Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

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

Closing instructions

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

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

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

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

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

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

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

Listing a template[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twinkle[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

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

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

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

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

March 27[edit]

Template:Digestives[edit]

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

Unclear what this template links. Enzymes involved in digestion? Anything involved in digestion? Miscellaneous things involved in digestion with no other template? Artificially isolated enzymes? These items do not seem to be linked in any logical fashion and a large number of other navboxes exist to fill the space. Therefore I propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. This template links pharmaceutical substances that are grouped under the WHO's ATC code A09. It is part of a series of such templates; see Category:Drug templates by ATC. The reason behind these boxes is that WP:PHARM has at some point decided to use the ATC classification scheme for our drug articles. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Per ἀνυπόδητος and ATC code A09. Boghog (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Other metabolic pathology[edit]

Template:Other metabolic pathology (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Pointless template with very few uses that lumps together an odd collection of diseases of inborn metabolism. Because the diseases are not linked the template is called "other" and does not provide any useful navigational value. Therefore I propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

yeah...that's basically it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Old Spam Warnings[edit]

Template:Spam (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-spam1}}
Template:Spam1 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) This is just a redirect to {{Spam}}
Template:Spam2 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-spam2}}
Template:Spam3 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-spam3}}
Template:Spam4 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-spam4}}
Template:Spam5 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) → {{uw-sblock}}

These are redundant to the new improved {{uw-spam1}}, {{uw-spam2}}, {{uw-spam3}}, {{uw-spam4}}, and {{uw-sblock}}. Need deletion, or maybe simpler to simply redirect them to the new versions. They are full-protected so this would still require an admin to complete. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

March 26[edit]

Template:World of Warcraft[edit]

Template:World of Warcraft (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Warcraft universe (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:World of Warcraft with Template:Warcraft universe.
Content merged to Template:Warcraft universe. This template should be swapped out for T:WCU or removed where T:WCU is already in place. There was a consensus on the talk page to perform these actions, but WP:LOCALCON, so I am submitting to TFD per normal process. Izno (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support For purposes of normal process per Izno, but work has already been done, in essence. -- ferret (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy track listing[edit]

Template:My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy track listing (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Late Registration track listing (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Per previous consensus on these templates, they are redundant and unnecessary —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep MBDTF, Delete Late Registration Every track on MBDTF except the interlude has an article, almost all of which are about 20 Kb or more in length. A template would be useful for navigating among them. The other album, on the other hand, has far fewer articles linked, and they can likely be linked closely without a template. But if more Late Registration songs have articles of substantial length, then I'd say link them in the template and keep it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

March 25[edit]

Template:Country data ASIA[edit]

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

Malformed and unused flag data template; solely consists of a link to the Asia article. SiBr4 (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:DFTBA Records[edit]

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

Rosters of record labels are not suitable for navboxes. Imagine if there was one for, say, Geffen Records artists. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That argument doesn't really work, seeing how other labels, such as Shady Records & Def Jam Recordings include their current and former artists in those corresponding templates. Soulbust (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Max Landis[edit]

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

The relevant Wikiproject advises against any filmography navboxes except director navboxes in order to avoid navbox creep. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Josh Trank[edit]

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

Only 2 links. WP:NENAN. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

March 24[edit]

Template:¡Uno! track listing[edit]

Template:¡Uno! track listing (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Per precedents in previous deletion discussions, these templates are unnecessary and should be deleted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Warner Bros. Animation[edit]

Template:Warner Bros. Animation (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

new template, redundant to Template:Warner Bros. animation and comics. NSH002 (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge to have one singular template Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • comment I just wanted change in name if you do not like good leave it as it was DarkNight8000 (talk / edits) 13:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:United States Squad 2002 FIBA World Championship[edit]

Template:United States Squad 2002 FIBA World Championship (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Delete Avoid template creep for a non-medal finish in this international basketball event. FIBA World Championship, now known as FIBA World Cup, is not as popular as its football/soccer counterpart, or even the Olympics. For the accomplished pro NBA players that make up the US national team, a 6th-place finish is not worth cluttering with another navbox. Perhaps a 12th-place finish for Lebanon might be notable enough for Template:Lebanon Squad 2002 FIBA World Championship, but non-medal finish in this case for the U.S. does not warrant template clutter. —Bagumba (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - The practice of creating team roster navboxes for sports teams that win major national or international championships is well established. Sixth place? No, sir; no way. Bottom-of-the-page cruft. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    • You're mistaken, @Dirtlawyer1:. There are always navboxes for national teams that made it to the FIFA, IRB, ICC and FIBA World Cups and World Baseball Classic, even if they didn't win any medals. –HTD 23:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – So for example, would Template:Australia Squad 2006 FIBA World Championship be in the same boat? If so, there are many templates like these, like nearly every country to have ever competed in a World Championship tournament. Pretty much every team that competed in the 2010 FIBA World Championship has one, including Tunisia who came last – have fun deleting all of the "not medal" finished ones and removing all the dead templates from player articles! DaHuzyBru (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Eh, I guess if it's just the non medal US ones that are deleted it wouldn't be taxing (not saying I agree to delete though). But for any other nation, I think it is too unreasonable to apply that logic as there are so many. DaHuzyBru (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I think this is the only US team that didn't medal in either the World Cup or Olympics (at home floor, no less!) ever since the Dream Team was formed in 1992. I dunno how bad navbox creep is elsewhere, but it seems for half of the members of this first (and only) US team to compete in the US in a World Cup, there is an average of five navboxes per article. Other similar navboxes include "Three point contest winners", NCAA consensus all-Americans and things such as college conference MVPs. Now I dunno if any of this is as big as a national team call-up in the U.S., as compared to achievements while they were in college. For example, this seems to be the only national team duty in a World Cup or Olympics for the likes of Jay Williams, Paul Pierce and Raef LaFrentz. Well, it pays that these guys didn't win loads of NBA titles like Kobe; I could only imagine how many navboxes are there; good thing he skipped college! –HTD 17:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This is intentionally not a mass-nomination. I am allowing that FIBA World Championship might have different significance for different countries. For U.S. players, not medaling in a sport they are expected to dominate is not notable. For the American players in this case, it fails WP:NAVBOX No. 1 "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent", and No 5. "You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." Perhaps for other countries, those points may be met.—Bagumba (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    • For those not familiar with the low interest level of the basketball world cup in the US, this is from Orlando Sentinel: "As much as we might love our NBA stars, few of us are paying attention to the FIBA World Cup — the tournament that serves as a qualifier for the 2016 Olympic Games. It's a big deal….for other countries. Not for America."—Bagumba (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, the 2002 FIBA World Cup lost so much money, USA Basketball taught other organizers how not to run a World Cup.
      • I'd say it passes #1; they refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. We do this to World Cups (and even continental championships) of other (major) team sports, whether or not they won medals. As for #5, we all know the US is mad about college basketball, but would listing every conference MVP award and consensus all-American be a violation of that too? I mean, AFAIK, there aren't any similar navboxes for all-NBA teams. I don't people remember Jay Williams as a college conference MVP all these years ago. Heck, there's even a navbox for the IBM Award. These national team navboxes are mostly composed of NBAers since the open era, not college kids, which isn't the top level of the sport. –HTD 19:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Regarding the other college awards, I'm not sure if you are arguing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, so this should stay, or why do those other ones exist if this is going to be deleted. Navbox creep is rampant in sports, and I can speculate on the reasons why. All I can say is we can remove them one at a time, inasmuch as we can, which is better than nothing. Otherwise, sports editors will essentially have free rein to turn any list of people into a navbox.—Bagumba (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Aside from perhaps the 1992 "Dream Team", I'd expect very few FA/GA quality bios of American NBA players to discuss much about other national team teammates, unless it is related to NBA play. Thus, I'd argue they don't "refer to each other, to a reasonable extent" (#1).—Bagumba (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Those college awards absolutely fail criterion #1, don't you think? I don't think there'd be something about Jay Williams' College Player of the Year award at Bill Walton's article, right? But it does include a tiny sentence about his participation at the 2002 FIBA World Championship. National team navboxes are standard fare at major team sports. Heck, there's even {{United States Squad 2011 Rugby World Cup}}. These awards are better handled by a category, not a navbox.
          • Having a separate standard for the U.S. basketball team and another every other team in every other sport doesn't make sense, don't you think? Even NBA.com's and ESPN's profile of George Karl mention him as the coach of the 2002 team. This isn't just an afterthought. The Bill Simmons even wrote about this. If it's not notable, it should not be notable at all cases, whether or not they won a medal.
          • I guess you'd also have to give some importance on other countries' interest, not just the U.S. when it comes to considering things such as this. After all, some countries competed against the U.S. in this tournament, which means there has to be some interest on who made up the US team their team was playing against. Americans don't usually care about Cristiano Ronaldo, but was jokingly acclaimed as a "great American hero" when his goals secured USA's qualification to the 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout round. Same thing here. –HTD 11:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Certainly there are other templates that are candidates to be deleted too, but let's focus on the one nominated here. Putting this discussion into proper context, this is not whether the subject is notable for an article, it is whether a navbox in this specific case is worthy of compounding template creep. I don't believe it is improving Wikipedia for it's readers by giving carte blanche to editors to churn out any and all national team navboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
              • I'd certainly it'll be of massive help for readers to find out that Raef LaFrentz played for Team USA alongside Reggie Miller, don't you think? Like, who would have thought? Simmons? Besides, out of all of the FIBA World Cups and Olympics, this is the only US team that didn't medal, and leaving this out because of "lack of US interest" means we should ditch the all remaining FIBA World Cup and FIBA Americas Championship navboxes because there wasn't much interest anyway even if the US won a medal.
              • I haven't made a hard count, but it looks like the average number of navboxes for each player is five. That could be a lot, but certainly not a lot compared to Kobe Bryant nineteen navboxes. If we're making an exception to the universally accepted rule elsewhere of having navboxes for participating teams in a major world cup for "lack of interest in the US" despite some interest elsewhere, and the fact that we have one (or should have one), there has to be a better argument. Like "some players don't have articles", or "this isn't mentioned at all in the subject's article". If any of those is true, then there truly is lack of interest. –HTD 23:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: There are 16 participating teams at the 2002 FIBA World Championship, and all but one (poor Algeria lol) have a navbox. Similarly, all 20 2011 Rugby World Cup teams have navboxes, all 16 2015 Cricket World Cup teams have navboxes, all 16 2015 World Men's Handball Championship teams have navboxes, all 16 2013 World Baseball Classic teams have navboxes (plus an all-star team!)... I could go on, and I don't even have to cite FIFA World Cup navboxes. You could call it WP:OSE, but readers expect to see navboxes such as this in World Cups/Championships and it would be disservice to our readers, American or not, if it's deleted for a flimsy reason "as lack of interest in the U.S.", as if that's our only criterion. –HTD 23:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Papademos cabinet[edit]

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

Subst to Cabinet of Lucas Papademos and delete. With a single remaining transclusion, the list can live in the article and the template isn't needed anymore. PanchoS (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

March 23[edit]

Template:Cass City Public School District[edit]

Template:Cass City Public School District (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Only one article listed (aside from the primary school district article) are likely to meet notability) Varnent (talk)(COI) 20:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Seven of 9 links are to non-existent articles. Does not serve the basic function of a navbox, i.e., to facilitate reader navigation among existing articles. Two links does not cut it; could be better served with "see also" articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Template:Footer US NC Indoor 60m Men[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedily deleted per WP:G7. Sam Walton (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Template:Footer US NC Indoor 60m Men (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

either delete or history merge with Template:Footer US NC Indoor 60m Men or move back. Frietjes (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Please note this occasion because I do not say this word often. This is duplicate content to the other template mentioned. I merged any missing information to the other template then blanked this unnecessary template. NOM restored the template and is now asking for its deletion. Maybe that procedure makes sense somewhere in wiki world. Trackinfo (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Concur with delete. As an author of one of the duplicate entries, I see no reason why the redundant item cannot be removed. All the information is in the one remaining. It was an accident of timing that led to the duplication. Dnd25 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per WP:G6 and/or WP:G7 -- creation of duplicate template was a mistake, and the template creator concurs. Let's not dally with this one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:History of Turkıc Peoples[edit]

Template:History of Turkıc Peoples (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

unused and duplicates Template:History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century. Frietjes (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:List of Community episodes[edit]

Template:List of Community episodes (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Community (TV series) (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:List of Community episodes with Template:Community (TV series).
{{Community (TV series)}} only has a few links, only three of which are not repeated here. Might make sense to merge the two. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: Episode navboxes are very common. I'm neither for nor against them, but agree they can get a bit too big. Look at {{The Office US Episodes}} or {{Navbox Chuck episodes}} for just a couple of the larger examples. Should we look to find consensus for all of them? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding notice - @Robsinden: Please do not forget to notify the creator of the second template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I had Twinkled it - didn't realise this wasn't automated. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for following up, Rob. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Peter Landesman[edit]

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

WP:NENAN, only two films listed. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Those are notable films by notable directors. Two film are enough. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 15:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • keep for now, the director is still active. Frietjes (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Too few links to justify navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Josh Boone[edit]

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

WP:NENAN, only two films listed. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Those are notable films by notable directors. Two film are enough. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 15:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • keep for now, the director is still active. Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Jason Bateman[edit]

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

WP:NENAN. Only three links. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Those are enough links for a notable director's template. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 15:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • keep for now, the director is still active. Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Scott Mann[edit]

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

WP:NENAN. Only three links. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Those are enough links for a notable director's template. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 15:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • keep for now, the director is still active. Frietjes (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ryan Coogler[edit]

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

WP:NENAN. Only includes three links. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Those are enough links for a notable director's template. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 15:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • keep for now, the director is still active. Frietjes (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Fran Walsh[edit]

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

The relevant Wikiproject advises against any filmography navboxes except director navboxes in order to avoid navbox creep. In any case, this is mostly redundant to {{Peter Jackson}}. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:David Hirschfelder[edit]

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

The relevant Wikiproject advises against any filmography navboxes except director navboxes in order to avoid navbox creep. Even John Williams and Lalo Schifrin don't get navboxes. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Polly Draper[edit]

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

WP:NENAN. After trimming all the duplicate links (and acting roles), we are left with one directing credit, one writing credit and one TV credit. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, except for the writing credit, it's redundant to {{The Naked Brothers Band}} anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Rosemary Blight[edit]

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

WP:NENAN. Producer navboxes are uncommon, and should be reserved for really notable producers where there is some kind of established creative vision or coherent body of work, rather than a loose list of production credits, otherwise we'll end up with navbox creep. The relevant Wikiproject advises against any filmography navboxes except director navboxes. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Uw-agf4[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Luk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 13:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Uw-agf4 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Not assuming good faith is not, in and of itself, a blockable offense. Per WP:AGF, we shouldn't even be citing WP:AGF when warning, we should use {{subst:uw-npa4}} or {{subst:uw-harass4}}. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 03:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - as well-explained above. Neutralitytalk 05:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - as Ahecht points out Not assuming good faith isn't in the slightest a blockable offence, I'm seeing no point whatsoever to this template/warning..... –Davey2010Talk 05:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is really not appropriate. On seeing this I'm tempted to nominate the others in the agf series too, on the basis that addressing AGF issues with a template instead of an actual human conversation is almost guaranteed to make things worse. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 22[edit]

Template:Periodisation of Indian History[edit]

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

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

  • Comment regarding notice - @Frietjes: F, please notify the template creator of this pending TfD. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Notice to template creator provided by nominator: [1]. (Thanks, Frietjes.) Notice subsequently deleted by creator. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Games by Apollo[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NENAN with no likelihood of expansion. Izno (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Xonox[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NENAN. Izno (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Footer Guayaquil Marathon Champions Women[edit]

Template:Footer Guayaquil Marathon Champions Women (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This is not a high level competition which warrants navigation between its champions. The winner is largely decided by who the race organiser provides the greatest financial incentive to participate. SFB 22:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Minor women's marathon race of little international significance. Moreover, the template has only a single working link, or rather four links to the same article, because the winner of four of five iterations of the race was the same athlete. No content to navigate between. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Dell monitors table header row[edit]

Template:Dell monitors table header row (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Dell monitors table data row (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Used in only one article. Subst and delete.  Gadget850 talk 22:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete per nom. Trivial to recreate should that ever be necessary. Alakzi (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep They may be used in only one article, but the row template is used very many times there, and simplifies editing/ data entry by de-cluttering the editing window (and would do so even more with one parameter per line). Perhaps these should be made more general for use in lists of monitors from other manufacturers? Note that I have also added hProduct microformat markup to the row template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:AtariAge company[edit]

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

Citation template that is just a hard-coded version of cite web used in two articles. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  • delete after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I created this template (and Template:AtariAge title) to help make links to the AtariAge database more maintainable, and it's served that purpose well. Its purpose is similar to the {{IMDb title}} template, but on a much smaller scale. 28bytes (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Looking it over, you're right. I'd like to withdraw the nomination now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Not used enough to require a template. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Citation London Underground performance exits 2003 to 2011[edit]

Template:Citation London Underground performance exits 2003 to 2011 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This template is used in only three articles. I'm not completely sure how the template is appearing there but it's really a basic cite web template with a parameter for the numbers. It's first problematic because it hard-codes that it was retrieved on December 26 2012 so any new information will be wrong and without having some web version that requires unique coding, it just seem to make it more complicated than necessary. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This shouldn't be deleted. It is a citation for usage data in the {{Infobox London station}} template. The reason it does not appear on most articles containing that template is that usage data more than four years old is usually commented out so that the info box does not get too long. The data remains hidden in the Infobox London station template's parameters for each article, so the citation for it should stay as well. For the three articles it is visible in these were the last years of the London Underground's operation. The fixed retrieval date on this template does not need to be modified as the data it is citing will not change and the original source has been removed by Transport for London anyway. This template could be renamed to {{Citation London Underground performance exits 2003 to 2006}} as it is not used to cite anything after 2006. Citations for newer station usage currently use a different template, {{Citation LU usage 2007 onwards}} which links to a live source. --DavidCane (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a citation for data that is commented out? How does that make those uses helpful? Isn't it still being used at only three articles? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Iw-ref[edit]

Template:Iw-ref (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Several previous discussions indicated that this template should no longer be used, yet I've recently seen users adding this to new pages. I think it is time to delete it for good now (or at least disambig/redirect). This would, of course, require a bot to remove these and place the proper tags on the talk pages. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Deprecate but do not delete because it will render the attribution statement provided in older revisions unreadable; these old revisions might not have used the suggested method of attribution given instead of this template. –xenotalk 20:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Sri Lankan Parliament[edit]

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

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

  • Merge as proposed, although {{{first_meeting}}} and |term_start= may serve the same purpose; likewise {{{dissolution}}} and |term_end =. {{{duration}}} is superfluous to the start and end dates. The Sri Lankan template has six transclusions only. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The start of the term usually precedes the first (plenary?) sitting. The parliament may be dissolved before its term ends. I'm not sure what the exact meaning of "nomination" is in Sri Lankan politics. Is it when candidates are chosen? Alakzi (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge as proposed As the editor who initially created Template:Infobox Sri Lankan Parliament I support the merger as Template:Infobox legislative session contains most of the same fields. Nomination is the period when candidates can submit their nomination but I don't think this, or the {{{duration}}} field, are important and can be deleted. {{{first_meeting}}} and {{{dissolution}}} can be replaced by |term_start= and |term_end =.--obi2canibetalk contr 21:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Oklahoma legislation[edit]

Template:Infobox California legislation (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (14 transclusions)
Template:Infobox Oklahoma legislation (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (9 transclusions)
Template:Infobox New York legislation (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (3 transclusions)
Template:Infobox U.S. legislation (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging the above state legislation templates into Template:Infobox U.S. legislation.

The State templates are redundant to the US one. The latter will need some tweaks, such as the ability to override automatic linking. Alternatively, just replace instances of the state templates with {{Infobox legislation}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment It should be merged with {{Infobox legislation}}. Confusing Oklahoma with the US is like confusing the UK with the EU. They are almost the same, but almost isn't the same. Also, see the other (member) state templates. Int21h (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The parameters are almost identical, and that's what matters. Which other templates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Oppose (merging into Infobox U.S. legislation) Almost the same is not the same. When you say "almost" I say "not even close". In this case, differences between the federal legal system and the various state legal systems is paramount to an infobox about specifics within such legal systems. Damn near every parameter is going to need to be interpreted differently. For example, the seals are different, state statutes are not published in the United States Statutes at Large, they are not codified in the United States Code, they don't have public law numbers, they are not signed by a president, SCOTUS is not a relevant court, Congress is not a relevant body, and the list goes on and on for damn-near every parameter. Not even the parameter names can be kept. Its not to say both the U.S. and state templates can't use the same underlying template to keep them cohesive, but things will need to be different enough that keeping a separate template is worth it. Int21h (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Note that I've been aware that these state templates were subpar for a number of months now, but the state legal systems and governmental structures have been different enough that a siginificant amount of research was needed to figure out how they worked. For example, there is no real work of codification in New York and California; they are "virtual" codifications, unpublished codifications. Unlike the United States Code, the California Codes and New York Consolidated Laws are not published by the government. This makes linking to the codifications a more troublesome, and possibly messy, affair, compared to the US infobox. We may need like 3 hyperlinks in there to the codifications for the major online sources. The same goes for the session laws. I also have been unable to discern any standard citation scheme, given that they aren't published by the government there are many, which is a huge deal in such a template. (For example, citing the California Statutes can be a mess.) I just haven't had enough time to curate all these state and sub-state articles and get down to the nitty-gritty details needed for these templates. Int21h (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Added California & NY template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Int21h. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Int21h, Prototime: Please clarify that you are opposing the first of two mutually-exclusive options proposed, but supporting the second (i.e. "replace instances of the state templates with {{Infobox legislation}}"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support merge (into Infobox legislation) On further thought.. I'm not sure we want different infoboxes for each jurisdiction (think cities too, e.g., New York City passes laws, not "ordinances" and such) because that would get crazy to maintain, and I like the idea of focusing our limited efforts on one template, but I do think we're going to have to address major shortcomings in that one template. I'm thinking the generic infobox; I oppose merging it into the US infobox because its too specific. The same reasons we can't or don't want to use the generic infobox on US articles needs to be addressed, which I think is doable. In any event, these state templates are so bad I'm pretty sure we could create them better from scratch. Int21h (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cavalier[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by Plastikspork. (non-admin closure) Tavix |  Talk  18:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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. It is a redundant or otherwise useless template.

