Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText, Topic, or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
"WP:TD" redirects here. For TemplateData, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/TemplateData.
"WP:TDF" redirects here. For the WikiProject Cycling run Tour de France taskforce, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Tour de France task force.
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:

  • Stub templates
    Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
  • Userboxes
    Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
  • Speedy deletion candidates
    If the template clearly satisfies a "general" or "template" criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}. If it is an unused, hardcoded instance or duplication of another template, tag it with {{Db-t3|~~~~~|name of other template}}.
  • Policy or guideline templates
    Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at Tfd separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
  • Template redirects
    List at Redirects for discussion.

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

  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 nominated is inline, do not add a newline between the Tfd notice and the code of the template.
  • 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]].
  • Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.

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.

If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following:

{{subst:tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ), plus one more in |with=. |with= does not need to be used, but should be the template that you want the other templates to be merged into. 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 make any interested WikiProjects aware of the discussion. To do that, make sure the template's talk page is tagged with the banners of any relevant WikiProjects; please consider notifying any of them that do not use Article alerts.

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. Depending on the content, the template page may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.

Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. A list of open discussions eligible for closure can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

February 28[edit]

Template:Sinoy Joseph[edit]

Single use template created by new user who seems unaware that templates are supposed to be used on multiple pages. David.moreno72 07:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. -Violates a consensus at WikiProject film which says that only directors should have filmography templates. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 07:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Anarchist Library text[edit]

Any links that would this external link template could be written in standard link notation. This said, this site hosts works of either dubious copyright status or full copyright violation. Unless the respective authors permit the site to host their works, it's against our copyright practice to actively link it. Recommend deletion for its remaining two uses rather than substitution. czar 05:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Dizzy Dee[edit]

Certainly too soon with only one directly related article at this time, and even that one has some notability concerns. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thats true, thank you for the advice, I had never done a template before — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desiresibbs (talkcontribs) 02:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:RocheLexicon[edit]

Holds links that no longer work. All links now redirect to the same german website. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Full Metal Jousting[edit]

We don't include cast and crew per WP:PERFNAV. This leaves production company, which is also unsuitable for navbox inclusion. Useless. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:The Project[edit]

No cast and crew in navboxes per WP:PERFNAV. That's all this is. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Serves no useful purpose without links directly related to the show, no season-based articles.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 07:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:ISP 1[edit]

Redundant to {{ISP}}. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. {{ISP}} invites the editor to create an account, which is, of course, normally a good thing to do. However, occasionally, in a case of a persistent block-evading editor, asking him or her to create an account to get round the IP blocks that are there to stop him or her from editing is the last thing we want to do. I created {{ISP 1}} to deal with that situation. The need for it rarely arises, so I have rarely used it, but there are occasionally good reasons for using it, and I don't see that its existence does any harm, so deleting it would not provide any benefit. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

February 27[edit]

Template:Toledo Walleye seasons[edit]

Not used on any pages and list of seasons is also on Template:Toledo Walleye. Yosemiter (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Fox NFL Sunday[edit]

As cast/crew for a TV programme, it fails WP:PERFNAV. Rob Sinden (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Guldbagge Awards hosts[edit]

Presenting a ceremony is a performance, and as such fails WP:PERFNAV. -- Rob Sinden (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep If this template is being considered for deletion, should'nt the {{Academy Awards hosts}} template also be deleted as it also covers presnters of an awards ceremony? -- Regge_robban2 (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Guldbagge Award Best Documentary Feature[edit]

Only two live links - not enough active links to warrant a navbox. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Janus Metz Pedersen[edit]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

February 26[edit]

Template:PD-USGov-DHS[edit]

Unused copyright tags. Any future uploads under these licenses belong at Commons. FASTILY 23:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:GPnotebook2[edit]

Unused after ten years; redundant to {{GPnotebook}} Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Noir registry[edit]

This template collects together noir films from the classic era that have been added to the National Film Registry. The registry itself makes no reference to different genres i.e. you don't have a registry of noirs, or Westerns etc. From the perspective of the registry each film enjoys the same relationship with each other film in the registry regardless of genre. Therefore the template employs WP:SYNTHESIS to create an arbitrary subset of films. Secondly, the template violates #3 of WP:NAVBOX, which recommends that the articles refer to each other to a reasonable extent. In reality the articles about the films are written in a manner such that they are completely independent of the other films in the registry. Generally, each film article will mention the registry itself but it goes no further than that. In that sense the articles themselves do not provide a motivation for providing navigation between them. Betty Logan (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. As mentioned the NFR does not break their films into genres. Thus, there is WP:OR involved in adding films to this template. MarnetteD|Talk 16:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 17:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:EngvarO[edit]

Propose merging Template:EngvarO with Template:Use British (Oxford) English.
Recently created template that seems to do exactly the same as another long established one. I can see no difference between this and Use British (Oxford) English, other than that having a much clearer to understand name. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 23#Template:EngvarA spelling.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-art-US-1996[edit]

Template is now seemingly unused. Uploads under this criteria of this license should be uploaded directly to Commons, making the local version redundant or deprecated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Somali presidential elections[edit]

Propose merging Template:Somali presidential elections with Template:Somali elections.
Already covered by the latter, just migrate the years. Brandmeistertalk 16:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:GO Transit rail system[edit]

Unused and probably out of date. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
11:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep and update. Potentially useful, as there is no RDT for the entire GO train network. Useddenim (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete A RDT with more than a couple distinct lines is very confusing and hard to follow. This is especially for a radial network like GO's where parallel lines are the exact opposite of reality. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Then, by that logic, {{Amsterdam Metro route diagram}}, {{Berlin U-Bahn route diagram}}, {{Kiev Metro route diagram}}, {{Vienna U-Bahn route diagram}}, etc. should also all be deleted. Useddenim (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it's not an inferior “merger”, as this template predates the others you cite. Useddenim (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Skagway Borough, Alaska[edit]

Contains only the head article and one other item. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep, i.e. don't delete. Every single county and county-equivalent in the USA has a page of this form (see User:Nyttend/County templates for a full directory, although it's not been updated to account for the renaming of one census area), and deleting just one would be unhelpful. If you don't consider the current form appropriate, please convert it into a redirect to the state template, which is what's normally done with such templates when they don't get their own articles; see Template:Broomfield County, Colorado for one example. The other Alaska consolidated borough templates formerly were redirects of this sort until someone converted them into normal navboxes (see the history of Template:Sitka Borough, Alaska, for an example), so it's not as if there's no precedent for this in Alaska. Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as a stub template. @Nyttend: Just because other counties have tempalates is not an acceptable reason to prevent the deletion of Template:Skagway Borough, Alaska. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions) 04:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    • To the contrary: when we have three thousand templates of a specific sort, we have no business deleting exactly one of them if it doesn't have significant problems. There's precendent for this; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 20 for a similar discussion involving {{Lumpkin County, Georgia}}, for example. DRV will be filed if this is deleted, because nobody's advanced any suitable reasons for deleting this template. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • weak keep, part of a series. Frietjes (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

February 25[edit]

Template:PD-USGov-FDA[edit]

Unused, all future uploads may take place on Commons. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-NEA[edit]

Unused, future uploads may take place on Commons. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-SSA[edit]

Unused, all future uploads can be at commons. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-VOA[edit]

Unused, all future uploads can be made at commons. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Publicity still[edit]

Unused, tag exists at commons. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-NWS[edit]

Unused, all future uploads can take place on commons. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-Afghanistan[edit]

Unused, tag exists in Commons, all future uploads can take place there. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by-2.0-uk[edit]

Unused copyright tags. Any future uploads under these licenses belong at Commons. FASTILY 09:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-TJ-exempt[edit]

Unused. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Non-free Denver Public Library image[edit]

Unused. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Non-renewed[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).

The result of the discussion was Redundant template is redundant. Redirected {{PD-US-not renewed}} -FASTILY 02:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Unused. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:45, 25 February 2017 (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).

Template:Non-free stamp of India[edit]

Unused. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Non-free currency-Switzerland[edit]

Unused. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Non-free currency-AU-Coin[edit]

Unused. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:NZFC NCS[edit]

Unused. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-INGov[edit]

Not actually a template, it also appears that it was deleted on Commons. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. No apparent usefulness, created by now-banned user. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-CAGov-SealNotice[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).

The result of the discussion was I'm withdrawing this per comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Dependant on PD-CAGov, which is unused. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Yes, it is dependent on PD-CAGov, which is currently unused, but PD-CAGov is still valid and applicable to many things out there currently incorrectly tagged as unfree, and may be used again at any time (see its entry below in this TfD). This notice template is also quite useful and often necessary when using PD-CAGov, since many patrollers automatically assume anything that is not a work of the U.S. Federal government cannot be public domain. This template is very good for preventing the incorrect nomination of many free files, valid under PD-CAGov, for PUF or other deletions. Darkest Tree Talk 16:34, 25 February 2017 (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).

Template:PD-CAGov[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).

The result of the discussion was I'm withdrawing this per comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Unused in file namespace. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. This template is only unused on namespace because it was used extensively to successfully liberate many free California-government-based images, seals, and logos, which had been originally tagged as unfree, and after the image licensing was corrected on these free images (many done by myself), the files were then moved to Commons by other users (I can't do everything myself, after all). There are still many other free California-government-based images out there tagged as unfree, to which this template would apply. It is a very useful template, and very important to Wikipedia in enabling the use of free image content. Please keep. Keeping will also save myself and others the trouble of recreating it when it is needed again. Darkest Tree Talk 16:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: As Darkest Tree mentioned, this copyright tag is in use on 1,450 pages on Commons; the files just don't stay on English Wikipedia long because they get moved. Like the other copyright/PD tags that are shared between English Wikipedia and Commons, this tag should stay even when no English Wikipedia files are tagged at the moment; there is no good equivalent substitute tag for this license condition when these files are uploaded or discovered. (And Darkest Tree above says there are probably lots more tagged as fair-use that should be switched to this free tag instead.) --Closeapple (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2017 (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).

Template:NBL Canada team standings/gb format[edit]

Only link to it is in a unused template database. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:WikispeciesCompact[edit]

Do we need this? It has 28 transclusions. {{Wikispecies}} has 40634 transclusions and produces a link to Wikispecies in a bigger box. {{Wikispecies-inline}} has 5783 transclusions and produces a unboxed (and thus occopying slightly less screen real estate) link to Wikispecies. Wikispecies pages are automatically linked via Wikidata in the sidebar anyway. I'm not sure that any of the templates that provide links to Wikispecies are particularly useful since Wikidata started providing the links to other Wikimedia projects. Surely articles using this template could at least be switched to using the more frequently used {{Wikispecies-inline}} template. Plantdrew (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete all - I'd agree with Plantdrew that ALL the Wikispecies templates are now redundant to the sidebar, which is always in the same place too, reliable and ideal for navigation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant, after replacement (or make a redirect to the -inline version). Keep the others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

February 24[edit]

Template:Link current revision[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).

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Pppery 22:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfixably broken: the link leads to the previous revision, and it is not possible for a template subst to know the revision ID it is going the be saved as. Pppery 22:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Appears to work as long as the page specified isn't the current page (so the documentation just needs to be clarified). - Evad37 [talk] 03:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Template creator here. The main use I intended for this template is to link a permanent revision of a noticeboard or other often-archived page in order to avoid link rot. For instance, right now at the village pump there is Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_secondary_school_notability on top of the page, but it will eventually get archived and then the link will break; if I provide instead this permalink, it will be valid at all times. As a consequence I did not really think about the case where it is used on the same page it links.
I have no thorough knowledge of TfD rules, but I would argue it does not violate WP:TFD#REASONS #3 (I intend to use it). If it violates #2 please show me a replacement (I asked a question at the Help Desk before creating the template; the main selling point compared to {{oldid2}} is that you do not need to know the rev id of the page at the moment you link it). TigraanClick here to contact me 09:40, 27 February 2017 (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).

