorate on the talk page. – SJ + 03:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Trivial it may be, but so what? What harm does it do? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Ancient contest. If we keep this kind of record of every contest, drive, etc. since 2001, talk pages will fill up with all kinds of junk at the top. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - A nomination for a Wikipedia contest from ten years ago does not merit being permanently memorialized with a template. - MrX 15:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Former-country-collaboration[edit]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Beer-project-member[edit]

Redundant to {{User WikiProject Beer}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete does not conform to UBX -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Connected contributor[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was merge. Clear consensus to merge. As I've already done some work towards merging these together, I'll finish this off. Mdann52 (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Connected contributor with Template:Connected contributor multi.
No need for two templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - but this will take some work - the multi one doesn't display the "otherlinks" field, which is really important in the simple one for showing diffs where COI is actually disclosed, and editors need to be able to see that field. I often avoid using the multi template because of that. I do worry about the work of doing the merge at the article level (the fields are labelled differently in the two templates), but I don't know how that works. That work may make the merge prohibitively difficult. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, with more or less the same reservations as Jytdog – the merged result should have all the functionality of the single-user version. Like Jytdog, I avoid using the multi version because it is more limited. This merge should have been done long ago. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, assuming it's done intelligently per Jytdog's comment. I'd like to confirm/point out/complain that the multi template doesn't appear to allow inclusion of a diff to a disclosure. That is to say the otherlinks param is busted, or not documented correctly. Brianhe (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support having a single template with full functionality instead of two templates with partial functionality just makes sense. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Levdr1lp / talk 04:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Editing Friday Chosen[edit]

Unused. Last updated March 2011. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:HockeyAID[edit]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Currentapplecotw[edit]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Collaboration of the month templates are a distraction to Wikipedia community organizers trying to build engagement. Almost always (19 out 20 times) these do not work at all, and when they do work, it takes a lot more than a template. I feel sorry for those who invest time in testing these without knowing their history of low success. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:CCOTM[edit]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Collaboration of the month templates are a distraction to Wikipedia community organizers trying to build engagement. Almost always (19 out 20 times) these do not work at all, and when they do work, it takes a lot more than a template. I feel sorry for those who invest time in testing these without knowing their history of low success. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:CCWD[edit]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Collaboration of the month templates are a distraction to Wikipedia community organizers trying to build engagement. Almost always (19 out 20 times) these do not work at all, and when they do work, it takes a lot more than a template. I feel sorry for those who invest time in testing these without knowing their history of low success. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:AL-SR[edit]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Essentially unused. - MrX 19:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Admin help-inappropriate[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Agree. Didn't know it existed, and normally, a hand written note is preferred over a template for this kind of situation, to create a dialog and see what the real problem is. Dennis Brown - 13:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment wouldn't this be a susbstitution template? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment this appears to be inappropriately worded and styled. It should be a regular talk page comment instead of a box. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom and Dennis. This is kind fo dickish and I can't imagine ever using it. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - If someone needs admin help, they don't need another template in their face. - MrX 19:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a terrible way to respond to someone who is asking for help. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ActiveDiscussMC[edit]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:MCBnom[edit]

Has been on Talk:Protist since May 2008, on Zygote and Mutagen since September 2008‎ and on Talk:Phospholipid since December 2008‎. Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Collaboration of the Month is marked as historic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:NJnom[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Unused, apparently not needed. - MrX 19:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PKOLSPC[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Unused, apparently not needed. - MrX 19:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pwbsac[edit]

Content is "This article is a current selected article candidate on West Bengal portal....". Has been on Talk:Birbhum district since October 2006‎ and on Talk:Bengal since March 2007. No other uses. Linked discussion page is a red link Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Infrequently used template that has not been used for more than eight years. - MrX 17:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Sorry[edit]

