Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 2

< October 1	October 3 >

October 2

Template:Infobox personal identification

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

The result of the discussion was redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox personal identification (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Previously one use on Resident Certificate, replaced with Template:Infobox Identity document here. eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replace but keep a redirect (or the equivalent for templates), as this will surely be recreated. LT90001 (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Olympic event category navbox

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Olympic event category navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only transcluded by another template which is itself unused. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The intended use was analogous to that of Template:Ice hockey at the Olympic Games category navbox, for easy cross-navigation between curling categories of different Olympic Games, but it seems I never got the job done properly. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteLT90001 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 UK constituency alt

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK constituency alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

29 transclusions, there is already a Template:Infobox UK constituency main with 1,879 transclusions and Template:Infobox UK constituency (former); no documentation so it's not clear why (or if) this is needed. eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteLT90001 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Jews

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

The result of the discussion was merge with article, history saved at Talk:Jews/infobox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Jews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

there are currently over 4000 articles using template:infobox ethnic group, but this one is the only one that has not been merged with the article. I see no reason why it needs to be kept separate from the article. we can preserve the edit history by moving it to a subpage of the article, and redirecting it to the article. we can preserve the talk page history by archiving it with the rest of the talk archives. Frietjes (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge per nom. — Lfdder (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is A merge has been reverted once recently, and the discussion on the talkpage has two people who disagree with the nominator on this subject. The reasons against a merge are mentioned there, and I feel the nominator should be trouted for forum shopping. The main point in the discussion against a merge is that there are very frequent and animated discussions and disagreements (including edits) regarding this template, and therefore it makes sense to treat the template and the article separately. Just have a look at the edit history and the talkpage of this template, and it becomes obvious that if all those edits and discussions were to be part of the article and its talkpage, they would be overloaded with edits and discussions, and the distinction between the template and the article proper would make the mixture of edits to both and discussion about both too confusing. Debresser (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. The content of the infobox should reflect the content of the article, rather than existing as a separate entity, so discussing them in the same talk pages is appropriate.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think what you say is correct. Infobox discussions have nothing (or little) to do with discussions about the article content. Arguments about the infobox are usually who will be in the collage, what to write under "religions", what is the correct number of Jews in different countries, who are the "related groups" to Jews. Those are separate discussions to the discussions about the article, especially in the case of Jews, and they don't cross the discussions on the Jews talk page. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what Debresser rightly said, and because the claim that this template is the "only one of its kind" (hasn't been merged) is clearly not sufficient enough to delete it, maybe it stayed that long for a reason: every article/template is different and has its own circumstances. - Shalom11111 (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
so what are the unique circumstances when compared to the over 4000 other infoboxes, dozens of which have been merged with the articles after discussion here at TfD? Frietjes (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again: saying "other stuff exists" is simply not a valid argument, just like I wouldn't propose the deletion of a stub claiming "99% of stubs this short have been deleted and so this one should be too" - as long as that stub article is notable enough and has reliable sources to support it. To answer your question, please look at what the other two users who said "keep" wrote. There also hasn't been any opposition to this template before and its existence does no harm. - Shalom11111 (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Big keep for few reasons: 1. The Jews and Template:Jews pages have a lot of discussions and arguments, so that helps not to load to many discussions on one page (which would make it harder to follow). 2. People who come to vandalize the Jews article usually keep the template untouched because they don't know how to get to it. 3. People who want to edit the template without discussion first usually have to go through the process of asking on the Jews talk page "why can't I edit the template?", where they are being told "you need to discuss it first", so it prevents pointless reverts and edit wars. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand your second and third reasons, template:infobox ethnic group would also work. If not, a module or wrapper could be used, instead, which would also give another talk page for your first reason -PC-XT+ 02:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