The templates is a single sentence for one minor meaning for Cavalier (disambiguation) has no sources and if ever it is needed the sentence can be added directly to an article. PBS (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • speedy delete as a test page. Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Solar eclipse summary[edit]

Template:Solar eclipse summary (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

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

  • This is used in these four other templates, which should also be subst:ituted and deleted. Whoever's working on these solar eclipse articles has got to stop sticking every little thing in a template. Alakzi (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep There are hundreds of eclipse articles. Do we want people tweaking intros to each until we have 72 versions of it? If someone is SURE what's a good intro paragraph, and pretend its never going to be edited or improved, substitution sounds good. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    I don't see that as a persuasive reason to keep. There's no reason to be restricting edits to these eclipse articles to a particular template (or 3) that I can see, and obscures otherwise running text. --Izno (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • indifferent. it is useful to have it one place if the language every changes. however, with the availability of bots, it wouldn't be that much trouble to use a bot if the intro every changes. Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete — Obscures otherwise running text, and a single sentence can't be justified for its own template. --Izno (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • keep - its give no sense not to have the same opening. Christian75 (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep so as to be as little nuisance as possible to people editing these articles. Thincat (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Commment: I went and found the relevant guideline at WP:TG wherein it says Templates should not normally be used to store article text.. I do not see this case as an extraordinary one and maintain my earlier !vote for deletion. --Izno (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    Mmm, well. There is a good case for substing this template (as suggested in the nomination) but, to allow it to be substed in future articles, means it should be kept. That is where the nomination goes astray. The relevant guideline is "Templates ... that contain text which is not likely to ever be changed should be invoked with substitution (subst:)." The nomination seems to be making reference to this while not following to the consequence. Thincat (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    It's being transcluded, not substed. If there is reasoning to keep it simply for substing (and I'm skeptical even of that need, for much the same reason as for the applicable guideline), then all current usages should be substed and the template documentation updated. --Izno (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per the guidelines, templates are not normally used for article text. I see no reason to make an exception in this case. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • We should not need to repeat the same information on hundreds of articles. As long as there is a link to solar eclipse in the lead, readers can click that to get information on what an eclipse is. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Sabinas TV[edit]

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

Redundant to Template:Nueva Rosita TV. Sabinas and Nueva Rosita are one media market/coverage area. All articles that linked to this one link to the Nueva Rosita one. Raymie (tc) 07:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, small and redundant. Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Azteca 13 Puebla[edit]

Template:Azteca 13 Puebla (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

For Mexican TV stations, many of which repeat national networks, stations do not have pages (unless they are local stations) but are redirects. Both of the stations in this infobox have redirects for their pages. There's no place for this to be effectively transcluded. Raymie (tc) 07:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Balleza TV[edit]

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

XHBAL-TV, the only station in Balleza, Chih., does not have an article. It exists, but it is a noncommercial station licensed to the local municipality. The IFT database has it listed with an asterisk—possibly never built, even though the permit is old enough not to have an expiration date.

Nothing will use this dead end of a template, so it probably is not worth having around. No current transclusions. Raymie (tc) 07:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Small multi-state metro regional roads navboxen[edit]

Template:Quad Cities Roads (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Twin ports roads (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Roads of Northwest Arkansas (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Roads of Texarkana (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The purpose these templates currently serve is better served by categories. Using navboxes adds unneeded clutter. See precedents at WP:USRD/P#Other debates and these four previous discussions about similar navboxen. TCN7JM 03:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as creator of two of these, per precident. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 04:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per precedent. Dough4872 04:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per all my previous voting and discussion. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete—per all of the previous discussions. As has been discussed several times already, these are redundant to the "Transportation in X County, State" categories because metropolitan areas in the US are defined at the county level. Each box adds unnecessary visual clutter and pollutes the "What links here" listing for each article, yet the categories take up a minimum amount of space and don't impact the WLH results. Imzadi 1979  05:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Valdosta precedent. These templates are improper regardless of the number of states involved.  V 22:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nomination rationale and recent precedents on point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Capgeek[edit]

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

This template is no longer useful, considering that CapGeek has been shut down. Unfortunately, given the death of its founder (Matthew Wuest), it looks like the closure will be permanent. Canuck89 (have words with me) 02:03, March 22, 2015 (UTC) 02:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, no longer useful. Frietjes (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The site is gone forever. Resolute 16:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, as page creator (not sure if that matters), sad the death of the founder and page. B2Project(Talk) 18:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Inter-parliamentary institutions and international parliaments[edit]

Template:Inter-parliamentary institutions and international parliaments (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Mixture of Inter-parliamentary assemblies and International parliaments which are two distinct concepts.
Propose subst'ing and sorting out, unless someone finds time to rightaway pick those belonging to either of the two articles. PanchoS (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Why, or how, did you add this to 11 March's TfD? Alakzi (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I second Alakzi's concern: why was this TfD discussion added to the March 11 TfD page on March 13? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Subst and remove entries as required. Alakzi (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox UK Fire and Rescue[edit]

Template:Infobox UK Fire and Rescue (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (64 transclusions)
Template:Infobox fire department (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (305 transclusions)
Template:Infobox county fire service (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (2 transclusions)

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

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

  • Oppose: {{Infobox fire department}} has 305 transclusions and is heavily used. Perhaps renaming it Infobox US fire department but it has been heavily customized with information that is needed for fire department pages. --Zackmann08 (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Why is "305 transclusions and heavily used" a reason to oppose this suggestion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Mine was a poorly framed argument. After looking over the two templates, I feel that they are distinct enough that it would not be beneficial to merge them. This is my opinion, if there are others besides Andy Mabbett who have an opinion on this matter, please chime in! Also, just to be clear, Mr. Mabbett, not saying I only care about the opinion of those besides yourself. Just saying you've made your argument, I've made mine. Now I'd like to hear from others. :-) If there are others that support merging the templates, then I will not only bow to WP:Consensus but will help merge the two. --Zackmann08 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding notice - WikiProject Fire Service has been notified of this TfD: [2]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think that we should list all equipment, or all administrative divisions separately. The former should be placed in a table in the body of the article. The latter should be trimmed; a complete breakdown can be found in settlement articles. If we're gonna merge these, I'd prefer to selectively incorporate some fields in {{Infobox UK Fire and Rescue}}, which is the tidiest of the three. Officer titles will differ from country to country, so the labels should be customisable; cf. {{Infobox government agency}}, for example. Alakzi (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Alakzi I think you make a good point about the location. My rationale for that is that (at least in the United States) fire service is largely based on mutual aid that runs up the chain of locations. So for example, Santa Barbara City, responds with Santa Barbara County which in turn responds with the State of California. I would also argue that the breakdown of equipment is vital to understanding the department. A department on the east coast of the US, in a major city is going to have a vastly different fleet of vehicles than that of one on the west coast in wildfire territory. Just like a department in the heart of London would be vastly different than one out in the countryside. I use this all the time. This information helps those interested in the subject to understand it. Otherwise I think your argument could be applied to almost every Infobox on here. For example {{Infobox automobile}}: no need to include the wheelbase, height, weight, etc. in the infobox, it will be listed in the article. You see my point? To be clear (I know tone is so hard to read from plain text) I do not mean to personally attack you in any way! I am simply trying to point out the flip side of your argument. Looking forward to continuing the discussion. --Zackmann08 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Spread of IE-languages[edit]

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

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

  • Comment regarding notice - @Hajme: Please notify the creator of these templates of this pending TfD. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all as nominator suggests. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Useful oversight of Indo-European and Indo-Aryan migrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Mildly support deletion I think the four maps do a good job of succinctly presenting the spread of IE languages. However, templates are navigation aids, not mechanisms for content delivery and perhaps there are more appropriate ways of conveying the same information. --regentspark (comment) 15:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't see any policy or guideline that says "templates must not include any maps". So, this is a spurious TfD as far as I am concerned. These templates are eminently valuable for transcluding a standardized collection of content across several pages. It might be that nobody ever used templates to transclude images but, if so, JJ deserves an award for innovation, not a TfD! Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    Kautilya3, JJ has done a splendid job with the maps and I quite like the succinct way in which the information is presented. It is definitely very clear.. But, it is not a good idea to use templates for content purposes because they are indirectly adding content rather than directly doing so. Where, for example, would we debate the accuracy of the content of the template? In the less traveled template talk page or on some content page? If on a content page, then which one? If it gets debated and removed from, say, History of India then what about the (presumably) less traveled Hinduism in Iran page? Content should always be included clearly so that it is open to debate and consensus formation and this - just looking at the long list of pages where it is transcluded - doesn't meet that requirement. The view presented by JJ on IE migration is the generally accepted one and I agree with that part of the content, what I disagree with is the method by which the view is being disseminated. It is not appropriate. --regentspark (comment) 19:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    You certainly have a point that the template's talk page would be less well-travelled. But the counterpoint is that the template makes it possible to keep all the pages consistent. If the material is duplicated on several pages, then it would be harder to maintain. You can fix it in one place, but you have no idea where else the same problematic content has been duplicated. A template is a better way to maintain consistency. Moreover, important templates get a lot of traffic too. See for example the revision history of Template:Sangh Parivar. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. R3venans (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There's also {{Indo-European migration}}. Alakzi (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not a good use of {{sidebar}}, and content should be collapsed only sparingly, if ever. If there's not enough space to float these images, they should be placed in a WP:GALLERY. Alakzi (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    I have read pretty much all the pages where these templates appear. I can vouch for the fact that they work brilliantly, brining to life the various geographic regions mentioned on the pages. I haven't found any problem with the templates being collapsed or expanded. (There was a problem initially when it wasn't clear that it was a template, but JJ fixed it.) Kautilya3 (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    This is what happens to sidebars on mobile. Also, collapsed content is bad usability. Alakzi (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    I think this template is undue on that page, not to mention the whole topic of Indo-Aryan migrations. However, the template seems to have broken some formatting code. After I checked the history and reloaded the page, the problem went away. I don't know if that is what you meant by "this is what happens." Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    Sidebars are hidden on mobile; mobile users can see none of these images. Alakzi (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete One of the most frequently used map of these templates has a number of mistakes, it should be used in lower resolution. Till November 2013, it used to be the main map of the alternative {{Indo-European topics}}. Last one, concerning the so called "spread of Vedic culture", is extreme and superfluous, it refers to a book whose first line starts with the doubt and offers no support to the template. Templates are not for illustrating a point. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per above. Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion I don't see any problem with templates with maps in them. Is there a policy against them? If it doesn't work on a page, remove it or reformat it to not be a sidebar, but I see no reason to delete it.  Liam987(talk) 16:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. These templates in their uncollapsed state are far too big and obtrusive, getting in the way of the content of articles to which they are only marginally relevant. And as pointed out above, it's normally bad form to collapse article content like this. These templates should be reframed as regular content in one article to which they are highly relevant, and other articles should simply link to that article. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Indo-European migration[edit]

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

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

I agree, it's unlikely there will be a different outcome for this one.  Liam987(talk) 16:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Chicago style[edit]

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

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

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

Template:Islamism in Bangladesh[edit]

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

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

  • Delete per rationale above. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 23:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with it? How's the title misleading? Alakzi (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Per nominator. Islam is a major religion of Bangladesh and Islamism in Bangladesh cannot be separated from {{Islam in Bangladesh}}. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 00:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The author should attempt to establish that this topic is worthy of inclusion by creating a draft article. If it's not found to violate policy, then the template can be restored. TfD is ill-equipped to make this judgment. Alakzi (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Solid Keep. For Baal's sake, this is one of the most overtly partisan, WP:BADFAITH noms I've yet seen. (Nom has been aggressively AfDing every article BengaliHindu has created or been extensively involved in.) The nom's own AfD rationale is in fact the strongest possible argument in support of keeping and expanding the template. I.e., If Bangladesh is an Islamic state now, then the topic of Islamism in Bangladesh is obviously notable. Pax 23:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Merge with Template:Islamism in South Asia - I don't see anything wrong with the template. The nominator's rationale is entirely irrelevant for TfD, bordering on POV pushing. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Why my rationale is irrelevant?? Muslim in Bangladesh is 89.56%, capital Dhaka is the City of Mosque, its state religion is Islam according to constitution. In what way, Islamization in Bangladesh is possible? Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Islamism is a political ideology. I don't see any recognition of that fact in what you write. Even a country that has Islam as a State religion can make varying use of Islam in its governance and politics. The supposed logical flaw that you allude to doesn't exist. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear Kautilya3, you should present its necessity rather than understanding simple facts. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
To even pretend that Islamism is not a looming factor in Bangladesh is willful evasion of reality.[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],etc. Pax 22:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, almost every wikilink is present in {{Islamism in South Asia}} template. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    Ok, that is a useful piece of information. It doesn't make sense to put the same organisations in two related templates. You should be making a proposal to merge this one into {{Islam in South Asia}}, rather than asking for deletion. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there a policy prohibiting an entity from being listed in more than one template? Pax 22:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
No, there is no such policy. The point is that one of these is a subtemplate of the other. So, the two templates would go on very much the same pages listing very much the same links. That would be pointless. Since these are navigation aids, we should prefer the larger template to the smaller one. What BengaliHindu needs a real page on Islamism in Bangladesh. But that will involve doing real work, not just gathering together a bunch of links. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge with Template:Islamism in South Asia. I strongly agree with Pax and Kautilya3, and oppose the nom's rationale, but many of the links are to articles related to either Islam in Bangladesh or Islamism in general.  Liam987(talk) 16:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

March 21[edit]

Template:Infobox London Tramlink route[edit]

Template:Infobox London Tramlink route (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused. Commenters in the previous TfD asked for this to be made a wrapper. I have now done that, and Subst: each of the only five transclusions, with no loss of content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, obviously redundant to {{Infobox tram line}}. Alakzi (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Who are the people in the previous TfD that asked for this to be made a wrapper? I see only one: PC-XT (talk · contribs) said "Keep in case someone wants to wrap it". Where was it suggested that replacing it with {{infobox bus line}} was a desirable action? Trams are not buses. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • keep and revert the premature orphaning. Frietjes (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Silly and redundant in the first place, did anyone here actually care about this template or use it prior to this TfD? Let's not be pointy. Montanabw(talk) 20:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It shouldn't matter whether people here used it. The fact is that it was used - until four minutes before this TfD was filed. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I went looking for a policy which actually says "don't change the status quo while a discussion in a deletion forum is underway" (which I've noted is simply good policy). I did find a handful related to article talk pages and sometimes content on an article, but nothing of the sort which you're trying to claim exists. --Izno (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
        • While you're correct that that doesn't exist, what he's trying to claim is "don't change the status quo before a discussion in a deletion forum is underway" . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:RXNO cat[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, rarely used and not particularly useful information to have in every single category. Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:AZBilliards[edit]

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

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

  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, and if it were deleted or userspaced there should be no prejudice against later re-deployment. This is a routine single-source citation template, intended to be used more broadly, of course, but WP:CUE has few active editors, so that might not be for some time. It does no harm as a template, but isn't seeing much use yet. This one in particular could see immediate broader use, replacing and consistently formatting other citations to this source, and there are many of them, especially in pool (pocket billiards) player bio articles. And, yes, the source is known to be reliable; it's one of the top four editorially controlled pool and billiards publications in the US, along with Billiards Digest, Inside Pool, and Pool & Billiard Magazine. The fact that it's online instead of on dead trees doesn't magically make it unreliable. (All of the other three also have online editions, BTW.) Questions of source reliability are a WT:RS matter, not a TfD matter. The URLs in the template, as with any template referring to an external online source, need to be checked regularly and, if necessary, updated to compensate for changes at the target site. That's a template maintenance issue for the template's talk page, not a TfD matter.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to subpage of WP:CUE for convenient substing or copy/pasting. --Izno (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. AZBilliards citations are now used 66 times on Wikipedia, obviously on cuesport related articles. I concur will all of SMcCandlish's statements above. (Brian T. McDaniel (tAlk) 17:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC))
  • Delete, it is only used to save entering two fields,  SMcCandlish writes "It does no harm as a template" -- it does some good for those who use it (saves typing 2 fields) it does harm because it is yet another template that editors are expected to know about, so given the good and the harm I think it is more harmful than good for the project. I am not sure where the 66 times comes from because it now seems that it is no longer in use for any Wikipedia articles. -- PBS (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:WWW-MV[edit]

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

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

  • Keep and convert to a wrapper for the English equivalent, as is standard practice. This is a major biographical source and the template will be useful as we translate more and more articles from German Wikipedia. There are now over 20 links and I am importing more from de.wiki. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I see Category:Citation Style 1 templates using German translations but I don't understand its purpose. Shouldn't we be moving those templates into the current Citation style 1 templates? I don't think the goal should be to keep templates in other languages here as it just adds complexity for no reason. I mean, I'd understand a clean-up project where templates like these are kept but with some back-end warning that they need to be merged/converted to the English ones but just having templates in another language seems unneeded. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Normally there's an English Wiki equivalent for such templates, so what happens is we create a wrapper i.e. the German language template is modified to a) translate commonly used data and b) point the German parameters at their English ones in the English template (the English template may have to be modified to accept extra parameters, but that's fine). The result is that the template looks like the English one even though its parameters are in German. The next step is someone creates a bot that substitutes the wrapper template in the article with the English template. A good example is Infobox Berg where I can import the German template, it instantly translates into English and displays like the English Infobox Mountain and then within minutes a bot substitutes it for the English version. Very neat!
In this case there is no English equivalent, so we'd have to create it first, then turn this template into a wrapper and then get a bot to substitute it. I could do the first, I'm less expert at wrappers and have no experience of writing bots. Help! --Bermicourt (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:FN and Template:FNZ[edit]

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

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

  • Questions:
    1. {{ref}} and {{note}} appear to be deprecated, so are they the right replacements?
    2. Why would deletion be better than the normal wrapper solution for these templates? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    I would've personally used {{efn}} and {{notelist}}, but {{ref}} and {{note}} were the most alike in functionality. I don't know if it would be better. Alakzi (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Footnote3 is deprecated but still in use with almost 20k uses of {{ref}}. But {{FN}} is Footnote1 which I went through and updated to Footnotes a few years ago. --  Gadget850 talk 23:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete and update to Footnotes. Closer: Ping me and I will update. I still have my AWB regexes for this. --  Gadget850 talk 23:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • What should be used? Grouped <ref>s? Alakzi (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, but change to be a wrapper of the most relevant templates, to avoid manual conversion when translating articles. That is standard practice. If need be a bot can come along afterwards and replace them as with Template:Infobox mountain for example. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    These templates have been around for two years and are uses on only 32 pages. As demonstrated at Thuringia, updating to the current system is not an onerous task. If needed, I can do a help page. --  Gadget850 talk 21:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems to have an obvious replacement, isn't particularly used (except) in translation. Gadget's offer seems reasonable for that need. --Izno (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • So who's going to sort out the wrapper and substitution bot? It's all very well saying they're not used (except) in translation - but that's their whole purpose! It saves us translators hours of repetitive and totally unnecessary work. And there aren't many of us... --Bermicourt (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I'd have been OK with keeping these as subst:itution wrappers, like we do with {{Infobox Burg}} and others, but the coding is incompatible with Help:Footnotes. Alakzi (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I can see how this could be done, but with only 30 uses is it worth it? See this change in Thuringia. -- Gadget850 talk 15:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
          • {{notelist|refs= and the closing braces can't be substituted. Alakzi (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Upcoming Sports[edit]

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

Other than replacing "future" with "upcoming", its functionality looks basically the same as Template:Future sport, which was deprecated and deleted per the result of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Also, posting a tag stating that information may change rapidly "as time progresses" really had no informational consequence, since as basically stated on Wikipedia:General disclaimer the content of any article can be recently "changed, vandalized or altered". Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Amrita Keerti Puraskar[edit]

Template:Amrita Keerti Puraskar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Orphaned template. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • We've not even got an article on this award, so delete per WP:NAVBOX. Alakzi (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

March 20[edit]

Template:Human hair sidebar[edit]

Template:Human hair sidebar (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Human hair footer (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Human hair sidebar with Template:Human hair footer.
It seems strange to have both templates duplicated on every page, as they even state that they should be kept in sync, and have almost the same content, so I am proposing merging. The nominator should have been contacted by the 'Twinkle' tool which I am using. Tom (LT) (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete the sidebar and keep the footer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • keep and do not merge. The navboxes are generally useless because they are merged to monster navboxes. Christian75 (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge, which probably ends up as a delete for the sidebar after merging. --Izno (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Solar eclipse2[edit]

Template:Infobox Solar eclipse2 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox Solar eclipse (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Solar eclipse2 with Template:Infobox Solar eclipse.
It's unclear from the documentation of either of these why we have two templates, and it's highly unlikely that we need both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • This has already been discussed. Did you forget?Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_21#Template:Infobox_Solar_eclipse2 It serves a valid purpose of filling in template contents from a database file. Documentation could be improved, but its lack doesn't mean its not useful. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There's no need to rehash the debate. I support doing away with the arcane db and wrapper. The WikiProject can keep this info stored someplace "safe" and get someone to run AWB to update the articles whenever necessary. Alakzi (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • don't merge as nothing has changed since the last discussion. Frietjes (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose merging - the nominator should have checked the talk page of the template :-) Oppose because no new information since last nomination (Novmeber 2014) has been given. Christian75 (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This appears to be in the process of being Luafied; see User talk:Tomruen#Solardb. Alakzi (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: What is the status of putting the data on WikiData per the last discussion? — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 11:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose what has changed since the last debate? I would need significant change in circumstances since then. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Canadian school district[edit]

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

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

  • Right, so, out of nineteen parameters, ten have no equivalent; see my sandbox. {{Infobox school district}} has the following twenty additional parameters: motto; type; grades; region; country; location; coordinates; president; vice-president; asst_superintendent; accreditations; us_nces_district_id; faculty; teachers; staff; ratio; conference; mascot; colors; and schedule. First, I'd like to hear from people who know a thing or two about school districts if all of the parameters of these two templates are worth keeping. Alakzi (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm prepared to assume that Canadian school districts - not to mention those in the rest of the world - have coordinates, grades, a location, a region, a country, teachers, faculty, staff, and a staff/student ratio, at a minimum. |us_nces_district_id= can be re-purposed as a generic identifier parameter, matching the Canadian template's |boardidentifier=, and this made more globally useful. I've yet to find an instance of the template using conference, mascot, colors, or schedule. The example in the documentation suggests that the latter is for values like "M-F except state holidays", which fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox British Columbia school district[edit]

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

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

Template:Infobox New Jersey school district[edit]

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

Redundant to {{infobox school}} and {{infobox school district}} (currently used for both types of article). The tables of financial data should be moved into the bodies of the articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • refactor/split to have this template only generate the financial data information, but make sure that the financial data table is only used on district pages, and not pages about individual schools. all the remaining information can be covered by {{infobox school}} and {{infobox school district}} as suggested. Frietjes (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Refactor per Frietjes. Alakzi (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Refactor / Repurpose The informational components about the districts used in this infobox are either included or addressable in {{Infobox school district}}. The remaining financial data would stay in this infobox with the parameters overlapping with the {{Infobox school district}} stripped out. If I new then, when I created the infobox, what I know now, that's how I would have done it. Alansohn (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Refactor/split/repurpose per Frietjes and Alansohn's comments above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox encounter[edit]

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

Overly trivial data about alleged but unproven incidents. Only twelve transclusions. Replace with {{Infobox person}}, using |known_for= as appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

March 19[edit]

Template:Kent Smith[edit]

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

WP:NENAN. Producer navboxes are uncommon, and should be reserved for really notable producers where there is some kind of established creative vision or coherent body of work, rather than a loose list of production credits, otherwise we'll end up with navbox creep. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No, go ahead, destroy it all. I must have thought it worthwhile or I wouldn't have bothered. Reminds me why I quit Wikipedia last time. They said all the WikiNazis had gone. Obviously not.Kwah-LeBaire (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Or else we can add one for the writer, director, and all the actors and makeup artists on these films as well. BollyJeff | talk 12:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:American film industry[edit]

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

Was only used on a single article (Cinema of the United States), now substituted. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Texas Sports by region navboxes[edit]

Template:Central Texas Sports (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:South Texas Sports (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:West Texas Sports (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:North Texas sports (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Houston Sports (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Dallas-Fort Worth Sports (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Texas sports (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

I'm nominating the "sports by region" navboxes in Texas due to the result of Template:MiddleTennesseeSports. It has been determined that the "regional" navboxes are redundant to {{Texas sports}} because they accomplish the same task: listing other sports teams in the area. Having one statewide template instead of several regional templates is also more useful for navigation, provides for easier maintenance, and helps prevent having too many navboxes at the bottom of articles (especially for teams in the Big Four leagues). Tavix |  Talk  07:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Note:The creator of these navboxes have been notified. Tavix |  Talk  07:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. If New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago can get their own seperate userboxes, why not Houston and DFW and maybe South Texas? I'm just saying that Texas is bigger than most other states and the userbox would get MASSIVE if we only used that (which is why California doesn't have a userbox for just the whole state). Tom Danson (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a whole category of sports by city, Category:United States sports navigational boxes by city, and I am aware of other navboxes that group sports teams, stadiums, etc., by state and region which are not included in the example category. I am extremely skeptical whether such navboxes are of any real use to our readers, and I think it may be time to have a more generalized discussion whether such multi-sport navboxes have value or whether they simply contribute to the ever-growing bottom-of-the-page cruft associated with many of our sports articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Either way we look at it, either the state template is redundant or the region templates are redundant. There's no need to have 2-3 different sets that accomplish the same thing. It just adds to the maintenance when teams start up or go defunct and the statewide template isn't that much bigger. The most extreme example {{Dallas-Fort Worth Sports}} looks like it is almost the same length as {{Texas sports}} (and really, it's close: 4.4kb vs. 5.7kb). In some examples, there are teams that are on three navboxes. Any teams located in DFW would be in {{Dallas-Fort Worth Sports}}, {{North Texas sports}}, and {{Texas sports}}. That's a problem. I didn't want to dive off the deep end and nominate the entire category en masse. I feel like it's better to look at them in chunks that people can actually sort through easily. Tavix |  Talk  16:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: Oh, the nominated navboxes are clearly redundant. My larger point is whether any of these navboxes serve a valid navigation purpose, or whether they are simply more navbox cruft. Does anyone navigate from an article about a minor league soccer team located in Texas to an article about a semi-pro rugby team located in Texas to an article about the Houston NBA team? While these linked articles are all "sports" in Texas, I think they are about as unrelated as they can get under that umbrella. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see what you're saying. I honestly haven't even thought about that. I simply wanted to clear out the redundancies that already exist. I do think "single sport in State X" is a valid navbox (such as {{Texas soccer}}). There is a problem that occurs when you get to sparsely populated states, and there are only like five non-collegiate teams in that entire state. {{Vermont Sports}} is probably the most extreme example there. In that case, "single sport in Vermont" would not be useful, while "Vermont Sports" is. Where would you draw the line though? Even bigger states like {{Missouri Sports}} (home of two top fifty metro areas) would have that problem (ie: only one basketball team in the entire state). Scaling that up, it almost seems like an all-or-nothing proposition. (sorry if that doesn't make sense.)Tavix |  Talk  17:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've had my eye on this family of navboxes for the last year or so, and now that several editors appear to be churning them out in a hurry, it's probably time to address the larger issue in another TfD. I'm not going to hijack your TfD discussion here, but I think all of these multi-sport navboxes need to be deleted -- they serve no useful navigation purpose because the linked topics are only loosely related by geography under the umbrella of "sports." As a basic test, no one would ever include a "see also" link for the Houston Rockets in the article for a minor league baseball team based in Amarillo. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems that deletionists are swarming this post. I mean, you've started a slippery slope; if we delete the sports navboxes, why not delete the radio and TV navboxes as well? Tom Danson (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Tom, I am no "deletionist." I am a frequent editor of sports articles who actually understands the criteria of the WP:NAVBOX guidelines, and also recognizes that many of our sports articles are burdened with massive amounts of bottom-of-the-page cruft that is of minimal use to our readers. Specifically, WP:NAVBOX states that navboxes should satisfy the following criteria:

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

These navboxes fail criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5, and even criterion 1 is arguable. Most tellingly, there is no stand-alone article on the specific topic of the navbox per no. 4. Please review the criteria and understand their application to the particulars of these templates before commenting further. Finally, from an organizational standpoint, these regional navboxes divide the content along arbitrary regional lines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all per the nominator's rationale, while reserving the right to !vote to delete the "parent" navbox, too, for the reasons discussed above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think these are all cruft, but if I had to choose one or the other, I would delete {{Texas sports}} (or at the very least, dump the obnoxious images) and retain the regional boxes. And if retained, mass cleanup is required as people need to remember that the purpose of these templates are to aid navigation. They are not meant to be full-scale lists. As such, the non-notable soccer and basketball teams in the DFW template, for instance, need to go if the template is kept. Resolute 15:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • So, I'm going to try a test article here at San Antonio Scorpions. First off, I removed {{USSoccer}} because it did not have a WP:BIDIRECTIONAL link. That leaves the following:
    1. {{South Texas Sports}}: To evaluate using the enumerated checks Dirtlawyer1 posted: Fails #1 (not coherent), fails #2 (articles don't mention "South Texas" as a particular point), fails #3 (they don't and probably wouldn't if we were to have See Also links or even in-text links), fails #4 (no Wikipedia article on subject, though this one is usually bent to some degree), and certainly fails #5.
    2. {{Texas sports}}: Same result here as for the regional template.
    So, my !vote is to delete all. Content related to particular regions should be associated with those regions' articles, for example at San Antonio#Sports. --Izno (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    I'll toss in a delete for {{Texas sports}} as well given the presence of Sports in Texas, given that the "parent" navbox fails WP:NAVBOX for the same reason as the children. I've boldly added it to this discussion also. --Izno (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all Delete the regional navboxes per WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." I'm wary of WP:OR used to create the concept of these groupings, especially when an article on the subject does not exist. Delete the Texas state specific template per WP:NAVBOX No. 5: "You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." I'm a pretty big sports fan, and I don't think most American readers would want to jump from one sport to another different sport, merely on the basis of the teams being geographically located in the same state.—Bagumba (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Now that {{Texas sports}} has been nominated, let me give my opinion on it. I think it should be split into each of the sports that has a decent amount of teams associated with it. See {{Texas soccer}} for an example of what I mean. This would create {{Texas baseball}} {{Texas baskeball}} {{Texas football}} {{Texas hockey}}, etc. (and if there are only a couple teams, it may be useful to include defunct teams as a separate group?) Tavix |  Talk  22:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    I think that might be a suitable solution, though I'm not sure I favor it over simple deletion of T:Texas sports. --Izno (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep {{Texas sports}}, at least for now (but, I agree, remove the images from it). As for the others, I really have no opinion, one way or the other on them, but {{Texas sports}} is part of a wider class of navboxes (see Category:United States sports navigational boxes by state) which really deserves a much broader discussion then it will be able to get here, hidden in among all of the other sub-state boxes here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

March 18[edit]

Template:NLLTeamSeason[edit]

Template:NLLTeamSeason (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox lacrosse team season (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:NLLTeamSeason with Template:Infobox lacrosse team season.
I rewrote template:infobox lacrosse team season to use template:infobox, and in the process, noticed that it's basically a generalisation of template:NLLTeamSeason. to confirm this is the case, I then rewrote template:NLLTeamSeason to call template:infobox lacrosse team season. basically, the only parameters being autofilled by template:NLLTeamSeason are the league, league link, and cup. my proposal is to (1) substitute the wrapper that is currently used in template:NLLTeamSeason, then (2) merge the early history of template:NLLTeamSeason into template:infobox lacrosse team season. Frietjes (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment regarding notice - WikiProject Lacrosse was notified of this pending TfD merge discussion: [9]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Internet Archive film[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL and due to erroneous assumption in nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:SPAM. instead of external linking in the ordinary way, the main object seems to be to promote the brand name Longines. Could be solved by removing language identifying the source. The source is not so much in question as the content which receives scant attention. Student7 (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep: nomination based on a mistaken assumption. Student7: I think you are confused. A link to the Internet Archive is not spam for Longines by any stretch. This nomination for deletion seems to be related to this edit of yours (which you reverted ten minutes later, apparently by mistake). The clip in question is taken from a television show called the Longines Chronoscope. Stating this fact is not spam. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding notice - WikiProject Film has been notified of this TfD discussion: [10]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is not spam and gives readers access to films in the public domain. Thanks for your reseach הסרפד. MarnetteD|Talk 01:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: The Internet Archive is very useful as an external link.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I see nothing that promotes "Longines" in the coding of the template. Did you read the template? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously, this template is about keeping entries brief, using a standard format rather than cluttering articles up with long lists. The archive is not commercial and spam has nothing to do with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2012 MLL season by team[edit]

Template:2001 MLL season by team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:2002 MLL season by team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:2003 MLL season by team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:2004 MLL season by team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:2005 MLL season by team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:2006 MLL season by team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:2007 MLL season by team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:2008 MLL season by team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:2009 MLL season by team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:2010 MLL season by team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:2011 MLL season by team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:2012 MLL season by team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

mostly redlinks. articles can be connected by other methods. Frietjes (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all per Frietjes' nomination rationale. No navbox should ever have a majority of links to non-existent articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC) !vote amended to "delete all" following addition of multiple templates for deletion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Query @Frietjes: is there a reason why you just nominated the 2012 season and not all of the MLL season navboxes in Category:Major League Lacrosse season templates from 2001-2012? It seems to me that they all have the same problem... Tavix |  Talk  16:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Unless Frietjes objects, I suggest we add all of them to this discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding notice - WikiProject Lacrosse has been notified of this discussion: [11]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"Nearby" star navboxes[edit]

Template:Star systems within 20–25 light-years (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Star systems within 25–30 light-years (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Star systems within 30–35 light-years (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Star systems within 35–40 light-years (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Star systems within 40–45 light-years (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Star systems within 45–50 light-years (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Star systems within 50–55 light-years (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Star systems within 55–60 light-years (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Star systems within 60–65 light-years (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Star systems within 65–70 light-years (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Star systems within 70–75 light-years (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Past 20 light-years distant from us, the distance from the sun is not an especially-noteworthy property of a star, thus these subjects are only loosely related to each other. These fail multiple criteria of navboxes as well. Per WP:NAVBOX, there should be an article on the subject of the navboxes, which there isn't in this case. The subject of the template is also not mentioned in each article. For these templates, the vast majority of articles contained within the navbox are also non-notable, which is an absolute no-no for navboxes. These also require near-constant maintenance to keep up-to-date due to the rapid-pace discoveries of new objects. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment regarding notice - WikiProject Astronomy has been notified of this TfD discussion: [12]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, there are thousands of star systems in those distance regimes, having nav templates is useless, since they are enormous, thus not helping navigation. And distance away from Earth is only defining for those very closest to us, such as less than 20ly per the nom (or 5pc or similar distance) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, while the splits aren't arbitrary, the stars included seem to be so. Primefac (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom and reasons above.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf) 
  • Delete: Agree with nom. The majority of the navigation links on these templates serve no useful purpose. The criteria for such navboxes needs to be significantly narrowed down. Praemonitus (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Does it make any sense to convert these to lists? —Cryptic 23:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep (for now): Agree with Cryptic here: If these could be converted into lists (i.e. a list of stars by distance to earth), they would be much more useful, and having the majority of redlinks that exist here wouldn't be as much of an issue; with a navbox, they are seen as a major problem, whereas with lists, links to any articles are secondary to displaying ordered information. Until a list or lists can be made from these, I propose that they be maintained in some way or another so that they can be fully replaced in the (hopefully) near future. Jacob S-589 (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep (for now): They do the job and provide a list at the bottom of the page, however a list system that Cryptic has proposed is probably the best. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Pharmaceutical microbiology[edit]

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

Not used on any pages. Excessively small and not needed. Therefore I propose deletion Tom (LT) (talk) 08:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Routes of administration by organ system[edit]

Template:Routes of administration by organ system (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Dosage forms (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Routes of administration by organ system with Template:Dosage forms.
Duplicate scope, so I propose merging these Tom (LT) (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - Mikael Haggstrom is the creator of the first template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

March 17[edit]

Template:TV channel categories[edit]

Template:TV channel categories (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Template is eventually becoming useless as its categories are listified by a discussion. Eyesnore (pc) 20:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:The tourism of Villabuena de Álava/Eskuernaga[edit]

Template:The tourism of Villabuena de Álava/Eskuernaga (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused template used briefly by its creator and replaced with a wikilink. May have been intended to duplicate content across Villabuena de Álava/Eskuernaga and The tourism of Villabuena de Álava/Eskuernaga, but I've just merged them. McGeddon (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Col-6[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Col-6 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

rarely used, can be replaced by {{col-break}}, and large fixed numbers of columns are bad for narrow browser screens (better to use div col). Frietjes (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Historical capitals of Serbia[edit]

Template:Historical capitals of Serbia (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The template is based on Capitals of Serbia, which has no references. The template is redundant. All listed historical capitals, with reliable sources, will have the information in the history section as well as in the intro. Zoupan 14:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Nothing of this strikes me as a reason for deletion. That a template is based on an article is not a reason for deletion, and this template is not based on that article anyway. That the article has no references is not a reason for deletion, and anyway this information is well-known, no one is disputing any of it, and if anyone wishes to add references it could easily be done. That a template is redundant is not a reason for its deletion, and finally, it is not true that all the capitals will have the information - they may well have the information that they were a capital of Serbia, but they will not have the information about other capitals of Serbia. Nikola (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • weak keep, but reformat in a less opaque way to capture the information presented in Capitals of Serbia. currently, the format is hard to parse. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, with caveat - Per Frietjes' comment above, with the same qualification. I was inherently skeptical of this navbox until I reviewed the articles, and saw that this navbox does provide a useful navigation aid among the several cities that have served as the capital. In restructuring the template per Frietjes' comment, I recommend running the linked capitals, followed by the parentheticals of effective years, chronologically from left to right; this is the way most of our "succession" navboxes are set up. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Lone Star Soccer Alliance seasons[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Lone Star Soccer Alliance seasons (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1987 Lone Star Soccer Alliance closed as redirect, which makes this navbox unusable. Tavix |  Talk  09:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, all redirects. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Navbox serves no valid navigation purpose: all included links are redirects to the same article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Phil-sources[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, after replacing with a simple {{tmbox}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, I removed it from Talk:Acatalepsy since all of the links provided zero search results. Frietjes (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

First Days of Months templates[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:First Days of Months 2100–2199 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:First Days of Months 1900–1999 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:First Days of Months 1800–1899 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:First Days of Months 1753–1799 (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

These serve no purpose. They are not encyclopaedia articles, far too big to be transcluded into any article. Content wise they are just data. The topic is covered encyclopaedically by Determination of the day of the week, there is no need for these.JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 05:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Query - For what purpose(s) were these templates intended? These templates are newly created, presently unused, and apparently incomplete; before I vote to delete, I'd like to know what the creator intended they be used for. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete or move to userspace. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Airsport aircraft[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep, navbox has been expanded. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

template effectively tries to navigate between one item. That is not where templates are for as they should help with navigating between several items. The Banner talk 02:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
!vote withdrawn in light of article creation by Mojoworker described below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, only one working sublink, and the articles are already well-connected by normal linking. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep – I have created the missing articles and all 5 links are now working: Airsport, Ultralight aircraft, Sonata, Sonet, and Song. Mojoworker (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: since the rest of the redlinks now have articles the initial deletion rationale no longer applies and the template should be kept. - Ahunt (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Still a rather meagre template (I would prefer more items) but at least it is now supporting navigation between all three items instead of just one. Request speedy close as keep, as nominator The Banner talk 12:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:StrategyWiki[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensusPlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

  • Keep Currently has 513 transclusions. The template should not be deleted until it is shown that there is consensus to remove each of those links; whether they be references or in 'External links' sections. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    1. Transclusion count is irrelevant. 2. This is removal of the template, not the individual links. 3. There is already consensus to remove gameguide links from EL. 4. This template is for external links, not references, besides there's already consensus it's unreliable WP:VG/RS. 5. If you had actually bothered read the page linked in the nomination, you'd know all this already.--Lorson (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    If the links are not being removed, then they're better kept in the template; and your "unreliable" claim becomes irrelevant; as it is if the template is used for ELs, not references. This is about StrategyWiki, not gameguide. WP:VG/RS does not mention StrategyWiki. And your attempt to guess what I have and have not read has failed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    Andy, I think you miss the mark with shown that there is consensus to remove each of those links, as I think a discussion such as this one can do just that. What would your comment have been in the case of GameFAQs? --Izno (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    No; this is the forum for deciding what templates we want, not what content or external links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep until few articles have links to this site, as templates add benefits over simple links in such cases. For instance, the wikia template was kept. —PC-XT+ 23:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I see nothing in WP:ELNO which suggests that this an inappropriate link (nor for that matter nothing regarding the GameFAQs link—the only commenter's opinion I happen to agree with is Hahnchen, of all people's). The comment about WP:WEIGHT is bogus. I'm struggling to see how such a link is WP:LINKSPAM as well. I probably need to pay a visit to WP:VG/EL because it doesn't look like that guideline is in tune with WP:EL (and particularly WP:ELNO). --Izno (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Funny that the comparison with GameFAQs has been brought up, because one of the main reasons for my nomination at the time was that GameFAQs provides gameguide-like material. I don't mind repeating my arguments though.

    StrategyWiki is intended for gamers, not for the general reader of Wikipedia. The StategyWiki tagline reads: "Welcome to StrategyWiki, a collaborative and freely-licensed wiki for all your video game strategy guide and walkthrough needs!" Does the average reader of Wikipedia play video games? Maybe, maybe not. Does the average reader need a direct link to StrategyWiki about a video game after reading an article about said video game? Absolutely not.

    • WP:VG/EL states: "Additionally, Wikipedia is not a game guide - external links should not be added to include material that explicitly defines the gameplay on certain aspects of the video game", and that is exactly what StrategyWiki does: defining how to finish the game, 100% it, find all collectables.
    • It fails WP:ELYES No. 3: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, because it isn't relevant to know how to get through a game.
    • It doesn't pass WP:ELMAYBE No. 4: Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. While the information itself isn't notable, as StrategyWiki allows anyone to edit it, it can't be verified if it's true to begin with.
    So even if there are not clear WP:ELNO arguments that qualify, it still fails the ones that would make it okay for having it. Saying it should stay because it has a template form or because it used on 500 something pages is not an argument. In the end, we're discussing whether or not having StrategyWiki has an EL is okay. I don't see why we should stick with a template to one provider of gameguides, while there are dozens of other sites just like it. That makes it WP:LINKSPAM, giving it WP:WEIGHT (yeah, yeah, that's not for ELs, but still, we give it a bigger spot than it deserves). --Soetermans. T / C 09:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    Let me work down the list of your comments…
    1. intended for gamers, not for the general reader of Wikipedia. Irrelevant. WP:EL does not restrict external links only to general users (reference the large number of scientific general sites linked in the context of birds, animals, etc.) and even implies that this is a legitimate use under WP:ELYES #3. I'm a little incredulous that this is an argument—you certainly wouldn't find a consensus to remove the 100s of links to the various Wikia wikis on comic book characters, etc.
    2. Does the average reader need a direct link to StrategyWiki about a video game after reading an article about said video game? The real question in response to that question is whether the average reader plays a video game. My assertion is yes, but that cannot be substantiated. Either way, Absolutely not. is no more evidenced than my question.
    3. WP:VG/EL states: [snip] WP:VG/EL does not have basis in WP:EL nor do I believe it accurately reflects WP:EL. Nor does it happen to be a community-wide policy, but one which is under the auspices of the WikiProject (which, while it's a good thing to have such guidelines, does not make it a Wikipedia-wide guideline).
    4. It fails WP:ELYES No. 3: Per above, I would assert that it in fact is the perfect link to match the intent of WP:ELYES #3. That said, failure of an enumeration in WP:ELYES does not disqualify a link from use.
    5. It doesn't pass WP:ELMAYBE No. 4: I think this application of both WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE is incorrect. A link does not need to pass everything in each of those two sections to be considered for inclusion (though I think it's clear that this is the case for WP:ELNO).
    6. Saying it should stay because it has a template form [...] is not an argument. This is actually considered a valid argument in this forum.
    7. I don't see why we should stick with a template to one provider of gameguides, while there are dozens of other sites just like it. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? There didn't seem to be any discussion about expanding the scope of the template for other game guide providers or for building other templates.
    8. That makes it WP:LINKSPAM Unqualified assertion that is in fact an untrue one. The point of LINKSPAM is to prohibit bad faith actors and especially advertisers, not good faith actors, and I think it's pretty trivial to assert that the vast majority of instances of this template were added in good faith.
    9. giving it WP:WEIGHT (yeah, yeah, that's not for ELs, but still, we give it a bigger spot than it deserves). WEIGHT (and its parent WP:NPOV) is not an inter-article policy nor is it even correct to apply it here, as you attempt to handwave away.
    I think that pretty clearly means that there isn't a reason to delete this template (or these links). You're stretching really hard here for a reason not to have these templates. --Izno (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's a clear argument in WP:ELNO. StrategyWiki has been edited by 50 different users in the last 30 days, Point number 12 in WP:ELNO states that open wikis must have "a substantial number of editors.", StrategyWiki has got a substantial number of dormant editors but I don't think that 50 active ones meets the spirit of the "substantial" rule. - X201 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
    MemoryAlpha has a bare 127 active users. I'm skeptical that we'd call one of the largest wikis covering fictional content inactive. WoWWiki has fewer but is on the larger side of MemoryAlpha (Wowpedia more than WoWWiki but still probably on the OOM of no more than 100 actives--I can't check exact numbers because I'm at work). That number isn't persuasive. --Izno (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
    Your argument is against including the links, not against the template. Come back when you can show consensus to remove the links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • keep, unless there is some discussion I missed which bans this as an external link. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • keep, keep per Frietjes. This is not a MOS forum. If the template is deleted, it should be subst first. Christian75 (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa[edit]

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

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

  • @Redtigerxyz: I have notified the creator of Template:Kyber Pakhtunkwha topics of this pending TfD merge discussion. In the future, please notify the creators of both templates to any proposed merge. Template creators are often among the best sources of background information regarding the architecture, background history, purposes and uses of templates, and my add to the understanding of other TfD participants. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not really a good idea since we have these district templates for all provinces. The template can exist by itself as it is useful in its own right and is easier for navigation of district articles. Besides, there's no real need to further clutter Template:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa topics. Mar4d (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is presently no unifying navigation device for Pakistani provincial districts other than this one. Lumping all of the districts into the generalized "topics" nanvbox only creates a very large navbox with many tangentially related subjects. Better to keep the existing "districts" navbox (and the others like this one), which includes a single coherent topic, with all closely related links. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dirtlawyer1. Also, a list of all districts is too granular for a generalised "topics" navbox. Alakzi (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Unused CTA templates[edit]

Template:CTA Blue Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:CTA Brown Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:CTA Orange Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:CTA Pink Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:CTA Purple Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:CTA Yellow Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Dan Ryan Branch (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Douglas Branch (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Lake Street Elevated (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Milwaukee-Dearborn Subway (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:North Side Main Line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Ravenswood Branch (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:South Side Elevated (CTA) (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:State Street Subway (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Proposed deletion: all unused, and all potential usage replaced with standard Route diagram templates. Useddenim (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • weak delete, so template:CTA Blue Line is redundant to template:Blue Line (CTA), etc. ? it seems like it could be useful to have these reformatted as navboxes, but I can see that this would generally duplicate the navigation provided by {{s-line}}, so probably not necessary. Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding notice - @Useddenim: Please notify all of the template creators of this pending TfD instructions per the TfD instructions. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, please post the standard TfD notice template on the individual template pages per the TfD instructions. If you are new to TfD, and need help with these procedures, please feel free to continue this discussion on my user talk page. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I know that. Real life interrupted before I finished. Useddenim (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of the notices, Useddenim. Real life can be an inconvenience. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I replaced most (if not all) of these, and should have simply replaced the code in these templates instead of creating new ones. That said, it is highly unlikely that these will ever be used again unless you're interested in historical versions of their corresponding pages. I have no particular feelings one way or the other, so I guess weak delete for me. Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

March 16[edit]

Template:ColumbiaRiverGeobox[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

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

as per Template:St. Johns River geobox, propose merging this back with the article. the convention is to not split the infobox/geobox from the article. the solution would be to move it to article space, merge the contents, and then redirect to preserve attribution. WOSlinker (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support nom's solution per precedent —PC-XT+ 22:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • merge/delete Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox bus station[edit]

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

Entirely redundant to {{Infobox station}}, which is meant to be used for "rail, tram, bus and intermodal transport stations". Alakzi (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:St. Johns River geobox[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:St. Johns River geobox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

propose merging this back with the article. the convention is to not split the infobox/geobox from the article. the solution would be to move it to article space, merge the contents, and then redirect to preserve attribution. Frietjes (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:RMcontested[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

The template has not been used since 2008. Newer procedures for converting technical page move requests to controversial requests to be discussed have been implemented. See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Smoothing the transition from technical to contested requests for background and analysis. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Eva Longoria[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:NENAN. Not exactly a comprehensive body of work! Rob Sinden (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The standard for this industry has always been does three to four links. Why should this particular template have a different standard than other director/producer/writer types.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, producer navboxes aren't exactly encouraged, a couple of these are just executive producer roles, and she's not particularly known for being a famous movie producer. The links don't really gel, and don't form a cohesive set. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That second sentence seems to be a lot of jargon to me. It seems like you have cut out the unimportant roles and still have at least three remaining. If you want to make the point that more of them don't belong on the template then you might have a point and you should remove them. However, if you have trimmed the template down and it continues to have the minimum acceptable number of links, we should keep the template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that film producer / TV executive producer navboxes aren't all that common. If they are to be here, they should be for producers with real creative vision, say {{Joss Whedon}} or {{J. J. Abrams}} (although they have directed also), so that there is a true connection between the articles - otherwise we'll end up with navbox creep. The links here are nothing more than a loose list of production credits - there's no value to this Navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Also note that the relevant Wikiproject advises against any filmography navboxes except director navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nominator - navbox creep. BollyJeff | talk
  • delete, we don't need producer navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox multi-sport competition event[edit]

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

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

  • Oppose The usage of these templates appears to be different. The first template is being used for event-level articles connected to a wider competition. The latter is being used on articles on wider competitions themselves. A better merge target for the "sport event" template would be Template:Infobox sport tournament (and plenty more in that category, like Template:Infobox FILA wrestling event), which is being used in the same circumstance. Between the nominated templates, the purpose and differences in display of champions of two sexes vs. three medallists of one sex is quite major. Also, another merge request with the multi-sport template is ongoing so it's probably not the best time to consider merging of these two different functions. SFB 21:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose, too few common parameters. Frietjes (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox rail transport in Catalonia[edit]

Template:Infobox rail transport in Catalonia (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Truly massive infobox–sidebar combo, which is variously redundant to {{Infobox rail line}}, {{Transport in Barcelona}}, {{Trambesòs}} and {{Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat de Catalunya lines}}. Alakzi (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Per nom. All that info does not belong in an infobox. -- Orduin Discuss 20:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I totally agree to delete this template. In fact, I am currently rewriting articles related to rail transport in Catalonia, removing {{Infobox rail transport in Catalonia}} and putting in {{Infobox rail line}} or {{Infobox public transit}} instead. Mllturro (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Sydney public transport[edit]

Template:Infobox Sydney public transport (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox rail line}} or {{Infobox water transit}}. We don't need separate infoboxes for each city's public transport systems. Alakzi (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Maintained[edit]

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

This template is all sorts of trouble. Though it claims it doesn't imply page ownership, it really does. It doesn't have much of a positive use, and if an editor truly needs assistance they can use the page history (or post a question on the article talk page), not using this ownership implying tag. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, for the above reasons; and because the template can't be relied on: the editor listed by it for Ronald Reagan hasn't edited for over a year. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • That's a reason to delete the template from the page, not delete the template. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      • No; the impossibility of keeping such templates up to date is another reason to never use them; hence delete them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
        • If that were so, we might as well delete all our page maintenance templates. Laziness is not an excuse for misapplying policy. Daniel Case (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
          • A slippery-slope-fallacy argument, with a "laziness" straw-man-fallacy thrown in. Meanwhile the "maintainer" who placed the nominated template on Talk:16th-century philosophy hasn't edited for two and a half years, yet no-one has updated or removed it. It's a chocolate teapot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Andy, if you were really serious about eliminating my counterargument, you'd have gone through Category:Maintained articles one by one, checked to see if the editor was still active, and then deleted the template if necessary. It would perhaps be even easier to write a bot script that would do that, but since that area is not my forte I wouldn't know.

Outdated contact information is not a problem unique to this template's usage; it is a systemic one. Many WikiProjects, even ones still considered active, list as interested users people who stopped editing years ago. If you seriously want us all to roll up our sleeves and do something about it, a TfD is not the way to get us to do it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't see any great value in this template, but I do see potential ownership problems (whatever the template says). When people, especially newcomers, see editors named in the template they're inevitably going to see them as experts who are expected to be consulted. If you want to help others with a specific article, all you need to do is watchlist the talk page and jump in and help when anyone asks. You don't need to be named explicitly in a template. (And as Andy Mabbett suggests, people will surely waste time chasing up outdated templates.) Squinge (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • " When people, especially newcomers, see editors named in the template they're inevitably going to see them as experts who are expected to be consulted." Do you have any evidence that this is what happens? As for the rest of your argument, see my keep vote below. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      • It's just my opinion that that's how they'll see it, as it's certainly how I see it and apparently how a number of others see it too. Squinge (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, so we should do this based on your opinion, man. Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, building consensus is all about sharing opinions, I'd say. And it's an honour to be included in any comparison with The Dude ;-) Squinge (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
That's the best comeback I could have imagined—no, wait, it's better. Made me laugh, and in a good way Face-grin.svg. On that note I think we should end this subthread. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a good starting point for some editors, some of them new. If they have questions or concerns about an article, they have an individual editor to go to, rather than take a shot in the dark. In my experience, the template only "implies ownership" to those who have a habit of establishing ownership over articles, and the editor listed is a threat to them. If ownership becomes a problem with an editor listed in the template, it can be dealt with at the appropriate noticeboard. As a community, we are to take responsibility for how we edit or "maintain" an article and encourage editors to do the same. I fail to see how having editors taking responsibility and being a go-to person is a bad thing. -- WV 16:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. How can it not imply page ownership? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Because the template specifically says, "This in no way implies page ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute." Besides, templates are inanimate things and actions/ideations of ownership can only come from an editor. If an editor is signing up to be a page maintainer for the wrong reasons, that will become clear and the problem dealt with appropriately. -- WV 16:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I overestimated you when I interpreted your cutesiness as an attempt at a counterargument. I should not have interpreted it as an actual attempt to make a point. Daniel Case (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Per WV. Just because a few people misuse the template does not mean it should be deleted. Handle the troublemakers instead. I'm the primary editor on many lemur articles, and this template helps readers and newer editors get in touch with me when they have questions about sources or want information about other lemurs I haven't had time to write about. The article Small-toothed sportive lemur wouldn't be a FA if it wasn't for this template. Someone apparently saw this template on another lemur article, wrote to me to inquire about this obscure lemur, and that gave me a reason to write up the article. This template is not only applicable to articles primarily written (and fully developed) by a single writer, but can also be used by multiple individuals on collaborative projects. Let's stop focusing on the negative and blaming the template for bad editor behavior. The text of the template quite clearly states its purpose. – Maky « talk » 16:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - Just because the template says that it isn't meant to assert article ownership doesn't mean that the real purpose of the template isn't to assert article ownership. Just calling the dog's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. The purpose of the template, no matter what it says, is article ownership. Get rid of it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • So, like the nominator, your delete rationale is "I don't believe this template really means what it says"? I don't think that's a valid rationale for deleting anything.

      Especially when you make this assertion without any evidence that suggests this actually happens. When, in this or any future TfD on this one, I see someone come in with a stack of diffs purporting to show ownership behavior by editors who have placed this template, then, I'll be open to talking about whether it's credible. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. I understand the intent behind this template. Let's say someone had done a lot of work putting together resources for a rewrite of Onychophora and stuck this template on its talk page (note: this is a hypothetical example; it's not in use there). Then, later on, an editor looking to blue link the peripatopsid genus Kumbadjena might know to shoot that editor a message to see what sources are out there, or even get easier access to paywalled stuff. Yay, the encyclopedia wins! But I bet that's not the way it's mostly being used. Despite The Treachery of Disclaimers it looks like a page ownership notice. People who want to communicate their willingness to assist with editing and sourcing have Talk pages and Wikiprojects to do just that, and don't require a template to do so. This, in contrast, adds little benefit at a great deal of potential cost. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • As I said below, "people who come in" are not like "people who've been editing Wikipedia obsessively for years." I have dealt with people like that, believe me. You'd be surprised what they don't know ... and reminded that just because they don't know how to do things on Wikipedia does not make their concerns less valuable. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as unnecessary and an invitation for page ownership. Reading subsequent comments has only strengthened my position. As observed below, this template self-elevates some editors above others. No "proof" is necessary about the flaws of such an obviously defective template. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 17:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Strengthened. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 12:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Has anyone, to your knowledge, accepted this invitation? Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Has any editor, to your knowledge, ever frantically badgered people in a deletion discussion as you are doing here? Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 00:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Daniel Case (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Well I've found your badgering so effective that I've strengthened my !vote. Keep up the good work. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 12:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
x× 0 = 0. Long version: Declaring you don't need any proof is effectively asking that your !vote be discounted. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh I'm sure you'd like "all" the delete !votes to be discounted. What the overwhelming number of editors disapproving this template have said is that the template is subject to abuse. We're here because of one such instance, and what that has done is to raise the question: Why do we have this template? What does it imply? What kind of impact could it have on the new editors to whom it is aimed? These are reasonable, rational questions, and they are raised every day by editors in determining whether to keep or delete a template. Coretheapple (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • How is "delete this OWN bait" even a valid reason?  — ₳aron 11:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Now, now, Chase. Practise what you preach and demand, and be civil.  — ₳aron 19:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I would think that someone who felt that calling it "OWN bait" is asking to not be taken too seriously enough for any elaboration on said !vote to be taken seriously either. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as well-intentioned but inherently unworkable and problematic. ElKevbo (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Again, evidence of this? Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm listed as a "maintainer" of this article despite (a) having not edited it in years and (b) never having volunteered to be included as a "maintainer" of any article. I think I'm listed on a few other articles although I detest this template. ElKevbo (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I've removed your name. Will do so again when I see it as I cull through the articles. – S. Rich (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm sure there were good intentions around this, but if it is being used to assert any type of ownership over articles then it needs to go. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • "if it is being used to assert any type of ownership over articles then it needs to go" Exactly. In the frenzy to get the pitchforks and torches out, no one has apparently bothered to find any evidence that this problem everyone thinks is occurring actually is occurring. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I used this on an article I've worked on for a while, but I see no problem with having editors refer to the article history to contact someone. There's no need to add yet another tag to an article talk page. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
"I see no problem with having editors refer to the article history to contact someone". I refer the honorable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Question what about a rename and adjusting the display text? As previously mentioned, this template can help editors find someone to provide insight for an article, even if its use is flawed. I would simply have the text read "The following editors are available to help with questions about verification and sources in relation to this article". Rather than "maintained", I'd probably use something like "Ask user". Just a thought. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • That's so much of a fundamental change, why not just make a new template for that purpose? I don't support this proposal however as talk pages are cluttered enough and users can once again use the article history or the article talk page for help. In fact users should always post on the article talk page for help because any "maintainer" should have it on their watchlist. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      • That's correct. If an editor has a question about an article, he or she should post it on the talk page. If the "maintainer" is really maintaining, he or she will answer. Or someone with a different perspective will answer. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OWN and per nom and other delete !votes. This really does look like ownership, no matter what the template says. Someone who needs help editing a page should ask for WP:HELP or, as EoRdE6 says, check the article talk page and history for major contributors. Yoninah (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Again, has it resulted in actual problems with page ownership? We do not delete things because of purely theoretical issues. Daniel Case (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - It gives too much of an ownership issue here. Besides those reasons listed above, I must also add that anyone should be able to help out with issues, not just one person. It is not consensus if we all ask what one person thinks, it is just that person's opinion, not our own. I would say that in this way, the template could just be hampering discussions. -- Orduin Discuss 20:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • "I must also add that anyone should be able to help out with issues, not just one person" And anyone does. As much as I've had the reasons in mind that I gave in my keep !vote, putting this template on talk pages of most articles that I keep on my (rather small by most peoples' standards) watchlist has not made me the absolute be-all and end-all Godhead Fount of All Knowledge on the subject. Plenty of times people, both regular editors and non-editing readers, have completely bypassed the notice and just done whatever they would do without it, even when it would have been easier to just contact me (which is, before you start getting clever, not a reason to delete it. The fact that it does not always work as it should does not by a long shot mean we shouldn't have it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above arguments. If you do something, saying you aren't doing it doesn't actually mean you aren't doing it. Clearly implying ownership doesn't go away simply by insisting it isn't really there. That the template includes it at all is telling - it means that the editors who have worked on it knew that it implies what it clearly implies. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
"saying you aren't doing it doesn't actually mean you aren't doing it" It doesn't mean you are, then, either, you must admit, which sort of wraps it up for your argument. The way to combat page ownership is to actually act against editors who do assert it, not delete templates whose wording makes you uncomfortable. Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It appears you began reading what I wrote in the middle of a sentence. I find that a decidedly odd way to read, myself, but to each their own. The beginning of that sentence you quoted part of was "If you do something". If you do something, you are doing it. If you do something while saying you aren't doing it, you are still doing it. Saying otherwise doesn't change that. So it actually does mean you are. In the rest of what I wrote, I elaborated that I consider this template to not only be doing the something in question, it is so obviously doing that thing that I am really surprised that people are asserting it isn't. Egsan Bacon (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - while the intention is good, and the template appears to be transcluded into over 4,700 talk pages, I have serious misgivings about this template as it is structured. A rewording would be such a significant change, I would suggest deletion of the current template or potentially redirection to a relevant replacement. The template as it stands provides, at best, implied expertise in the subject; but the /doc for the template makes clear that the only check on expertise is the user self-rating their "strong knowledge of the topic or its sources". If replaced, it would be more accurate to have a template state that the "below listed persons have indicated an interest in the subject" as that's all it can truly be relied upon to provide. The named persons may or may not have any real expertise, the users contacting them would need to determine that for themselves after contacting them. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Undermines the philosophy behind a wiki, in my opinion, despite stating it does not imply ownership. It still feels that way, as a new user I'd feel like inclined to contact these people rather than be bold and make changes myself. Furthermore, you'd have to maintain this list of active contributors, as people may come and go from the project. If you want to find the most active contributors, you cna simply check the page history or use a tool. MusikAnimal talk 21:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
"as a new user I'd feel like inclined to contact these people rather than be bold and make changes myself" I think more new users are scared of being warned and/or blocked by our eternally competent RC patrollers than they are of offending someone by making a change (and, on that score, I learned by watching new editors edit at an edit-a-thon a couple of weeks back that a well-constructed, lengthy, extensively edited page is intimidating enough to them without even bothering to look at the talk page and see if it's a got a "maintained" notice or not). Contacting an experienced Wikipedian who's offered to be contacted (assuming, of course, they're still actively editing) would probably actually be better and more likely to produce the desired result than diving right in.

As for people leaving these notices and then giving up editing, well, as I said to Andy at the top of the page, just ... delete ... the ... notice ... from ... the ... page. Is that so hard? Why do people think every problem here needs to be solved by deleting something? All it takes is a little elbow grease—one edit and the template's off the page. Problem solved. Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Strongest keep possible: "if an editor truly needs assistance they can use the page history". Ah, yes, the sound of another Wikipedian who wants to keep as many prospective new editors out of the treehouse as possible so they can keep on doing things the way they've been doing them. That's what this amounts to, regardless of intent.

    Actually, I don't see this template directed at other editors so much as readers who come across it and want to get in touch with someone at Wikipedia who is willing to take responsibility for an article and perhaps address some issue with it that really needs to be addressed that we might not otherwise have known about.

    So casual readers should be expected to be like all those supersmart Wikipedians and look at the history and figure out, from that, who they should get in touch with? Some people don't even realize history pages exist, and even if they do they're not the easiest things for a non-Wikipedian to make head or tail of to understand even the basics of, much less figure out who they might get in touch with. Yes, I realize that there are readers who don't know talk pages exist, too, but on balance I think more non-editing readers know of them than know of (or know how to decipher) history pages. Having this to give them someone to talk to does a lot more for Wikipedia than the folks voting delete realize. I have had people get int touch with me this way.

    Without it, you'll have a lot more well-intended editing that our bot-like RC patrollers, safely ensconced behind Twinkle or Huggle or Snuggle or whatever this season's favorite toy is, will label as disruptive and get blocked, and a lot more people who think that Wikipedia is run by some secretive bunch of poopyheads who care more about keeping the hoi polloi out than they do about keeping articles current or accurate or unbiased.

    This template is not about ownership ... it's about transparency, people. Something we supposedly value. There's a good reason this survived the previous TfDs. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

    • @Daniel Case: you don't need to reply to every single vote going against your opinion, especially with useless comments like "See above." That person posted half an hour after you, and if I know anything about Frietjes I would say he probably read the votes and the arguments before commenting (like any good contributor will do.) FYI, Frietjes is a woman; please use "she" when referring to her. I made the same mistake. Once. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
What else do you expect me to do when someone on Wikipedia is WRONG!Face-smile.svg There are two reasons I hate this WP:BLUDGEON idea that you shouldn't respond to every single vote you're opposed to. First, there are closing admins who tend to just count !votes and don't always see the one argument that casts an apparent majority as the foolery that it is. Second, I think that if someone cared enough to write an argument in support of their !vote, one that made use of logical fallacies of policy misunderstandings, they are entitled to an individual reply asking them to reconsider. Consider that many of these are likely drive-by voters who will not return to this page in any event. Third, I think it is our duty as Wikipedians to our fellow Wikipedians to help them understand how they misunderstand, and thus prevent policy misunderstandings from further proliferating. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Also as I said above, say a new user can't figure out, or doesn't want to use the page history to find assistance. In that case the user should simply post their question on the article talk page, any good "maintainer" will have this on their watchlist, and they should get a timely response. Any non subject related questions (about technicalities or etiquette) should be directed to the WP:Teahouse for an even faster response. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
"... a new user can't figure out, or doesn't want to use the page history to find assistance ..." My point exactly. Where you err is in your next sentence: "In that case the user should simply post their question on the article talk page". Whatever we'd like new users to do to make our lives easier, the fact is that they are new users and thus do not know, nor are able to intuit, what we'd like them to do. It is our responsibility to figure out how to respond to whatever course we leave them free to take. As one of my old football coaches once said, cracking up the team but still making a valid point, "We don't know what they're goona do, but they're gonna do it." Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I think in the interests of full disclosure, you should put in the links to the three previous TfDs this template has survived. As well as the now-closed spurious AN/I thread that started this, a thread which demonstrated beyond all doubt. that the problem was with one editor, not the template. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Two no consensuses 7-ish years ago? Alot has changed in seven years. If anyone is interested (though these shouldn't really affect votes) the links can be found on the template's talk page. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
      • It is common practice when starting XfDs to put links to any previous nominations of the same page in the nomnination, so interested parties can see how these same arguments played out in the past, regardless of the result or how old. Telling people they can go to the talk page does not suffice. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
        • "It is common practice...". Bullshit. And your hectoring posts here have gone past the point of being tendentious. Please desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Who started this, Andy? And coming from someone with your history, that's rich. Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Oi. Too far. Ad hominem attacks only make you and your opinion seem worse; someone's history doesn't affect the validity of their arguments and "you did it so that means you can't tell me not to" is a crap argument. I would say that you can reply to whoever you like, as long as each comment is saying something you haven't said before, but others are entitled to advise you not to bludgeon anyone. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 1[edit]
  • Delete, yet another thing to keep up-to-date; the recent edit history is a better indicator of editors interested in maintaining. Frietjes (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
See above. Daniel Case (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am undecided on this question, but the reason I'm considering deletion is not the reason stated in the nomination. I checked several instances of this template on articles in my areas of interest, and some of them are out of date and list inactive or rarely-active users as maintainers. There certainly are some people who find the talk but not the history page, and for those cases an unresponsive maintainer is worse than no maintainer at all. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: I left a notice about this TfD at WT:MED, since this template appears to be used fairly often in biomedical articles, and these topics are particularly likely to attract good-faith editors who need some guidance. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Then remove those templates from the pages in question. Responding to the problem of templates that give the name of no-longer-active users by deleting the template is like deciding that, since some of the rooms in your house is a mess, it's just better to demolish it than keep keeping it tidy. Daniel Case (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
If I removed the template, or found someone else to adopt the articles, that would only address a handful of the ~4700 transclusions, and wouldn't stop the problem from happening again. More like digging up a shrub in your yard that you can't keep pruned.
I'm not very clear on why this template would be more newbie-friendly than simply encouraging them to post on the talk page - directly contacting a specific user fragments conversations about the article content. Since you obviously find this useful, can you link an example? Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for taking some time to respond (St. Patrick's Day got in the way (after a couple of pints of Guinness I thought it best to stay away from this discussion until the morning after, and I was working on another article that I was trying to finish in time to nominate for DYK. Anyway ... see here. The comment was directly addressed to me, something that I doubt the reader could have intuited from the history page. The discussion led to broader discussion at which a consensus emerged in favor of changing the dab term in the article name. This, to me, was Wikipedia working the way it should. Are we so sure this would have happened without the template? Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I honestly don't see how this example helps your case even one bit. On the contrary. The person in question indeed assumed that you were the "owner" of the article, and invited you personally for a personal tour of the house. I'm sure that put you on the top of the world but it is not exactly the purpose of the template, which supposedly is to give editors a person to write if they have questions about sourcing, not a person to write to invite to their businesses. That was a personal invitation, not one for all editors of the article, so it doesn't sit well with me at all. Secondly, everything he says in that note could have been equally conveyed if addressed to all editors reading the talk page. By the logic you seem to be employing, Wikipedia articles should have bylines, not "maintained" templates. Coretheapple (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I was kidding, Guinness takes priority ;) I disagree with the above analysis - the post is a little clueless, but pointed out some useful information; although it's addressed to Dan, it might not have been posted at all if the user had thought he'd be talking to a void. And aren't history pages "bylines"? (BTW, I did remove the unnecessary contact information from that post.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
No, history pages are most emphatically not bylines. They are a record of people editing an article. We don't allow editors to engage in activity so as to "own" articles by asserting themselves as being in a higher class than other editors. That is why this template is so anomalous, and why it is at present a snow delete. Coretheapple (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Coretheapple: He invited me to visit (I still haven't been able to, FWIW), so I could take interior photos of the house showing some the features the article describes. I have never understood the wording of the template to be so restrictive as to only refer to help with sources. There are a lot of issues having a contact person helps with, and this was one of them. Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Well then you should go ahead then and create a Template:Contact Person template and see how that flies. Coretheapple (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Or we could reword and/or rename this one—you know, "fix it through normal editing", like it says at the top of this page. I'd be amenable to that. Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
If the template were created so that people couldn't stick their names in there, and just said "Editors are available to answer questions about sourcing and verification in relation to this article. Please consult the editing history, this talk page and its archives," I wouldn't see anything wrong with that. But that would be tantamount to deletion of this template, and of course it could be reversed by "normal editing" and we're back where we started. I think we need this template formally deleted. Coretheapple (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. OK, I'm the only one here who actually solicited an opinion from Daniel and didn't get one ;) But I'm going to come down on the keep side of this, though it creates a who-maintains-the-maintainers problem, on the basis that the primary argument for deletion has yet to be supported by any evidence that it's actually a problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Despite my initial indecision, I am going to go ahead and upgrade this to strong keep; I've been convinced by the (low) quality of the discussion here consisting almost entirely of speculation about hypothetical problems. This template has existed since 2005. Surely, sometime in the last decade, one of those problems must have actually happened, and someone must be able to offer a diff? Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with the nom and others above that the template, WP:OWN notwithstanding, seems to encourage (or at least condone) page ownership. Miniapolis 22:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. My biggest take-away here is that Daniel Case is in favor of keeping this. Seriously Daniel, we get it. Rest your fingers a bit. — Ched :  ?  23:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I have placed this tag on the talk page of each article which I brought to GA. It indicates that there are real humans behind our articles. So that when this person publishes that all the articles are edited anonymously we know that he does not know how Wikipedia works. We should be working towards greater transparency rather than less transparency. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - despite what the template itself says, of course it promotes the idea of ownership. This is just an cattle ear-tag for articles. It's self-appointment to a place of privilege or "expertise", above others and that's not how Wikipedia works. The template is redundant (anyway) to a "stickied" talk page thread (one with a {{Do not archive until}} tag) that would actually encourage collegial back-and-forth, rather than a simple declaration as to whose permission you require to edit. Stlwart111 03:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
despite what the template itself says, of course it promotes the idea of ownership. Despite what you yourself say, it is not clear that it does. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I know what I wrote and I stand by it. Critiquing every single comment doesn't actually help your cause - it looks like an attempt at ownership of a discussion centred on concerns about ownership. I explained why it lends itself to inappropriate ownership of articles and I explained why it remains redundant to other (far more acceptable and collegial) strategies. I think the problems are very clear. Stlwart111 01:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This template clearly promotes article ownership and brags who the owner is. No template should accept an editor's name as a parameter for the purpose of displaying it, centered in a bold font. Such a template, even if it causes no article ownership, clearly has the potential to cause the editor to be proud to see their name in lights in this way. No "evidence" is necessary, just look at what the template does. Prhartcom (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Can people please introduce some evidence when they simply restate what they've seen every other editor saying? Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I haven't read other arguments so that is not occurring here. I have augmented my statement above to make it even stronger. Prhartcom (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I suppose so, if you mean basically saying you don't care whether or not there's a man behind the curtain is strengthening your argument. Daniel Case (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's a thought: How about before all the "Delete" !votes are tallied, those claiming the template has only caused article ownership by editors and hardship on the community actually show diffs of where this has actually occurred. Or is that too radical a thought? -- WV 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • To sum up this so far, two extremely vocal keep votes who insist and refuting everyone else's votes, 2 well thought out keeps, and 19 delete votes. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 07:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't see where anyone has claimed it "only caused article ownership by editors and hardship on the community". Squinge (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Winkelvi, I became aware of the unnecessary drama caused by this template, and its potential for abuse, when you edit-warred over including yourself in a "maintained" template in a contentious article a couple of months ago. When I saw that I raised the issue of deletion on the template talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • This proposed metric does not take into account the deterrent effect the template may have on other editors; there are no diffs created when the template discourages editors from objecting to their edits being removed by the expert-editor identified in the template. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Now there's a counterargument that one would expect, one that deserves a serious reply—the evidence of things not seen. Obviously, if you base your argument on the idea that this is happening, this which is impossible to measure, then there is no way to persuade you to change your mind (well, perhaps we could measure the non-vandalism edit rates on articles before and after the template is added to the talk page, but that's not something we have the time for at the moment). But I do not think that something immeasurable should be the basis for this deletion discussion. At least, bringing this up is a more rational response than saying you don't need any evidence. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't technically be impossible to measure, but as you say it's vastly impractical to attempt it. That said, it seems you agree with me that this deterrence effect is a real possibility. I discuss below the cognitive bias known as the "authority bias", which is the human tendency to defer to the opinions of experts; this cognitive bias makes it even more likely that the deterrence effect is real. So despite measurement hurdles, in conducting a cost/benefit analysis, I find that the risk of deterring editor participation by using the template outweighs the benefits that the template provides. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – We want editors to discuss an article on the article talk page, not user talk pages. If they post on the article talk page, they will get the attention of interested editors. Kanguole 09:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Will they? I have been surprised to learn how many people here just set their preferences to "put every article I edit on my watchlist", ending up with thousands of articles/templates/project page/ on their watchlists, a number effectively doubled since most editors (properly IMO) set their preferences so that talk page edits show up on their watchlists. I know one guy who has edited so much this way that any attempt to open his 20,000+-article watchlist invariably causes whatever browser he's using, and sometimes the computer itself, to crash. So he just uses recent changes instead.

In this situation it should hardly be a surprise that a new editor, or reader, posing a question on a low-traffic talk page may well feel themselves to be like the proverbial tree falling in a forest ... "Did anyone even notice? Did I actually edit? Do I even exist?" Having a contact person, when that person is active, is at least a slight improvement over that situation.

By the way, Kanguole, thank you for making an original argument ... that's how you avoided a snarky reply. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per the above comments about ownership --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have had times where an inexperienced or experienced editors who are not involved with the Wikiproject or maintaining of the article come to me with issues or comments regarding the article they have come across. I don't think it does imply WP:OWN. I think it's good because it shows that there is a person or people who regularly maintain and keep a look out for the article and others can see that, so they can go that editor or those editors are ask them something about it, whatever it may be, such as clarification purposes, ideas for improvement etc. As with most disputes in life, the people who are voting delete are talking about the minority of people who abuse it (I've actually never seen someone use this template and implicate OWN). The vast majority of us who do use it, don't abuse it, and put it there to show that there is a person or people who maintain the article (usually because we have promoted it to GA/FL/FA) by keeping it presentable, updated with new info and away from the hands of disruptive IP editors and vandals, and for anyone who wishes to make a comment, propose an edit or ask advice.  — ₳aron 11:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @Calvin999: I've just scanned the last year's worth of archives of your talk apge, and can't see where anyone has contacted you as a result of this template. No doubt I've overlooked the relevant sections, so please can you post links? No need for a lot, just, say, the last three or four? Cheers, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not going through all of my archives, and I don't always keep posts on my talk page either. I have had people come to my talk as a referral from the maintain template on some articles I have it on though.  — ₳aron 14:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Oh, that's pity. I was hoping for evidence, instead of just anecdote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
          • OK, here you go, per my other recent edits discussing this. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Thank you. That is indeed excellent evidence, However, it is evidence that talk pages are the place for people - even new editors - to discuss articles. It is not evidence that the nominated template has any usefulness. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
                • Sarcasm not needed or appreciated. If you want to search my archives, be my guest. Me, I'm too busy reviewing GANs and nominating DYKs, FLCs and FACs in order to improve Wikipedia.  — ₳aron 19:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
                • Sarcasm is indeed not needed nor appreciated; and there is plenty in this "discussion", but not from me. I genuinely would like to see examples of the claimed benefit of this template (just as I have provided evidence, not anecdote, to support my views), but none whatsoever has been provided. I'm therefore becoming sceptical about such claims. Meanwhile I too, am busy working to improve Wikipedia in a number of ways, and am happy that my record of doing so stands up to scrutiny, so I'm not sure what your final comment is intended to show. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think it's a good idea, esp. for new users. It says no ownership so the first time I saw it, I took it as, hey, this person contributes a lot, if you have any questions regarding the page and no one is answering the talk page, go to them directly, it's your best bet. LADY LOTUSTALK 12:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • KeepCategory:Maintained articles and the "transclusion count" here, show we have 4,755 editors who have worked on particular articles and thought enough of the topics to identify their interest in the articles. (This is an overwhelming !vote count in favor of keeping the template.) Moreover this deletion proposal is the wrong forum for discussion of the template. As WP:OWN is a WP policy and as the policy specifically uses the template the discussion about the template belongs on the policy talk page. A notice of this discussion has been posted on the Policy talk page. (And editors who cite OWN as a rationale for deletion seem to ignore the fact that the template is part of the policy.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)15:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict × 2)That's not really an argument. I could go to any TfD and say well it's used 7,000 times so that's 7,000 keep votes. No, this is a conversation about whether the template is good for the Wikipedia, not how many times it has been used. Also, this discussion is not about WP:OWN. That policy is fine, this template however isn't. This is a TfD to delete the template, and if it succeeds the one line added to WP:OWN by the templates creator asking people to use it, can be removed from it. Easy. So instead of arguing wrong forum or high transclusion number, lets talk about how it lines up with Wikipedia's policies, whether it is at all useful, why users can't just post questions on the article talk page, and whether this template may be causing harm to the encyclopaedia. The template isn't part of the policy as much as someone added it their to advertise the template and increase usage. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Not only does 4,755 transclusions not amount to 4,755 editors (because many have used it more than once), but we have over 4.7 million article talk pages that do not use it. Shall we call each of them "votes" to delete? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Andy is making an argument from silence (millions of articles don't have the template, therefore editors are not interested in "maintaining" the articles, therefore the non-use of the template is an argument to dump it.). But we actually need and want editors to maintain articles. This template serves to encourage such involvement. Next, those who say "The template implies OWNERSHIP" actually see the implication all by themselves. How so? – the template explicitly warns against such an implication. Moreover, if those editors (who have posted the template) were exercising ownership, there would be an editor behavior problem on their part. Is there any evidence that the template is being misused, much less as an exercise in ownership? Absolutely not! Editors read-in the implication of ownership should AGF and let the template stand. If they find templates posted by editors who are inactive, then they can remove the template. (Doing so would demonstrate that the "maintaining" editor really isn't exercising "ownership".) – S. Rich (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
        • No, Andy is simply using Reductio ad absurdum in order to refute the "4,755 keep votes" argument. Squinge (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. I got caught up in the one fact and did not clearly present the more compelling argument. I'll try again. The real problem with those who say "implies OWN" is their own assumed implication goes against the fundamental principle that we Assume Good Faith. They see the template (which was placed in good faith) and assume the opposite. E.g., that the editor who worked on the article wants to "own" the article. Sadly this "implies OWN" argument actually undermines the assumption, the fundamental principle of AGF, that we should be following. – S. Rich (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Not necessarily; use of the template can imply ownership to other editors even if they assume that the editor who put up the template was acting in good faith. Indeed, usually editors displaying ownership tendencies are acting in good faith in hopes of maintaining article quality (as WP:OWN says, "Often, editors accused of ownership may not even realize it"). But acting in good faith (and rightly assuming the editor is doing so) does not mean that ownership tendencies are nonexistent or not problematic; conscious intent to own an article is not required to act in ways that violate WP:OWN. Thus, WP:AFG does not forbid the view that using this template creates WP:OWN issues. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
              • (edit conflict) Then, again, the problem is with the editor who assumes OWN even though the template says, in effect, "do not assume this template implies OWN". – S. Rich (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
                • By analogy, someone says "You're a shithead. (Do not assume this is a personal attack.)" Do you believe the disclaimer or your intuition? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC) My own disclaimer: I truthfully do not, in any way, mean to use this analogy as a passive-aggressive personal attack, which in hindsight I realized might appear that way. My apologies if it came across as such. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
A lot of people have been accused of ownership behavior in RfCs and ArbCom cases. Have any of those accusations ever involved the use of this template? Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see a few problems with this template: First, It does imply ownership, despite any warnings from the template saying otherwise. It's a sign that says "I want to be in control of this article" and in my personal experience, discourages editing from other people. Secondly, It's not maintained (no pun intended). Oftentimes you'll find this template on a talk page and the editor who placed it is no longer active. At that point, any notion of helpfulness is out the door. If someone is active in the editing of the page, the history (and probably any discussions on the talk page) can and should be used to figure out who is a good contact for minor issues. Any problems with an article, however, should be taken to the article talk page and not a user's talk page. A user who is active in that article should have that page watched, so (s)he can answer any questions there. (PS: before I get WP:BADGERED, I just want to say that I have read the entire thread so far. Just because I disagree with you, Daniel, doesn't mean that I don't understand what you're saying). Tavix |  Talk  15:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I won't badger you. But, since I have now shared the personal experience that has led me to support keeping this template, I'd be interested in reading what your personal experience is to the contrary.

Most new editors that I've seen don't get to the talk page before they start editing; some don't even seem to know they exist. And on the talk page it's always the last banner, under the project and article milestone banners (assuming the latter exists), with the same manila background as all the others, easily missed while scrolling down. So I don't see how it would so easily discourage editors, either old or new. (See? You wrote a thoughtful oppose vote so I gave you a thoughtful response) Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - This template consists of only two sentences, one of which explicitly negates page ownership. The benefit by far outweighs the theoretical detriment. Neelix (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)Just because the template says it shouldn't be used to assert page ownership, doesn't mean it doesn't or won't do just that. And why can't users simply post questions on the article talk page, where they can receive feedback from multiple editors and future editors can read the discussion because it's not fragmented on someone elses TP. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Don't look now, EoRdE6, you just might now be accused of "refuting everyone else's votes". Seems you're well on your way to it, at any rate. -- WV 16:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - If someone has a question about an article, they may as well post it to the talk page so everyone interested in the article can see rather than going to the talk page of anyone mentioned in the banner and posting there. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I raised questions about this template on its documentation talk page in January, and was about to nominate it for deletion myself when I was distracted. Am pleased to be pinged to this discussion and endorse the deletion. What bothered me about it, when I learned of its existence, was precisely its impact on new editors, to cite an issue someone raised. New editors should not be diverted to self-styled "maintainers" of the article. I don't care that the template documentation says that it does not imply article ownership. That's like buying a house and saying "this doesn't imply I own it." It does. In esoteric articles on flora and fauna and the like, new editors should simply raise questions about sourcing on the article talk page. I don't care how noncontroversial an article is, that is the procedure. I wouldn't dream of using this template on any of the noncontroversial articles I've been involved in. I may not be available to respond to a query, and I don't have all the answers if I am. Coretheapple (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Example of article ownership:Coretheapple, you have on at least two occasions in this discussion thread made your comments personal -- some of them directed at me, some directed at Daniel Case. I've ignored it until now as a way to keep myself from responding to you. But I realized that I have to respond to you for the following reason: I remembered something that occurred a little less than two months ago. And it's because of what I remembered that I find your authoritative tone and certainty regarding article ownership and editors with ulterior motives to be no less than hypocritical as well as showing the article ownership argument in this discussion to be quite flawed.
At the Mickey Rooney article back on January 26, 2015, I made a series of very good edits over the course of about 4 hours. About 1.5 hours later, you began systematically deleting my edits without using the "undo" button; you just went through and returned everything to what it had been before I started editing. You worked at it for about a half hour. Then you continued with more the next day. Everything I added or improved or copyedited was undone by you. History of those edits can be found here [13] and here [14].
If ever there was evidence of article ownership and an ulterior motive, your removals of my edits are it. There is no maintained template on that article talk page, yet, the aggressive assertion of article ownership definitely occurred for those two days in January. Further, it's obvious through this example that the maintained template isn't a source of article ownership, editors are. -- WV 01:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
"Editors are." You're right in the sense that we are here because of you - specifically because of your edit warring over having your name in this template. Your edit warring to "maintain" the contentious Meghan Trainor article had previously caused me to raise the issue of this template's deletion on the template talk page. You keep reminding of us that and I encourage you to continue to do so. Coretheapple (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete because, despite the claims made, the editor who uses this template has stamped their ownership on that article. Talk pages and Projects are for any discussions or problems. One editor appears to be taking ownership of the template too. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
So trying to preserve a template you consider beneficial to the project in an XfD where the fundamental logic of the argument for deletion is "I have a bad feeling about this" regardless of whether any evidence to justify that bad feeling even exists, is now considered "ownership"? If this is the way delete voters in this TfD define ownership, this should be closed as speedy keep pronto. Daniel Case (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - Despite the disclaimer, this template does imply ownership. Some of the keep !voters insist on evidence for this intuition, and I point them to the cognitive bias known as the authority bias, which is "The tendency to value an ambiguous stimulus (e.g., an art performance) according to the opinion of someone who is seen as an authority on the topic."[15] Slapping this template on an article talk page plays off of this bias: many editors will inevitably defer more to that one "authoritative" editor's opinion, whether deservedly or not--especially the newer editors that this template is supposedly intended to help. If editors have questions or concerns about an article, they can post them on the talk page; any subject-matter experts can then respond and have their arguments evaluated like everyone else, without the discussion-stifling biases that this template creates. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Um, wouldn't pointing to a psychological phenomenon as a justification for a decision in the absence of empirical evidence which has repeatedly been requested from those in favor of making the decision be, in its own way, an attempt to employ the authoritarian bias to secure the desired outcome? I would also consider (as it has been apparent to most of the other participants in this discussion that I have) the effect of coming upon a discussion here with dozens of !votes already lodged against the position one is prepared to take may have in light of whether someone who does actually leaves a !vote themselves, in light of this phenomenon. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Daniel, there is nothing "authoritarian" about Prototime's argument. It is, however authoritative, in raising a good point that is intelligent and persuasive. The two words (authoritarian and authoritative) are very similar in spelling but are utterly different concepts that should not be confused. Coretheapple (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Coretheapple is correct. I will additionally point out a few things: 1) There is empirical evidence of the authority bias. It isn't in the form of a study about the effects of this particular template being used on this particular website, but there are psychological studies that have identified the existence of this cognitive bias in analogous scenarios. Please don't make me trudge through psychological literature to prove this point. 2) No, pointing out a psychological phenomenon as a justification is not a manifestation of the authority bias. Proclaiming myself to be an expert psychologist (which I haven't, and am not) would clearly create such a bias, but not simply making arguments. Similarly, if an expert editor engages in discussion with other editors about an issue in an article, that does not create an authority bias; but by using the template to proclaim themselves an authority on the article, it does create an authority bias, and people will be more likely to defer to that editor simply because they perceive that editor to be a subject-matter expert. 3) Coming across a discussion where a bunch of people overwhelmingly oppose something does not create an authority bias. That would require delete !voters to all be viewed as experts on this subject. I hope this clears up the meaning of "authority bias". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
        • The problem with psychological studies is that they tend to be very fragile. Citing a sort-of-related psychological effect is not evidence that it's actually pertinent to this specific context. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
          • The existence of an authority bias may not unassailably show that editors are deferring to the editor identified in the template (we would need a specific scientific study of this template's usage for that), but it certainly constitutes evidence; it increases the likelihood that editors are doing so. And the risk outweighs any potential benefit the template offers. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Just as the existence of firearms may not unassailably show that Smith killed Jones, but it certainly constitutes evidence; it increases the likelihood that he did so. Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
              • Wrong. (Though nice attempt at a parallel sentence construction.) Cognitive biases are something most people have; firearms are not. If Smith had a firearm when Jones died, and Jones was killed by a firearm, then Smith's firearm would indeed constitute evidence that Smith killed Jones, though by itself it would not be enough to convict. Similarly, people having this cognitive bias when encountering this template increases the likelihood that they will defer to the editor in the template. Is the existence of this cognitive bias enough to "convict"? Wikipedia does not require evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt", it requires consensus, and clearly you aren't convinced--but then, you're not the only judge. Still, you want further evidence? Then look to the overwhelming number of delete !votes. Each one of them indicates a person who feels that this template creates WP:OWN issues. You dismiss their votes because they lack "evidence", but their feelings about the template are evidence of the problem they describe. Each one of them intuitively understands what psychologists call the "authority bias" and feel that the template will cause editors to defer to the views of the expert editor identified in the template. If the people participating in this conversation feel that way, then certainly many others not participating in this conversation do as well. And for whatever benefit this template supposedly offers, that risk is simply unacceptable. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I can't remember what it's called but there is another cognitive bias whereby people just do what they see other people doing without really thinking about it. I contend that's as valid an explanation for at least some of the delete !votes as yours.

Where a phenomenon can be observed and measured, people's feelings about are not something we should be basing decisions on. I think the fact that a bunch of people feel this creates an impression of ownership is about as relevant to whether we should keep it as the recent cold winters in most of the U.S. are to the question of whether climate change is really occurring. They may have a direct emotional impact on people's view of the problem that is hard not to notice, but the real evidence lies elsewhere and is unaffected by the madness of crowds. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2[edit]
  • Strong Delete as useless and potentially misleading. Why misleading? - a perennial "Quis custodiet custodes?" question: who maintains the "maintained" template instance? I doubt all 4,700+ page "maintainers" 'demaintain' it when away for longer time or especially forever. Second, if you are 'maintaining' it, you must have it on your watchlist. And you are supposed to answer questions in talk pages. And you are supposed not to revert newbies' changes without respectful explanations, without them begging "Mr. Maintainman, please is it OK I do this?". I noticed that many 'maintaineers' really suck at the latter issue. Therefore I see this template is little beyond a massage somebody's ego (a WP-OWNish thing, I'd say.) Staszek Lem (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The template is ripe for abuse. If editors have questions on an article, they should be posted to that article's talk page. Many of the keep arguments seem to be based solely on the premise that's it's usefull without providing anything to back it up. -- Calidum 04:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems that the main argument for keep is that it makes it easier for those considering an edit to contact the maintainers to discuss and collaborate. Here is my very brief summary of the keeps so far:
    1. per Winkelvi: it gives users an individual editor to go to with questions and concerns
    2. per Maky: it helps users know who to contact about an article or related subject
    3. per Daniel Case: it helps users contact someone who is willing to take responsibility for an article
    4. per Opabinia regalis: there is no evidence of a problem
    5. per Doc James: it provides for greater transparency
    6. per Calvin999: it helps editors go to him with issues or comments on articles
    7. per Lady Lotus: it helps you go to a specific person (when no one answers the talk page)
    8. per Srich32977: it identifies 'maintained' articles and maintaining users
    9. per Neelix: its benefit outweighs the theoretical detriment
(I know my brief summaries aren't complete; I've tried to capture the main point for each. If I've misquoted you or missed your main point, feel free to modify my summary if you can keep it concise)
Before making this list, my impression was that 99% of the keep argument was to facilitate communication directly with the maintainers; now I see that only 5 of 9 referred directly to this benefit, though I think that it is implied by some of the others. So I still believe that the main reason is to facilitate this direct communication.
IMHO, facilitating such direct communication is not a reason to keep the template, but a reason to delete. IMO, we should facilitate and encourage discussion and collaboration with the larger community in more public places, e.g., article talk page and project talk pages instead of user talk pages or e-mail. Announcing that certain users should be contacted first or in preference to others seems to fly in the face of the WP ideal of broad collaboration described in WP:CONACHIEVE YBG (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@YBG: by your rationale the {{ping}}, {{YGM}} and other such templates, which facilitate direct communication, should be deleted too. Nothing in the {{maintained}} template suggests communication in any particular manner or venue. – S. Rich (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
That's an easy one to refute: 'ping' does not exclude other people from joining discussion. Whereas the 'maintained' encourages the bypassing the article talk page: I've seen it many times people chat in a user page about an article content, while normally they must do this guess where? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
For regularly visited and watched articles, you are right—questions regarding article content should be discussed publicly on an article's talk page, and even on a related WikiProject. However, many of the articles I've developed get <20 hits a day and may not have anyone but the person who took it through GAN/FAC watching it. Yes, we should be watching these articles, but if I take a short break Wiki—though I try to review my watchlist once every day or two—I sometimes miss talk page questions and they go completely unanswered. If someone posts the question on my talk page, I get an email about it and promptly reply. And as I stated previously, sometimes the questions do not pertain to the article with this template. If a visitor or new editor is concerned that no one will see the question on some obscure, underdeveloped article, seeing this template on a related article might give them someplace obvious to turn to. – Maky « talk » 15:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
YOu may look it in another way: If an article is so obscure, then why bother? If nobody answers, the asker must be bold and update the article themselves by digging the info elsewhere. Unless the asker asks an idle question. The whole idea of wikipedia is cooperation of the multitudes of people. Until now it worked. Your answer is, like, "if I am not here, wikipedia will perish miserably". If not WPOWNism, it is a sign of early wikipediholism. Relax, take the w'holism test and join the DGAF cabal. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
If people have the sources and want to update the article, I *do not* ask them to wait for my approval. And that's certainly not what this template is about. I'm referring to cases where people want more information about or from the sources I've used. Not everyone's going to have access to this stuff. Most people don't have the private collection I have or access to a university library. And watch the accusations about WP:OWN. I suggest reviewing WP:AGF. I certainly get the concept of WP:DGAF, but that doesn't change the fact that hostile environments raise tensions and drive people out. If you truly DGAF (or even understand the concept), then then you wouldn't insult or provoke people who are not trolling this nomination. – Maky « talk » 18:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This whole discussion shows what happens when an editor assumes ownership and argues with everybody. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to me? Well, then, what's wrong with taking everyone's argument seriously? If I truly thought this was an ownership issue, I would loudly and publicly have said that this was all beneath me and it didn't matter to me what anyone else thought. And then left. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
re: what's wrong: WP:DTS maybe? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
That's addressed to people attempting to reopen closed or exhausted discussions, those that "have come to a natural end," not active ones. Eventually that will happen here, but it appears to not have done so yet. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem with challenging every person you disagree with is that it discourages people from expressing disagreement. However, I don't see that working for you here, given that this is overwhelmingly going against the template. Coretheapple (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Your statement cancels itself out. If pointing out the flaws in a fundamentally faith-based delete argument, endlessly repeated by a slew of editors, to as many of those editors as possible "discourages people from expressing disagreement", then, as your second sentence suggests, it's not working.

Now, has it also ever occurred to you that a stack of !votes going one way may also discourage disagreement? People may feel intimidated, may not want to waste their votes, may want to get along with the people who've already voted and so forth. My purpose in challenging the reasoning of so many delete !votes is, in part, to empower these people to contribute, and I think I did.

I would also remind you that it's not the raw numbers that count. Closing admins, when they do their job properly, consider the logical and policy soundness of any prevailing argument ("it is 'not the vote' that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important.") as well as the quantifiable support for it. By pressing delete !voters to elaborate on their arguments, I am trying to ensure the latter.

I do this because it works. In the Flight 370 conspiracy theories AfD that I linked to above, some !voters admitted in their replies to me that indeed the article's problems did not require that it be deleted, just fixed. In fact, that's the problem here. The original nominator said in the AN/I thread that led to this that the template needed to either be deleted or reworded, suggesting he wasn't entirely sure this was the only necessary course of action (which nevertheless did not stop him from starting this TfD less than ten minutes later, without even trying to broach the issue on the template talk page.

No, I haven't changed any !votes here, and I wasn't expecting to. But quite a few have responded to my requests that they justify the bad vibe this template gives them with some hard evidence by abjuring the need for any such evidence. I would imagine any closing admin would take that lack of a foundation into account as well. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

All this goes to prove my point. Your constant hectoring of people who disagree with you concerning this abominable template consists of A)wall-o-text filibusterers and B) self-serving characterizations of delete arguments. I think you're being disruptive and I suggest that editors cease becoming involved in time-wasting argumentation with you. Coretheapple (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not just DC's hectoring, it's his blatant WP:IDHT and hypocrisy. He asks for examples when the very existence of this TfD began with strong annoyance over edit wars associated with this template, see Template talk:Maintained#Time to put up for deletion again? and Template talk:Maintained#Indeed it is being misused. Meanwhile, the evidence that the Template has contributed to improving articles is scant to non-existent: the proffered examples are on pages where the maintainer was certainly quite obvious. Choor monster (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I would ask why, if that dispute is what prompted the TfD, no one has linked to it. But I know the answer because I looked at that AN/I thread. And I can understand why you (and especially you) would be reluctant to directly cite it

Primarily, that's because you started it. And not just in the literal sense, either. You didn't just open a thread complaining about Winkelvi—you titled it "Frequently incompetent editor promotes himself to page maintainer"

Wow! An undeniable personal attack in the very thread title. Sometimes that's enough to get people blocked. Lucky you, this time. At least you had the good sense to close it yourself. Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually it was linked to by User:Calidum and by yourself. That's how I found out about it, and I linked to it as soon as I, very unsurprised, became aware of its existence. I didn't have the pleasure of participating in that, but there was one previous one concerning that user in which I did, and in the course of that edit-warring on the maintenance tag was an issue. That ANI was a doozy, let me tell you. Evidently Choor Monser was raising "competence" in the meaning of the term as used in WP:COMPETENCE, so calling that a personal attack is a bit of a stretch. Also you're not being particularly fair in characterizing the termination of that discussion. If you look at the discussion, you can see that he did so because that user had stopped the conduct that gave rise to the ANI. I.e., the edit warring over the template that we are discussing at this time. Coretheapple (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
That's correct. And because the discussion was turning into irrelevant complaints. Furthermore, DC's summary above makes absolutely no sense. If I'm so reluctant, why did I put in links in the first place? WP:COMPETENCE was a major issue regarding WV's edits on Helen Hooven Santmyer; do read the archived Talk discussions before confusing this legitimate WP expectation of all editors, but especially of self-proclaimed maintainers, before you confuse it with a personal attack. Of course, this provides a clearcut refutation of your repeated claim that no examples of abuse of this template have been provided, so of course you have to dance around as many distracting irrelevant issues as you can think up. Choor monster (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't say you were reluctant; I said that of delete !voters as a whole.
  • So, if "competence was a major issue" what, then, implicates the template when it was a single user's problem that got you to thinking of deleting this?
  • In what universe is calling someone "frequently incompetent" in larger text than most other text on a page not intuitively construed as a personal attack, or indicative of severe recklessness in the use of the language? Competence is rewquired ... indeed.
  • If this is the only instance of abuse any one can point to, we still do not have sufficient grounds for deletion. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. This serves no purpose except to contradict WP:OWN while pretending not to. It provides no limit in subject or time to what it applies to, thus implying any change to the article must be approved by the stated editor, from here on. That's the very definition of OWN.
I know there are legitimate cases where it would be best for new editors to check with an established editor – where the established editor is currently in the midst of some specific notable change to the article (refactor, change of emphasis, adding sections, etc.). But in all such cases, this activity can and should be simply noted as a new section on the talk page. As a talk section, it has a stated limited scope, and automatically has a limited duration (when it gets completed, challenged, forgotten, or even archived). Having this template circumvents this basic use of talk pages. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: I think there are some possible advantages to the template (encourages 1-to-1 help, which some may prefer), but there are also some disadvantages: (a) it can imply / be used to imply ownership of an article; (b) someone who is already on a talk page should be able to post comments there, without having to be redirected to another place where fewer people will see their comment; (c) it requires constant maintenance with little benefit. Anyone who considers themselves to be a maintainer should have that page watchlisted, so no-one's missing anything if the person wanting help posts on the talk. It's probably also more discouraging to newbies if you ask a specific person and they "ignore" you (due to inactivity), rather than if you post on a talk and no-one replies. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: I agree with the suggestion that a sticky Talk section suffices on those articles where it's indeed helpful, and like Coretheapple, I have had my opinion influenced by edit-wars over the Template. The sometime gains are just not worth that kind of lamitude. Choor monster (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: As Stevie had said, all of the keep arguments are excellent and valid; I have never seen abuse of the template, and I welcome rewording of the template if that would help. I agree that the template gives a human aspect to Wikipedia. Many of the delete arguments use unsubstantiated speculation and assume bad faith.
As well, I use the tag myself; even if I ever were to stop editing, people could easily use the email function on my userpage to send me an email, which I would promptly reply to. As well, for users who post their real names, the inquirers can contact them through a variety of means. So just because a user is inactive does not mean that the template cannot be useful for inquiring to a person.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 22:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If you don't mind me asking, can you point me to the last time you were asked and responded to a user on your tage page as a likely result of this template? Looking through a few years of archives I see nothing... I could be missing it though EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind. All of the articles I put the template on are very niche subjects, so although I'm not receiving many comments due to my use of the template, the articles will be around for the rest of my lifetime; likely in that span of time more comments will slowly come. As for specifics, this conversation was likely due to the template, and perhaps a few emails I've gotten were as well.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 23:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
While personally I think this discussion had nothing to do with a maintained tag (I suspect it was more he looked at the article history which pretty muched owned by you), but even you you think that, the "discussion" was simply another user alerting you that an article existed. I'm also not entirely sure how the template in question pertains at all to this as the article doesn't have a maintained temp but I'll assume it came from Briarcliff Manor, New York, not James Speyer. So even if the user came to you because of the tag, what did it result in? You adding a single category to an entirely different article from the one with the tag. So over a long period of time you have received a single, rather pointless message hypothetically from an article which you pretty much own, pertaining to an entirely different article which you didn't even edit (except your cat). EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Of course the results of discussions which are due to usage of {{Maintained}} are not relevant to whether or not the template is useful. It's likely the user did read the article history, just as likely as the idea that he went to the talk page of the article, where I do use the template in question. As well, it did result in plenty. Before he talked to me, I had no idea Wikipedia had an article on James Speyer. Due to that revelation, I added him and a link to his article on the Briarcliff Manor article's "Notable people" section, and changed the content the other user had just added from using an unreliable source to a reliable one, ensuring the preservation of that content.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 00:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep—if an article is built using offline references, then the maintainer should have copies of those references. I know that for articles I've tagged that I maintain, I have a file of newspaper articles, copies of the books, copies of the maps, etc. If anyone had a question regarding the sources, I'd be the best/first person to contact since I have them all. Yes, a reader or editor could track me down from the article history, but this template provides a simple notice. Yes, that person could attempt to locate the sources in libraries, but since I've had to comb libraries across a few states to locate the sourced I've used, why should that person have to duplicate my effort? Imzadi 1979  02:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
    Wouldn't it be better to leave a note on the talk page saying exactly that? Using the maintained template does not get that point across, but if you add a talk page notice saying that you have the offline sources, someone would actually know to contact you about that. Tavix |  Talk  06:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
    The first line of the template says, "The following editors are available to help with questions about verification and sources in relation to this article". That's why I use it, to alert others that I can answer questions regarding the sources because I have the sources used to write the article. Imzadi 1979  08:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Another problem with just leaving a note on the talk page is that, you know, talk pages do get archived. Do you then rewrite the note? Repost it? Forget to do it? Then you have people who leave messages at the top of the talk page, pushing that down a section or two.

And consider what happens if we leave it up to individual editors to write the text for this. You'd have editors who might unintentionally word it in a way that clearly violates WP:OWN, to say nothing of editors who intentionally do so. By having a template with standardized text we can much better avoid that problem.

And lastly, it's a lot easier to see something on a talk page when it's in a banner at the top, as opposed to just regular ol' text in a section. Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3[edit]
  • Delete. As others have argued, the potential for mischief far outweighs any value to the project. Neutralitytalk 05:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Funny, then, that from ten years of use no one has adduced any actual evidence of misuse. Daniel Case (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Funnier still when you realize that its misuse is unlikely to produce the type of tangible on-wiki evidence you demand. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Funniest that you admit your entire argument is faith-based. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Nope. I've presented evidence, just not the kind you demand. But keep thinking that. It's hilarious. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - the line "This in no way implies page ownership" is probably there for a clear reason - this template is too likely to be used for OWNership reasons; I see no sinificant advantage to it, either - if I want to have an expert verify the info, the page history is where I would look. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Widely misused as I have seen. Very few instances of good practice and non-ownership. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 10:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
See below. Since you are not only not providing evidence of this, but basing your !vote on such evidence, the onus is especially upon you to give some examples of this "wide misuse".

If this were a purely facial challenge (i.e., the template had just been created and not used widely), I might have been more solicitous of your position. But with ten years of actual use out there, anyone arguing "potential for misuse" should probably show examples. Anyone arguing "has been misused" cannot expect to have their !vote taken seriously if they don't. Daniel Case (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Observation thus far - The majority of those wanting to delete the template cry "Ownership issues!" without providing examples. The majority of those wanting to keep the template have given great examples of why keeping it is 1) a good thing, 2) a harmless thing, 3) and crying ownership is not assuming good faith and making bad faith judgements and assumptions. Even if there are more deletes than keeps, the keeps, by far, have provided to best arguments for their !votes. The deletes just keep saying "delete" and "ownership!" -- WV 15:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Observations. This is the sort of nom that would benefit from a brief !vote moratorium. Where's the consensus-building to be found here? In what ways is this not a vote count? Who's the closer to say which arguments have merit and which don't? Indeed, that's for everybody here to figure out between themselves.

    Has anybody contributed to free software? Or have you participated in any horizontal organisation? Do you think they'd be able to survive if they operated in this manner? Alakzi (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment concerning "evidence" - A few people !voting "keep" are incessantly demanding "examples" of a phenomenon that is difficult to measure but easy to understand. There are no diffs created when the template discourages editors from challenging the actions of the expert-editor identified in the template. Nonetheless, that risk remains. So the question should not be "where are the examples?"; it should be "is the risk worth the benefits of the template?" And the answer is "no." Almost everything that this template accomplishes can still be accomplished by editors having normal dialogue on article talk pages--and without the discussion-stifling risks the template presents. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
''So the question should not be "where are the examples?"; it should be "is the risk worth the benefits of the template?" In order to have such a question, there'd have to be evidence OF a risk. If your question were THE question, you'd be asking a question regarding something for which there is no premise. And there's no evidence because no one has yet given examples of the result of such an alleged risk. So, yes, the question first has to be "where are the examples?". No examples to provide = no risk to take. -- WV 18:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Stop asking for examples. We're here because you have used the template problematically during edit wars. You know this. -- Calidum 18:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The hell I will stop asking for examples. Misguided edit warring isn't article ownership. We're here because there is alleged article ownership due to the template. No one has been able to provide examples of the alleged ownership. As Daniel Case already pointed out, we don't delete things because of unproven allegations and assumptions of bad faith. -- WV 18:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
You truly believe that because you have not directly witnessed something ocurring, there is zero risk of it? Because that makes zero sense. It takes little imagination to understand how this template risks discouraging editors from challenging the template-editor's actions--indeed, the overwhelming majority of people participating in this conversation have understood it. If you can't even imagine this template having that effect, I'm not sure what to tell you. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per all the excellent Keep arguments above. Also, I will note I as a long-term Wikipedian have never witnessed abuse of this banner in all its existence. I am open-minded to mild re-wording on the template if that would settle anyone's nerves. But I especially like the argument made that this template helps give a more human feeling to the site. All its intentions are is this: "Hey, I'm here and happy to help you." This is a good thing. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 18:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Possible enhancements to allay concerns: 1) Make it clear in template that more than one "maintainer" is welcome to add their name to the list. 2) Make it clear in template that like all other Wikipedia articles, everyone is free to edit it -- there are no special restrictions (unless the article is protected in some way). Stevie is the man! TalkWork 19:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The template is already clear on the first point, and the second point won't mean a thing. On the contrary, we're here because of edit wars that have pointed up the fundamental flaws of this template. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
But the template itself has not been proven to make these edit wars take place. At any rate, I am seeking constructive improvement of the template. I disagree that the template encourages others to add their names, and I disagree that the second point is useless (based apparently on a feeling you have). It seems like the deletion argument is nearly totally a baseless assertion that sweeps away the good faith of people who take special care of particular articles because of high interest and willingness to assist other editors. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 19:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Well not exactly. I think it's fair to say that only a few very emotional "keep" !voters (one of whom just went into a tirade about an article I edited a few months ago) are expressing their "feelings." What has happened here is that editors have observed the template, considered the arguments that have been made, and overwhelmingly said that it should be deleted, based on their best judgment. Every single article talk page carrying this template has a notice that it is about to be deleted, and yet I don't see an army of thousands of "maintainers" coming here to defend it. Some "maintenance." Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Is deletionist zeal sans examples/evidence truly "judgment" or is it just thoughtless wanton destruction of demonstrated good faith efforts? What I'm seeing with my lyin' eyes is people jumping to a wild conclusion about ownership which has very little basis in wiki-reality. As for whether maintainers are aware of this, note that the maintainers were not informed of this deletion debate in any automatic manner (I just left some comments on some maintainers' talk pages -- not the same thing). Maintenance of an article does not construe the maintainer visiting the talk page every day to see a thin sentence about the deletion discussion above the Maintained template. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 20:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Evidence – Daniel Case has asked for evidence from those who wish to delete. I can provide some empirical and anecdotal evidence to support keeping the template. I've been going through the Category:Maintained articles and culling the inactive editors (1 year or more). From the original 4,755 listings, the number is now 4,484. (I'm perhaps 20% through.) I observe that most templates (recent and old) have one editor listed, but I've also seen templates with multiple users, such as Talk:WindSeeker (a GA), Talk:Worlds End State Park (a FA), and Talk:United States (another GA). And I observe that large numbers of the articles have high quality ratings. So I posit that such ratings come about because editors are willing to put their names on the product. Moreover, I observe that editors who choose to "maintain" the articles generally have high edit counts, numerous GA, FA, DYK icons, and lots of Barnstars. (I'll continue my gnomish culling and give a tally later on.) Finally the fact that 270 old users have been culled shows that such users are not claiming ownership of the articles. – S. Rich (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
You're "proving" something of no consequence whatsoever, and which does nothing to impact upon the concerns that people favoring deletion have, which is that it sends a message of article ownership. Two editors owning an article can be considerably worse than one. I don't see that helping at all, and to claim that there's something about this current template that somehow discourages people from adding their names, that's just simply ridiculous. It is plainly worded to allow more than one editor to make such a claim.
Let's examine that for a moment. In an article there are 14 editors on this template. I'm a new editor. I would view that as a message that there is a "clique" of editors who have control over the article. The evidence for that? My own lying eyes. Coretheapple (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
So you are admitting there is no actual evidence of misuse? Also, I will note that you are appearing to apply your feelings of what the template is about rather than what it is actually about -- helping other editors. To be blunt, I think "lying eyes" invalidates a 'delete' vote as it is an argument without substance. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 10:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
What I'm "admitting" is that this template is an "announcement of ownership" and therefore needs to be deleted, a view shared by an overwhelming consensus of the editors who have expressed a view on this template here. My lying eyes also see how desperate the supporters of this template have become, judging by some of the shrill rants, personal attacks, harassment of !voters and meaningless "statistics" I've seen deployed here. Coretheapple (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Shrillness in the defense of a one of the pillars of the Wikipedia is no vice. Besides, the 'Keep' voters are up against 'Delete' voters who have an awful lot of 'judgment' but no evidence by your admission. Heck, some of us 'Keep' voters (and one 'Delete' voter) are also trying to find a reasonable compromise. Where are the other 'Delete' voters in finding a compromise? Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I've seen shrillness in defence of article ownership and in mischaracterizing the opposition to this template, neither of which, to the best of my knowledge, is one of the five pillars. Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Nobody on this entire page has sought to defend article ownership. Nobody. Period. In absolute cosmological terms. The template in question has only been construed to be about that by some, even though any simple reading of it does not suggest that, and barely any evidence has been presented to show that ownership is the outcome of its use. As far as characterizing the opposition to the template, I stand by the words I've used thus far, as I believe them to be dead-on accurate. I also see a confusing position about the pillars of the Wikipedia, so I won't comment on that aspect of your response. But if you want to deny that WP:AGF is one of them, be my guest. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 05:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
That's not evidence. All FAs and GAs have more templates than typical articles because they've been edited more. To support your claim that adding the template improves the article, you'd have to show the quality trajectory of a large group of articles before and after the template. It's far easier to posit that FAs and GAs attract more skilled editors, who are more likely to know how to add templates, to care about the talk page (which is a pointless wasteland in so many articles), and to claim ownership of a page. -Sigeng (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • More evidence – so, I went through the K's. 63 entries, 1 is a user = 62 articles. Of these we have:
(The number of Ks is less now because I removed the templates with inactive editors.)
  • Of the editors:
    • 46 are active
    • 19 were inactive (now removed from templates)
    • 2 are administrators
    • 2 (actually 1 person) is deceased
(These numbers exceed the number of articles because they were counted for each article they had posted a maintained template.)
So there you have it. A small sample to be sure, but it confirms my observation from earlier. Most importantly, the number of FAs & GAs which these maintaining editors is extraordinary. (Look at the GA & FA links above to see why.) We cannot say that putting a "maintained by" template causes the articles to achieve such quality, but it certainly indicates that editors who post the template work hard to maintain quality. Give them their due, and keep the template. – S. Rich (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep if rewritten thusly:
    • remove the link to OWN per BEANS
    • change lead sentence to "The following editors have volunteered to assist with any questions regarding this article:" or similar
    • change closing sentence to "All editors are encouraged to contribute to the encyclopedia." or similar
ATinySliver/ATalkPage 01:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Even more evidence – so, I went through the D's. 147 entries, 4 are non-article files = 143 articles. Of these we have:
(The number of Ds is less now because I removed the templates with inactive editors.)
  • Of the editors:
    • 119 are active (includes at least 8 admins)
    • 42 were inactive (now removed from templates) either because retirement, redlinked name, and in case blocked as a sock
    • 1 is deceased
(These numbers exceed the number of articles because they were counted for each article they had posted a maintained template.)
Overall in Wikipedia less that 0.01% of the articles reach Featured status. That so many editors would work for this accomplishment is a tribute to them. And even they did not strive themselves for the particular FA or GA accomplishment, the template serves to notify other contributors of their willingness to cooperate and assist in keeping the quality of the articles at a high level. When we have 30 to 50 percent of these maintained articles in such a status, there is little likelyhood of misuse because of the template. – S. Rich (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
What your statistics show is that, at the time of this nomination, over one-third of the editors who were named in this template were no longer active. While you have now cleaned them up, there is no guarantee that anyone will do so again in the future, when the template is not under this level of scrutiny. Something that is wrong ~33% of the time cannot be relied upon, and is this of no benefit to the project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
These statistics prove only one thing: that there are a lot of really good articles in which editors have effectively declared ownership. If you wish to take up space in this discussion with more evidence of all the really great articles that are beset by this template and from which they need to be removed, you have the floor. Coretheapple (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect. The statistics prove there are a lot of really good articles where editors have added their name to a template that says doing so does not imply ownership and they "are available to help with questions about verification and sources in relation to this article". We keep seeing the allegations that editors adding their names to the template actually have ulterior motives, yet no one who claims this has actually brought evidence showing the presence of this template actually turns editors into article-owning ogres. So far, pretty much every editor saying "Delete" has been doing so by applying their own personal version of WP:CRYSTAL. Until evidence showing article ownership due to the template is presented, crystal ball-like "assumes facts not in evidence" claims are all the "Delete!" !voters really have. -- WV 14:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
All these calls for "evidence" and statistics are tiresome. It is unquantifiable whether this template has contributed to Wikipedia in a positive or negative manner, and there are quite likely cases where full-blown ownership of articles has actually improved them. What is self evident though, is that to put your stamp on an article as a self-appointed "expert" or arbiter is an act of ownership, something that goes against the very ethos of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's a fun bit of evidence of misuse though! --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that allowing ownership by a select few experienced, informed, motivated, active editors would improve the owned articles; but in the long run, it leads to abuses; thus we created WP:OWN. All this "evidence" does nothing to address the fundamental and critical flaw in this template; it runs counter to WP policy.
In the few times and places where ownership is "needed", there's always WP:IAR; just go ahead perform the duties of a responsible steward for an article, correcting any editors that don't follow your vision, without adding a vague template that serves no purpose other than scaring away newbies with the false implication that there is some policy of sanctioned official ownership. In fact, you'd probably manage to do more good by not adding the template, keeping your semi-ownership less obvious. We all know borderline ownership goes on all the time anyway, generally for the good of WP. Deleting the template wouldn't change anything, except avoid its implied undermining of WP:OWN, which we need to keep as strong as possible to check the eventual abuses of this "maintaining" activity. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you or anyone identify one "newbie" who was scared away from editing an article because of this template? I'd like to see a link to a discussion where someone suggested they were afraid to edit an article because of the template. The only template that has truly scared me away from editing something is the one that accompanies the Scientology project. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 20:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
No such evidence is possible, of course. I'm merely giving the template the benefit of doubt, assuming the template has such an effect on newbies; some might call that a good thing. To me, its use only raises a red flag, causing me to be suspicious of the "manager's" efforts, producing the opposite of the intended effect. (If someone were to propose replacing this template with a non-hypocritical one stating "Warning: possible ownership issue", I'd be in favor of that.) --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete at best pointless, given the many ways editors can seek help on any page, at worst a deterrent to other editors who might be wary on stepping on the maintainers' implied authority. If editors want help from other editors familiar with the page they can check its recent history, rather than rely on this notice which may be out of date and/or indentify inactive editors.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@A D Monroe III: OWN was created 24 Sep 2003. Maintained was created >2 years later on 3 Jan 2006. The two have coincided (more or less) in harmony for many years. Again, I ask if OWN been a problem with those users who post the template? I think not. What we have is a number of deletionists who simply don't like the template. (I say "simply" because they cannot show abuse.) Keeping the template is a freedom of choice issue, so let freedom prevail as it clearly benefits WP via the encouragement of GA & FA.) We have the template posted on hundreds of talk pages – posted by responsible editors. Anyone who does not like the template is free to not use it. But no one, so far, has shown that the template is being abused. – S. Rich (talk) 05:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Things change. The Wikipedia I joined 10 years ago is quite different from the one now. Then, Wikipedia was mostly an evolving experiment; now, our rules and guidelines are taken more seriously. Saying anything that's old must be fine now isn't in keeping with that continual change. Deleting this template is.
It's hardly fair, or accurate, to label anyone for deleting this template a "deletionist".
"Clearly benefits" is weaselly and akin to WP:OR. As I acknowledged, Ownership may have short term benefits, as long as abuses are checked by WP:OWN. This template, however, doesn't demonstrate those benefits. It doesn't demonstrate anything that can't be better served by normal established talk page procedures. It does, however, undermine OWN.
Editors cannot be "free" to undermine policy.
Arguing over a few supposed specific abuses would be pointless; I'm not doing that. I'm basing my stance purely on the only actual evidence: the template itself vs. OWN. The template loses.
--A D Monroe III (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - have always found it odd we have talk page banners linked to many retired editors.-- Moxy (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 4[edit]
  • Here are my proposed changes to the wording of the template. Just one editor's opinion, but amidst the delete it/keep it back-and-forth, the obvious solution—fix it—seemed to be getting lost. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 23:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I like this new wording; more people should comment on this, especially those with delete votes on this current discussion.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 05:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Extremely, incredibly strong keep ;-) I use this template, but only for articles and lists that I have helped bring to FA/FL. I don't use it otherwise. Anyone, especially a new editor (which we are surely hoping to attract) wanting to edit one of those articles at least knows who to talk to if they want an explanation of anything. I've had a number of inquiries on my talk page off the back of the template. I agree with editors above who have said it is often used to indicate an editor that will take responsibility for the article content. It doesn't mean there is any ownership being asserted. On the other hand, I have been subjected to an extended tirade of harassment because I didn't respond to tendentious comments on a talk page which contained the template. On balance, I still think it is worthwhile keeping it. Tweak it, sure, but we should have a template that performs a similar function. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @Peacemaker67: Is there any reason that those enquiries and your answers shouldn't have been on the article talk page, where other editors interested in the article might have benefitted from them? Kanguole 02:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Comment for Kanguole: Article talk pages are available when the concern is an article improvement idea. The Pump is there when the concern is community wide, and the drama boards give vent when more specific issues arise. Those who shout "OWN" (or other reasons) as a rationale to delete the Maintained template actually advocate the elimination (or restriction) of a device which encourages communication. E.g., they say "Don't provide this template because it might encourage non-article-talk-page communication." (Also, @ATinySliver: I like your idea for template revision. Hopefully this long thread can be closed as "no consensus" and include an encouragement to revise the template.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
        • S. Rich: much obliged. Face-smile.svgATinySliver/ATalkPage 05:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Kanguole. I re-directed discussion there when it occurred. The point, I believe, is that it opened a line of one-on-one communication that obviously was attractive to the new editor concerned, and was probably less threatening. Many older hands forget that new editors can be tentative at first. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
            • You use the word "believe," in other words, you're speculating. That's fine. There is no hard data we can draw on as to whether this template is good or, as most people believe, a negative factor. We have to use our best judgment, as with all such questions. Coretheapple (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @Peacemaker67: Please can you provide links to two or three such discussions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. A few observations:
    Regarding the template
    a. The name {{maintained}} implies that the editors listed are maintainers of the article.
    b. The current text says they are "available to help with questions about verification and sources" (emphasis added).
    c. These two are not synonymous
    Regarding the keep arguments
    d. Some emphasize that the editor is making sources available
    e. Some emphasize making it easier to contact the editors
    f. Some emphasize template use on obscure articles
    g. Some emphasize template use on FA or GA articles
    This seems to indicate that this template is being used to accomplish significantly different ends
    It may well be better to have more specific tools to meet the specific ends.
    h. Create a new template for editors to announce access to specific offline/paywalled sources.
    Some at WP:ORE announce owning a key resource, Oregon Geographic Names.
    i. Create a way to record the key players who have helped bring an article to GA or FA status.
    j. Create a method to generate a list of the frequent editors of a page/talk combination.
    k. Create a template to display that list
    l. Create a template to simultaneously ping that list.
    m. Create a method to list unanswered talk page threads.
    n. Create a method to be notified of unanswered talk page threads.
    IMO, this collection of tools would be a significant improvement over the current template. YBG (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm in full agreement, with the proviso: this would take time and, as such, there will be an interim period. What do we do with the template? Keep it intact? Keep it with the proposed changes? Delete it? Something more timely is required. Face-smile.svgATinySliver/ATalkPage 05:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
That's actually some very good thinking; I think many of those ideas would be very helpful, and yeah, a definite improvement over this general template. Perhaps another use of the template that could be made into a specific one is for pages that are marked because a user has substantial knowledge and perhaps also education that may allow them to explain parts of the article, update it, provide further references or primary sources upon request, or (in the case of technical subjects) even just edit the article.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 05:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to Srich32977 for collecting some actual data and YBG for thoughtful suggestions. IMO one of the benefits of the existing template is that it unobtrusively admits multiple use cases, but the most critical aspect is that it's present at the discretion of the maintainer. The proposed replacement system of multi-pinging the top editors of an article loses that benefit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Very good ideas. 'h' is immediately doable. re: 'a', the template could be easily renamed by move, with a bot going around to update every instance where it's used. I'm not opposed to removing any suggestion of page ownership, which is what the template is not about. I may be even be open to 'h' replacing this template if it also includes the option of the editor saying they not only have access to resources, but also have special familiarity with the subject (e.g., I was born/raised and have lived most of my life in Louisville, Kentucky, and I've done nearly 2,000 edits to the article, so I have the {{maintained}} template with my name on its talk page). I think of the current template and the potential 'h' as an article's special help center. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I am encouraged that my suggestions have elicited favorable responses from a number of retentionists. I would appreciate feedback from my fellow deletionists as I ponder additional comments, particularly in response to questions about implementation and transition. YBG (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
YBG, I think your ideas are good. The goal, which you have accomplished, is to eliminate the "self-selection" element that bothers a lot of people. However, the way to go about doing that is to delete this template and to create a new one that achieves those goals. Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I just looked at the YBG suggestions again, and I like them even more. That way, one is providing useful information to editors (ways through paywalls, for instance; I could recommend the NYPL website to NYC residents, to take advantage of that little-appreciated goldmine). The list of editors generated in an article, likewise, can be useful. Now, I can see situations in which such a list might not be recommended (such as edit-warring or situations in which paid or COI editors have dominated an article). In such a situation, one can simply not have the template there. The documentation, to eliminate edit warring, should specifically state that the template is only to be used in situations in which editors agree, and that if even one editor disagrees, they are to be removed. Or, I suppose, one can eliminate that feature (the list of most prolific contributors). Anyway, it's a good start for discussion once this template is deleted, as it removes the aspect of editors appointing themselves maintainers of an article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"Self selection"? That is a complete misrepresentation. It's called volunteering. Which is what we all are as editors and we are supposed to do. Putting ones name in the template equates putting your name on an additional sign-up sheet, saying you are willing to help out over and above the usual if needed. That's it. I still fail to understand why this is so hard for the delete !voters to grasp. -- WV 17:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. With the brutal assault on the wiki-pillar WP:AGF, some delete voters add insult to injury with their likewise brutal attack on the venerable, air-tight essay WP:VOLUNTEER. And that's on top of the lack of examples/evidence. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 18:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks to me more like a "brutal assault" on common sense. Coretheapple (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
There has been no "brutal assault" on AGF, Stevie. AGF refers to actual editors, not concerns about things that have gone wrong in the past and could go wrong in the future. Likewise, there has been no "brutal attack" on VOLUNTEER. You don't get to volunteer to be am official POV-warrior, BLP-abuser, NEWBIE-biter, and so on. That you resort to such ludicrous exaggerations, along with your denial of examples/evidence, suggests to me that you and other keepers simply have no argument. Choor monster (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This proposal and the arguments made in favor are largely a direct attack on WP:AGF, pure and simple. Your arguments here are part of that attack. You may want to read them back to yourself and see why. Further, again, there are no arguments for the delete side except concerns about someone asserting themselves to belong in the template on one page. The keep side has presented multiple bona fide arguments (read all of them, as I don't have to repeat things that are typed on this page) and have been amenable to compromise. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 05:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
At this point, you are just being frankly delusional, using hysterically exaggerated language, simply because you have no actual argument. OWNership is still unacceptable, even when done in good faith. Just like edit-warring over this Template is unacceptable, even when done in good faith. Choor monster (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the lovely personal attack. Anyway, I would say "delusion" is trying to delete a template because of a single negative episode with it, punishing all the other good, rules-following users of it, and anyone who may benefit from it. By the way, I don't like the poor quality of some articles here -- let's close down the entire Wikipedia because of that. It's the same kind of "logic". Stevie is the man! TalkWork 00:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Spot on, Stevietheman. -- WV 01:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Lady Lotus. It's a good way of saying "Hey, this person is familiar with this subject, and you should consult him if you want to get help". I understand that it's a problem when a page is listed as being maintained by someone who's no longer here, but the solution is removing the template from the page, not by removing it from Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Most of the Deleter concern is with editors who are here, and who insist on letting you know he/she is here. Choor monster (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Still waiting for evidence of this "problem". Stevie is the man! TalkWork 05:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Then you are just engaging in deliberate WP:IDHT. The "problem" is what started the call for discussion, and it's being explained repeatedly. Choor monster (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
          • So you back up my point, then. One problem with one use is an illegitimate rationale for deleting all uses. So I repeat: Where is the evidence of a significant mis-use of the template? Stevie is the man! TalkWork 21:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I haven't waded through the entire discussion but I just added this to Talk:Hammond organ as I settled a content dispute using a book source I have. Indeed, a substantial amount of this article is cited to offline sources. While other people can buy or borrow these sources (which would make my life easier, for one thing), it can be more pragmatic to ping me and say "does book 'x' actually say 'y'"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - This template has absolutely no bearing on whether or not an individual editor is going to engage in article ownership. It also doesn't assist an editor in "owning" the article - that's entirely based upon their editing/reverting behavior. Hence, it's rather misguided/asinine to argue that this template violates WP:OWN in any way, since one can say that he/she owns an article, yet not violate that policy simply by not engaging in such behavior - this is essentially because WP:OWN is a conduct / article behavioral policy and not a talk page policy like WP:TPG. I also obviously oppose this since deleting the template will break my signature unless I recreate a userfied version for the articles I've maintained. >.> Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 17:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm a longtime user who has used the template occasionally and a wikifriend of several who have done so more often than myself. I can't remember or link to a previous discussion from any editor complaining about about a user utilizing the template or claiming ownership of any page so maintained in my narrow realm of pagespace (19th century American biography). For my part, in my first hundred edits or so I made contact with at least two editors who maintain pagespace in which I had special interest. One of those editors asked if he could add my name to the template and then put my name first. Hardly ownership. As User:Seppi333 points out above, lots of actual ownership might inevitably occur on Wikipedia. However, it doesn't seem likely (or frequent) that such OWNers might openly announce their intention using a template which specifically eschews such behaviors. I've been working around articles containing the template for almost ten years and I've never seen it abused. In the hypothetical, I can see why it might seem worrisome; in the actual I've never seen abuse or discouragement. Currently I am seeing on my watchlist a number of maintained article talkpages having their maintained template being deleted (if maintainer has been inactive); this seems a very appropriate upkeep task. BusterD (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete this ownership template. If it's truly valuable, Wikipedia should automatically create a list of "recent editors" for an article on the backend. That has no maintenance burden, no inaccuracy, and it's a neutral fact. -Sigeng (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Where has it been established via examples/evidence that this is an "ownership" template? The template is very clear that it has nothing to do with owning an article. And without substantive examples/evidence to the contrary, what we are left with is personal opinion. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 21:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Suppose I were to put a sticker on a library's public computer in a library that says: The following people are available to help with questions about the use of this computer: Sigeng. This does not imply ownership of this computer. Everyone is encouraged to use it. I tend to think that the library would remove this sticker because it would clearly suggest that I have some sort of status or authority with this computer above other users - especially if were just another patron not a designated volunteer of some sort. It implies that I should be consulted, or that I have priority access if I come along. It's strongly passive aggressive - "you're being watched". My additional point is that the implementation is backwards and broken - dynamic information such as this should be derived. -Sigeng (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Since my uses were being removed because "user not active on this article". I removed all my uses. -- Gadget850 talk 10:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • If you want to use the template, then re-assert it. Voting to delete a template because your uses were removed doesn't seem to make any sense. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 21:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I, being the one who removed it, agree with Stevie. You once thought it was a good template, but like many of us (I imagine) you moved on to other things and interests. (Good for you for keeping the articles on your watchlist.) You were free to add and free to remove. Allow others the same freedom. If you won't change your !vote to keep, at least change it to neutral. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep (as is). Hard to believe that this template has generated so much "no-consensus" discussion. It's an obvious keeper, though, with many possible underlying sources of value. The criticisms of "ownership" are countermanded by the explicit statement in the template. It's almost comical to read, "I know the template states that ownership isn't implied, but ownership really IS implied, isn't it?" Made me smile. Those who feel that way should read the diff between being an "owner" and being a "custodian" or "steward" of an article. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 04:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I work with really obscure sources which may not actually be digitized outside of my laptop and the computers at Sinematek Indonesia. If a new editor comes across an article I've written and wants to verify something, they'll know where to turn with this template. Too few people think of checking the history - and that goes for well-established editors as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Anyone needing help these days usually posts on the talkpage regardless of the template, As seen here [16] some editors become inactive so thus "This article is being maintained by someone who isn't even active here anymore", The template does seem imho on the edge of WP:OWN, Personally I've never seen the point to the template but there we go. –Davey2010Talk 15:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - A relic of old cabals and members-only clubs whose retirement is long past due. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I can see the value of this template, but I have long been aware of the drawbacks as raised in this TfD. But I would point out, regardless of whether this has been raised already (I didn't care to read through to find out), that a good reason for deleting this template would be that users can be listed on it but may not even be active on Wikipedia any longer; it therefore falls to other users to fix the template. It's not a guarantee whatsoever that anyone will respond to requests regarding the page in question. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Ownership of articles which encourages the stewardship of articles and warns: Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. The template has demonstrated its usefulness to not just to editors but to readers as well, and thereby advances our primary mission: the construction of an encyclopaedia. Finding a subject-matter expert from the edit statistics is neither simple nor straightforward. Such usefulness is the criterion for retaining any template. No evidence that it has been abused. The argument that it is not useful because users can be listed on it but may not still be active on Wikipedia any longer is absurd, and can easily addressed because I can write a Bot that periodically checks if the user listed is still active and removes the template if not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't solve the issue of the user possibly not responding. Even active users can become unable to keep up with it. Your bot solution can solve the problem of whether the user is active to any degree, but it can't make anyone respond or, you know, maintain the article as the template suggests they would. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - what a debate this is. First, I think a lack of updates in practice is not a good reason to delete; the template should be looked at for what it is. I think it's a useful template to have, more useful than any issues caused by implying ownership (which I don't think the template does a very good job of). I can imagine cases where editors (particularly new ones) may have questions about a topic, and rather than post on an inactive article talk page, will find it more helpful to directly communicate with someone who has stated they are knowledgeable of the subject and can help out. I think this is particularly useful for more obscure subjects, where one's expertise knowledge can best come in handy. That all being said, I do think the template's wording can be greatly improved. Something like ATinySliver's suggested changes above make the template's message seem more open, inviting, and less ownership-y. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @SuperHamster: Certainly an inactive article talk page can be intimidating, but directing enquiries to a user talk page (of a user who is surely watching the article) exacerbates that problem. Kanguole 10:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
But we can't just rely on users to watchlist article talk pages. As Daniel Case said above, "I have been surprised to learn how many people here just set their preferences to "put every article I edit on my watchlist", ending up with thousands of articles/templates/project page/ on their watchlists, a number effectively doubled since most editors (properly IMO) set their preferences so that talk page edits show up on their watchlists. I know one guy who has edited so much this way that any attempt to open his 20,000+-article watchlist invariably causes whatever browser he's using, and sometimes the computer itself, to crash. So he just uses recent changes instead.In this situation it should hardly be a surprise that a new editor, or reader, posing a question on a low-traffic talk page may well feel themselves to be like the proverbial tree falling in a forest ... "Did anyone even notice? Did I actually edit? Do I even exist?" Having a contact person, when that person is active, is at least a slight improvement over that situation."--ɱ (talk · vbm) 17:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The comment that you have duplicated is irrelevant. We're talking about people who want to declare their maintainership of an article by using this template. It is quite reasonable to expect them to watchlist that article and its talk page. Kanguole 18:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
And I'm telling you that even if they watchlist the article, often they won't see talk page questions. That's why it's important for users to direct those enquiries to a user talk page, where they will be seen.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 18:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
An alternate proposal[edit]

Based on the comments I and others have received, and for the interim period while YBG's suggestions are worked out and implemented, may I officially offer as an alternative the following changes to the wording of the existing template (subject to tweaking, of course). —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 21:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)



You call this an alternate proposal? With all due respect, it accomplishes nothing and bears no resemblance whatsoever to YBG's proposal. Same problem: editors anointing themselves. Same ownership issue. Coretheapple (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
ROFL!!! With all due respect, I do call a good-faith effort at an interim solution "an alternate proposal". What do you call it? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 21:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@ATinySliver: Wouldn't it make more sense to transclude this here from your subpage so any updates you make are reflected here and to keep the code out of the way of the discussion? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up! —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 22:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@ATinySliver:I call it not addressing any of the issues raised by the vast majority of commenters on this template, which, to boil it down, is that this template is has WP:OWN issues. Tweaking the wording doesn't do anything to address those serious concerns, irregardless of whether this proposal is in "good faith" or not. In similar "good faith" I can very accurately describe it as unhelpful. Coretheapple (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Then a downvote with a brief explanation of why you believe it isn't helpful would have sufficed; "You call this an alternate proposal?" appears to attack me for trying to find an interim solution to a problematic template that, if I'm reading all the above correctly, has yet to garner a consensus to keep or delete. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 22:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I just did not see anything very "alternate" about your alternate proposal, that's all. YBG made some good points that do address the concerns that have been raised, and we should build on that, not tweak this template. That's a nonstarter. And I totally disagree with you re consensus, which is clearly and overwhelmingly for deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
In fact, by broadening the wording, it actually exacerbates the problem that the vast majority of commenters on this template have noted. That's why it sort of left me scratching my head trying to figure out how this could be considered a compromise. Coretheapple (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
One, if I'm looking for a consensus were it to come to me closing the nom—admittedly, something I've never done—I'd note the pile-ups on both sides, and the !votes that make assertions without backing them up. I see neither "clear" nor "overwhelming". Two, please explain how the wording "exacerbates the problem" by naming volunteers (as opposed to maintainers) while reminding everyone that they should not be afraid to contribute? If an individual editor demonstrates OWN issues anyway, it's up to the community to fix that individual issue, not delete a template and pretend that alone is a solution.ATinySliver/ATalkPage 22:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Re your suggestions re wording: they make no difference at all, because they still have editors self-designating themselves as, effectively, "experts" that can be consulted over specific articles. That has WP:OWN written over it. You've broadened the template, really making things a lot worse, by adding "content." There is absolutely no difference whatsoever between those editors being "available" and "volunteering." It's functionally the same thing. As for consensus, there are at this time 36 editors favoring deletion and 15 favoring that it be kept, more than 2 to 1, which is overwhelming, with the deletes all raising very similar concerns regarding this template. Yes, I know, you want the closing administrator to disregard those concerns. Coretheapple (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"Yes, I know, you want the closing administrator to disregard those concerns." And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how AGF dies. I have never used the template. I never will use the template. I don't give a fuck what the result of this discussion is. I saw a contentious issue and offered an (admittedly) interim solution to a contentious issue. In driving me permanently from this discussion, you've ironically cored the apple. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 23:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Well then I would suggest that we hat this proposal. It doesn't materially differ from the template and this discussion is rapidly becoming pointless. And by the way, if you agree with me that the "deletes" should not be discounted, then how can you doubt there is a consensus? Coretheapple (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
If used per /doc, the current template's rendering in article space offers "help with questions about verification and sources in relation to this article". Outside of article space, the /doc page says to use |artlcle=no, and so offer "help with questions about this page". Only after starting to write this post did I read the /doc closely enough to understand these details. My conclusion is that this alternate proposal makes a significant change to the template, a change likely to widen the gap between the retentionistas and the deletionistas. In the interest of trying to narrow that gap, I suggest that the alternate proposal be abandoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YBG (talkcontribs) 00:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC) — Apologies for forgetting those tildes. I've added the correct time. YBG (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It's also a large hunk of unproductive text, and someone really ought to hat this section. Coretheapple (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────A lot of editors have commented on the template, hatting this portion of the discussion is premature, to say the least (not to mention dismissive). -- WV 03:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I would not want to see this template "improved" just to keep all current uses with a "new" meaning. If it's the same template, then it has the same problems; its current use is based on its current meaning. If this proposes a different template with a different meaning, then it should not automatically replace the existing one, with possible conflicting different uses. Replacement would have to be case-by-case basis, which it best served by delete of all and then manual one-by-one add of the new template. Please propose this separately, after this template is deleted. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Proposing a major rewrite[edit]

From the very beginning, this template has emphasized help with verification and sources. At some point, an alternate text was added (without WP:VER and WP:RS) for use on talk pages of non-articles. The current documentation includes a suggestion that a consistent format be used in a given article or project so that listed editors include similar information. Also, at some point, the text omitted the reference to maintaining the article and only stated that the listed editors are available for help with WP:VER and RS.

Proposal 1: Create a new template, named to emphasize sources, worded to continue emphasizing help with WP:VER and WP:RS.

Proposal 2: Document the new template to say it only belongs in article talk space

  • Plus this Proposal 2 (a): Delete use of the original template outside of article talk space.
  • or this Proposal 2 (b): Create another new template for use outside of article talk space.

Proposal 3: Add wording directing general questions to the talk page (or to a project talk page) (to encourage use of a more public forum)

Proposal 4: Expand the new template with parameters or subtemplates to help promote consistency:

  • A form to announce that the listed editor has access to particular offline/paywalled source(s)
  • A form to announce that the listed editor has verified the sources (or a subset of them) in the article (or certain sections) as of a particular date
  • Maybe additional forms depending on what is found in the existing uses of {{Maintained}}

Proposal 5: Transform {{Maintained}} uses to the new template(s), using |p=unknown if needed for required parameters p.

  • Proposal 5 (a): After all have been transformed, delete the existing template
  • Proposal 5 (b): Ping all of the listed editors with |p=unknown parameters and ask them to fill in their part of the template
  • Proposal 5 (c): After a suitable interim period of months, de-list any listed editor who still has |p=unknown parameters.

I have specifically excluded listing editors except for either (a) announcing access to offline/paywalled sources or (b) announcing verification of some or all sources as of a particular date. Some retentionistas will object to this exclusion, and some deletionistas will object to any attempt to retain this template, but IMHO this exclusion is the one thing that has a possibility of attracting majority support in both groups.

All of this is doable in the near term, without the programming effort needed to implement multi-pinging. As you comment on these proposals, I would be particularly interested in knowing if this proposal has encouraged any of my fellow deletionistas to be willing to keep or replace the template as I have outlined here. YBG (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC) some modifications for clarity YBG (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Might be worth naming the template something such as {{Source verification assistance}}. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Any template not naming specific editors is fine, but I think the time to do that would be after this template is deleted. Then it can be added back to relevant articles where required. Coretheapple (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty clear at this point that this is going to be closed as "no consensus". That said, I've made it clear and I've always been open to improving/replacing this or any template that has generated concerns, even if the concerns come from opinion and not hard evidence. The above plan looks like an honorable compromise. I continue to think there should be an option for those who have special familiarity with a subject to note that, in the sense that they are happy to help guide anyone. After all, even if one doesn't have resources in their personal library, they could still have the resourcefulness through subject familiarity to be able to locate resources and direct other editors to them. As for specifics, re: Proposal 2, it's possible to raise a warning or error if the template has been placed into the wrong space. Re: Proposal 3, I like that, but if there are any listed editors, it can also be suggested that instead of going to a listed editor's talk page, they can start a discussion on the article's talk page, and ping a listed editor from there. After all, a listed editor is inviting contact. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 15:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Uh, it's pretty clear that you want it to be closed as a no consensus. But the overwhelming sentiment is running against you by 41 to 20, which is as a clear consensus as in any RfC or deletion discussion I've ever been involved in. Once it's deleted, we can discuss what to replace it with, if anything, and that replacement, if there is one, can be fastened to article talk pages on a case-by-case basis. Coretheapple (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Uh, no. It's clear enough he'd like it to be closed as 'keep', but that isn't going to happen; I agree it looks like there's no consensus here. You really don't know that this in't up to numbers, it doesn't matter how many editors use bad-faith judgement and 'support per above' and similar arguments, that 41 vs 20 means nothing?--ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh of course. I'm perfectly aware of that. Coretheapple (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox TransLink (SEQ) bus station[edit]

Template:Infobox TransLink (SEQ) bus station (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox bus station}}, which contains all of the key fields. We don't need to list all station facilities; see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Alakzi (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:James Bond film crew[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:James Bond film crew (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 11#Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe film crew and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 12#Template:Star Trek film crew

Incoherent groupings which do not aid navigation. These shouldn't be encouraged, the same way we do not have cast navboxes. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. That's a complete mess. Alakzi (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and the outcome of the linked similar discussion above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Zombi series[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Substantial duplication. All links are included at {{Living Dead}} Rob Sinden (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • weak delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

March 15[edit]

Template:Infobox Icelandic government cabinet[edit]

Template:Infobox Icelandic government cabinet (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox government cabinet}}; I've replaced one transclusion to demonstrate. Alakzi (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Cardiff electoral ward[edit]

Template:Infobox Cardiff electoral ward (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

As with Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 17#Template:Infobox UK ward; if and when the three councillor parameters are added to {{Infobox UK place}}, this template will become redundant. Presently, there are no corresponding parameters for {{{CAScode}}} and {{{NoofCouncillors}}}. The template can otherwise be substituted as follows:

{{Infobox UK place
| official_name               = {{{Electoral Ward}}}
| country                     = Wales
| type                        = [[Electoral ward]]
| static_image_name           = {{{WardMap}}}
| population                  = {{{Population}}}
| os_grid_reference           = {{{GridReference}}}
| post_town                   = CARDIFF
| postcode_area               = CF
| postcode_district           = {{{PostCode}}}
| dial_code                   = {{{DiallingCode}}}
| constituency_westminster    = {{{Constituency}}}
| unitary_wales               = [[Cardiff]]
| constituency_welsh_assembly = {{{AssemblyConstituency}}}
| hide_services               = yes
}}

Alakzi (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox comedian awards[edit]

Template:Infobox comedian awards (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox actor awards (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox comedian awards with Template:Infobox actor awards.
Similar templates with overlapping parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. These are functionally quite disparate. {{Infobox comedian awards}} is used as a module of {{Infobox person}} in comedians' articles to list recognisable awards. The latter is meant to provide a complete listing of an actor's awards and nominations, and is shown on "List of awards and nominations received by X" pages. Both infoboxes should be renamed to avoid confusion; {{Infobox comedian awards}} could be moved to {{Infobox entertainment awards}} or similar to encourage its use in actor articles, if that's desirable. Alakzi (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just to flesh out one of the points made above: to feature only the number of wins/nominations for each type of award is reductive and unhelpful. While the actor awards template has an admirable number of awards that aren't available in the comedian awards template, it does not in itself offer any useful information, and so is incomporable in its function. JamKaftan (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Alakzi's comment; Infobox comedian awards should be moved to Infobox entertainment awards. The template is also, and perhaps more commonly, used in articles of film crew members. Lapadite (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Torchwood audio book[edit]

Template:Infobox Torchwood audio book (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (5 transclusions)
Template:Infobox Doctor Who audio book (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (24 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Torchwood audio book with Template:Infobox Doctor Who audio book.

Same fictional universe; similar parameters. (Or is there a more generic audio book template, into which both should be merged?) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Add {{{asin}}} and {{{pages}}} to {{Infobox Doctor Who audio book}} and redirect. Alakzi (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Do audio books have pages? Do we need ASIN, which is proprietary, when we have ISBNs? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I thought they'd be the corresponding pages in the novel, or something. Yeah, we probably we don't need ASIN. Anyway, neither parameter is used in any article. Alakzi (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It would seem that {{Infobox book}} would do the job, with the addition of |featuring=, |formats= & |length=, and using |set_in= for |set_between= - if indeed that is used anywhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how I feel about lumping audio books together with books. |formats= would likely be abused to display "paperback" and "hardback" or somesuch, and |length= might be confused with |pages=. Do audio books frequently merit a stand-alone article? Alakzi (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge with {{Infobox audio drama}}, per the discussion above. Alakzi (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox UK Bus Corridor[edit]

Template:Infobox UK Bus Corridor (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (5 transclusions)
Template:Infobox bus line (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (532 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox UK Bus Corridor with Template:Infobox bus line.

Similar purposes; the "corridor" template is simply for multiple, overlapping, bus routes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. {{Infobox bus line}} is gonna have to be reshuffled; it makes no distinction between route and route number. Alakzi (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox London River Services[edit]

Template:Infobox London River Services (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (32 transclusions)

Variously redundant to {{Infobox water transit}}, {{Infobox pier}}, {{Infobox company}}, etc. The lower part should be remade as a navbox, at the foot of the relevant articles. We don't need a separate infobox for each city with a navigable river. See also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. These seem to be easily replaceable by {{Infobox pier}} and {{Infobox water transit}}. Alakzi (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I swapped this for {{Infobox Water transit}} on Woolwich Ferry and the sky didn't seem to fall. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Ambivalent but open to persuasion. I take the point about shifting some info to a navbox and this seems like an acceptable solution. The original idea of this infobox was to have something corresponding to the style used on Tube stations, as this is a parallel TfL service. Tube stations now use {{Infobox London station}}; while the trend now is for infoboxen to be very minimalist and low on branding, they do bear a dinky wee London Underground Tube roundel which is a nice touch. My main concern with a switch to {{Infobox water transit}} would be to retain a basic London River Services London River Services indicator - which can be easily achieved, as demonstrated by my most recent small edit to Woolwich Ferry. If we can agree that this would be an acceptable adjustment then I could possibly countenance the loss of {{Infobox London River Services}}. Cnbrb (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't mind the little icon, personally. Perhaps we could add a field for it in the template, like we've got in {{Infobox station}}. Alakzi (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Now added. Alakzi (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Commonwealth of Nations[edit]

Template:Infobox Commonwealth of Nations (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox organization}}. I've replaced one transclusion to demonstrate. Alakzi (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox HK Bus terminus[edit]

Template:Infobox HK Bus terminus (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox bus station}}, which supports all of the key fields. Alakzi (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Bucharest RATB route[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Bucharest RATB route (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Unused and redundant to {{Infobox bus line}}. It might have been previously used in List of bus routes in Bucharest. Alakzi (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:No. 2 (band)[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:No. 2 (band) (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

I have nominated Allistair Chestnut for deletion, as it is not Wikipedia-notable, and will most likely be deleted, leaving effectively only two articles to navigate between, making this template, in my opinion, unnecessary. Lachlan Foley (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, the band is defunct, and there is not enough there to require a navbox. just use normal inter-article linking. Frietjes (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Newcastle United F.C. chairpersons[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Newcastle United F.C. chairpersons (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Similar to this recent TFD - FANCRUFT and not a useful guide to navigation. GiantSnowman 10:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox SRV[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Unused since creation on 22 June 2014. Doesn't seem to do anything. 220 of Borg 03:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

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

March 14[edit]

Template:Infobox ucla labor center[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox ucla labor center (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Single use. Should be substituted and deleted. Alakzi (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. I've replaced it with with a more generic infobox; no need for substitution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox NCAA Division I women's ice hockey season[edit]

Template:Infobox NCAA Division I women's ice hockey season (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (5 transclusions)
Template:Infobox NCAA Division I men's ice hockey season (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (25 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox NCAA Division I women's ice hockey season with Template:Infobox NCAA Division I men's ice hockey season.

No need to split by gender. Only differences appear to be parameter labels. See also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Query - @Pigsonthewing: Andy, you're going to have to explain your proposed merge and how it would work in greater detail. Currently, the three season links in these templates are gender-specific (please see examples of template in actual use). Do you propose to include some sort of gender-specific toggle? This is the same issue you have with your proposed merge of the NCAA basketball rankings templates below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • A switch would work, yes. Happy for other suggestions to be made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Comment I agree with Dirtlawyer that the process works best when the nominator outlines the changes that will allow the two templates to be merged well. Any code change needs an owner, who will design, advocate and implement that change. Otherwise, the change and its necessity become unclear. SFB 21:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NCAA women's basketball rankings[edit]

Template:Infobox NCAA women's basketball rankings (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (9 transclusions)
Template:Infobox NCAA basketball rankings (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (37 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox NCAA women's basketball rankings with Template:Infobox NCAA basketball rankings.

No need to split by gender. Only differences appear to be parameter labels. See also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Query - @Pigsonthewing: Andy, you're going to have to explain your proposed merge and how it would work in greater detail. Currently, the three season links in these templates are gender-specific (please see examples of template in actual use). Do you propose to include some sort of gender-specific toggle? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox women's national water polo team[edit]

Template:Infobox women's national water polo team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (17 transclusions)
Template:Infobox national water polo team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (68 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox women's national water polo team with Template:Infobox national water polo team.

No need to split by gender. Only differences appear to be parameter labels. See also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox education in Canada[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was merge. There is unanimous support for this proposal. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox education in Canada (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox school (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox education in Canada with Template:Infobox school.
No need for a separate template for one country. See also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Support as having most of the parameters required. I did not conduct a thorough check, but some test replacement in articles proved to have nothing missing. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Support. Simplicity is best. I don't see any differences that would justify keeping the Canada-specific template around. wia (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Support. Most fields are common between both templates and Canada-specific fields could be added to Infobox school or described using free labels. Henri Watson (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Support - no need for the redundancy and Infobox school covers everything (and more) than we need. Tgeairn (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Support. For the reasons previously mentioned. EyeTripleE (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Support. Plenty of free parameters in Infobox school. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Support. There isn't any differences to make it separated. Gemsdare (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Support. Think we can early close this super clear case here. --PanchoS (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infraspeciesbox[edit]

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

Only two transclusions; replace with {{Taxobox}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Strongly disagree This template is part of the automatic taxobox system (see Template:Automatic_taxobox/doc/intro). It cannot be replaced by {{Taxobox}} because the latter is a manual taxobox template. {{Infraspeciesbox}} is a counterpart to {{Subspeciesbox}}, which is the automatic taxobox for zoological subspecies. Neither are much used because we don't have many articles about animal subspecies and plant infraspecies, but they are both essential parts of an integrated package for automating taxoboxes. Before they were constructed, editors tried (and failed) to use {{Speciesbox}}; when only {{Subspeciesbox}} existed, editors used this for plant infraspecies but botanical infraspecies must have a connecting term whereas zoological subspecies don't so it didn't display correctly. The automatic taxobox system is slowly gaining in use, and there will undoubtedly be more uses of this template in future, although doubtless never very many. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox dog crossbreed[edit]

Template:Infobox dog crossbreed (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (12 transclusions)
Template:Infobox dog breed (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (607 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox dog crossbreed with Template:Infobox dog breed.

No need for a separate template for crossbreeds. See also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

    1. Needs to be clear how to add multiple breeds as the crossbreed's source.
  1. All the attributes for being recognized by various kennel clubs isn't necessary for crossbreeds.
  2. Most of the attributes, such as color and size, aren't likely to apply to mixes--for example, check out Goldendoodle, or here is a google image search for yorki poos.
But, whatever. Elf | Talk 22:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Elf states above, most of the attributes do not apply to cross breeds. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Then simply leave them blank; that's not a reason to have a separate template, for just 12 of 619 cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
      • People don't leave them blank though and then problems start to arise. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
        • That's a content issue, though, not something we should address with a forked template and - again - especially not for for just 12 of 619 cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
          • I was editing dog articles now for seven years - and one of the difficult part is pushing exactly on Wikipedia for a dog crossbred or any breed that was recently created as a cross-dog breed in hope it will be faster recognized - it is a real POV pushing arena. All kinds of crossbreeds or side breeds pop up daily and hourly created by hopeful quasi-breeders that hope to be able to sell their puppies with a higher price if there is a breed - crossbreed article on Wikipedia. Sometimes they cheat and put in fake AKC or other kennel club templates and links to, claiming that they are a registered breed, when not. If you are a registered breeder, you have standards to live up to, in breeding, vaccination, medical checks. Unregistered breeders are often not the kind of responsible breeders like the ones registered at Kennel clubs, just breeders who want the profit but not the responsibility coming with breeding to deal with. - (The other is snapshots of low quality - the My Pet Is The Best - type - added to all dog articles.) Hafspajen (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
            • The use of separate templates won't stop PoV pushing. And appeals ro authority cut no ice here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because most of the attributes do not apply to cross breeds. Problematic suggestion. The Dog Project has enough problems with infoboxes as it is, we don't need another one to cope with. Also why wasn't the Dog project notified about this? Hafspajen (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is some difference between Shih-poo and Lhasa Apso. Some of the articles have explained the cross breeds. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 19:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think you understand what is proposed here at all. Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Appeal for common sense: {{Infobox dog crossbreed}} has only six parameters:

  1. |name=
  2. |image=
  3. |caption=
  4. |breeds=
  5. |altname=
  6. |note=

All of these, except |breeds=, are in {{Infobox dog breed}}. If |breeds= is added to {{Infobox dog breed}}, then it could be used as a switch to prevent the display of Kennel Club or similar parameters. And if |breeds= is added to {{Infobox dog breed}}, then there is no reason that it cannot be used on the article about the example given above, Shih-poo. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. The crossbreed template has too few parameters to be interesting or useful. It should either be deleted or merged. One imagines that parameters such as body size are reasonably consistent for those few crossbreeds that have sufficient secondary sourcing to have an article. If merged, fears of disreputable breeders adding fake AKC data will not be realized and as Andy Macbeth proposes, can be prevented from appearing anyway. Abductive (reasoning) 02:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I am afraid you underestimate the amount of vandalism pet articles are facing. We at the Dog Project are only two or three regulars and there are very few that patrol recent dog articles changes with regularity, actually only one person as we speak. All efforts to keep vandalism down are essential. You are speaking technicalities, but know nothing about the situation in dog articles. Hafspajen (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per PotW and Abductive, the problems can be solved, and the crossbreed template is not unique enough to be its own template —PC-XT+ 08:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Who is going to solve them? Are you interested to patrol dog articles at least two times a week? Hafspajen (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I believe editors can solve the template problems via discussion and template editing. I consider the POV and vandalism problems at least partially outside the scope of a TfD, but I wouldn't support this if I thought it would make that stuff worse. Solutions beyond this scope can be considered in such discussion. For instance, maybe a bot could verify codes in authority databases to help flag problem pages. —PC-XT+ 23:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, when we were trying to get help to adjust the dog breed template so the traits would automatically appear in a collapsed state, nobody chose to help so I doubt if anyone will help with this either. I'm unsure why our opinions were even sought on this merge as any comments against it have just been belittled. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While I am sympathetic to merges of templates for closely related subjects, I am also very mindful that these infobox templates do no exist in a vacuum where long-term template updates and coding maintenance are the only concerns. This is a perfect example in which the two separate templates exist for logical reasons apart from their several shared parameters; in this case, it's not about common parameters, but excluded parameters. Several of the parameters in the larger Dog breed template are inappropriate for dog crossbreeds; combining the two templates perpetuates an ongoing maintenance problem for the editors who write and maintain the cross-breed articles. Infobox "consolidation" is not a Wikipedia policy, nor a guideline; it's an essay and a common-sense goal of reducing the proliferation of closely related templates, that applies logically when templates can be combined with no adverse consequences. Here, we have the cart before the horse; consolidation of templates should never create ongoing article maintenance issues. In this case, better to leave well enough alone. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The merging does not seem to solve any current problem and may significantly contribute to an increasing pretense that a crossbreed (Labrador/Poodle) is a stable breed (Labradoodle) with consistent characteristics, increasing the need for maintenance of the crossbreed articles. Canis5855 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - All parameters would be covered by a merge. Those opposing don't seem to understand that you only use the ones you need. Everything would be the same as before, except additional information covered in the full infobox, like size and colour, could be added. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Additional comment - Much of what has been said is about the state of the related Articles and has nothing to do with the Infobox. Secondarywaltz (talk)
    • We USE infoboxes. Actually. I does matter. They are not infoboxes just for being infoboxes for the infobox notions sake. If more problems are caused we might simply have to remove them, all of them. There is nothing that say infoboxes are a necessity. We were actually discussing option this with dog editors. Hafspajen (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Exactly! What you say here is about whether you want to use an Infobox not about how it works. That is a different discussion. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Completely missing the point. Which parameters are intentionally excluded, and therefore unavailable to be erroneously used, can be every bit as important as which parameters are included. The sassy back-and-forth betrays a complete lack of understanding of the issues raised by the users of the template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Again. You are talking about misuse or vandalism, not about the template. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Again, you're missing the point. We don't merge templates for the sake of merging templates, knowing that that the merged template will create problems in actual use. By excluding certain parameters that do not apply to the particularly contemplated use, they cannot be erroneously used, intentionally or unintentionally. There is no offsetting benefit to the proposed merge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
          • So what's stopping anyone from using {{Infobox dog breed}} in crossbreed articles? Alakzi (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
            • *cough* Tamaskan Dog; Lurcher; Northern Inuit Dog; Zuchon; Beaglier; Poochon. But yes, the current setup is the real deterrent; let's not be fazed by facts. Alakzi (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
            • What's to stop someone from using a baseball player's infobox on a football player's article? In my practical experience, the kinds of POV or newbie editors who cause these problems usually don't have the background to know about other available alternate infobox templates. When we employ large master templates, with many optional parameters that do not apply to a particular use, sometimes optional parameters are erroneously added. Once chosen and added to an article, particular infobox templates are rarely changed. That requires a different level of understanding. The very simple template involved here for dog crossbreeds serves its intended purpose perfectly; desired parameters are included, inappropriate parameters are excluded. The proposed merged template does not serve the intended purpose as well as the existing simple template. It's that simple, and no real benefit is derived from the merge except we can say there is one fewer template when we're done. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Archbishopric[edit]

Template:Infobox Archbishopric (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (14 transclusions)
Template:Infobox Bishopric (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (91 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Archbishopric with Template:Infobox Bishopric.
Very similar templates and subjects. The "Bishopric" template is already used for both types. Add a "type" parameter if needed. See also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge - Merge, with the caveat that all functionality and options of both templates be preserved. This looks like the perfect example of two closely related infobox templates that can be consolidated with no adverse consequences. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Underground stock[edit]

Template:Infobox Underground stock (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (55 transclusions)
Template:Infobox train (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (1,324 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Underground stock with Template:Infobox train.
Similar templates for similar subjects. We don't need a separate infobox for each city's railways. See also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • What do we do with "stock type"? I'm not sure if adding a field for a distinction that's specific to the London Underground is a good idea. Alakzi (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    • |code=? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, it's not really a code. How about a new "Category" or "Type" parameter? There's nowhere to specify whether the train's an electric or diesel MU, or whatnot, which seems like an omission; for example, in Shinkansen articles, it might read |type=[[High-speed rail|High-speed]] [[electric multiple unit|EMU]]. Alakzi (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge, subject to a suitable outcome to the discussion above about the stock type parameter. A new "type" parameter (situated near Family name?) seems useful and would work for the use case here. Otherwise all the parameters map. Mackensen (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge, but only after the "type" field (or an alternative) is implemented. Thryduulf (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aqueduct navigable[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was merge. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aqueduct navigable (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (54 transclusions)
Template:Infobox bridge (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (3,851 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox aqueduct navigable with Template:Infobox bridge.

A navigable aqueduct is a type of bridge. See also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment regarding notice - Notice of this proposed merge has been provided to WikiProject Bridges: [18]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A navigable aqueduct is really no different to a road or railway bridge. Ostrichyearning (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A navigable aqueduct is a type of bridge! --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox india university[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Single-use infobox which is redundant to {{Infobox university}}. Alakzi (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Query - @Alakzi: Are there any significant differences between "Infobox india university' and "Infobox university"? My cursory scan shows only one: the presence of a title parameter, "pro-chancellor," with which I am unfamiliar; I assume this title is either India-specific or institution-specific. If this is the only difference, this unusual title can easily be accounted for by using the "head" and "head_label" parameters of Infobox university. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • That's the only one I spotted, and yes, that's what I thought too. It probably wouldn't hurt adding a parameter for it to {{Infobox university}}, either. Alakzi (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Alakzi, there are already too many "rare bird" head-of-institution title parameters included in Infobox university; using the existing "head" and "head_label" parameters for one-offs like "pro-chancellor" is exactly what was intended. NENASP -- "not everything needs a separate parameter"; perhaps I should write an essay. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
        • haha, perhaps. If it is indeed so rare, then I agree. Alakzi (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
          • A Google search suggests it to be common in India, albeit not common on Wikipedia. See also mentions in Chancellor (education). Aside: It may be worth running a script to see what values are used in |head_label=, and how often, then deciding whether to create specific parameters for any with a large number of instances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Alakzi, "Pro-Chancellor" is only linked to a total of 7 university articles (see [19]), and only appears in the infobox of 3 of those 7 articles. That's a pretty rare bird (cf. over 19,000 articles that use Infobox university). In all 7 cases, it's a subservient position, not a C-level office. When we include these kinds of options, they often get used in addition to the university c-level offices (i.e. "president," "chancellor," etc.), contributing to overly long infoboxes in practice, and the growth of cruft. In the three instances where it's been thought important enough to include the office in a university infobox, editors have used the optional "head_label" and "head" parameters to accomplish that. Best to leave well enough alone. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Thanks to the both of you for the research. Pro-chancellor appears to often be a ceremonial post; the pro-chancellor is the representative of the chancellor in their absence. At other times, the term appears to be used synonymously with "deputy vice-chancellor" or "pro-vice-chancellor", i.e. an actual officer. Alakzi (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nominator's rationale. This template serves no independent function from Infobox university. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Lancaster college[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Redundant to {{Infobox residential college}}. I've replaced the only transclusion of it to demonstrate. Alakzi (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nominator's rationale. We are not in the habit of creating one-off templates for single articles, at least not without a very good reason. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:LDSscoutawards[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Navbox used in only one article.  Gadget850 talk 08:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. The template creator, User:Eustress, is a long-time contributor; his edit summary upon template creation indicates that more stand-alone articles were contemplated in 2008, but it appears things evolved in a different direction with a single "list of" article that includes all of the "religion" scouting badges. The single list (with no need for a unifying navbox) probably makes more sense (see Religious emblems programs (Boy Scouts of America)). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Flashpoint season 1 episode list[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Flashpoint season 1 episode list (edit · talk ·