Only 33 transclusions suggests lack of community uptake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep What is wrong with having 33 transclusions? That means that 33 times some editor or other has decided to use it. Why would depriving those few editors who choose to use it of the ability to do so benefit the project? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • By removing the maintenance overhead, and the bewildering choice offered to editors trying to find a template to use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete because it's stupid. Just say your sorry. We don't need a template for every word a person might utter. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Per JamesB, Also for reasons of propagating WP:CIVILITY and WP:Wikilove Melody 22:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologizing is good, but I don't think a one word template with a smiley face serves much purpose. I'm also puzzled about why it's left aligned in a longish gray box. - MrX 19:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. A strange template; I think it would be more effective to just say "Sorry!" in normal text. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - per WP:WIKILOVE. Btw, WP:ADMIT says that this template is a good idea for apologizing, and even transcludes it. --TL22 (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Both are essays, with no formal standing; the later is by the same editor who made this template, has few incoming links from other guidelines or policies, and will be just as meaningful (or not) without the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Just because they are essays doesn't mean they can't be cited (see WP:ONLYESSAY). Plus imagine a case where an editor apologizes with the "Sorry" template and then explains his apologies below the template. That is a perfect circumstance for using the template. In conclusion, this template is useful if used properly. --TL22 (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
        • They may indeed be cited; I merely pointed out that they have no formal standing. A cursory glance through a random subset of the templates current transclusions shows it most often used with no accompanying text. Where there is accompanying text that would work just as well without the template. And to reiterate, a mere 33 transclusions - around five a year - shows that the community has not adopted this template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
          • What is your transclusion number minimum to constitute community adoption? I remember you used the same argument over a template that had around 50-100 transclusions (which isn't bad IMO), plus that is not valid grounds for deletion. --TL22 (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
            • Are you really suggesting that this template has been adopted by the community at large? Contrast with {{Done}}, which has 53,740 transclusions, or with {{Resolved}}, which has 12,393. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I like the idea of having a template that a person can easily and quickly use to say they're sorry about something. However, I feel this template is way larger than it should be, and can be distracting in a discussion. I would suggest something more like {{Thank you}} or {{Done}}. It can fit right in line in text, and thus it isn't distracting. I feel editing the template in this way would also make it more appealing to use, thus increasing its transclusion count. JaykeBird (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Snowed in[edit]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm not opposing because I really don't care, but consider for a moment that...surprise... nobody is snowed in during August. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment per Shirik, it should not be unexpected that no one is snowed-in in August (or indeed, at any point in the year, if there hasn't been a weather event), so stating it is "unused" is rather not useful in this case -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment Couldn't someone in the Southern Hemisphere be snowed in during August?"...William Is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Considering that English-speaking countries in the Southern Hemisphere are Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, it would only typically concern New Zealand, and only those that live in the Southern Alps in most cases, so there would be a greatly reduced affectable population of editors. Further, it would require a recent weather event, which has not happened. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note Both of the above comments appear to be made with a northern-hemisphere bias. Meanwhile here's an article from Radio New Zealand dated the 8th of this month: Snowfall warnings for north and south. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment Dear wife and I visited Switzerland in September 1997 and we went to somewhere on a mountain (The mini Matterhorn might have been the local name for it) near Zermatt and there was snow on the ground. That's in the Northern Hemisphere. Of course on some remote Russian island in the arctic circle could be getting snow....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • No, I said, any time of year because it does require a recent weather event. Without a recent weather event, there would not be a possibility of being snowed in -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to a different title and delete redirect or weak delete. I'm WP:ASTONISH-ed that the template at this title had nothing to do with WP:SNOW. Steel1943 (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Shirik. Low transclusions do not necessarily make a good deletion rationale. Melody 22:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I could see this being used, its not currently winter-time in the English speaking world so I can see why this isn't being used atm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Tell that to the people of South Africa. Australia and New Zealand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, to be fair, it is highly unlikely you'd ever be snowed in in any of those places, with the exception of the South Island of NZ. Alakzi (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Agreed there, when I said English speaking world I meant the areas where you would be likely to get snowed in. I would expect this template to be used more during the European/North American winter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Pointless. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:PunkCOTMvoter[edit]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete According to the project page "the next winner will be selected on May 1, 2009". Clearly a dead project. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - No longer serves a purpose.- MrX 19:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:APSWI assignment[edit]

Banner for defunct, 2013 editing drive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment shouldn't there be some general banner for assignments, instead of a specific one for each collaboration, so that you just add switches to indicate which collaboration and what time period? ; that would lead to better tracking of school projects across wikipedia -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Can a generic template be built, and replace all specific use templates with intermediate transclusions of the generic one? (like stub-type meta template, or WikiProjectBanner meta template) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Obsolete and underutilized. - MrX 19:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Banrevert[edit]