Template:PD-Hubble[edit]

Only 1 image now uses this template, and images using this template should be uploaded directly to Commons. Retention of this template should be in deprecated form or as a soft redirect to the Commons Equivalent. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unused, already on Commons, no reason to retain this locally. -FASTILY 09:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-Highsmith[edit]

Unused template, images under these criteria should be uploaded directly to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: Correct, you will notice I created the template for temporary uploads from Commons for use of the image on the Main Page. I see no point in deleting this template when the next admin who uploads a file under this license to this project will have to recreate the template. Regards SoWhy 15:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Also, local uploads are no longer necessary for main page images because they are protected by cascading protection. -FASTILY 02:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:V[edit]

Propose merging Template:V with Template:Navbar.
These three templates perform almost identical functions. The module that implements {{Navbar}} would need to be updated to include the H/M/W links, but that's about it. No reason to have three templates that do the same thing. I could maybe see {{v}} being converted to a wrapper, if only to avoid the necessity of |mini= being added to the 6k pages that currently transclude it. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  • And yes, this nom is using <noinclude>...</noinclude> because navbar is used on 7 million pages. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No Merge While it is true that these templates work very similarly traditionally they have been adopted in different ways in separate wikispaces on the project. For example Navbar has been used primarily in article space while V is most typically used in non-article space. 80.12.85.225 (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge. Add parameters to {{navbar}} for H/M/W, then make {{v}} a wrapper and substitute it. Far less than 6k pages transclude it directly, it's used in a variety of templates. (side note - I'm not sure if a handy shortcut for "move" is a good thing to have!) — Train2104 (t • c) 07:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Kolis sidebar[edit]

Seems to be pointless. All links land at the Koli people article, except the one for Tribes. The Tribes link target is a navbox that is displayed at the Koli people article anyway. Sitush (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Multilicensefromownerviewed[edit]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 08:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:SeaMonkey release history english[edit]

Subst: and delete--only one transclusion. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:TLS/SSL support history of web browsers[edit]

Subst: and delete--only one transclusion. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Safari release compatibility[edit]

Subst: and delete--only one transclusion. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:ECMAScript test262[edit]

Subst: and delete--only one transclusion. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

February 23[edit]

Template:Rangers F.C. Goal of the Season[edit]

Non-defining internal club award, no article on topic, not sourced or even mentioned in Rangers F.C. article. Jellyman (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Nairn County F.C.[edit]

Minor football club template with no navigational benefit - apart from the club itself, only other link is to the league they play in. No other club-related articles that could be included. Jellyman (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Arrow ratings[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G4 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 15:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Previously deleted per discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 5#Template:Arrow ratings and Template:The Flash ratings. Alex|The|Whovian? 17:37, 23 February 2017 (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).

Template:Idle Thumbs[edit]

Lists hosts of a podcast. Fails WP:PERFNAV. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Which also need to be trimmed. Only key people (presidents, CEOs, founders, etc) should be included in navboxes, not all employees. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
These are founders of the website. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inappropriée detail,per nom. DGG ( talk ) 09:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    • The purpose of navigation templates is navigation. The people and concepts are highly interrelated and this template aids readers in navigating between them. PERFNAV says nothing about appropriate levels of detail; it is essentially concerned with overproliferation of navigation templates cluttering article footers for incidental production roles. This template doubly falls outside the scope of PERFNAV---it is the only template on each article's footer so there's no worry about overproliferation and the people listed are foundational to the organization, not merely miscellaneous crew. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Aircraft specsa[edit]

old unused fork of template:aircraft specs. Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Airlines of the Faroe Islands[edit]

Duplicates Airlines of the Kingdom of Denmark which has entries for both the airlines in this template. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom, pointless duplication. Even if it wasn't, too few links to be useful anyway. Jellyman (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Meh created a dozen years ago. Who cares? Two entries is somewhat pointless, the original point was to bring some kind of consistency to each country's airlines, but whatever. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Hurricanes in the NFL[edit]

Unused template; provides navigation between articles on non-defining dimension. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Burn it with fire. Good god, the template creep. ~ Rob13Talk 07:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete quickly before it breeds. Lizard (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

February 22[edit]

Template:Suicide response[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).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Primefac (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

A well-intentioned but flawed attempt at outreach to users who have made possibly suicidal posts. First off, we shouldn't respond to suicide threats with templates. The proper course of action is to contact the Foundation's emergency email and let them handle it. It isn't our job to do this, and we shouldn't be trying. It is the back office's job to handle these situations, all we need to do is let them know and then back off.

Secondly, this has the effect of creating a list of users who have made suicidal statements, easily accessible by clicking "what links here." That is also not desirable or helpful. We should not have any mechanism in place to permanently "name and shame" people who have expressed suicidal thoughts.

Like I said, well intentioned, but flawed. We just should not have this. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - seeing boilerplate text that says, " I am genuinely sorry [...]" - nope. That's not going to help matters, really. Communicate 1:1, or better still - contact the WMF emergency number and let them handle it - Alison 00:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I saw this actually used the other day, and it was horribly inappropriate. --Rschen7754 01:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Not appropriate. -FASTILY 03:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - no longer relevant. When I initially wrote this template, it was in a much different form, and it was written in response to the lack of guidelines then available. WP:SUICIDE was just an essay then, and it didn't have the clarity it does now.--Aervanath (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:01, 26 February 2017 (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).

Template:Soap operas in Australia[edit]

Navbox was listing international soap operas broadcast in Australia. Now navbox reduced per WP:NOTTVGUIDE, it's pretty pointless. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, but not for the reason you give. NOTTVGUIDE is for program listings, times, etc.; it's entirely reasonable to provide a list of soap operas that have been broadcast in Australia, and therefore, it's not a problem on that level to have a template for them. However, in most situations, it's not helpful to put a page on the template if the template doesn't belong on the page, and if these soap opera articles had navboxes for all the countries in which they were broadcast, it would be overwhelming. I therefore don't think that they belong on the template, and with them removed, I agree that it's pretty pointless. Nyttend (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-Coa-Finland[edit]

Unused copyright tags. Any future uploads under these licenses belong at Commons. FASTILY 09:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep, in line with my reasoning for a previous nomination of this sort. Deleting the copyright tags would damage the old revisions of files that used them (making it look like they were unlicensed or improperly licensed), without any significant benefit to the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It is unused because files transcluding it have been deleted or moved to Commons. Uploaders should be encouraged to contribute these files at Commons, and leaving these tags in place sends the wrong message. Furthermore, any human reviewing said 'old revision' would click on the red link, find this discussion, and understand what happened. -FASTILY 09:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Adele songs[edit]

Propose merging Template:Adele songs with Template:Adele.
No need for two navboxes. Can easily be handled by one. See this version. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose - And merge the songs template with the Adele template. She has only released three albums, with a limited amount of singles. Hardly any are non-singles which have their own article. It's completely pointless having two templates for such a small amount of links when compared with other singers who have released a lot more thus they need two navigation templates, I agree, but I don't agree with the which one should be merged.  — Calvin999 09:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I've just noticed the version you've linked to: that is the one I think should be re-instated. I would Support Adele songs being merged back with Adele. I misinterpreted which one you thought should be merged with the other. (The Adele songs navigation template isn't even on her song articles).  — Calvin999 09:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose it might not have been needed in the past, but she's released more songs now (even if only counting single releases) that have their own articles. It's getting close to (if not already at) the point where having songs in the main navbox would overfill it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It really isn't anywhere near that point! It's a relatively small navbox, and with all the singles in one group (rather than split by album like in the song-specific navbox), there's room for plenty more! Picking some completely random examples, have a look at {{Kate Bush}} or {{Tori Amos}}. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • support, no need for two navboxes here. Frietjes (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Taronga Zoo Ferry link[edit]

Unused. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

February 21[edit]

Template:Aryanic peoples diaspora[edit]

Ditto. Self-formulated/pseudo-historic nonsense. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - As for the other entry. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete Articles in this Temples are closely related to each other but completely abandoned in Wikipedia and the titles are imperfect. This pattern defines their relationship with each other. --Callofworld (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete pronto per nom and Kautilya3. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- This is a personal template, not based on any reliable source. -- Mazandar (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Aryanic peoples[edit]

Ridiculous in every sense of the word. Self-formulated/pseudo-historic nonsense. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Agree with nom. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete Articles in this Temples are closely related to each other but completely abandoned in Wikipedia and the titles are imperfect. This pattern defines their relationship with each other. --Callofworld (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Kautilya3. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- per nom. -- Mazandar (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Icosahedral geodesic polyhedra and Goldberg polyhedra[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 09:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I am the creator of these templates. They've been subsumed into the more general List of geodesic polyhedra and Goldberg polyhedra and are no longer needed. Apocheir (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2017 (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).

Template:At Last the 1948 Show[edit]

No cast in navboxes per WP:PERFNAV Rob Sinden (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Transwiki[edit]

Unnecessary fork of {{prod}}. — Train2104 (t • c) 18:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Redirect to {{db-a5}} Pppery 00:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
That wouldn't work since A5 only applies to dictionary definitions, primary sources, and transwikis that were the result of AFD's. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Teen Choice Award for Choice Fantasy/Sci-Fi Series[edit]

Doesn't link enough articles to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Miguel Sapochnik[edit]

We don't generally have navboxes for directors of individual TV episodes. Fails WP:PERFNAV WP:FILMNAV, as the director is not generally seen as the main creative force behind the episode, in the same way a director of a film is. Compare with other templates in Category:Television director templates. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. If film directors have navboxes, then so can a director of a series. And it's also a good and informative template. No doubt. - AffeL (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Usually only the creator of a TV series gets a navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete A mere conglomeration of episodes that can easily be listed on their article. Alex|The|Whovian? 11:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, directing a bunch of single episodes is not significant enough to have a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Peter Dinklage[edit]

Not enough links to provide meaningful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Minus the headers, this navbox has one link. Another attempt to create everything for anyone related to Game of Thrones. Alex|The|Whovian? 11:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge. As five links is enough. And Dinklage is going to produce two movies that will be out next year. So this navbox will grow. And lets not forget that Peter is the best actor of all time and Game of Thrones the Best show of all time. - AffeL (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The above argument for keeping is based entirely upon a fan's view, not a contributor's view. Make it next year. There's no rush. Alex|The|Whovian? 11:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, the articles are already well-connected without the navbox. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Talk-warn[edit]

User warning template for noncontroversial speedy deletion criteria. — Train2104 (t • c) 03:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Merge: I think both templates forfil the same criteria, merging should be easy to perform. AtlasDuane (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-PR[edit]

Propose merging Template:Cleanup-PR with Template:Advert.
I'm not sure what the point of having this as a separate template is. Most people would probably just use advert (along with COI if applicable), making this template sort of redundant. Adam9007 (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Rewrite Cleanup-PR, which was originally created for WP:NOTNEWS violations. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - a press release isn't the same as an advertisement. Sure, they may be similar and maybe editing the press release one to make it more distinct from the advert one could be an idea but they are definitely both needed independently. DrStrauss talk 20:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per above. Press releases are distinct from advertisements. MereTechnicality 20:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge with more generic wording. It's of little significance whether an article is "promotional", "advert-like" or "like a press release". The issues, and the solution, are the same. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge, I agree with Pigsonthewing. It's a minor difference of no interest to anyone, really. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge. I like to use {{Cleanup-PR}} (formerly known as {{news release}}) when an article is spammy enough that it reads like a news release, but when it's not so spammy that it reads like an actual advertisement. It might be nice to have two separate templates to indicate two different levels of spamminess. Likewise, we have {{no footnotes}} vs. {{more footnotes}}. Another analogy: we have {{orphan}} vs. {{orphan|few}}. Still, in the end, I think merging would be more beneficial. {{advert}} is better-known, and is used fifteen times[1] as often. It'd be good to make {{advert}} more general so that it can be used even on mildly-promotional articles. That way, in the long run, more spammy articles will get tagged. —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this nomination is disruptive, putting a notice on all the "advert" tagged pages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Banner blindness strikes again. There was a notice already there, after all. Uncle G (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose advert and press release are distinct enough issues to tag separately (ie a layman can identify the difference). Additionally, as above, these tags are used widely, and even this nomination is affecting many articles. Lookunder (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    • The fact that there are a lot of articles tagged with these templates is surely a problem with the articles, not with wanting to discuss the templates. Uncle G (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the two are different things. Jbh Talk 12:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge There are no whatsoever distinction between this two. It is better to make Wikipedia more leaner instead of redundant template for almost similar articles issues. Thatonewikiguy (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We may have articles that reads like a promotional advertisement; we may also have event articles that reads like a routine news report, which is just too detailed and may not be promotional of something. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The problems presented by a news release are generally not as severe as with an advertisement. Also, I dispute that, "the solution is the same". A lot of cases I've witnessed are primarily the result of over-reliance on sources connected with the subject of the article, and not necessarily caused by an actual COI. The aspersions cast on the authors of the article are much gentler with a {{Cleanup-PR}} than with an {{advert}}. —Ipatrol (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose No. These are entirely different issues. I've had to use the advertisement issue quite often, but have never ever had to use this "press release" issue. SpikeballUnion (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose. Advertising is generally a problem for companies and products, while PR fluff, is subtler and seems to roughly equally affect companies and people. I'm not opposed to clarification or rewording of either templates if found useful. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, completely different uses. {{Cleanup-PR}} is for WP:NOTNEWS event articles, as it points out in the smaller text. ansh666 21:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DrStrauss. JTP (talkcontribs) 15:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose  sami  talk 10:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

February 20[edit]

Template:PD-NZSection27[edit]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 23:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Rounders by region[edit]

Only used in two articles, both of which are up for deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, we can connect any remaining articles through the see also section. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Research help[edit]

Template that displays nothing when transcluded and whose use has been rejected by consensus in April 2016 Pppery 18:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, not useful for improving Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 02:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, no longer useful. Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tariq Nasheed[edit]

This seems unnecessary. It has only 3 links, and two of them, the book and the film Dark Medicine, are one or two line articles that should be merged with Nasheed's BLP article. It isn't even obvious that the film is notable. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Noon Universe[edit]

Propose merging Template:Noon Universe with Template:Arkady and Boris Strugatsky.
Seems we would be best served if these were merged, as a large chunk of their works are conspicuously absent from {{Arkady and Boris Strugatsky}}. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. {{Noon Universe}} was the first one created, historically, and the other template was created later to list related articles that were not already listed on the former. In retrospect, it would have been better to do it the other way around and to have just one, author-specific navbox in the first place. --Koveras  16:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Angry Birds[edit]

Propose merging Template:Angry Birds with Template:Rovio Games.
There's an awful lot of crossover here - I think the Angry Birds template only has one unique link. I'm sure they can be merged. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - There is no benefit to having them separate, they are both small enough that a merged template is perfectly acceptable. - GalatzTalk 04:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox map[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox map with Template:Location map.
Former is a wrapper of the latter, and is almost identical. Additionally, some features like user selection of multiple maps using radio buttons don't work properly in {{Infobox map}}. Not sure why we need two different templates which perform the same function. (As the former is supposed to only be used in infoboxes, inconsistencies like automatic captions could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.) x%/y% and x/y parameters could be added to Module:Location map. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
02:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

    • Oppose, for now. Let's not be too hasty: this template is transcluded into 28,000+ articles. As I recall, User:Droll created this template for explicit use in infoboxes, while Module:Location map can be used anywhere. There are explicit defaults in this template which may not be appropriate for general use. For example, the width of the map defaults to 220px. Is that acceptable for general use?
    • Further, this template can work even when there is no appropriate location map data template (see the use of either {{superimpose}} or {{location mark+}} down at the bottom. Does equivalent code currently exist in Module:Location map? Should it? It seems out-of-scope. I cannot guarantee that the {{location mark+}} and {{superimpose}} code never gets used. A merge very well may break articles. I would recommend against a merge, unless editors are confident that we will not break anything.
    • Is there some way to fix multiple maps? I thought that feature did work with this template. Do you have an example where it doesn't work? I can try to fix it. —hike395 (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @Hike395: I think it's because I was trying to use it in page preview, which doesn't load the radio buttons for some reason. I'll update the text at the top of the section to note that it probably does work. As for the image width, the Location map default of 240px is probably fine since infoboxes likely became slightly wider after the skin change from Monobook to Vector (but we might have to fix transclusions using the x/y parameters). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
      to reply to me
      14:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: Is there consensus to add the x/y and arbitrary map image features to the Location map template? That template has only 71 watchers but is transcluded in 500,000 pages, so it has many more than 71 stakeholders. What is the plan for establishing that consensus? Where has this discussion been advertised? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jonesey95: Dunno, just thought it might be a good idea; many infoboxes use {{Location map}} directly. I think there are only a few dozen maps which make use of the x%/y% or x/y parameters, probably on historic maps which don't have {{Location map}} definitions. (Adding the features to the module would probably only require several additional or statements, although not sure about the tracking.) If the defaults are considered necessary then we may as well just keep the template, but most infoboxes are wider than the Location map default of 240px as well as the Infobox map default of 220px, and both templates use an 8px-wide File:Red pog.svg as the default marker anyway (they're redundant in {{Infobox map}}). Possibly changing the default caption to a more-helpful "Location of label/article title in location map name" could also work, although this would definitely require further discussion. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
      to reply to me
      12:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • support. Location maps should work identically across infoboxes. It is not good for readers or editors if they see different behaviours based only on which infobox is used. Whether the map should be wider is an editorial decision for articles, and should be decided on an article-by-article basis, not imposed by an infobox. The same goes for other options. As for 28,000/500,000 pages it is used in only 16 Infoboxes, meaning very little needs to be done. The articles will update automatically. If there are any issues these can be fixed in the normal way, monitoring the various tracking categories.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    To find out the size of the problem, I added Category:Pages using infobox map without location map to {{Infobox map}}. There are ~720 articles that call {{Infobox map}} without a call to Module:Location map. Many of these articles are very popular, e.g., Alps and Yellowstone National Park. It is possible to add additional map parameters to the 16 infoboxes that call {{Infobox map}}, which would not call Module:Location map, but what do we gain? To eliminate some redundancy in templates, we'll gain confusion (and possible editor error) by having multiple ways of invoking maps in infoboxes. It doesn't seem worth it to me. —hike395 (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    How many of those though does it make sense? I had a look at Yellowstone National Park and it would be far better served by {{location map}}; in particular being able to specify two maps separated by '#' makes a lot of sense in US locations as the USA is so big that maps of the whole country are very imprecise, while state maps are more precise but unclear to many, especially foreign, readers who do not know where individual states are. Some articles are even served best by three levels of map, country, state and city/county.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    I think the better question is how many are using a non-coordinates based pin-placement method. I have added additional tracking to find these cases. clearly the cases where the template is adding a map without a pin can be handled with a less complicated solution. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    I had a look at the map without coords usage, having not seen it before. And it’s a terrible way to do it: every time you want to use the map like that you have to download the image, work out by hand the pixel count or % x and y of the location, and use that to locate the dot. Even the most prepared editor will find that tedious and easy to make a mistake doing. Many editors, such as those without graphics editing programs, will find it impossible. And it needs to be done every article the map is used. It’s also much harder to correct errors: with coords you can simply click on them and check on your preferred map if the location is right. That’s just not possible for manually entered pixel coords. You need to re-do the check manually. Goodness knows how many of these maps are wrong, by small or large amounts, but they are never checked as there is no easy way to do so.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    @JohnBlackburne and Beeblebrox: Yes, I agree that those parameters are very hard to use: I remember trying it a few years back and it was a giant pain. I would be happy if those parameters were deprecated. Many of the uses of |x=, |x%=, or |pixel_x= come from Canadian parks. I used AWB to use existing provincial or Canada-wide maps instead of the custom ones. I almost got rid of the |pixel_x= usage, except that Beeblebrox reverted me on Liard River Hot Springs Provincial Park. Looks like s/he prefers the custom map to the standard location map: we need to discuss those maps. —hike395 (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    Custom maps that are images can be treated as images. Those that are maps but which require manually entered pixel coords can be used as a location map, as I did here Module:Location map/data/Beijing. The advantage of doing that is, once done, it can be used in all articles just by supplying coords. And once it’s used in many articles errors should be spotted and fixed, so there should be no concerns about accuracy.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 06:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    @JohnBlackburne: I'm not sure that every map can be turned into a location map. The documentation says that only equirectangular maps can be used a location maps, and some of the popular maps that are used (e.g., File:BC parks.png) are definitely not equirectangular. —hike395 (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
You can certainly use non-equirectangular maps, otherwise how would e.g. the map of the USA work? Here’s how it’s done in that case.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@JohnBlackburne: That looks very tricky -- the probability of an incorrectly specified single-use map seems higher than asking people to enter fractional position within a map. —hike395 (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
It’s tricky, but so is downloading a map and judging the correct position by hand where it’s easy to go wrong in a number of ways. The point is that creating a new location map is non-trivial, even for the equirectangular case. But it only needs to be done once, and so likely is to be done carefully. As it gets added to multiple pages, if there are any problems they should be quickly spotted and the map fixed.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 08:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @Hike395: It might be more helpful to only include the pages which use a map marker, as well as the custom image, in the category. There are only about 70 direct transclusions in article space; the rest of them would be better handled by Module:InfoboxImage, which sizes images according to user preferences with the upright constant among other things. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me
    16:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Jc86035: Symbol question.svg Question: Where would the test for the existence of the location map occur? Would an editor have to use a different map parameter? Would Module:Location map handle it? Or would we add the test at all of the infoboxes? —hike395 (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Hike395: I'd probably add the test to the infoboxes, because (a) {{Location map}} returns an error if no coordinates are supplied, and (b) there aren't that many infoboxes to add it to. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me
    04:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Jc86035: My thinking is that, if you're going to replicate the test in 16 infoboxes, might as well put the code into one place instead of 16. And then we would just be reconstructing {{infobox map}} (i.e., a wrapper around Module:Location map). In addition, there are going to be ~50 articles (in Category:Pages using infobox map with x or y) that will be less good if we disable the |x= or |x%= parameters. Given both of these, I think we should keep the wrapper, and not merge. —hike395 (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Hike395: It could also be useful to simply call Module:InfoboxImage from Module:Location map, because then we could have the radio buttons for multiple custom maps if necessary. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me
    06:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Jc86035: I am not a Lua expert: how hard would it be to replicate the {{Location mark+}} and {{Location mark~}} code in Lua? Although JohnBlackburne is correct (that |x= and |x%= are extremely difficult to use), it looks like there are 50+ articles that use them effectively. I managed to purge |pixel_x= from mainspace, so we don't have to worry about that part of the code. —hike395 (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Hike395: It wouldn't be necessary; the Location map module already has code for putting the marker at x%/y% over an image so we could just modify that to take a parameter input. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me
    07:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Jc86035: That's great. If you're willing to fully absorb the current |x= and |x%= functionality of {{Infobox map}} into Module:Location map, including handling arbitrary images, then I would support the merge. —hike395 (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) @JohnBlackburne: I agree that the dual state-US maps can be quite nice: I went ahead and used those at Yellowstone National Park. A little spot check shows that many of the non-standard maps are quite useful, e.g., Absaroka Range, Ellesmere Island, Bow Valley Provincial Park. If the editors of the articles went to the trouble to construct those maps, I think we should let them be used. Per Jonesey95, do we want to support location-less specialty maps at Module:Location map? Do we gain anything from that? —hike395 (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Hike395: It might be better for Yellowstone to use the custom map, at least until we enable Kartographer on this wiki, because Kartographer can show the area of objects like parks (if they're in OpenStreetMap) and not just a single point which happens to be within the object. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me
    04:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Jc86035: Kartographer sounds great, looking forward to it! The map that JohnBlackburne didn't like had a really small area for Yellowstone (it was relative to the whole United States), so it wasn't that great of a map. Maybe I will dig up a map that shows the park in relation to Wyoming, but then we lose the U.S. context. —hike395 (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hike395: Why did you hide the tfd notice from transclsusions? Pppery 14:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Pppery: Because it was causing weird breakage in the infoboxes (at least for me, under Firefox 51/Linux). To substitute, I posted notifications at WT:WikiProject Maps and WT:WikiProject Geographical coordinates, where relevant editors are most likely to be found. —hike395 (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cue sports bios[edit]

Never possible to be completed. We don't have templates for every basketball or football players, nor famous ones. 2001:DA8:201:3512:F997:D2AD:311F:A546 (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, better to use a category. Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per user request, re-opening discussion to allow creator (who was not informed of the nomination) an opportunity to contest.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless an incredibly good rationale comes along, these sorts of things are always handled via category. ~ Rob13Talk 01:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly unsuitable for a navbox. Best for category navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

February 19[edit]

Template:NFL Alumni Order of the Leather Helmet[edit]

Navbox cruft; insignificant award that is mentioned in almost none of the articles the template is linked to. Lizard (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Yankees10 01:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Parkways on Long Island[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, here, and here, and here, and here. Rschen7754 21:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - Per past precedent. Dough4872 12:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete—per precedent. Imzadi 1979  12:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't see categories sorting between east-west parkways, north-south parkways or proposed parkways. This is a disturbingly ugly trend. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I know it's hard to believe, but people can actually read the article. navboxes aren't visible in mobile view. Frietjes (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per prior precedent....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:34, 26 February 2017 (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).

User:Stemoc/Infobox rugby[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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Fork of {{infobox rugby biography}} / {{Infobox rugby union biography}} with article space uses. 98.230.196.215 (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • ughhh, what a mess. I suppose this should be listed at MFD? Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep my personal userspace and its not a fork, its quite different, @Frietjes: broke it without finding out the difference and then refuse to respond to my query and now i have to get the original back and then forced to create more templates because I can no longer use the original ones. Rugby League and Rugby UNION are quite different sport when it comes to scoring points and thus would have a different scoring system, you should have gone through the template before destroying it and if you do not understand the difference, leave it alone. The IP who reported it has a habit of trying to use a "soccer" template on rugby related articles and reported my templates out of sheer trolling. I created a working fork (which is now broken thanks to Frietjes silliness) and then neither BOTHERED to tell me that they have nominated my templates for MfD, I just saw it by chance, how pathetic. I'm trying to fix it now using previous variables because there was nothing really wrong with it. I use the template on articles I create and those that need it the most. Frietjes change has actually done more damage to the original. The rugby union section of these {{Infobox rugby union biography}} is completely wrong, you botched it up, please next time ask before making changes.--Stemoc 20:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • User:Stemoc, so, you are using a user-space template in article-space and expect editors to maintain it? I haven't made any substantial edits to {{Infobox rugby union biography}} since 2015, so you will have to be more specific. Frietjes (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
      • User:Frietjes maintain what?, it was never broken. Apart from one minor issue, the template is perfect. The scoring system for Rugby league is different from Rugby union. see the "club" section for my template, as you can see, its options are different from what rugby league templates have. I created an actual "Rugby Union" template. League only has Caps, tries, field goals, and conversions as options whereas rugby union has caps, tries, penalties, drop goals and conversions (5 options instead of 4) and thus i created one that was prefect for just that, again, its not a fork, its an UPDATE which i intend to prefect and then try to move to the main space so that it can be used on all 90k rugby union related articles...--Stemoc 20:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Editors can keep what they like in their sandbox however userspace templates should never be used in articles so I've commented it out, Stemoc you can always create a new official template but at present you obviously can't use userspace templates, –Davey2010Talk 21:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • The issue with creating an official template is that its usually linked with other templates which are protected and thus it may take a long time to get something added/updated...but with personal userpace ones, you can fix, update and make random changes and others can fix issues they find with it as well, it works a a project. I created the template cause i was tired of seeing a "soccer" template being "forked" and used as a rugby template and anyone who knows the difference between both the sport will know how pathetic and silly it is..Infact, i used my "updated" infobox on articles I CREATED only but if this means that we are forced to use the 'soccer' infobox ONLY, I will now refuse to create anymore rugby union player related articles --Stemoc 22:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I agree it is a pain in the ass but it's the way it is - You could always become a WP:Template editor which would mean you wouldn't have to wait, No one is forcing you to use the soccer one, You can easily create the other one as an actual template (despite the waiting etc), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 08:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • keep, per Davey2010 and it really should have been MFD'ed. But agree while in userspace it should not be used or linked from any article. To be used it should be in the Template: namespace.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:14, 22 February 2017 (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).

Template:Mobile phone companies in Ukraine[edit]

Propose merging Template:Mobile phone companies in Ukraine with Template:Ukraine mobile phone companies.
Both templates have the same information. One is older, and the other is used more Islamomt (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Comital House of Cseszneky[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Single-use navbox with only two links, one of which is a redirect. DrKay (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Borsoka (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2017 (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).

Template:Noble Family of Szilágyi-Oaș[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Unused; one link navbox. DrKay (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Borsoka (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2017 (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).

Template:Walter Camp Distinguished American Award[edit]

Template cruft; minor award which is hardly (if ever) mentioned on any of the awardees' articles. Certainly not career-defining. Lizard (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:FlowMention[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Redundant to {{Ping}}. Pppery 01:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom - Flow's a thing of the past (thank the lord!) so no need for this - I would suggest tho that if this gets deleted that someone goes through Whatlinkshere changes all of the "flowmention"s to "U" or "ping" so we don't break links, . –Davey2010Talk 03:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)d
  • Delete Cleanup Yes check.svg Done. I replaced uses of this template with ping. This template is redundant and Flow has been uninstalled. Alsee (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Alsee, Much appreciated :) –Davey2010Talk 03:53, 20 February 2017 (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).

Flow 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Unused templates that will not be used since Flow has been uninstalled from the English Wikipedia. Pppery 01:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom - Useless templates now that Flow is no longer "flowing". 😷. –Davey2010Talk 03:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. If Flow ever returns we might have need for templates like them, but they can then be (re-)created based on whatever guidelines and practices are then.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all Flow templates, including any that were overlooked in this list. Obsolete. Flow has been uninstalled. Alsee (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2017 (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).

Template:Roads in Tennessee[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Every useful link in this box is already present in the infobox of each article where it appears, removing the need for this navbox. Such boxes have also been deleted several times in the past, such as with Virginia in September 2005, New York in November 2005, Florida in November 2005, Oregon in February 2006, etc. Imzadi 1979  00:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete redundant to infobox. --Rschen7754 03:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Links already in infobox. Dough4872 21:58, 20 February 2017 (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).

February 18[edit]

Template:SharedIPUser[edit]

Propose redirecting Template:SharedIPUser, Template:Shared IP Meta, Template:Shared IP 1, Template:Shared IP/Proxy, and Template:FirewallWarning to Template:Shared IP.
All of these serve the same purpose but contain slightly different information. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect all of the above, per nom. I'd point out that proxy IP notices do often serve a slightly different purpose, but this one won't be missed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Pp-pc2[edit]

Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 2) (edit · talk · history · logs · subpages · delete)

Since the ability to protect pages under PC2 has been removed this template is useless and unused. Laurdecl talk 08:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep Just because the ability was removed, doesn't mean the protection is in itself removed. PC2 may come back in the future at some point.
I very highly doubt it. Also, the template is broken as the functionality has been removed from the Lua module. What is the point in having an unused, broken template? Laurdecl talk 07:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Can you point me to the diff that removes said functionality? Also is there a reason I wasn't notified of this discussion?—CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 15:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Cyberpower, do you mean this RfC? Laurdecl talk 01:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
No you said the Lua Module no longer supports PP-PC2. Can you point to the diff were its support was removed? The MW software is still PC2 capable, and from what I see the Lua Module also supports it. All that's happened is that the option to protect with PC2 was removed from the interface.—CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 01:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
My bad; when I previewed the template on an article I didn't see any padlock, so I assumed it was broken or had been removed. Still, even if it works, there's not much point for it to exist apart from confusing people about what PC "level 2" is, now that's it's been removed from policy pages. Laurdecl talk 02:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:PC2 still redirects, and the policy does make mention of what level 2 used to be.—CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 02:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
But what is the point of keeping this template? Laurdecl talk 02:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Historical purposes?—CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 03:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
... Laurdecl talk 04:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, since we keep deprecated templates if they have long histories, or if they preserve history that's useful, or something of the sort, but this isn't any of those cases, and it won't be getting used; if there's an IAR use of PC2, or if the community permits it for one or a few particularly problematic articles, we can use the full-protection template if we really need something. However, if the community ever authorises the general use of PC2, the community decision should be seen as overriding this TFD, and the template should be speedy-undeleted. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Simpsons Sideshow Bob[edit]

We shouldn't be encouraging character-specific navboxes for television episodes. At best, it's WP:FANCRUFT. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, this should be covered in Sideshow Bob#Appearances, not in a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, at best it's a good and informative template. Readers going to the Sideshow Bob page, or to one of the pages of an episode he appeared in, would have an interest in other Sideshow Bob episodes. Sideshow Bob is one of those characters who doesn't have a whole lot of appearances, so each is a notable occasion. Please explain, what does the nominator sees wrong with it? Randy Kryn 20:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep useful navigation tool for the Jeff Albertson type. Also per last nomination; no persuasive new argument has been brought forward to justify a second. Ribbet32 (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
So are you advocating {{Simpsons Comic Book Guy}}, {{Simpsons Santa's Little Helper}}, {{Simpsons Ned Flanders}}, {{Simpsons Patty and Selma}}, {{Simpsons Sideshow Mel}}, {{Simpsons Krusty the Clown}} etc, etc, templates? Can't you see why it's a problem? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. All of those characters are more commonly seen than Sideshow Bob, as Randy pointed out; Bob is more of an event, this is more analogous to Template:Treehouse of Horror than {{Simpsons Santa's Little Helper}}. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Rio[edit]

Two films, one video game, one song (the "Real in Rio" song is a redirect). Fails WP:NENAN at the moment. Should this franchise produce more notable content, the template can be recreated then. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep enough content in my mind to justify keeping. Helps interested readers navigate between rio movie-related articles. --Tom (LT) 00:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete; too few links (for now). —Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me
    10:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – Meets the criteria listed in the WP:NAVBOX guideline. WP:NENAN is merely an essay. Mojoworker (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not quite enough links to warrant a navbox, and the fact there is no article on the topic of the navbox tips the balance for me. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Westminster Parsons football coach navbox[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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:EXISTING... only used in two articles (needs 4)... fails to navigate. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:18, 18 February 2017 (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).

Template:CSU–Pueblo ThunderWolves football coach navbox[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:EXISTING... only one article... failing to navigate. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If the articles in question are created then this should be restored. Laurdecl talk 23:15, 18 February 2017 (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).

Template:PubMed[edit]

Redundant with {{PMID}} save for a formatting difference which introduces more often than not an inconsistency with other links to the PMID database as provided by the other PMID templates, magic linking, and citation templates. Compare {{PMID|0123456}} (PMID 123456) with {{PubMeb|0123456}} with ‹The template PubMed is being considered for deletion.›  PubMed 0123456.

A simpler option might just be to redirect Template:PubMed to Template:PMID though. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The Template:PubMed hides the url when printed out, but the Template:PMID does not. Whenever templates that contain links are printed, it is normal to suppress the full urls, because that can negatively impact the display of elements where space is at a premium. I would have thought that merging both into a template similar to Template:PubMed, but using the {{#expr:{{{1|0}}}}} parameter evaluation of Template:PMID would yield the best of both worlds. Obviously one would then redirect to the other, but I have no preference over which way round that should be. Incidentally, aren't both now redundant to the recently introduced linking syntax [[PMID:0123456]]PMID:0123456?
Magic links are going the way of the dodo as will soon be all converted to templates. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
[[PMID:0123456]] is not a magic link. It replaces the magic link PMID 0123456 (which is indeed now deprecated), and just as any other wiki-link, it allows piped links like [[PMID:0123456|Smith et al, 2015]]Smith et al, 2015. Check it out if you haven't seen it before. --RexxS (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Pretty sure consensus was to use templates for this, so that will likely be removed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The consensus was indeed to remove magic links: mw:Requests for comment/Future of magic links, December 2016. However, you're confusing magic links (like PMID 1234 – note the space) with what was introduced by the devs to replace them as of MediaWiki version 1.28. The new interwiki links, like pmid:18280103 and rfc:793, have been introduced into the MediaWiki software across all wikis, not just here. The change is documented at mw:Help:Magic links and, being core software, they are intended to become the standard for creating links to PubMed and RFCs. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
There is consensus for magic links to be removed from MediaWiki core (BookSources and the ISBN parser function will likely be the next to go; see Manual:ISBN), however, that is not the same thing as consensus for removal from WikiMedia projects (e.g., English Wikipedia). Though interwikis have been provided as one possible replacement (for RFC and PMID anyway), magic links could be brought back via a MediaWiki extension or replaced with templates, or something else (on a project basis). I have not taken a recent poll but I believe English Wikipedia is currently leaning towards replacing magic links with with templates (i.e., {{ISBN}}, {{IETF RFC}} and {{PMID}}). I am sure others will let me know if I am incorrect (it seems to be a heated topic). 50.53.1.33 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. I believe {{PMID}} is the preferred name (though I would not argue either way too much). 50.53.1.33 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Field marshal (India)[edit]

Only two people have been given the rank of Field Marshal in India, and a template that only links those two individuals fails most of the navbox guidelines. A trout to the AFC reviewer who accepted this is in order. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Field marshal (India) is currently a good topic nominee, and a common template is required per the GT criteria, and is required. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Field marshal (India) already is a Good Article, and there was nothing on the GA review that implied there needed to be a navbox. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: I am not talking about the good article status, but the good topic criteria. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
If you're talking about point 1.C at WP:WIAFT, it says preferably using a template, not "must use template"; if there are only two Field Marshals, they can very easily be linked in a See Also section. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Parkways in Westchester County, New York[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 21:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, here, and here, and here, and here. Rschen7754 18:12, 18 February 2017 (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).

Template:South Carolina Gamecocks women's basketball coach navbox[edit]

Each template only has two links. Never should have been accepted at AFC. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Panathinaikos BC Depth Chart[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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

unused, and if needed, can be put directly in the article. Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2017 (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).

Template:Kremlin.ru[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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 00:48, 18 February 2017 (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).

Template:Indefblockedipbecause[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).

The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:Indefblockedip. Primefac (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Indefblockedipbecause with Template:Indefblockedip.
Redundant. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2017 (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).

Template:Wikilivres[edit]

Template that mimics the templates for sister projects (like Wikisource), but which actually goes to a site not affiliated with Wikimedia, for material which is not allowed on Commons and Wikisource for (US) copyright reasons. Both the dubious copyright status (should we actively link to sites with the intention to avoid the restrictions of Commons and Wikisource), and the misleading way the link is presented (I at least was fooled into thinking that we no had a parallel project to Wikisource for some unclear reason) seem problematic to me.

Note how e.g. at Albert Einstein, we have in the "external links" section on the left text-format templated links to things like Project Gutenberg or the Internet Archive, and on the right a box for all Wikisister projects. And then a box that mimics this for this lone unrelated project.

This one should be deleted or (at the very least, and if the copyright status isn't a problem) be converted to a standard text template like Template:Gutenberg author. Fram (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I attempted to convert it to a different format using my alternate IP, but the creator reverted me. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I see, [2]. I see no reason why this template should have the format normally reserved for sister projects (or why not all other external links then can be converted to such boxes as well, no reason to single out Wikilivres), but perhaps there is a better reason for it than "I prefer this styling". Fram (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Fram: Different places have different copyright laws. There's nothing inherently suspicious about linking to Wikilivres anymore than there is about linking to different editions of Project Gutenberg. Are you suggesting that we only link to resources that are in the public domain or are free media in the United States in particular? If the options are to change or delete it, then change to inline to keep from deletion. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 17:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @Fram: Also, strictly speaking, templates like {{Library resources box}} and {{External media}} certainly look and function a lot like this. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 09:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Then these may need to be converted as well (although "external media" is more used inline in articles, it seems? And to me, it doesn't look like it mimics the sister project boxes; and the library resources one may need work as well, but is a link to WMFlabs, which is a sister project (or at least a true relative, not an unrelated one like Wikilivres)). Fram (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Change to inline: Non-sister project ELs should be kept in the inline format. We don't want attraction seeking templates to distract the format. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 05:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I suppose I should weigh-in here, since the call for this template's deletion was probably prompted by my recently adding it to several pages. i fully support the idea of changing the template to an inline one. Obviously, I'd like to continue linking pages to Wikilivres. I don't. however, want to mislead people who follow the link into thinking that they are going to a Wikipedia sister site. I'd also like them to be aware that Wikilivres hosts material that may not be in the public domain in their countries. I think the the template should look like this:
I am an admin on a non-Wikimedia Foundation wiki about literature. Whenever I add an external link to Wikilivres there, I add a note which says something like, "The novel is in the public domain in Canada but is still under copyright in the United Kingdom and the United States." Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

February 16[edit]

Template:ISP 1[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 February 28. Primefac (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2017 (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).

Template:The Grand Tour[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

After cleaning it up this newly created navbox has only 3 valid links. Links within the articles are more than sufficient for navigation. Not everything needs a navbox. AussieLegend () 05:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Now that all the unacceptable links have been removed (per WP:PERFNAV and others) there is nothing in the template that can't be dealt with by normal linking. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2017 (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).

Template:Furry comics[edit]

This template fails the navbox guidelines and consists of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. The subject are furry comics. List of furry comics starts with "Listed are a variety of notable comic books, comic strips, and webcomics that cater predominantly to furry fans. Many of these titles are part of a genre also referred to as funny animals." The supposed intention of "catering predominantly to furry fans" is vague and not a valid reason of inclusion.

Only Albedo, Furrlough, Genus, Heathen City, Katmandu, Tales of Beatrix, Jack and Kevin and Kell actually mention "furry" in some manner, but there is no "single, coherent subject": the comics listed just feature anthropomorphic animals. Several entries here do not have the navbox either. The articles do not refer to each other either.

I could trim the fat and leave only the articles that actually mention "furry", but it still is not a "single, coherent subject". soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not a coherent group. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Alternatively it could be trimmed and merged with {{Furry fandom}}, which could use some trimming itself. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Some fans call all comics featuring anthropomorphic (animal) characters 'furry', and the initial template was close to the definition of 'furry' work offered by the Furry Writers' Guild:

[…] the defining factor of furry fiction is the presence of one or more anthropomorphic animal characters, usually as the protagonist. These may be true “talking animals” (as in Watership Down), animal-like aliens, or bipedal animals who evolved alongside humans, were genetically engineered in some fashion, or inhabit their own secondary world.

But I accept that a navbox should have a citable relation linking titles together - and in this case, it's clearer to cite relations via 'furry fandom' than 'furry'. In this spirit, maybe rename to Template:Furry fandom comics? That way we don't have to explain why Dilbert isn't furry despite Dogbert et. al., or that Calvin and Hobbes only has an imaginary tiger, rather than a society of non-human people - let alone distinguish between relations between intelligent non-human animals (e.g. Omaha the Cat Dancer), and/or between humans and such animals (e.g. Twokinds), or the exhibition of animal behaviour vs. Animal Farm/Maus-style racial/class metaphors.
Sandra and Woo is a borderline case - the artist has drawn furries for a while, while the writer is a furry fan [and edited Symbol support vote.svg de:Ozy and Millie and Symbol support vote.svg de:Unten am Fluss], but he was surprised by the comic's nomination for a furry award since the majority of pages feature humans - probably because there are regular segments and one-shots focused on Woo and his friends, or their interaction with humans.
Of course, just because the creators are involved in furry fan activity, it doesn't mean a specific work is furry. From J Greb's comment on the Category:Furry comics merge discussion:

I'm tempted to say it is unique in that a work needs a combination of self identification and fan base recognition, with the latter being more important, before it qualifies for the genre.

The Anthropomorphic Research Project studies "those who call themselves furry". I can't think of a case where a notable work was called 'furry' by its creator(s) without fans agreeing; it'd be acceptable as a self-published assertion. Yet not all creators make such assertions - some fear being pigeon-holed, especially given public perception; others wish to leave it open to interpretation, or drifted away from furry over time. Where it's unclear, the Ursa Major Awards' comic strip and graphic story categories are competitive, so nomination or victory might be considered a reliable source of "fan base recognition" (User:Feldo gave this reason to add Housepets!). Failing that, attention by furry-specific presses like Rabbit Valley and FurPlanet or coverage by reviewers such as Fred Patten in e.g. YARF! or Flayrah may also be relevant.
I think all the comics already mentioned meet the tests above, as does Usagi Yojimbo - not just for its awards, but because its original publication was in furry fan literature. I'd also include Sandra and Woo (they seem glad to cite UMA nominations on their site), but I'd welcome to other people's thoughts on that. Most who wrote for Critters can be shown to be active in the fandom through Rowrbrazzle (WikiFur has a list of members), which by itself probably should be mentioned somehow in the template since it contains a significant fraction of the 80s comics published by furry fans. Conversely Fritz the Cat is out of such a template, as I think are works such as Tellos, Space Beaver, Bucky O'Hare, Captain Carrot and probably Blacksad (even though Blacksad: Amarillo got an UMA for 2014 and has been frequently reviewed by furries). "Omaha" is a tricky one - is it merely a salacious funny animal comic series, or a crucial part of furry fandom's origins? - but given its critical timing, and the fact that Reed Waller put together a 25-minute panel on the history of sex in funny animals and its links to furry (presented at Furry Migration II in 2015, where he was a guest of honour), I'd tend towards inclusion in some fashion. GreenReaper (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@GreenReaper I am afraid I have to disagree, because it is based upon a very specific element: comics that somehow feature furry fandom-related content. To me, that's not a "single, coherent subject". There are different writers, publishers and artists, that just happen to feature anthropomorphic animals in their work. Navboxes based upon comics featuring vampires, Steampunk comics or comics with animals wouldn't make sense, right? This would work well for a category, but not a navbox. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

February 14[edit]

Template:BC Lions 2009 Roster[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

single-use template which has been merged with the article Frietjes (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. ~ Rob13Talk 15:46, 15 February 2017 (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).

Template:2002 Orlando Miracle depth chart[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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

single-use template which has been merged with the article Frietjes (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2017 (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).

Template:PD-US-LOC[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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Unused file copyright tag. This tag is also misleading, as files from the LOC are not necessarily in the Public Domain. The equivalent tag on Commons has been deleted for this reason. FASTILY 20:47, 14 February 2017 (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).

Template:Good Game[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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Now all cast and crew removed per WP:PERFNAV, and duplicate links to the same article also removed, navbox does not provide any useful navigation function. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2017 (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).

Template:Idle Thumbs[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 February 23. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2017 (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).

Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0-be[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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 10:02, 14 February 2017 (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).

Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0-de[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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 10:02, 14 February 2017 (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).

Template:Cc-by-sa-2.1-jp[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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 10:02, 14 February 2017 (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).

Template:Infobox Hindu leader[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Hindu leader with Template:Infobox religious biography.
Hindu leader is a religious biography, so I don't see any need for two separate ones. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose:(but see the alternate suggested below) The Infobox Hindu leader template provides fields tailored to Hinduism (e.g. guru, influenced, etc), a few of which are absent in the other (e.g. influenced). The color coding of Hindu leader template is based on past consensus and appropriate, not so in the default set up for Hindu in the Infobox religious biography template. There is no harm in keeping the widely used tailored template on Hindu leader. Tailoring templates simplifies content addition and encourages editing by new users. This is another of many template merge request by @Capankajsmilyo in past 12 months, that seems unwarranted. FWIW, I was not involved in old consensus process, nor in the creation of either templates. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • merge, the only parameters missing from {{infobox religious biography}} are (1) |relatives= and |relations= probably useful, (2) |honors= probably useful, (3) |founder= i.e. "founder of", (4) |philosophy=, (5) |known_for=, (6) |free_label= and |free_text= (7) |influenced= of debatable value since this usually better in prose with citations, (8) |quote= better as a floating quote box outside of the infobox, (9) |footnotes= may be useful. mostly, this seems to be about allowing for some alternative labels, with a few generally useful parameters to merge. one alternative compromise would be to add some of these to {{infobox religious biography}} then rewrite {{infobox Hindu leader}} as a wrapper. Frietjes (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I would support the suggested alternative compromise: add some of these to {{infobox religious biography}}, wrapper, plus appropriate color bands for Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism just like the way we have color consistency for Christianity. It would be nice if our template writing experts can also include Sikhism within this initiative. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Frietjes: it would be useful to retain at least the philosophy, known_for and influenced parameters for Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism articles in the wrapper, because of the sub-traditions and because Buddhists influenced non-Buddhists, Hindus influenced non-Hindus, etc. per WP:RS. If additional parameters can be added, we should consider adding influenced_by and influenced. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per Ms Sarah Welch. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • merge, differences between parameters used in religious traditions are not that different, especially if you also consider other Indian traditions, such as Buddhism. @Ms Sarah Welch:, are you opposing or merging?--S Khemadhammo (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I like the rewrite the wrapper idea of Frietjes more. If that would be difficult to implement, and merging would be a "mere delete", then oppose. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge: Per Frietjes, I support the rewrite of the infobox ({{infobox Hindu leader}}) as a wrapper to {{infobox religious biography}}. 117.212.44.39 (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Characteristics of religious biographies vary greatly between religions, yet still we don't use separate infoboxes for, say, Catholic bishops, Muslim Sufi saints and Siberian shamans. Keeping an exception for religious figures in Hinduism is hardly justifiable. I would rather see the few parameters listed by Frietjes added to {{infobox religious biography}}. Note that technically, the template color scheme can be made to vary depending on the value of the "religion" parameter, if it is a sine qua non for a particular religion. Ms Sarah Welch's argument about one template being easier to edit by newcomers than the other sounds a bit surprising to me, as both in their core form are nearly identical. At the same time, her undermining of Capankajsmilyo's work is not a kind of comment that helps in discussion on templates. — kashmiri TALK 13:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

February 12[edit]

Template:DPRK supreme leaders hymns[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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Redlinks have been removed. NPASR if non-redlink reasons are given for this template's deletion. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Quite ... impressive, the spontaneous love of North Koreans for their noble leaders, to manifest itself in that many patriotic hymns. But I think that a navbox consisting of mostly red links is not very useful. This topic is better covered as a list article, if there are sources for all of these titles.  Sandstein  23:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. If the navbox only consisted of the seven links that are currently blue, I doubt that you would have nominated it. We can just pare it down to them; a single section will suffice. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and remove redlinks. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2017 (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).

Template:Performance art[edit]

Too loosely connected to each other for a cohesive navbox. Inclusion is selective and subjective: who decides which artwork or artist is or isn't included? Best left for category navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't inclusion of most on WP always selective and subjective. I'm not sure I understand what the concern is. A performance art piece is a work just as clearly as a choreographed dance or painting. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the concern.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC))
Littleolive oil, I believe the question is "who decides which articles from Category:Performance_art and subcategories are used in the navigational box?". clearly not all the articles in the Category:Performance_art category tree are in the template. Frietjes (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC))

  • weak delete, no strong criteria for inclusion. Frietjes (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The template should include the most notable people and performances, according to the RS. That's how templates like this are normally handled. SarahSV (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
    Who decides which are "the most notable"? Rob Sinden (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
    Somehow articles are written and people agree about the items that should be covered in each article, and the relative weighting topics in an article should receive. Those procedures also apply to templates. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Per WP:Navigation template, a navbox is not supposed to be a list of all articles in a category. Consider {{Shakespeare authorship question}} which only lists related articles on notable topics, rather than all SAQ topics. Indeed, "Candidates" lists only seven of the 86 candidates. The candidates listed in the SAQ navbox are chosen using the same procedures that apply to everything at Wikipedia—discussion and consensus. Performance art is a real thing, and there should be a navbox linking significant performances. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Ugh, {{Shakespeare authorship question}} is a truly awful example of a navbox. I see Sandra Day O'Connor and Mark Rylance are listed as "sceptics", without a single mention of Shakespeare on either article. All of the "sceptics" should probably be stripped from the navbox due to subjective/selective inclusion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The Shakespeare authorship question template is quite educational and interesting. If you found two pages which don't fit the template because of no mention on their pages, please remove them with an adequate edit summary. To find two and because of those two erase all the rest seems WP:BABYOUTWITHBATHWATER, no?. Randy Kryn 12:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agreed that the selection criteria is poor (WP:NAVBOX#3). This isn't a movement template with reasonable bounds for inclusion ({{Fluxus}}, {{Arte Povera}}, {{Der Blaue Reiter}}) but just as there is no template for {{video art}} or {{installation art}}, picking articles to include for {{performance art}} is tantamount to choosing a canon... In this case, the category does a better job without discrimination. This said, if there were a series of subarticles about concepts within performance art, and each article was related to each other and the template stuck to that, then this would be a different discussion. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 21:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, as a representative template of an artform, Performance art, the entries included seem to be those which unarguably fall within that artform. It is an informative template and a good map to the subject. If the nominator wants to add more items to the template then he or she should do that, which would enhance and expand this perfectly fine site-map. Randy Kryn 11:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Adding more is not the answer. This would involve including everything at Category:Performance art and subcategories, which is clearly unmanageable. Best left for the category to be the "perfectly fine site-map". The only acceptable option in order to keep the navbox would be to strip it of all individuals, etc, and leave it as a broad topic navbox, i.e. including things like Performance art in China, Extreme performance art, etc, etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Netherzone, hi, and good additions. I've added them, except for two duplicates, to the template and added a section 'Groups'. I'll go over the new additions further soon to both see if any questions arise and further educate myself about the field. Please have a look and hopefully this will satisfy your concern (the template is still not very large even with these additions). Nice work, and thank you. With the additions the template is better due to this nomination, which should be the case in every nomination that editors object to. Randy Kryn 17:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Randy Kryn et al, I've changed my comment to Keep. The template is more balanced now. Thanks for your work on it. Netherzone (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
In order for this to be non-subjective, you'll need to add all the performance artists under Category:Performance artists and subcategories. Note that there are 341 in Category:American performance artists alone. This template is clearly impossible to maintain. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
A very good template getting better by the day. If you'd like every page listed in the categories represented on the template you can add one of those "(more)" links to the categories at the end of the artists section. Easy as pie. Randy Kryn 12:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Those kind of "more" category links should not be encouraged in navboxes, which are for navigating between articles, not categories. We have had discussions about this in the past. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
So a good solution is offered by adding (more), and you say no, that good solution is untenable, because we shouldn't do that. Catch-a-22. So instead of listing very notable artists and saying "here's more of 'em" you'd rather say "here's none of them and that's all you get". Even King Solomon might shake his head at that one. Randy Kryn 21:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Question - Does the discussion group have any thoughts on whether it would improve the template to include a section on scholars/historians of the field of Performance Art? Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of people like Roselee Goldberg and Joanna Frueh in particular, but perhaps even cultural critics like Greil Marcus and curators like Thierry de Duve and Nicolas Bourriaud. Feedback is appreciated, as this is the first time I've tried to help with a template. Netherzone (talk)
Again, these would all be subjective choices and would make an impossible navbox even more impossible. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The template is very good, and getting better because of user Netherzone. Maybe those questions about inclusion are better discussed at the template talk page itself. Randy Kryn 12:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
They should be discouraged, as scholars like this have ties to more than one field. Again, subjective choices. Any individuals, unless they are actually a founder of a movement, should not be in a navbox like this. Imagine if we listed all the individuals involved in {{Rock music}} or {{Science fiction}}. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Weighing in again on this template - I continue to think that the concept of a template for Performance Art is relevant the Wikipedia, but that the template as it stands, particularly the "Work" section is heavily biased towards shock-art, body art, abject art - and those pieces involving self-harm or harm by others. These works represent a very small spectrum of the genre of Performance art, and therefore were selected/curated in an unbalanced manner. The template still needs a lot of work, in fact the genre of Performance art needs more development, so that there are more articles on specific works involving other approaches to the practice. Netherzone (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  • delete An arbitrary and subjective collection of articles does not make a good navigation box. Already on the large side, the only way to fix it would be to include all (people and other articles) that are categorised as such, but that would render it impossibly large.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Once again, I'm leaning towards delete, as I see that there is a bias in the interpretation of what constitutes Performance art. I will modify my vote above. Netherzone (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • All of the delete people are tossing several babies out with the bathwater. Netherzone, please add more articles about performances. Imagine Joe Smo, coming to look up a page about a performance artist his cousin told him she saw, and then, at the bottom of the page, an entire world of Performance art and artists open up to him. This template provides a fine representative overview of the notable artists and their work. If it goes away Joe Smo reads a page about one artist, and then he goes away. That is the literal truth of how these things work, removing templates, which seem a hobby for some people here, removes knowledge, removes the diversity of the field, and gives our readers less information. Other art-form templates are limited to very notable works and artists (see {{Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood}} which has a section 'Well known works'). There is no really no reason to delete this template if we take the dissemination of knowledge on Wikipedia as the goal in mind. Randy Kryn 00:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
{{Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood}} is also incredibly problematic. If it was just a template listing the core members of the brotherhood that would be fine, and possibly any collaborative works or works about the brotherhood could be included, but all the "associated" people, models, and the subjective list of "well known" works should not be included. A good navbox has strong ties between all of the articles included, not tangential links. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
In fact, some articles which should be included there, but aren't: The Love School; Hogarth Club; and The Germ (periodical). These relate to the group as a whole, rather than some of the tangential links we do see. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Good finds, please add them. Your comment is an example of differing points of view. Is it "Incredibly problematic"? Not in the least. Just the opposite. The well-known works are fine, the models are very connected to the subject as most of the painters used the same models who became famous for their participation in this art movement, and the template's listings has "strong ties" between every listing. Again, when Wikipedia removes templates it removes knowledge, it removes a key part of the readers chance to explore the entire topic. Removing a template like 'Performance art' harms the encyclopedia. Randy Kryn 13:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The "well known" works are not "fine". They are subjective. A lot of the individuals are also subjectively included, and fail a lot of the points at WP:NAVBOX. Some of their articles do not even mention the brotherhood. Navboxes work well when there is a defined set, which is not the case here, and hardly ever the case when we start including "associated" people. As for your claim that "the template's listings has strong ties between every listing", this is clearly not true. What links say, Marie Spartali Stillman and A Converted British Family Sheltering a Christian Missionary from the Persecution of the Druids??? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
That makes no sense. Stillman was a painter, her page says probably the most important of the movement's female painters, which is cool, and the painting is an example of the movement's artwork. The relation is the Pre-Ral.Brotherhood art movement (well, in Stillman's case, brotherandsisterhood), one of the most important art movement's of the era (and one of my favorite art periods, which might give you more incentive to go after it). Are you actually interpreting ties between every listing as being so literal that every artist has to collaborate on every work of art? That's what I mean by "makes no sense". The movement itself ties every item on that wonderful template together. And yes, the models are as much members of that movement as the artists. Wonder if EEng would rename that picture "A Converted British Family Sheltering an Inclusionist Missionary from the Persecution of the Deletionists" (or visa versa). Randy Kryn 21:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
"This template provides a fine representative overview of the notable artists and their work". No it doesn’t. I mean, whether it is representative or not is entirely subjective; it contains only a small fraction of the notable artists with articles on WP, More importantly navboxes are meant to be complete and contain all articles in a group or class. When that is not possible as there are far too many then it is not a suitable subject for a navbox.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I maintain my position that a template for the genre of Performance art is relevant to the goals of Wikipedia. And that the template as it stands needs more balance and diversity, and multicultural, multiracial and aesthetic inclusion. It does not make sense to delete the template while these deliberations are still under discussion. Unfortunately, I do not have time to do this work for the creator of the template. Hope they can jump in asap and develop it so that it is inclusive, unbiased and fairly curated - before it may be deleted. My support is with you. Hope it gets improved. Netherzone (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

People's Choice Awards templates[edit]

The People's Choice Awards are not noteworthy/prestigious enough to warrant templates for every category. charge2charge (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Merge to Navbox {{People's Choice Awards}} or the articles on each year. No need for a navbox for each of these. Montanabw(talk) 23:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. More prestigious than the Teen Choice Awards that started in 1999 and have similar templates for every category. While the People's Choice Awards began in 1975. Brojam (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: "More prestigious" sounds like a judgement call, and I don't think that number of years in existence confers or detract from things like notability or the worthiness of a template (see WP:ITSSOOLD). KDS4444 (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Montanabw. I do not know that much about People's Choice Awards much less their notability, however, I believe outright deletion is not merited. If they are indeed not notable enough to for separate category navboxes, I believe merging to the main one is a more appropriate response. 50.53.1.33 (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, they are fine templates of notable subjects and contain interesting encyclopedic information. The reasoning, that the People's Choice awards are not themselves notable, seems to be incorrect. Maybe list one or two that really need deletion, but baby/bathwater applies here as well. Maybe editors are running out of things to delete? Randy Kryn 18:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It's been mentioned before that a wider discussion is needed regarding awards navboxes, as they are one of the worst causes of WP:NAVBOXCREEP that we find on Wikipedia. I'd be inclined to delete all awards navboxes as list and category navigation is a far better way of dealing with this. Have a look at the number of navboxes on Viola Davis (to take one example). --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh wow, who would have thought that {{Teen Choice Award Choice Hissy Fit}} needed a navbox... --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Some of those hissy fits are examples of really good acting and deserved the award, the winners probably honor it. There is nothing wrong with having awards templates, they are educational, interesting, and useful to readers and people "in the business". Templates give a full view of a subject, and awards constitute major subjects in their particular field. Randy Kryn 04:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • An editor says above that he or she would like to get rid of all awards templates. All of them. Without regard to knowledge passed to readers, without regard to the thousands of editors who find them important, wanting to toss out the Pulitzers, the BFA awards, Academy awards, Golden Globe awards, just up-end the entire crew of editors who care about these things and take that knowledge-base away from our readers. The People's Choice awards are very notable. These templates are fine and educational. I am at a loss for... Randy Kryn 00:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't need navboxes for every award at the bottom of articles that each of these actors, performers, films, etc. recieve. To learn about the awards given out, I would go to, in this case, People's Choice Awards. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox fighter biography[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 17:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not a template Peter Rehse (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2017 (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).

Template:University of Waterloo Stratford Campus[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

redundant, unused template Aloneinthewild (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, just use standard in-article linking. Frietjes (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete unused. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2017 (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).

Template:Utoronto Mississauga[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

redundant, only contains two links Aloneinthewild (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, just use standard in-article linking. Frietjes (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete unnecessary - as per Frietjes. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2017 (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).

Template:MiNP Records[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

No navigation provided; consists entirely of red links. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • delete G8. Frietjes (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2017 (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).

Template:Ecuafutbol player[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Created 4 years ago but unused. current links to that website return HTTP 404. GZWDer (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Probably nobody would complain if we G8-speedied it, because it's dependent on a non-existent or deleted page. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete unused. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2017 (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).

Template:Parkways in Westchester County, New York[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, here, and here, and here. Rschen7754 00:46, 12 February 2017 (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).

February 7[edit]

Template:Gmina Olszanka[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).

The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:Gmina Olszanka, Opole Voivodeship. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete - This looks like a copy of Template:Gmina Olszanka, Opole Voivodeship with some of the links in Polish. It's in Category:Lower Silesian Voivodeship gmina templates but there appears to be no Gmina Olszanka in Lower Silesian Voivodeship. Peter James (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2017 (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).

Template:This a new user[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).

The result of the discussion was userfy. Primefac (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Some part of this looks as a template but there is users's picture. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete New editor probably thought he was setting up a user page. Drdpw (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to users area. KylieTastic (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Userfy Probably just a new editor trying to make a userpage. If it were older, I'd say delete, but given how new it is, userfy. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 8 February 2017 (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).

Template:Executive Order 13769[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).

The result of the discussion was Keep. It Is Me Here (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This navbox is essentially used as a table of contents for two articles Reactions to Executive Order 13769 and Lawsuits against the immigration policy of Donald Trump. The purpose of navboxes is to find related articles, makes no sense to duplicate a TOC. — JFG talk 15:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Following removal of the TOC aspect and addition of some newly-emerging articles, this navbox has now a reason to live; I hereby withdraw the nomination for deletion. — JFG talk 08:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is misleading because it leads readers to believe that there are 20 different articles. It is also redundant because we have a category for the mere four articles in the box. It is called Category:Executive Order 13769. epicgenius (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, or replace with something else. I find it useful to see the articles all together. Comfr (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The only problem with the template is where duplicates a TOC. I agree, that it makes no sense to duplicate a TOC. But we still need a template to tie related articles together. As soon as I started reading the article, I immediately looked for a template. Using categories requires first going to a new page. The template should be improved, not deleted. Comfr (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I eliminated the duplication of TOCs. What do the other editors think? Comfr (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nominating justification is no longer true, there is no requirement that all navbox entries be standalone articles, and the navbox scheme provides an organizational structure that the category does not. —swpbT 14:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe Keep It's now upto 3 articles with State of Wa vs Trump getting it's own article CatapultTalks (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep seems useful enough; it gives readers a standard way to navigate through the topic. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 19:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the topic has spawned a half dozen articles, which benefit from a navigation aid, in the space of a week and source material for even greater depth of coverage exists. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as amended during the last week. — JFG talk 08:38, 14 February 2017 (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).

Template:Macron[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. I've done a histmerge and left the result at {{macron}}. Primefac (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposing deletion of unused "Macron" template which seems to be an out-of-date version of the used template Template:Letters with macron DRMcCreedy (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete Candidate for T3. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Merge its history into Template:Letters with macron, which apears to have started out as a copy. – Uanfala (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2017 (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).

Template:US Presidential Administrations[edit]

Propose merging Template:US Presidential Administrations with Template:US Presidents.
Propose a merge of both navigational boxes; please see the proposed draft. --Nevéselbert 09:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep separate The US Presidential Administrations template was created (by me) after a discussion (here @ Template talk:US Presidents) on whether links to the various "Presidency of ..." articles should remain included or removed from the US Presidents template. An editor objected to them, stating that they made the "template too cluttered". Another editor noted that the presidency articles didn't belong as "the template is chronological navbox for Presidents [main articles] alone". The reasons for splitting the administration articles from the main president bio articles remain unchanged. One template navigates between presidential administration articles and the other between main president bio articles. Merging the two creates an unnecessarily cumbersome and cluttered template that’s more difficult to navigate. An additional reason for maintaining the status quo, developing smaller templates on sub-topics is encouraged, see WP:Navigation template. The reasons for splitting the administration articles from the main president bio articles remain unchanged. One template navigates between presidential administration articles and the other between main president bio articles. Merging the two creates an unnecessarily cumbersome and cluttered template that’s more difficult to navigate. On the other hand, Nevé–selbert’s implied reason for proposing this merge, "I have a redesign idea", is unconvincing. Drdpw (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
You have made a rather poor case in keeping the boxes separate, other than merely stating a purely mechanical backlash against changing the status quo propped up by some prior consensus; see WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. You say that a couple editors objected to keeping the presidency articles in the same box, but that is an extremely misleading assertion. That was when the navigational box had looked like this without the organisation of presidents and administrations that the draft above ably demonstrates. Merging the two creates an unnecessarily cumbersome and cluttered template that’s more difficult to navigate That hardly makes sense. The presidents are in one group and their administrations are in another, similar to how {{Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom}} is organised. You bring up WP:NAV, I would in turn bring up WP:EXISTING. Now, as of this writing, over a dozen U.S. presidents do not have a separate article documenting their presidency, but yet the way {{US Presidential Administrations}} appears you would think that every president had a presidency article. So I've concocted a new draft here, removing the redirects and adding the timelines you added to the administrations template in the last 24hrs. Nevé–selbert’s implied reason for proposing this merge, "I have a redesign idea", is unconvincing. That is not my implied reason at all, that is nonsense. I merely made a potential blueprint for this merge as a kind of artist's impression, so that uninvolved users at this juncture would get an idea of what the proposed merge may look like when all is said and done.--Nevéselbert 12:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No, you're not proposing something to similar to how tl|Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom is organized. That template contains links to the individuals primary bio article only. There is, as you know, a separate template for premierships {{United Kingdom premierships}}. Why haven't you merged those two templates? Doing so would be similar to what you are proposing here. Also, your "blueprint" for merger is not a reason to merge the two. You've still not given a reason why these two templates should be merged. Drdpw (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I haven't requested a merge of those two templates, you are correct. Unlike America, which has been the United States of America since 1776, the UK has only been the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland since 1922; therefore American presidents would only need to be grouped once, with their presidencies grouped below (hence less clutter than what would be for the Prime Ministers). There are also only seven premiership articles of British Prime Ministers, in contrast to the dozens created for American presidents. I rested my case for restructuring at Template talk:US Presidential Administrations (the discussion you moved from Template talk:US Presidents) months ago, I see no reason to repeat the exact same arguments. But, I must repeat, what is really the point in having two separate navboxes looking pretty much the same (and mostly serving the same purpose), when you can easily fit them both together in a single navbox? (The former that just so happens to be widely accessible for most interested in American presidential politics.)--Nevéselbert 17:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Up until 1/29, when you abruptly closed the discussion of your proposed design change for the administration template and proposed this Tfd, you seemingly had no problem with there being 2 separate templates; why the sudden shift? Drdpw (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Well there are a couple of reasons. First off, as time went on I became dissatisfied with separating presidents via era (e.g. the last group "Post–Cold War" seemed potentially misleading given how many believe another one is yet brewing regardless of the love affair between Trump and Putin) and I was equally discontented with separating presidents via century. Secondly, since I'm also tracking another Rfc, I felt on further reflection that it was better for me to concentrate on one RfC at a time. And for what it's worth, I felt further disillusioned because of the reverts you made shortly before my closing of the discussion.--Nevéselbert 16:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support merge – Makes it easier to access all the relevant information about presidencies. The proposed draft layout is clear and not overly long. — JFG talk 12:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep separate as I was the fellow who pushed for the separation in the first place. GoodDay (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep separate I feel separation is more appropriate. Ethanbas (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
So, I guess no policy-rooted argument from you again, then?--Nevéselbert 17:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge Comment (just realized that I already !voted above) – The purpose of navboxes is to help readers find related articles. It is more logical to allow navigation to each president's article and their administration, rather than artificially group presidents on one side and administrations on the other. If a compact format can be devised (and Neve-selbert's proposal looks pretty good to me), I see no reason for a split. — JFG talk 15:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge, this looks like a good merge, except for losing the years of the presidencies. The proposed template, as a map to the subject, offers a fuller scope of Wikipedia's interrelated pages. Randy Kryn 03:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: Years now included. Thanks for the heads-up Face-wink.svg.--Nevéselbert 16:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Added recent additions to the Administrations template; hope you don't mind. Cartoon Boy (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Reverted, on second thought, better to let you handle the edits... but the Truman timeline needs to be added, as well as the articles for the Obama presidency by year; look at the Administrations template as it currently stands. Cartoon Boy (talk) 1:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your interest, Cartoon Boy, and I hope you will be able to support this merge. I have updated the navbox to include the new articles Presidency of John Tyler, Timeline of the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Timeline of the presidency of Harry S. Truman. With regards to the Obama presidency timeline, I struggle to really see the point in including each article for each year of the Obama presidency. Readers can easily click on the WP:SIA and find their way through.--Nevéselbert 18:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Neve-selbert that individual years are overkill. — JFG talk 21:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The years in 'administrations' are enough, the 'Timeline' section probably should revert back to the names and drop the years per repetition. Randy Kryn 22:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC
Comment I agree that listing the president's names for each president's timeline would be the best solution. I also oppose including individual years. Orser67 (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I too think that the prototype looks better with names only in the TL section & also fail to see the point of including each yearly Obama TL in the template - that's why the umbrella O-TL page exists. My only suggestion is that initials be restored to the last names (no "Bush I/Bush II", "Roosevelt I/Roosevelt II", etc.) in the admin area. Drdpw (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Merge I like the simplicity and elegance of the current US President template. But I've been working on the presidency articles, and I'd like them to be as visible as possible in hopes that other editors will read and work on them. As Randy Kryn noted, combining the two templates will allow for more visibility of what Wikipedia has to offer. Orser67 (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep separate These were originally combined and were separated for a reason. I don't think this navbox is particularly necessary to begin with, as not all Presidents have an article dedicated to their presidencies at this time. Furthermore, combining these boxes will cause the single, new box to be far more cluttered, complicated, and distract from the purpose of providing a simple, effective navigation tool.   Spartan7W §   01:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    The purpose is to provide a map to the subject, and the revised template does that very well. Cluttered or complicated don't factor in, the template is very uncomplicated and far from cluttered or distracting. Having two or more templates covering the subject seems counterproductive to a full vision of the subject in one place. Randy Kryn 17:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Note: I have made another revision of the proposed draft here, incorporating the timelines into the Administrations column.--Nevéselbert 16:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    Saw you took out the entire timeline section, which I thought one of the good points of the template. Anyway, first things first, 'saving' the template from deletion and then tweak it to add all pertinent sections (Lincoln now has an 'Outline', I don't know if any other presidents do but at some point all of them will, so 'Outline' is another section for consideration). The timelines seem important for a full template. And as you've put this one together very well an overall 'thank you' for doing such a good job in focusing on the subject. Randy Kryn 17:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    The timelines are now linked via years served, Randy Kryn. That is to say, (2009–17) links to Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama, to avoid clutter. Not sure about whether to add Outline of Abraham Lincoln, that may need further discussion. Thank-you for the feedback.--Nevéselbert 17:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    Just took a look at your latest revision, and noted that while the section title "Administrations" links to Category:United States presidential administrations, the section title "Presidents" links to the President of the United States article. Given the the one linkage, I anticipated that the Presidents link would be to Category:Presidents of the United States, and that the President of the United States article would be linked to at the top. As that's the primary article unifying all the articles in the navbox together (not the List of article), I think it belongs there. Drdpw (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done Rectified.--Nevéselbert 21:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    Nice, job, that looks really good. Orser67 (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Support merge of this version. I must admit I was more than a little apprehensive when this was first proposed, but I truly now think this is the way to go; and honestly would like to get this done as soon as possible. Do have an inquiry, though. This would still all be under Template: US Presidents? -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:381E:5630:356A:B32:7680:BC15 (talk)
I personally think Template:US Presidencies would be best, as the new title.--Nevéselbert 21:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I assume all articles with the old template link at the bottom would still work? -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh yes, they'll be redirected to the new title.--Nevéselbert 17:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I was warming to the idea of combining the two templates, but you've given me pause. While "US Presidencies" could work as an alternate name for current Presidential Administrations template, it doesn't work for this proposed template. This new one would, after all, be a combination of two distinct groupings of articles: Presidents of the United States, that helps readers navigate between main biographical articles about the presidents, and, U.S. Presidential Administrations, which helps readers navigate between presidential administration articles. No, if merged, the new name would need to clearly reflect this. In thinking about this however, I'm still left wondering, what's the point of creating a single complex navbox when each grouping of articles currently has its own clear, concise, user-friendly and fully-functional navbox? Drdpw (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The idea of renaming was merely just that, an idea. If {{US Presidencies}} renders such a problem, I'm fine with sticking with {{US Presidents}}.--Nevéselbert 20:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Beautiful. Fully approved for release! — JFG talk 09:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it was much better the other way, or some way. This one has far too much white space which unnecessary enlarges the template, the administration links are not clearly defined or mentioned, and please realize that the timelines will be removed by one of the deletionist editors who don't like 'categories' in templates (somehow that exclusionist 'rule' passed). Here's an example of something closer to fully marked information. Randy Kryn 13:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Works for me. Orser67 (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Proposed compromise is excellent solution & should be implemented. Wish I had thought of it. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it isn't, unless it is made clear that administrations are included and the timelines are also included (the category link will be removed by someone). What we have now are names and years, no indication that 'administration' pages are linked. Randy Kryn 15:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
How about this? Ham II (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Now that's an interesting one! I think I like it. Ethanbas (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I really like the current version Nevé has in their sandbox: [3]. Ethanbas (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
If the compromise I accept isn't implemented? then we should leave'em all in 3 separate Templates. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I like Draft F the most. Drafts, A, D, and E are all fine with me. Don't like Drafts B or C. I don't like Draft G but I think I'd like it better if not for the caps; I'd prefer this. Also, we should add the "for timeline" template to the tops of all the presidency articles, imo. Orser67 (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • G or G without small caps; otherwise F. Ham II (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Draft E is by far the most elegant. It makes great usage of space, it provides visual consistency, it adapts well to every screen width, and it displays dates cleanly next to each president, where the link to their presidency is natural (and will be shown in bold on the relevant articles). To answer Randy Kryn's concern about the timelines link, I think we could add a short "Timelines" section with just the names of presidents who have one. Detailed day-by-day timelines are only available for a few recent presidencies, so it wouldn't clutter the navbox at all. Here's a draft, let's call it E+: Draft:US Presidents navbox. Only main timeline articles should be shown, not yearly ones. Or we could keep a separate timelines navbox, while the presidents and presidencies navboxes are begging to be merged. — JFG talk 09:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Why a separate timelines navbox? May as well keep the status quo then, with administration articles and admistration timelines together, and separate from the person articles. Drdpw (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Now I'm preferring E+, but would suggest a few modifications: dates styled 1789–1797 rather than 1789–97 per MOS:DATERANGE, and the Presidencies heading changed to Presidents (with administrations) or similar, to address Randy Kryn's concern above that there's "no indication that 'administration' pages are linked". Ham II (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Applied full dates in ranges now. I tried the longer row header but it looks awkward. Keeping just "Presidencies". Note that MOS:DATERANGE explicitly allows the "1929–33" format in lists and navboxes; I'm neutral about which looks best. — JFG talk 16:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
·The title heading "Presidencies" doesn't cover/reflect the content of the proposed navbox, which is articles about 'Presidents of the United States and their Administrations. If this merge comes to pass the title of the combined navbox should reflect the fact that two separate (stand-alone) navboxes have been merged into one. Drdpw (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep separate. None of the drafted merge options adequately satisfy any need to merge the two templates. All of the drafts fall short with either too many redundancies or not enough simplicity of fact finding for our readers. These should be left alone as is to continue to do the fine job for which they were designed.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Yep, three weeks of trying to fix something that wasn't broke (actually two templates that were and are working fine) has resulted in 7+ unnecessarily cumbersome and cluttered template proposals. Drdpw (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
This doesn't look like progress: hard to read, and repetitive. IMHO we should first decide whether templates should be merged in principle, and only then discuss the style. People here have been confused and are changing their minds based on the various designs floated, whereas we should decide about the merge in principle first. — JFG talk 08:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Star Trek Q stories[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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Navbox of Star Trek episodes featuring a specific character. Trivial, there are countless characters in the Star Trek franchise. There are already other templates that organize the Star Trek episodes, per specific program and season. Cambalachero (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, trivial grouping. Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep linked articles appear to be episodes about said character (eg "Q who?" "Q2", ...) rather than just a list of appearances. I think it is reasonable to keep template to help interested readers of these articles navigate between them. --Tom (LT) 00:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
    • As I said, there are countless characters in the Star Trek franchise (see the list), and Q is just one of them. We can't have templates for all of them. Users who want to navigate between articles of Star Trek episodes will probably want to navigate in the current way: among the episodes of the specific program and season. --Cambalachero (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, an interesting template, and one that many Star Trek fans would be happy to find and use. Randy Kryn 03:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – Informative and coherent. Does no harm. — JFG talk 17:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – Appears to be a clear and concise template, that complements the other ST episode templates nicely. Drdpw (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2017 (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).

Completed discussions[edit]

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

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

Closing discussions[edit]

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

To review[edit]

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

To merge[edit]

Templates to be merged into another template.

Arts[edit]

  • None currently

Geography, politics and governance[edit]

Religion[edit]

  • None currently

Sports[edit]

Transport[edit]

  • None currently

Other[edit]

  • None currently

Meta[edit]

To convert[edit]

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

That sounds like a good place to hold the conversation. Primefac (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

To substitute[edit]

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

  • None currently

To orphan[edit]

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

  • None currently


Ready for deletion[edit]

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

Archive and Indices[edit]