right, we need to make WP harder to edit using security through obscurity. we use page-protection to reduce vandalism, not obfuscation. Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite to wrapper or module then possibly merge per nom-PC-XT+ 02:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- it already is a wrapper for {{infobox ethnic group}}. Frietjes (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right. Thanks. I struck my mistaken !vote -PC-XT+ 09:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete and merge per nom --Երևանցի ^talk 18:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom; {{infobox ethnic group}} does not need to be specialized for a single use template, it can be used directly in the article. -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for repeating an known point of view without relating to the reasons that have been brought why this template should not be used directly in the article. Debresser (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why people want to hide edits from the edit history of the article, it should be visible to editors who watchlist the article, instead of needing them to search for changes on a single use template page. Changes to the content of the infobox should be part of the article history. Hiding that is bad. -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I've become uncertain about this. If we look at the pages that link to it, the only Wikipedia article that links to this infobox is "Jews", and therefore I don't think it'll be a big deal if they are merged. There are already similar templates, like this and that one, too. Shalom11111 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: People who just say "delete" without mentioning reasons should not be counted. Seriously, there are few people who voted "delete" yet didn't bring up any reasons, or brought up reasons which were already explained why irrelevant for this case. The main argument of those who support "delete" is "it's the only ethnic group template with a separate page", but I don't think this argument is a real reason. Most ethnic group pages don't suffer from vandalism like the Jews do, and most articles don't have so many debates and discussions on the talk page as the Jews article does. 176.251.55.76 (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS Does anyone know why my IP changed? Weird. 176.251.55.76 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --09:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanquisher.UA (talk • contribs)
Subst and delete: The template isn't even much bigger than most infoboxes. I don't see it flooding the page with edits and discussions. Besides, the recent activity flood only appears to have been going on for about a month. I don't think it's a permanent thing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The template is even editprotected now. Would you want that to happen to the article? If you don't know how to check edit history, don't give an opinion! Debresser (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, that looks like a temporary dispute, not a permanent thing. And did you really have to call me an "ignoramus" in your edit summary? Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Conflicts in Romania and Moldova

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, if someone wants to create the Moldova template, go ahead, but it appears we already have Template:Riots, protests and civil disorder in Romania. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Conflicts in Romania and Moldova (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Strange combination of social unrest and wars in two different countries bundled in one template. The Banner talk 21:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split into a Romania box and a Moldova box. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Transliteration scheme side boxes

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Malayalam transliteration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tamil transliteration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tulu transliteration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We don't need a whole box to tell people what kind of translit scheme we're using. Just like with languages, preface the first translit in the article with the wikilink to it, and people will get it. — Lfdder (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unlike the script-warning-boxes, I don't see the need for these, since we're using a latin transcription, so there's no worry about having characters that an English-based computer system won't display. And any notice of what transliteration scheme to use should either be codified in a MOS for that language/script, or appear as a talk page banner (such as how the WP:ENGVAR banners exist as talk page material, and not article page material) -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are simple notices, and are helpful both for readers and editors about the transliteration standard in use on a page. Someone adding content to one of these pages isn't going to look up in the MOS before contributing, and readers attempting to understand the page content shouldn't have to search through article text to find the transliteration. With this template, it's always up there at the top of the page, where it can is visible to drop-in editors and easily found by readers, and they can be used for adding maintenance categories to pages. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 06:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This type of notice box sit on article talk pages, the most prominent example of this type of box is the English Variety box, which is a talk page box. -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel the information regarding the transliteration scheme is quite important as the transliteration scheme is quite different from the common romanised spellings that readers are used to. If not informed, they might try to change it to one of the non-standard forms. If we're going to add just a link at the preface, I'd request to do that to the few articles where this template is used before deletion. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how this is different from the ENGVAR templates, which are talk page templates. -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unlike the ENGVAR templates which are to help editors, these templates help readers and editors so to be on the article is appropriate. The editors of an article should be left to decide how best to explain to readers: TfD is not at all well placed to decide this. It would be very unhelpful to expect readers to refer to the MOS to see how transliterations have been performed. Thincat (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we have transliteration/romanization templates for every non-Latin-lettered language and every major scheme then? Arabic and Russian and Asian languages would need a boatload of these. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I expect, and I was not suggesting anything of the sort. The matter of template transclusion should be decided at individual articles. Thincat (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Ukrainian oblast divisions

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ukrainian oblast divisions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only on Administrative divisions of Khmelnytskyi Oblast, it duplicates much of the information available on Khmelnytskyi Oblast so it could be deleted without replacement. If necessary, the number of cities and villages could be displayed in a table. eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacing with a simple table. Frietjes (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I saw no need having a bunch of syntax in an article when you can just have a simple and easy to use template. Just because it's only used on one article doesn't mean anything, it will be used on more articles to come. DDima 01:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can use a table for that.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after tabularising LT90001 (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Texas regional council

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete. {{db-author}} added by Frietjes (talk · contribs) 19:44, 3 October 2013. Redrose64 (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Texas regional council (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created in April and used on 24 articles, it could be replaced with Template:Infobox settlement. eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it was created to solve this problem. I would like to see a demonstration of the conversion to {{infobox settlement}} first, since it's not clear how the multiple historical population numbers would be supported. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to use only the most recent population figures? In other cases Template:Historical populations is used for that purpose, but since those articles are nearly all stubs it might be excessive to add a separate template for 2 or 3 population figures. If that option doesn't convince you, it could be moved to a more generic name, and used for all articles that require more than one population figure for the same place.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

anything is possible, but what is the most appropriate thing to do? I am still unsure of how an association of governments is a settlement, seems more like an organization? Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this form of government is similar to a French communauté, which incorporates several local government entities and for which we also use IB settlement.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 motorsport round

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox motorsport round (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It could probably be replaced by Template:Infobox motorsport championship. eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the template documentation is broken. Template:Infobox motorsport round/doc points to Template:Infobox motorsport round/doc/doc which points to Template:Infobox motorsport round/doc/doc/doc. I've nominated the two broken doc pages for DB-test deletion. Someone would need to move Template:Infobox motorsport round/doc/doc/doc to just Template:Infobox motorsport round/doc. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "championship" is for an entire season, this is for a particular race. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clear and replace Genericize from {{Infobox GP2 round report}} & {{Infobox Grand Prix race report}} & {{Infobox Indy500}} & {{Infobox Daytona 500}} instead. {{Infobox Motorsport report}} should go to the same place as "round" ; we need a generic motorsport round/race report template. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment my IP has rolled over. To clarify what I meant, this should be recoded as a generic version of the indicated templates. -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep and use to create a backend for {{Infobox GP2 round report}}, {{Infobox Grand Prix race report}}, {{Infobox Indy500}}, {{Infobox Daytona 500}} as suggested. Frietjes (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 wikiproject software

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox wikiproject software (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, and there is already a Template:Infobox software anyway. eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#T3. Though I think this one is meant for user scripts; but anyway, Template:Infobox user script exists already. Keφr 10:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This one is a work still in progress to combine Template:Infobox software and Template:Infobox user script for use by WikiProjects, userscripts, and gadgets. Technical 13 (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are misusing the WP:Speedy keep clause here. Keφr 11:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is saying that I think it should be speedily kept because this is unquestionably an attempt to cause disruption in the creation of a new template for use on various WikiProjects I am involved in, misuse? Technical 13 (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because it is not "unquestionably an attempt to cause disruption". Please see WP:AGF, WP:AAGF and WP:AAAGF. And WP:AAGFAAGF. (That is, dispute actions, not intent. Usually. Because sometimes you cannot tell whether there is any intent at all.) Keφr 13:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~speedy keep~~, author says it's WIP. Though perhaps a template for use in Wikipedia and User pages should be moved to another space. Accusation that this is "unquestionably an attempt to cause disruption" seems rash to me. — Lfdder (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been a "WIP" for nearly a month now. Single edit, and not a single transclusion. I think it is not unreasonable to assume that it has been abandoned. And Template:Infobox user script already exists and found some use. Why not just use that, while expanding it as necessity dictates? Keφr 13:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm the creator, I'm saying its not abandoned, and deleting it on the basis of It has been a "WIP" for nearly a month now. is a violation of NODEADLINE. {{Infobox user script}} wouldn't apply to gadgets, toolserver/labs tools, and other programs like SNUGGLE, AWB, IGLOO, etc. Technical 13 (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - A month isn't that long a time. The author might've been caught up in other things. Give it another month and if nothing is done on it and it's not used anywhere we can delete or userfy. NODEADLINE is an essay (not guideline or policy) with articles in mind. — Lfdder (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to people who agreed on making WP:CSD#T3 a deletion criterion, a week is enough time. And I still think this is redundant to a template which already found some use (moderate, I acknowledge, and mostly by me, but nevertheless). That template could be renamed to something like {{infobox editing tool}} and expanded as necessary just as well. We have enough NIH syndrome in templates already. Keφr 13:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - T3 says they can be deleted after being tagged for a week, not how long they must be orphaned for for T3 to apply. Which template are you referring to? — Lfdder (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Template:Infobox user script. But if the T3 criterion stops applying during that period, the speedy deletion claim becomes invalid. So it boils down pretty much to the same thing. Keφr 14:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, "wikiproject software" seems overly specific. Actually, is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Software, or is it for software made by/for wikiprojects? T3 is a bit of a basket CSD; the week is just the time given to react to it. T3 should apply the moment a tpl is tagged with it, and not after 7 days. — Lfdder (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I am somewhat sympathetic to the proposal, but this is not the forum to discuss it. See WT:CSD. There are a few discussions there already, though… Keφr 15:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as it is under construction, but hasn't been worked on for a month, it needn't sit in TemplateSpace, and should not sit in template space, as it hasn't been worked on much at all. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a week, in an obviously more-or-less finished state, and this is still not used anywhere. Will it be? — Lfdder (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
move to userspace Frietjes (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only a handful of enhancements to add and I've started to apply this template to projects. it does things neither of the other two templates do and is a broader template. I'll be adding it for another WikiProject tomorrow and then more as my free time allows. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's used on one page, to which it was added by removing IB software. Do we really need this new infobox?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking no. Dates could (should) be taken out and both beta and alpha listed under |latest preview version=. — Lfdder (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment, now that I see where this is going, I would say we should just delete it. the software infobox template seems to do just fine here. Frietjes (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. — Lfdder (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.