Pointless, as this is general policy, and its target audience are unlikely to comply. Only 11 transclusions, showing lack of community uptake. (Content is "Posts by banned or blocked users will be removed from this article and its talk page. Blocked users please adhere to Wikipedia's blocking policy and refrain from block evasion and/or sockpuppetry."). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Actually, there are at least 15 transclusions, including transclusions via redirects. However, whatever the number, the fact that there are that many transclusions shows that editors sometimes use the template. Just because they don't often do so is not a reason for preventing them from doing so on those occasions when they wish to. As for "its target audience are unlikely to comply", my experience is that, while nothing is guaranteed to stop sockpuppeteers from coming back with new sockpuppets, being told "any editing you do will be a waste of time, as it will just be reverted" is one of the methods with the highest success rates. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • [4] Reports 11 transclusions now, as it did at the time of nomination. Even with 15, a minisule number given the potential 4,944,766 [and growing], it's pointless. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Per JamesB and lack of transclusions being insufficient grounds for deletion. Melody 23:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - template creep. This presupposes that banned editors and sockpuppets are unaware of the policy, that they would care about the policy, and that they'd check the talk page and pay attention to the banner in a sea of beige. Alakzi (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox wrestling PPV series[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Wrong target, sorry. A simple note to that effect, on my talk page, would have sufficed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox wrestling PPV series with Template:Infobox reality talent competition.
Per suggestion in the previous TfM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Ficha de videojuego[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G6 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 14:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Not in English. Unclear purpose, but appears to have been created for use at Paul the Whale, which lacks notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as a test page. The editor is clearly unfamiliar with Wikipedia operation, and has created an erroneous template. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong delete This is English Wikipedia, not Spanish, all messages should be expected to be able to be read by nominally all users, thus needs to be in English, since nominally all users read English, and that is the only language they are expected to know on English Wikipedia -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Vandal move[edit]

Essentially redundant in functionality to {{Db-move}} (except the redirect is tagged instead of the page to be moved.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ecuadorian dogs[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy deletion under criterion G7: One author who has requested deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Recently created and only contains red links, it really serves no purpose in that form. Doesn't appear to be in use (WP:TG), and I'm not sure where it would be used.Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I created this template, and also in this 2 next weeks will go to create that 2 articles totally traduced from Wikipedia in Spanish. And will go to be in use for that 2 pages--Vvven (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I finished 1 article, i invite you to check--Vvven (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural Close or Withdraw as one of the articles, formerly a red link, now exists.Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Template links pages that have nothing to do with each other; in other words, related by categorization, not by association.Algircal (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • But exists in Wikipedia, for example, Template:American dogs, Template:Brazilian dogs, Template:French dogs, Template:Japanese dogs, Template:Bulgarian dogs, ect. the same templates, about other countrys--Vvven (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy to a userspacedraft location -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm sorry create this template and it pass, this template should be removed because the other red link is a bad joke on wikipedia, because the article in the Spanish Wikipedia is about a breed of dog that reading it obviously a dog street. then I agree to delete the template--Vvven (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

August 12[edit]

Template:USCity[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete once orphaned through substitution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

(a) Wikilink obfuscation is a barrier to entry and should be discouraged. (b) Per the MOS, we don't typically link to both the city and the state. (c) Only 300 transclusions after 10 years, indicating that there has been no community uptake. Alakzi (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Elementary[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Unused/historical template. Can't see why we're keeping it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:London ward populations 2011[edit]

Unused, and a duplicate of Template:London ward populations. A redirect wouldn't be the best idea, as it would go out of date after the next census data was added. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 20:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:London ward populations 2007[edit]

Unused, and Template:London ward populations (with the 2011 census data) should be preferred. I could see a case for keeping this if the old data was actually used, but if it isn't, then it should probably go. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 20:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Table Indian subdivisions[edit]

Not used anywhere apart from userspace sandboxes of the creator. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Soft delete or userfy. Existing uses should have their code preserved in case the creator returns and wants it back, but I'm not opposed to deleting this on cleanup grounds. BethNaught (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ursula K. Le Guin about the author[edit]

Per WP:TG, templates should not store article text. The template should be substituted and deleted. Alakzi (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: OK, makes sense. But I want to transclude this content onto all the pages on works by this author, unless there's already something more detailed there. At first I was going to make it a subpage of her article, Ursula K. Le Guin. But then I saw that subpages aren't allowed in Main space, so where should I put it, please? --Thnidu (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
If it's going to be used on a large number of pages, then perhaps an exception could be made. But book articles do not typically contain an "About the author" section, as the author's article is only a click away. Alakzi (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Author information should be on the author article.Algircal (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments. I agree--although I dislike reading the lead sentence prose that seems to me the current norm, "Title is a book by American author Ursula K. Le Guin"; sometimes "a book by American science fiction writer Ursula K. Le Guin", or longer.
Catwings needs a *section* not about its famous writer Le Guin but about its illustrator S.D. Schindler, who does not have a biography here, and perhaps a redirect from S. D. Schindler [ Yes check.svg Done hours later -P64]. (Same for Catwings Return and The Catwings Collection but I think the three pages should probably be merged. To be continued substantially at some of the pages linked here.) --P64 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
By the way, section headings do not work by transclusion (see Catwings, version 2015-08-11), only by substitution. I initiated the illustrator section this hour. --P64 (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@P64: I don't agree with Schindler's Redirect or Schindler's Section. If they aren't mentioned in anything else, they aren't notable. Now, a search turns up ten books in nine articles, so Schindler may well be worth an article, but without one, I don't see any point to a redirect. Why Catwings and not the other books? Even a stub simply listing the books with links to those articles might be worth it. And if there's an article, even just Schindler's List, then certainly a redirect from "S.D...." to "S. D...." (or vice versa, whichever) would be right.
BTW, your Yes-check was showing up as [[[File:Yes check.svg|18px|link=]] Done hours later -P64]. I inserted a space after the first "[", and that fixed it. --Thnidu (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thnidu, Thanks for the technical fix.
I suppose you mean WP:NOTABLE. That concerns which subjects (persons) are suitable for English Wikipedia articles (biographies). It's one purpose of article sections, and list entries, to cover subjects/persons who fall short of WP:NOTABLE.
Substantial discussion of Schindler and the Catwings page(s) belongs in article talk space (where I suggest we have only one Catwings page, Talk:Catwings#Merge). --P64 (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

--P64 (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

August 9[edit]

Template:NFS[edit]

Used on only three BLP talk pages. Better methods of dealing with any related problems exist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:List of Serbs notice[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was subst: and delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete. Alakzi (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Mediation request[edit]

Unused. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal is marked as historic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Tired joke. Alakzi (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't understand, what's the joke? Stifle (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Map requested[edit]

Propose merging Template:Map requested with Template:Map requested from.
Very similar templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. 'very' is not enough. Prove it. -DePiep (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment {{image requested}} has a better implementation for "from", can we take the "from" coding from that as the base code for "from" any merged template? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Alakzi (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per nominator; add a toggle to {{Map requested}} to show the second line if a value for it is given. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge. "Requested" is just a slightly simpler form of "Requested from", but the latter should work if given only the parameters that work in the former. The coding from {{image requested}} might be useful, as noted above. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom and previous comments — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge and do what Jc86035 said. Eman235/talk 06:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:C&CTF-RfC[edit]

Notification template, used in 2009. Only 18 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - I get that it's not really used at the moment (or for the last few years) but it's a valid template should the wikiproject pick up again at some point in the future. Seems no real reason other than 'it's not used much' to delete. Cabe6403(TalkSign) 19:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Orphan and delete - serves no purpose. Alakzi (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The TF no longer exists, so delete. Suggest substing rather than delinking. --Izno (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • subst: and delete. Unneeded but past uses ought to be preserved so as not to change talk page archives, IMO. BethNaught (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

'Method for consensus building' templates[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

A family of templates for formalising discussions, whose use is advocated in the user-essay Wikipedia:Method for consensus building, which does not appear to have secured community adoption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talkcontribs) 17:01, 9 August 2015

  • Delete all This isn't how we do things on wikipedia. When discussions don't proceed in a linear fashion, such templates will just interfere with the more organic debate.Algircal (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Rather bizarre and definitely not how we do things here; we normally just offer a vote in bold at the start of a sentence, and that's quite sufficient. Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Controversial groups[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Only used twice. More generic "controversial topic" templates are available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete; the generic ones are fine for Talk:PETA and Talk:Huntingdon Life Sciences. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Nyttend. Alakzi (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Other Hoysala temples[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Template was transcluded to Lesser known temples of the Hoysala Empire, where it made the article far more complex than necessary. That transclusion has now been removed, meaning that the template is unused. Sitush (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Deleting the template after creating a list is fine, but what is the justification of deleting some 25 temple entries? Just because they do not have underlying article (yet) does not mean they are trivial or non-noteworthy. Each surviving Hoysala temple is a architectural gem and it takes a life time to visit, photograph and write about all of them. Please put back all deleted entries in the list you created. There should be some 36 entires and currently there is only a fraction.Pied Hornbill (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You do not have to visit them to write an article. That is a non-argument. - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you missed the point. There are people trying hard to contribute. Don't get in their way and spoil the show. A monument does not become trivial because it has no article written on it. Indian has 5000 monuments that are protected by the ASI, 5000 more need urgent protection. There are articles on only a fraction of them here in wiki. Get the drift??Pied Hornbill (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
It is irrelevant to whether or not the template exists. - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
It will be easier to create a list with the full template available. You made a mistake with your deletion of many entries and should be willing to accept/revert it.Pied Hornbill (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The template is not required. The list has been created. If you want to expand the list, in accordance with WP:V and WP:NLIST then feel free. - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete If everything contained in the template is already on the article, then it is pointless to put article information in template space, since template space is used so article information can be used on more than one page.Curb Chain (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Poll[edit]

Unused; and we should not be using such polls. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy;