Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

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

Closing instructions

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

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

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

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

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

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

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

Listing a template[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twinkle[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

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

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

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

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

July 29[edit]

Template:Wide image-noborder[edit]

after this addition to wide image, |border=no works, and this fork is no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Indian-languages film templates[edit]

Propose merging Template:Malayalam cinema with Template:Malayalam films.
Propose merging Template:Ollywood with Template:Ollywood films.
Propose merging Template:Marathi Cinema with Template:Marathi films.
Propose merging Template:Tollywood with Template:Tollywood films.
Redundant to have one horizontal and other vertical template. I suppose vertical is much preferable here as those slick bars fit well on generic articles and lists where these templates are being used. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Hilary Duff songs[edit]

Propose merging Template:Hilary Duff songs with Template:Hilary Duff.
No need for two navboxes. Singles/songs can easily be incorporated in the main template. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

In fact, they were until very recently. [1][2] --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Geologic time scale[edit]

In the article namespace, only one page, Geologic time scale, uses this template. There are other related navigational boxes around to serve other articles about geology or time scale. IMO this template can be substituted to the only article using it, and then delete the template. See also WP:TG. Quest for Truth (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:BC Caspiy Aktau current roster[edit]

No blue links at all. Not a useful aid to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Acapulco TV[edit]

There is only one local television station here with an article - XHACG-TV. Until another one comes to air, this template doesn't have much of a reason to exist; all the other links are redirects. Raymie (tc) 00:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Rosarito TV[edit]

There are no local stations in either of these cities. The only transclusion is on the Azteca 7 network page. All links are to redirects. Raymie (tc) 00:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Veracruz, VE TV[edit]

There is only one local station (and one transclusion) for this template - XHGV-TV. Everything else links to a redirect. Until there are more local stations here, this template probably shouldn't exist. Raymie (tc) 00:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Puerto Vallarta TV[edit]

There are no local stations in Puerto Vallarta, and thus this template is not transcluded anywhere. All links are to redirects. Raymie (tc) 00:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Poza Rica TV[edit]

No local stations in this market, and correspondingly no transclusions. All links are to redirects. Raymie (tc) 00:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Oaxaca TV[edit]

Only one unique (local) station in this market - XHAOX-TV. Until that number rises, there is no need for this template which otherwise links to a slew of redirects. Raymie (tc) 00:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Aguascalientes TV[edit]

There is only one unique (local, non-repeater) television station - XHCGA-TV - in the entire state of Aguascalientes. Until there is more than one, this template has no need to exist. Raymie (tc) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Mazatlán TV[edit]

All of the links here are to redirects. There are no articles to use this template. Raymie (tc) 00:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

July 28[edit]

Template:Spamonly[edit]

Propose merging Template:Spamonly with Template:Uw-soablock.
Both are indefinite block templates. Spamonly has a nearly identical initial text to {{Uw-soablock}}. They also have the same explanation. There is also a notalk parameter for block templates, Spamonly does not have the notalk parameter. Eyesnore 22:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Miss Ecuador Provinces[edit]

The parent category, which was created by the sockuppet of a banned/blocked editor, was deleted and many of the entries are at AFD also. ...William 16:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:N.E.C.[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. A useful aid to navigation, can be expanded, was not aware links had been broken due to name change. Fenix down (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Appears to link to just one other article. Not currently a useful aid to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

    • I have fixed the broken links on the template. It now links to two articles, two subsections and two categories. Hopefully it is enough to keep the template. THe links had been broken due to all the name changing of categories pertaining to the club, but they are fixed now. I will see if I can write the article for the training grounds, since it is o common site on NEC TV, and also hosts good youth tournaments, this weekend. Thank you. (Subzzee (talk) 18:52, 28 July 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:Sheikh Noor Muhammad[edit]

Unused template that purports to provide a navbox for the family of a notable person, but that person has no article (it's only a redirect). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Kurds infobox[edit]

This template is currently being used in only one article, after used a cut-down version in Kurdish population (which fixed the redundancy of the population figures in that article). I suggest merging it with Kurds. could history merge it with template:Kurds image array or move it to article space and redirect. for precedent, see World War II/Infobox and related discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Plays by D. C. Moore[edit]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Highest-grossing Bollywood films[edit]

Contents are contained at List of highest-grossing Indian films with actual sources. Here the information is unsourced and differs with the contents there. This template is not necessary to keep a running list of the top box office films (in particular when two current ones are moving) and given the massive amount of fighting over this stuff, the article is better than a overly simplistic table. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom's reasons. Dynamic list and quite controversial too especially as it always has lack of proper referencing. It would always fail our V policy. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Have added two more similar templates of Tamil and Telugu films for same discussion on same rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Discreet abbreviation[edit]

Fork of {{Abbr}}, with inline styling to hide the usual dotted underline, If there is consensus to use that style, it should be applied to the original template, in our core CSS. Otherwise, this template should be deleted.

[Given the nature of this template, I'll 'noinclude' the TfD notice, and place a note on {{Abbr}}'s talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The idea is that there are some abbreviations that anybody would understand in context (like month abbreviations) that we don't need to identify visually, but which screen readers would still pronounce in their abbreviated form if it were for the lack of <abbr>...</abbr>. Alakzi (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • AIUI, there's no need to mark up such abbreviations. But I'll ask the accessibility project folk to comment here, too. (I also expect that this template is not being used solely for such abbreviations.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Screen readers don't pronounce the contents of abbr tags unless the user asks them to; I for one have never used them. Graham87 14:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox computer peripheral[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox computer peripheral with Template:Infobox computer hardware.
Largely overlapping; many parameters in common. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Round in circles[edit]

Propose merging Template:Round in circles with Template:Recurring themes.
Largely similar; shared function. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:FAQ group begin[edit]

Redundant to {{Collapse top}} (same goes for the equivalent 'end' templates). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox concert tour[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox concert tour with Template:Infobox concert.
Redundant, with the exception of |number_of_legs=, |budget= and the 4 extra misc parameters. Alakzi (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong merge – Having some uncommon parameter between the two is not a reason to keep separate templates justifying the same event, a concert. One can choose to populate or not populate the unique fields for a concert tour and concert. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 05:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

Template:Color box[edit]

Propose merging Template:Color box with Template:Colorbox.
Closely related and confusingly named. (This is a more narrowly-focussed proposal than the previous one, which included other templates). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete {{Colorbox}}, which offers no extra functionality, besides obfuscating wikilinks, and replace all transclusions with {{Color box}}. Alakzi (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge: add a |border=colour function to the template (and stop beating dead horses). Useddenim (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge. Per Useddenim, the only modification necessary is a parameter for the border. Otherwise, there is really no difference. Epic Genius (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge. Per Useddenim, and because I Hate Redundancy. ―Mandruss  15:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge. Suggesting using a redirect from Colorbox to Color box due to the vast use of both templates to avoid deletion of material. B2Project(Talk) 15:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we actually need the border parameter? Can't we agree on the colour to use? Alakzi (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge Colorbox into Colour box, leaving a redirect from the former to the latter, per Pigsonthewing, Useddenim, Epicgenius, Mandruss, and B2project. Also, can we get this over with sooner rather than later? It's rather annoying to see all those (See tfm) tags whenever either of those templates gets used. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 21:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge. Per Useddenim and Whoop whoop pull up. Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. The sooner the better. --NSH002 (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:FAQ2[edit]

Propose merging Template:FAQ2 with Template:FAQ.
Very closely-related templates, the only significant difference being their default 'collapse' behaviour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support merge I fail to see how anything but good things could come of this.Brustopher (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Uw-af1[edit]

The Article Feedback Tool has been removed on March 3, 2014. ({{uw-af1}}) et al. Eyesnore 03:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

July 26[edit]

Template:Universal Science Fiction[edit]

List of science-fiction films released by Universal from the 1930s to the 1980s. I'm guessing it was created as an analog to the Universal Monsters template, {{Universal Monsters}}, but those horror movies are somewhat related, whereas Universal Science Fiction films have little in common with each other besides their studio. Trivialist (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Doctor Who episode list[edit]

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

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

Template:Kevin/.0/mckinney in 1931[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G6 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 19:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

All redlinks, nothing to navigate, all in Japanese. In Japanese, it's a navbox between lists of articles which are featured articles in their home wikipedias. Might be useful to have something similar on en:wp if such lists existed here, but this navbox is of no help for that purpose. NSH002 (talk) 13:13, 26 July 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:Eureka Seven[edit]

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

With only four sub-articles, this template isn't particularly large enough to be of any navigational use.The pages are all comfortably linked, where appropriate, from the main Eureka Seven article and within each other. KirtZJ (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • weak keep, connects five articles. Frietjes (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cloud gaming[edit]

Any modern online game or gaming software as some element of 'cloud' (saving, high scores, servers etc) this is not defining. Category:Cloud gaming is fine. Delete. Vaypertrail (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Callimachus[edit]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Hudson River corridor[edit]

Templates of roads in a geographic area have been deleted multiple times in the past due to the fact categories better handle the need and the templates are clunky and pollute the What Links Here function. In addition, this template also has the subjectivity as to what road or rail lines can be considered to be along the "Hudson River corridor" between New York City and Albany. Dough4872 02:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Neutral, as creator, just because it was one of my early attempts at creating a template and I'm sentimental about it, enough so to not want it deleted—although the nominator makes very good points in that direction. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems a perfectly reasonable navbox, and does not fall foul of WP:NENAN. No argument is advanced, as to why roads are different to other topics in this regard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • If we keep this it will open a can of worms for other templates to be created of roads and railroads following a river corridor between two cities. Also note this template arbitrarily focuses on the roads and railroads following the Hudson River between New York City and Albany as opposed to the whole river. It is unnecessary for templates to exist for roads and railroads along a river corridor between two cities as there is a lot of subjectivity as to what two cities to choose and for what roads and railroads are defined to follow the river "corridor". Dough4872 03:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX 4, since no article on Hudson River corridor exists. User:Pigsonthewing makes no sense considering the navbox navigates nonroad infrastructure as well. 68.148.186.93 (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the template is badly named in any case, there is no indication this is supposed to be for roads, instead of any network running along the Hudson River Valley, including shipping -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete unnecessary navbox and per the IP editor above. --torri2(talk/contribs) 23:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:2012–13 NBL Canada Standings[edit]

Unused, redundant template... JMHamo (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

DART maps[edit]

Unused, redundant template; duplicated by Template:TRE. Useddenim (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Unused, outdated, redundant templates. Useddenim (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

July 25[edit]

Template:United States Collegiate Ski and Snowboard Association (USCSA)[edit]

Overly large navbox that is more appropriate as a category. torri2(talk/contribs) 21:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Navbox links between universities and not the listed names of the sports teams. Links have nothing to do with skiing or snowboarding. The template is simply masquerading as a list in a navigational template.68.148.186.93 (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NECBL All-Star Game[edit]

Redundant to {{Infobox baseball game}}. Just 13 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Alakzi (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. There is no difference in functionality. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox MLB All-Star Game[edit]

Redundant to {{Infobox baseball game}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Has essential parameters that the standard doesn't have. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 08:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It's an annual game, so it also has built in navigation to the previous and next year's games. With some tinkering, I'd imagine it can invoke {{Infobox baseball game}} to get most of its functionality, but this should remain, if only as a wrapper to provide a simplified UI and consistent formatting throughout this series of games.—Bagumba (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • So add the navigation to the generic template. Or use a succession box. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I have no problem if {{Infobox baseball game}} is made into that "generic template" to eliminate duplicate code, but {{Infobox MLB All-Star Game}} should remain as a convenience wrapper. Also, if one looks at a sample transclusion e.g. 2015 Major League Baseball All-Star Game, wikilinks like "Television", "TV announcers", "Radio", and "Radio announcers" currently point to MLB All-Star game specific article. This type of customization is better abstracted through this template, shielding the editor from formatting details and ensuring uniformity across articles in the series. In the future, such refactoring can be done without a TfD if backwards compatibility is assured.—Bagumba (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Those links are i) badly constructed, per WP:EGG and ii) in any case not necessary. TfD is th usual forum for discussions such as this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I have no preference on whether those links stay or not per WP:EGG. However, standardized naming conventions and pre-formatting navigation links for editors is enough reason to not delete. Eggs and such might be better discussed outside of a TfD and with domain expertise and wider participation at WikiProject Baseball. I'd like to reiterate that if a wrapper provided the exact functionality and was reliably tested, I don't see where we need the bureaucracy of TfDs for these types of merges.—Bagumba (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Add navigation functionality to {{Infobox baseball game}} and delete per nom. Alakzi (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I would type out my thoughts, but realize that I would just be repeating almost exactly what Bagumba said. No reason to delete. Go Phightins! 17:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am not opposed to a merge/wrap, but the existing functionality must be preserved per Bagumba. It's not the purpose of TfD to dictate the substantive content of infoboxes, especially when such data is pertinent to the subject. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wrapper to be found in the sandbox. Alakzi (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bagumba: Please take a look-see at Alakzi's handiwork. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't doubt that a wrapper can be done, and have complete confidence in Alakzi's skills. For WikiProject Baseball, I think anyone that wanted to merge and retain a template as a wrapper could just create some representative test cases with side-by-side comparison for quick evaluation. If no functionality was lost, it'd be approved w/o need for TfD bureaucracy.—Bagumba (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Wild Card[edit]

Redundant to {{Infobox baseball game}}. Used on only 6 articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep The template is used so little because the round of the playoffs it represents is only 3 years old (4 if you count the yet-to-happen 2015 editions). TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 08:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • This does not address the redundancy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Because there is no redundancy, go look at the two templates in use. You will see that they are coded entirely differently and are used differently. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 19:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
        • "Redundancy" is not a synonym for "identical code". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
          • No one said it did. I said the templates are coded different so they act different. They're two entirely different templates with two almost entirely different purposes. They only thing they have in common is the sport. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 19:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It's an annual game, so it also has built-in navigation to the previous and next year's games. With some tinkering, I'd imagine it can invoke {{Infobox baseball game}} to get most of its functionality, but this should remain, if only as a wrapper to provide a simplified UI and consistent formatting throughout this series of games.—Bagumba (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Add navigation functionality to {{Infobox baseball game}} and delete per nom. Alakzi (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • A possibility, but see Bagumba's comments below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep MLB changed the playoffs like three years ago; this will have more use as time goes on ... again, no reason to delete. Go Phightins! 17:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • One addition per year is very low traffic; but in any case the redundancy alone, regardless of the low use, justifies deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
      • There's two uses a year. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 21:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
      • No problem if {{Infobox baseball game}} is made into a generic template, and this turns into a wrapper. However, there is no reason to delete this when it saves editors from some customization, not to mention it ensures uniformity by removing some level of human error from all transclusions.—Bagumba (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I endorse Bagumba's comment above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Canadian politics/party colours/histogram[edit]

I refactored this to create the more generic {{Composition histogram}}. suggest history merging it with that template. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • notifying User:The Tom. Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all User:Frietjes has done a brilliant job of unifying all the templates and taking them out of subspace so that a shorter name and easier to find template can be used across many more disciplines.68.148.186.93 (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:FIFA Confederations Cup finalists template[edit]

a template that links non-useful templates. not used on any article... Koppapa (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:PlaneFreak Studios[edit]

Textbook WP:NENAN. Well, not so textbook. Only used in one user's userspace to navigate between WP:FAKEARTICLEs. —Keφr 08:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

EGAFD and BGAFD templates[edit]

The websites (http://www.egafd.com/) and http://www.bgafd.co.uk) haven't been accessible since June 1st and there functions are redundant as Template:Afdb name, Template:Afdb movie, Template:IAFD name and Template:IAFD movie serve the same purpose. WikiU2013 (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Depends.
  • "Male name" could be deleted: not/seldom used, plus egafd/bgafd just have succinct info about males, by choice.
  • "Movie" templates seem not/seldom used. May be redundant with other templates.
  • For female templates, egafd/bgafd are NOT redundant with other sites. Being European-only, they often provide more complete info for European actresses/films, plus unique self-compiled photo galleries illustrating physical characteristics. The info presentation is very different than on iafd and afdb, and then there is/was the forum area and a more open and easy way of contributing and interacting with editors for anyone interested. It's a real shame the sites are down given the amount of unique info found there, especially for old/European titles. There's been a claim by the site owners (and great hope from users) that the sites will be up again in the future, but for now we have the not-quite-up-to-date-but-still-useful web archives.
It would be a shame to drop links to such a great database. A site being down is in itself not a good reason to drop its support entirely; references to archived versions can be useful too, and you can't simply drop links where they're used to source facts in articles. And, if we drop afdb too, we'll have to rely on imdb (very incomplete info for porn) and iafd (American releases only, and, by the way, a ridiculous practice of altering movie names (and so often their meaning, in French for instance) by always dropping the starting determinant -- a very bad thing to do for a reliable database).
To summarize my pov, keep only egafd_name and bgafd_name. They point to an information mine on European actresses not found elsewhere (i.e. American sites). -- 83.101.43.209 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep unless the websites don't come back. In no way are these templates redundant. As the IP editor wrote, the databases at BGAFD and EGAFD include many people and films not covered by AFDB and IAFD. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - The Wikipedia Pornography Project has maintained for quite some time that both the British Girl Adult Film Database and the European Girl Adult Film Database include European adult films, which are often not covered by other databases, and that both their filmographies are reliable. They can continue to be useful even if the websites themselves never come back online, as their information has apparently been archived online. While I've rarely come across the use of "Egafd male name", "Egafd movie", and "Bgafd movie" templates in Wikipedia articles, that doesn't mean that they serve no use at all. Guy1890 (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Baby games[edit]

Fails WP:NAVBOX 1,3,4.

None of the articles are strictly baby games. It currently holds 4 articles tenuously related to "baby game" whatever the definition. And lastly, and most importantly, we don't have an article "baby game" that can satisfy WP:NAVBOX 1 and WP:NAVBOX 3.68.148.186.93 (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Nursery rhymes[edit]

A category for nursery rhymes and list of nursery rhymes already exist. The navbox is redundant and useless since it is a duplicate of the list. Further subcategories such as the current "counting rhymes" are useless and pointless as nursery rhymes have too many overlapping characteristics. In addition, this does not aid in navigation and the nursery rhymes are unrelated except for the fact that they are nursery rhymes, hence the existence of list of nursery rhymes and the rightful deletion of this template.68.148.186.93 (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep The category and list article may exist, but navboxes serve to navigate you to other related articles quickly. Nominator hasn't given a proper reason to delete. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 22:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per WP:CLN, since the template does not provide navigation value in addition to the category or the list--a navigation template should organize the information differently and at the moment it's not. --Izno (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • That's a reason to keep it and do some work on it to organize it, not to delete it. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 20:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
No, that is a reason to delete due to duplicity and redundancy. Additionally, the protocol that you request is the fact that it fails WP:NAVBOX 1.68.148.186.93 (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
No, that's lazy editing what you're advocating. "Why fix it when I can just TfD it?" TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 22:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
What is there to fix? Its a hodgepodge of nursery rhymes where they have no connection with each other. This is strictly what we are not supposed to do per WP:CLN.68.148.186.93 (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

July 24[edit]

Template:Adventist Academies US[edit]

Large template that is more appropriate as a list page and/or category, per guidelines. torri2(talk/contribs) 21:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Children's ball games[edit]

Redundant to and fully included in {{children's games}}68.148.186.93 (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Chicago Sky seasons[edit]

This template is included in the template {{Chicago Sky}} and is redundant. Pink Fae (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

July 23[edit]

Template:Professional wrestling in Korea[edit]

Orphaned navbox whose linked articles have all been deleted as non-notable. Does not meet WP:NAVBOX #4. — Earwig talk 20:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Changwon City FC squad[edit]

Non-notable squad. Only links one article. Sawol (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Men Universe Model[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G6 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 16:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Unused navigation template. All of the article links have been deleted. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 23 July 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.

July 22[edit]

Template:VaughanWatch[edit]

Non-standard sockpuppet template used for only one user. Has been switched to the standard template with no loss in functionality, and should be subst'd and deleted. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nominator's rationale.Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Guinot-MaryCohrBox9[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 G2 by CactusWriter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 04:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Template created in 2012 but not used anywhere. Wolbo (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • speedy delete, test page. Frietjes (talk) 16:38, 22 July 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:Miscellanea essay[edit]

(And upmerge associated category, Category:Wikipedia essays on miscellanea.) Redundant and only used on 3 or 4 essays. Just replace with {{Essay}} or another more specific essay tag that is actually used.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

July 21[edit]

Template:Uw-vgoblock[edit]

No use of template was found in text search results. Also rarely updated. Eyesnore 16:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment has ARBCOM been informed of the deletion nomination? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: is there any reason why ARBCOM should be informed? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find any evidence that this template has ever been used, nor is there any reason why it should be needed, as its purpose can be adequately served by other block templates. (It scarcely takes any effort to type in a mention of "grossly offensive vandalism" when posting a block notice, if any administrator ever wishes to do so.) The fact that it is not kept up to date is probably because nobody uses it, so nobody takes any notice of it. Having a template around with inaccurate information is potentially harmful, as it could one day be used, and mislead someone. Obviously, we could just update it now, but since it is not likely to then be kept up to date, it will be better to simply delete it. (This template was created by an editor who retired from Wikipedia three and a half years ago. The editor created numerous block-notice related templates, few of which added anything worthwhile to existing templates, and none of which has, as far as I can see, ever been used to any significant extent. Some of them were deleted years ago.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I imagine the old email address still redirects to the new one so I dont see that as a problem. But I updated it anyway. Is it really harmful to let near-duplicate templates stay? Arent we supposed to be discouraging using templates altogether in favor of individually worded messages? Soap 14:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - JBW sums it up nicely. No reason to take care of something that no one is using. I didn't know it existed, I just type in the reasons myself. We already have too many unused or underused templates. Dennis Brown - 14:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Week Delete purely on the basis that the template has existed since August 9, 2010, and appears to never have been used.Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)‎

Template:Afdb name[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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Advertising for a commercial/vendor site. While this site may have been a legitimste resource when the template was created about a decade ago, it's now just a porn vendor site selling dvds and video-on-demand services. We don't even link to Amazon author pages; there's no reason to have a template facilitating buying/renting porn video from a particular vendor, just because it allows the customer to search by performer. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. There's no reason to delete a template just because it "facilitates buying/renting porn video from a particular vendor". Afdb still has more the appearance and function of an information database than that of an advertising site selling stuff, and can still be a good source of information; furthermore it may also have been used to reference facts in articles. Just deciding to delete the template and deface articles just because someone has decided the site has suddenly become a "porn vendor site" that's profiting from Wikipedia is certainly not the way to go. Remember that vendors are perfectly allowed to profit from Wikipedia anyway by freely reusing its content (with proper credits of course). -- 83.101.43.209 (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Begs the question: How is internet movie database different from adult film database?68.148.186.93 (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • keep, seems no worse than the IMDb template. if the site is banned as an external link, then yes delete the template, but if the site is not banned, seems like a good idea use a template for linking to it. Frietjes (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Also Keep - important and relevant information (especially the revealing video interview). Davidkt 07:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - The Adult Film Database has long been considered by the Pornography Project to be reliable for its filmographies. Guy1890 (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Guy1890. --– jfsamper (talkcontribemail) 02:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, after a quick check the source seems to be regarded as reasonably acceptable by the the Wikiproject whose article base probably uses the template the most. (also more generally per WP:NOTCENSORED).Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:13, 28 July 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:Anwar Masood[edit]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete One parent article and a poem are the only links in the template.68.148.186.93 (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, not enough working links. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Pan American Games Futsal[edit]

No consensus at the previous discussion. Only one blue link and no changes following the previous discussion. Someone really needs to explain how this is a useful aid to navigation if this is to be kept. Fenix down (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - There is no need for a two-link navbox, but especially where the links are parent article and specific instance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment according to Futsal at the Pan American Games it has only been played at one Games -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, not enough working links. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as rarely used and updated. Only two transclusions. Eyesnore 14:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:New Orleans Highways[edit]

Per past precedent shown in the discussions here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here these sorts of templates have been judged to be redundant to the appropriate article categories, and because these navboxes distort the "What links here" results. Imzadi 1979  05:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

July 20[edit]

Template:Andrew Kooman[edit]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - I haven't ever heard of three links being insufficient for a navbox. Surely this navbox provides useful navigation between these three articles. Neelix (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
There's plenty of precedent, and even an essay, WP:NENAN. With just two works links, navbox is unnecessary. In this case, the author's article will refer to both the works articles, and each works article will refer to the author, so if the two works articles do not refer to one another, all that is needed is a link to each in the "See also" section. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Imre Kertész[edit]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

July 18[edit]

Template:Kansas City Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actor[edit]

All related articles were deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kansas City Film Critics Circle (2nd nomination), including Kansas City Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actor, Kansas City Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actress, and Kansas City Film Critics Circle which gives the award. The navboxes are placed on actors who in all examined cases already have a big bunch of navboxes for more notable awards. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:ArticleOTRS[edit]

This was created for use on articles, not article talk pages. When it is being used, this is being used redundantly to Template:ConfirmationOTRS on article talk pages, but it is not adequate to that purpose, as it doesn't include even a parameter for the license. While image OTRS tags do not require a license parameter, text OTRS tags *do*. When I listed this, it was transcluded to 9 pages. I am converting the talk page usages (which are incorrect) to the standard talk template (current transclusion count: 2914), which includes all necessary information. Where it is used in articles, it can and should be replaced by Template:CCBYSASource and Template:Dual. We do not need the OTRS information on the article face itself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

  • After removing the incorrect uses of this from article talk space (and some of them were very incorrect, as the content had not been licensed at all), there's one page that's using it somewhat correctly - and it's using it in lieue of the talk space notice rather than in addition to, so the agent who used it has in all good faith failed to identify the license anyway. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment do we have a sourcing template to place in the source/references/citations/footnotes section to indicate sourcing like {{EB1911}} or {{FOLDOC}} ? It would occur to me, that all articles should have such attributions in the source/refs/etc... section on the article page, since it is the source of the information. The OTRS ticket link itself can be placed on the talk page template, but the source itself needs to be indicated on the article page -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, we do - we have a ton of attribution templates at Category:Attribution templates. In the case of OTRS content, we have {{Dual}} and {{CCBYSASource}}. These generically indicate the license of the source and providing proper attribution. These should be used in all cases where content is imported from external sites by someone other than the author. We do not have to use them when the person placing the content is the owner of the external site. In that case, citations may be to the sources utilized by the author and the author's attribution is in the edit history, just as any other contributor's would be. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Recent changes in WikiProject Chemistry[edit]

Delete: code fork, confusing and no improvement. The template is created as a code copy from the original {{Recent changes in WikiProject Chemistry}} Template:Recent changes in Chemistry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) (compare). It is thereby redundant. Edit history shows that the similarity was intented (more below) to evade cooperation. The fact that the content list (a short list of pages) was altered slightly does not deny that. Also, the new name is posing right next to thew original name, thereby adding to the confusion. I note that slight code changes (different list) do not alter the aim of the template. The creation, and the preliminary edits were discussed (see below).

Note: I mistyped the name for the original one. I corrected (struck my error). I apologize. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Background and preliminary edits:

1. Christian75, who created the copy, first changed content to which I opposed [3]. By this, including the editsummary, the editor knew their edit was controversial.

2. Notwithstanding, one hour later, the editor proceeded to move the template to the opposed name [4].

3. Right with this, the original code was copy/pasted back into the original name (by then a redirect after the Move). So primarily, this was a code forking, secondary, this removed the history/attribution of the original (mostly my edits). I had this undiscussed move reverted, and the editor was explained not to mess with history this way [5] [6]. At this moment, everything should be clean & correct.

4. Next step, the editor created this template with the code copied (I now propose to delete).

As for the confusion by the name, note that first there are two projects WP:CHEMICALS and WP:CHEMISTRY, which are confusing and related (one is a sub topic of the other). This confusion is in the earlier edits. Then the newly created name has "WikiProject" injected, which adds nothing but confusion. I note that the original name fits a series of similar names in Category:Recent changes boxes. The name pattern nicely allows for automated template creation.

None of these edits, all in the pattern of forking, were preceded by any talk. Instead, the repetitive inroads to have it their way in whatever way shows that the editor is not open for constructive communication. DePiep (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

comment About the link you link to[7]: Chemicals belongs to WikiProject Chemicals and should in general be discussed there. Therefore, I changed the wiki link, but you reverted it with the reason "[...] won't have to do with WP Chemicals anyway)" - its not user space. I moved the template to the right name (chemicals), and used the old name (chemistry) for WikiProject Chemistry articles and with attribution to the other template on the talk page. You say "that the editor is not open for constructive communication" - not correct; I have answered you here, and before that, it didnt take you long time to report it at WP:ANI (where I have explained why; but you didnt comment it with anything but saying "Wikilawyering" and your first statement again; and then you "report" it here - but you didnt comment on WP:ANI first). Btw. your comment about chemistry/chemicals are confusing, its like if I wanted the Rugby and American football projects merged, because its "the same" and confusing Christian75 (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
You should have started a talk full stop. Now you reconstruct your replies (that's replies, see: never an original, opening post!) as if you wanted to discuss. But nowhere you did start one and all were closed opinions. Now to save yourself, you blame me for posting at WP:ANI (what was the outcome then?). You even create a loaded argument out of my editsummary me to use against me: that is BF, Christiaan75. -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • keep The name has the same prefix as the other recent changes[8] - and it covers all articles in the WikiProject Chemistry as the name of the template tells you. {{Recent changes in Chemistry}} has close to zero of the articles in WikiProject Chrmistry. I suggest we rename {{Recent changes in Chemistry}} to {{Recent changes in Chemicals}}. The chemicals are covered by two WikiProjects, WikiProject Chemicals and for drugs also WikiProject Drugs. Please explain why the two name WP:Chemicals and WP:Chemistry are confusing. Christian75 (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
re The name has the same prefix ...: no, the copy template does not follow the existing name pattern. See the category mentioned & explained in the nomination.
re as the name of the template tells you: yes, the original name tells so. Here you are admitting you are enforcing a name change again (a Move, this time by forking), not a new template. That is deletable then. I can add, after earlier edits listed (also trying to enforce a name change), this too supports the "enforce without talking" attitude.
re it covers... — so does the original template (Just look at the name. Or read the background. Or a-s-k the creator). In your wrecking edit actions (listed), you have not once asked or proposed a change. Even this post is not constructive by that.
And no, I don't feel the need to answer your question you only bring up now, after your editwarring chaos and non-talking (a closed question actually, that is: self-serving). Now that it has arrived on TfD, this is no place or time to invent a sort of "discussion" that should have been at the start.
You do not have consensus to "merge" chemicals and chemistry, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#What_is_this_talking_here. You started an ANI, but do not want to comment :-([9]. Christian75 (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
To be clear: nowhere is says is established that the original template is restricted to certain WikiProject exclusions or inclusions. Such a misconception must have been injected by Christiaan75. It could have been established in any early talk. -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe not, but you didnt want a link to the correct WikiProject:[10] "[...] yes is wHAT i SAID: CHEMISTRY IS A SUB (AND A CONFUSED ONE). i MAINTAIN THIS NAME, MY CHOICE" Christian75 (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
re this one is clearly intended for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Chemistry: that's the point. It's a functional copy. You can see the intention of the original template by looking at its title, by reading anything on its background (e.g., in this thread for starters), or by asking the creator.
re template names mentioned: as written, these are breaking naming pattern. This is not the place to propose name change, and of course name pattern changes can not be enforced from individual issues.
re Chemistry vs Chemicals: since, indeed, chemicals are withing chemistry (both in RL and in WP), it is OK to have them together in one list. If someone wants to propose splitting, that should be done elsewhere, not here and not in a TfD. Anyway, such a split is not part of the topic. (It follows that elsewhere I would oppose it, were it properly proposed). -DePiep (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, see WP:BOLD. And I do not see anything wrong with having a separate one for Chemicals vs. Chemistry, as I suggested. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Claiming BOLD to excuse a one-sided edit war: not for me. After that, you did not address one of my points. -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I clearly mistyped the original template name in my nom post (now struck & corrected). The replies do support the intended understanding. Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I still support my suggestion: Though now, remove the links regarding recent changes in pages with drugboxes and chemboxes and move them to {{Recent changes in Chemicals}}, as those are, as the name of that template suggests, recent changes in chemicals, and leave the rest in {{Recent changes in Chemistry}}, as that is covered by the WikiProject Chemistry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I already answered this, see re Chemistry vs Chemicals, and also wrt original name & intention.
I can add that this is not what the 'creator' (copypasting editor) intended, both by all battle-attitude edits and by responses, even in this thread (see above). For cleanup and clean start, deletion is needed. I am also not willing to have this series of untalked controversial battle-edits rewarded. -DePiep (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep: - So what, we are not a bureaucracy - WP:SOFIXIT is better than deletion, after all we are a collaborative project. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree, we are not a bureaucracy. So I keep asking: why did you nor Chris75 ever enter a Talk? -DePiep (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Below, above, left and right: your fellow "keep" editor friend keeps creating havoc [11]. And does not agree with your outcome.-DePiep (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep: There is no obligation to first talk, it is only considered good form. You on the other hand implement changes without waiting for discussion, and ignoring concerns. That is all within WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. There is no need to discuss when improving (or even making worse) something that another editor has implemented, that editor does not WP:OWN the content, and it can be mercilessly edited to whatever form. And I think it is an improvement that was implemented. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It was not a copypast edit. I moved the template (template:Recent changes in Chemistry → template:Recent changes in Chemicals) to the correct name, and created a new one (template:Recent changes in Chemistry) (based on the old one, with contribution on the talk page). All "recent changes" templates are for one wikiproject but {{Recent changes in Chemistry}} which are for three. I tried to add WikiProject Chemicals to "Recent changes in Chemistry", but you reverted (again), see [12]. In matter of fact you have merged the two templates before the TfD was closed Christian75 (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
And that solution you boldly implemented, Christian75, is the solution that needs to be re-implemented: {{Recent changes in Chemistry}} for the chemistry excluding chemicals, and {{Recent changes in Chemicals}} for all chemicals. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Not 'boldly', but battling without discussion. Anyway, chemistry includes chemicals, and whatever 180 degree construction you invent, there is no reason to have the copy replace the original. Is what this TfD is about. -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
No, the discussion is about that you want the two templates merged (and the projects merged too). Of course its a copy; I didnt have to reinvent the wheel, like {{Recent changes in Chemistry}} is a copy of {{recent changes in Anatomy}} which is a copy of one of the other recent changes in template. But the content of the templates are changed. I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Lists of pages/Chemistry articles which wasnt covered in "your" version of the template. Christian75 (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep: Yes, boldly. You edited something, someone else changed it, tried to improve on it. You reverted that, you reverted something that certainly was not vandalism or bad faith or utterly wrong, you started reverting to your preferred version, you reverted a bold edit just because you did not want the changes that were implemented. That is what started the battle. And that is a pattern that I see with you throughout. WikiProject Chemicals is about chemicals, WikiProject Chemistry is about all the rest, plus WikiProject Chemicals (though the part that is handled by WikiProject Chemicals is generally 'excluded' from WikiProject Chemicals). Hence, the better solution is the one that Christian75 tried to set up, {{Recent changes in Chemicals}} linking to changes in chemicals, and {{Recent changes in Chemistry}} about everything regarding chemistry excluding what is covered by the {{Recent changes in Chemicals}}. The original was called Chemistry, and covered only Chemicals, and moving that one to the correct name was very appropriate, as was making a new copy then of the Chemistry version covering the rest per Christian75's suggestion. Exactly what you wanted to discuss here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Other Names-Mohammed Ashraf[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G6 by Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 07:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This page doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete not a real template, just holding some set text that is much shorter than the template name. (NOTE the article using this is up for deletion, so if it is deleted, this could be deleted as unused) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per G6. 2 words does not a template make68.148.186.93 (talk) 06:01, 19 July 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.

July 16[edit]

Template:Trisha Paytas[edit]

Only three articles in the body that link are all songs that she covered that give no mention of her whatsoever. The pages linked in the header of the template link to three different articles, a discography (which is likely to be merged), a filmography, and a bibliography, all at different sections. Not really notable overall for need of a template. Azealia911 talk 21:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, we can use standard "see also" and {{main}} links. Frietjes (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Manchester Didsbury Metrolink[edit]

Unused template superseded by Template:Manchester Didsbury Metrolink line Delsion23 (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, looks like it's just a wrapper for the other template anyway. might be useful to merge the early history. Frietjes (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

July 15[edit]

Caribbean Cup Templates[edit]

Consensus is that we should only create squad templates for major tournaments like the World Cup, Confederations Cup, UEFA Euro, Gold Cup, etc. The Caribbean Cup is not a major tournament. – Michael (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - A second tier continental competition, which now forms part of the qualifying tournament for the Gold Cup. Not required per consensus, an element of which can be seen here. Fenix down (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment - Technically third tier as the continental competitions act as qualifying tournaments for the FIFA Confederations Cup! :). I don't care if most are deleted but I would prefer to see those templates belong to the team that won the competition kept. TheBigJagielka (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • delete the ones for non-championship winning squads, and indifferent for the rest. Frietjes (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete non-champion roster templates per Frietjes' comment above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all as above. GiantSnowman 17:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete immediately as above. JackHoang (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:RfA closed[edit]

Unused, deprecated template. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Lancashire County Palatine[edit]

This could be interpreted as a WP:POVFORK, attempting to treat "historic Lancashire" as a separate, parallel entity to "Lancashire", which is against WP:UKCOUNTIES guidelines. The template is somewhat confusing in that it is mixing modern-day elements within the ceremonial county boundaries with elements within the historic county boundaries. And it is cherry-picking Lancashire-related topics to support a particular POV. We already have a {{Lancashire}} template. There has been a brief discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography § County Palatine of Lancaster.  Dr Greg  talk  19:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom and the linked section at ukgeo. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete for reasons given by the nominator and in the discussion at ukgeo.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete, per discussion at ukgeo, serves no useful purpose. J3Mrs (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Historical Lancashire is a separate, parallel entity to ceremonial Lancashire in the UK. If the WP:UKCOUNTIES guidelines recognizes both as being the same, the guidelines are incorrect with need for a review.2.217.52.199 (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox SMS station[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox SMS station with Template:Infobox station.
The first template seems to be redundant as the second one can be used to represent the same information. It can also be used to improve the representation of the information and also creates a uniformity between different transit systems in South Korea (ie with Korail stations and metro systems in other cities) and overall globally, thus makes it easier for readers to track information down. Examples as such can be seen in the following links:

Nima Farid (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete (not too sure what's being proposed here). This template served a purpose when I first created it, but I've got no problem with consolidating infoboxes. PC78 (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge with embedding functionality for multiple stations. Alakzi (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • merge Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge with embedding functionality. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Xfce and Template:LXDE[edit]

Also brought up at Template talk:Xfce, Template talk:LXDE, these two templates doesn't seem on navbox purpose and listing would be more appropriate IMO. Otherwise we should create navbox for Gnome, KDE and every DE available Category:Desktop environments and why we limit to DEs? So it would be possible to make such thing for distros using systemd or udev or other low level or high level software which leads to a mess. –ebraminiotalk 17:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep This nav box provides a much neater and more concise means of listing distros that offer this desktop, as described on the talk page. It also allows the use of this nav box on the listed distros pages, thus allowing readers to find similar distros that offer this desktop. A list on the article page would not offer this functionality. The fact that other non-existent nav boxes could be created but haven't, is not relevant to this discussion. The nominator has not indicated any Wikipedia policy that this nav box offends and so this nom is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    Good point. WP:NAVBOX, 2 (not *every*, Arch Linux and there are other ones), 3 (it is about what level of the relation you see this should be, if you see distros offering X DE need a navbox, relatively big amount of each page will be occupied with navboxes. If the template was about distros offering X DE as default DE it could make more sense on this case and for 5) and 5 (which is not, linking FreeBSD to Arch Linux was unlikely just because they both offering X DE) and also WP:OR, is X DE community level provided (like AUR or FreeBSD Ports) or is also supported by distro maintainers or the package developers? You may know that but I don't know and this as its sensitively needs to WP:VERIFY-able which easily can be done on a list WP:AOAL if someone mark the part for being {{citation needed}}. –ebraminiotalk 10:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I think the idea that just because we have nav boxes on distros that offer LXDE and Xfce that we have to therefore have nav boxes on distros that offer every other desktop is fundamentally a fallacious argument. No where does Wikipedia policy require that if we have "X" navbox, we have to therefore also have "Y" nav box. The number of distros that offer LXDE and Xfce are quite limited and so this makes these particularly well adapted to this sort of small nav box. Are the boxes complete at present? Probably not, but a lack of them being complete is not a valid reason to delete them. Which distros to include or exclude from the nav box should be sorted out on the template talk page, not in a deletion discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
And you seem doing straw man fallacy by commenting just about one of the reasons mentioned. –ebraminiotalk 15:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: It is hardly a "straw man" argument when you listed it as one of the reasons you nominated the templates for deletion. Because you did so, it requires addressing. You put forward a hypothetical problem of requiring other more cumbersome boxes based on these two, but those boxes have not been created, let alone nominated for deletion and thus not up for discussion here. - Ahunt (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per nom, navbox creep. Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Arbitrary lists of distros not otherwise related. —Keφr 18:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

July 14[edit]

Track listings[edit]

Per previous precedent (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 19#Template:Heretic Pride tracks, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 11#Template:The Sunset Tree tracks, and probably others), pseudonavigational templates for track listings is not an aid to editing.96.52.0.249 (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox station/Header Korail[edit]

Overkill; we don't need custom headers per service. The parameters are redundant to {{Infobox station}}'s |name=, |native_name=, |code= and |lines=. Alakzi (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. That raises a broader question: Infobox station supports a style parameter, which enables similar functionality without a separate template (see e.g. Smithtown (LIRR station) and Poughkeepsie (Metro-North station). The headers were needed for more complicated use cases, and at least in the case of the CTA were originally implemented in 2006-2007 or so when the manual templates were converted to Infoboxes. If styling is going, then it all needs to go. If not, then these templates should be kept. Strictly speaking we don't need anything, but absent any other rationale I sort of like them. Mackensen (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • For the case of Korail and SMS, this is a nice way of showing the concept of station numbers. No other way can do that in my opinion. The name shields and their uniqueness is also comparable to road number shields and rectangular boxes. It's one of the features distinguishing different systems from each other. Nima Farid (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Athenian name plates are as unique as road numbers. Without them there would be no distinction to which transit system it belongs, since there is also a Victoria station in many other countries. --Marianian(talk) 20:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There are several issues with these, including the loss of the name metadata, tables for layout, which is a big accessibility no-no, WP:COLOR violations, the utterly unappealing design - with the exception of CTA - and the maintenance burden they incur on template editors. I'm not going to fix any of these issues, and it is probably safe to assume that you don't know how. If it can't be done with |style=, then it probably shouldn't be done at all. Alakzi (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
    • "...you don't know how". The arrogance. What right do you have to speak of other editors in that way? Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Alakzi's reasoning. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • As someone who deals with the CTA pages, I have to say keep, unless some kind of an alternative can be devised which produces the same result without adding a tome's worth of style information to each infobox. Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Are you !voting to keep all of them or just CTA? Alakzi (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Picking and choosing individuals would work against the move toward simplicity and uniformity, both of which I support. My vote is to keep all unless (or until) some kind of an alternative can be devised which produces the same result without adding a tome's worth of style information to each infobox. Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
        • @Lost on Belmont: This is a proposal to remove these headers entirely; no "tome's worth of style information" would be added to any article. It's all good if you wanna !vote keep because you like the way they look, but do start with addressing any number of the issues I raised above. Alakzi (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Having overly decorative sub-templates like these works against simplicity and uniformity, not toward it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Alakzi, your proposal states that you're looking to remove the templates that produce this result, not the result itself. I've already addressed your issues. You specify that the templates are redundant to certain parameters. Okay, fine. I'll agree that the headers are effectively decoration for the name parameter. My vote was clearly keep unless/until this can be reproduced using |name=, |style=, etc. Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all. There isn't really a need to show line information or station number in the header; those can be displayed more clearly (and in less of a decorative manner) in the rest of the infobox. If the templates are all kept, then change the display of all of them to use <div>s and correct name metadata (and move all usages in |name= to |custom_header=). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Australian political navboxes[edit]

Redudant to long standing state based navboxes: {{Current New South Wales Representatives}} {{Current Victoria Representatives}} {{Current Queensland Representatives}} {{Current Western Australia Representatives}} {{Current South Australia Representatives}} {{Current Tasmania Representatives}} {{Current Australian Capital and Northern Territory Representatives}}. Refer to discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Navboxes. Ianblair23 (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per comments on WikiProject talk. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

July 13[edit]

Template:Miss Universe China[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. — Earwig talk 22:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

only links two articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Alakzi (talk) 15:59, 13 July 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:Iran Squad 2015 FIVB Volleyball World League[edit]

non-notable squad. World League is an annually tournament and this is just a roster from one of the matches and this team could not make it to the final six. similar situation as Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 1#Template:Iran Squad 2013 FIVB Volleyball World League. Mohsen1248 (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete--SaməkTalk 19:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. There are ample precedents that team roster navboxes should be restricted to teams in major championships, and in most cases, to the champion teams only (although exceptions exist). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Board games[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAVBOX, specifically 1, 2, 3, 596.52.0.249 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

why?96.52.0.249 (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nominator. This navbox fails the basic criteria that make up a good navbox. --Izno (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • move to {{Board game awards}}. Frietjes (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
That would make the template fail 4 of WP:NAVBOX. There is no way around this except for deletion.96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
see List of board game awards Frietjes (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
But is it necessary? I think not. Is it redundant to the category system? I think so. None of the board game awards are related to each other. Why make a navbox when they are not related by association but by categorization?96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
All navboxes are unnecessary, but we keep them because they are useful. you don't think it's useful. I think it's useful. it's all just opinion at this point. Frietjes (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The line is drawn through the relationship between linked articles. It would be creep to navboxes for every topic simply because they are trivially related, as in this case.68.148.186.93 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
List of board game awards is a redirect to List of Game of the Year awards (board games), which is about a specific type of board game awards. Alakzi (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - grab bag navbox, better served by a category. Alakzi (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Read more top[edit]

Redundant to {{Collapse}} and {{Hidden}}. Alakzi (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep. Not redundant; there's a movement to make those unusable in article space.--Elvey(tc) 16:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
(a) Yes, it is redundant, irrespective of any "movement"; it's performs the exact same function as the other two templates. (b) The movement must've got long claws, because their aim is - in fact - part of the MOS. (c) Did you think that said movement's adherents would care what the template is called? Alakzi (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Please watch your tone. Please don't misrepresent the MOS like that, as I just noted elsewhere. It is usable where the others are not. --Elvey(tc) 17:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for interested in this template. It was originally created to resolve the issue of too long captions on an article "Mandolin" (see an example; this issue was discussed on the talk page), although I didn't yet reflect it on the article due to the several reasons; a major reason is that all templates using css class "collapsibleCollapsedTH" (including {{Hidden}} (protected), {{Collapse}} (semi-protected), and the current version of {{Read more}} (editable)) are not workable on the mobile view. (cf. desktop view)
I think this issue (unsupport of mobile view) should be resolved with more simple way such as css selector :target or similar technique, instead of jQuery-based implementation currently used. However I don't know how to propose it on the Wikipedia jungle, thus the improvement of this template have been temporally pending. If you want to delete this template, probably it may be rational. However, this template may be later re-created with a more sophisticated code & behavior. thanks, --Clusternote (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC), [improved major reason]--Clusternote (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I added template links to the other templates nominated. --Izno (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:COLLAPSE for its uses in article space, redundancy with other templates outside of article space. --Izno (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, duplicates {{hidden}} / {{hidden begin}} / {{hidden end}}. Frietjes (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, because other similar templates ({{Hidden}}, and {{Collapse}} families) are hard to improve the behavior on the Mobile View pages (because jQuery used on these templates is intentionally filtered on Mobile frontend). We need useful testbed templates ({{Read more}} family) to resolve this problem (support on Mobile View page). --Clusternote (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Law & Order: LA[edit]

Not enough linkable pages to justify a navbox. All links can be included within the prose of the article or a "See also" section. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 08:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • keep, connects more than 5 articles. Frietjes (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

July 8[edit]

Template:1967aflwest[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deleteOpabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned template Ricky81682 (talk) 10:11, 8 July 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:14th Lok Sabha members from Andhra Pradesh[edit]

Orphaned template Ricky81682 (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Astronomical institutions in Taiwan[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 on the provision that it is converted into a simple navbox. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned template Ricky81682 (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

thank you for the maintanance. I am adding the template into those astronomical institutions in Taiwan so it won't be orphaned template anymore. --Liang (WMTW) (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It's still not a particular good template. It'd be better as text than a hotlinked map. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment That's a horrible template. It should not have a hotlink map, if it is to be a navtemplate it should be simply links, and not a map. A hotlink map should only appear in the List of astronomical institutions in Taiwan or somesuch article. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, or replace with a simple navbox with a simple list. Frietjes (talk) 21:11, 14 July 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:Anna 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 redirectOpabinia regalis (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned template. Current usage is of Template:Anna University's Campuses. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  • delete or redirect. appears to have been created by the same author, probably by mistake (given the similarity). Frietjes (talk) 14:04, 16 July 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:Professional wrestling in South Africa[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. — Earwig talk 20:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Navbox with just two links. ...William 10:02, 8 July 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:Anne Frank[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. — Earwig talk 21:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned template. Possibly useful as a way to consolidate the templates at Anne Frank: Template:Cultural depictions of Anne Frank and Template:Secret Annex. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:59, 8 July 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:Alaska Marine Highway graphical timeline[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 G2 by Samwalton9 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 15:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned template test I think. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, broken template test. Frietjes (talk) 14:07, 16 July 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:KCFCC Awards Chron[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. MER-C 12:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nominating this navigation template for deletion as I have nominated the entire group of articles associated with this template (related to a non notable award mill) for deletion. The deletion of those articles would deprecate this template. Safiel (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  • keep if the articles are kept, delete if the articles are deleted. Frietjes (talk) 14:08, 16 July 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.

July 4[edit]

Template:Children's games[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 consensus. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Children's games (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

fails WP:OR. Not even the articles children's games, traditional children's games or some combination thereof, exists. No game is strictly a children's game. No game listed at List of traditional children's games can be played only by children.96.52.0.249 (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Baby food can be eaten by adults. Hyacinth (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Again, this is a classic "grab bag" - and we know that articles in a template "should refer to each other to a reasonable extent." This is not the case here. Neutralitytalk 19:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This template is not a list of games. Hyacinth (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep an incomplete navbox doesn't mean it should be deleted, nor does the fact that other things exist (WP:OTHER). Additionally navboxes do not cite references and so I am not sure what "OR" means. I think there is a common place acceptance of what a children's game is. Therefore keep. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • There is no common place acceptance of what a children's game is, otherwise there would be a main article. It fails 4 of WP:NAVBOX: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template."96.52.0.249 (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep; the list of traditional children's games satisfies the proposed requirement that there be an article on the subject. It seems a useful way of navigating among related pages that share a fundamental part of their nature. Granted, it's incomplete, but that's easily remedied. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
    • It doesn't though because the requirement is for an actual article not a list.96.52.0.249 (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • keep, I don't see any policy violation here. Frietjes (talk) 14:27, 6 July 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:Anti-Tamil riots in Sri Lanka[edit]

Template:Anti-Tamil riots in Sri Lanka (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Template is Wikipedia:REDUNDANT as the more relevant and comprehensive Template:Sri Lankan Civil War already exists. Also highly non neutral. Blackknight12 (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, the navbox is better, and we don't need both. Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, the navbox is overloaded with a lot of articles pertaining to Sri Lankan civil war. These pogroms and riots deserve more importance, as three of the four events occur long before the Civil war which coincided with the onset of only the fourth incident of the list. The claim for deletion under non-neutrality (and for a designated template) is absurd while the notion of non-neutrality once again, is another creation of the initiator's imagination to delete articles/lists which don't augur well with his ethnic sentiments.--CuCl2 (chat spy acquaint) 13:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Tentative keep, although I should say I don't know much about the subject so it's hard to judge the neutrality issue. But I don't think redundancy is a good enough reason to delete it: it's more tightly focused than the Civil War template, and there's no reason why we can't have both. I'm not so sure about the inclusion of references in the template, though - is that standard practice? I don't think navboxes are supposed to contain references, surely those belong in the articles. Robofish (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @Robofish: The template doesn't do much but link the events (that are also listed in Template:Sri Lankan Civil War) that led to the war. It is not more tightly focused because if it was the template would have been on the 'Origins' of the war or something, this is just a list. Also a regular template would not need to have such references as its legitimacy would not need to be challenged. The Sri Lankan Civil War template remedies all these issues.--Blackknight12 (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Those arguments are convincing. Changed my view to Delete. Robofish (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Black Lives Matter[edit]

Template:Black Lives Matter (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Much as I support the BLM movement, this template fails NPoV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - nomination fails to explain exactly how the template is NPOV. Every death in this template is referenced in the main article itself. Each death also has a primary and secondary source linking the movement to it. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Placing this navbox at the bottom of shooting articles appears to be WP:UNDUE and perhaps even WP:PROMO; in any case, it fails WP:NAVBOX criterion #2. Alakzi (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: - This can be remedied, although it'll probably be up to me to do it. Give me a few days.... starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Done! All shooting articles updated with connections to Black Lives Matter. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It didn't meet NAVBOX#2 at the time, but now that it does, it certainly meets all 5 (depending on the exact meaning of #3). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Regarding WP:UNDUE, what fringe opinion is being given undue weight by this template? Todd.st (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • What part of WP:UNDUE says it's only applicable to fringe opinion? Alakzi (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • WP:UNDUE is not that big of a section. Would you mind explaining how this policy is violated by the template? Todd.st (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. An activist organisation is formed and goes on to protest events that it opposes. Why is its involvement so profoundly related to the events themselves that we need a navbox to go from one to the next? This organisation's protests are irrelevant to the events discussed in the linked articles; there's no way that this navbox is helpful. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • See also Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates § Proposal to extend WP:CATDEF to navigation templates. Alakzi (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • delete. yes, a list of all protested deaths in the Black Lives Matter article is appropriate. but, we don't need to put a navbox for every activist organization at the foot of every event they protest. Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Frietjes, or trim to only list the actual organization and its founders. An organization navbox should not include a bunch of articles with a lose connection to the organization like something they protested against. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. On the previous TFD I argued for deleting this template as redundant to another one, but that one was deleted, so that argument no longer applies. I previously also thought it was stretching to include too many articles, but looking at it again, all the articles linked do have a strong connection to the BLM movement, and are referenced as such. I think a navigational template is justified in this case. Robofish (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep BLM is a significant movement and these incidents are all related, not only in how the movement has responded to them, but also in the nature of how these things happen in the first place. Furthermore, someone who reads the entirety of Shooting of Walter Scott is highly likely to be interested in, say, Death of Freddie Gray or Death of Sandra Bland, making a navbox highly desirable. – Muboshgu (talk)
  • Keep Per everyone else. This is becoming even more significant with every death that occurs, and it's obvious this phrase will never go away completely. There needs to be something that encompasses this term and all related events and phrases. Might as well be this template. DisuseKid (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • This is not a discussion about the significance of the BLM movement, but of the navbox's compliance with Wikipedia's template standards. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I've changed "Founders" to "Background" with Rodney King and 1992 Los Angeles riots. The "Founders" section is a violation of WP:SOAP as the articles on the people barely meet WP:GNG and including their names is promotional. I've also added Police brutality in the United States to the "Related" section. If these changes stay then I'm happy for the template to stay. If COI editors with undisclosed financial connections to the "founders" edit war to push the names of the founders in then the whole template should be deleted. -- Callinus (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - This template is a recreation of another template that was already deleted. If that is not reason enough to delete this template it also violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. --Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I can get the UNDUE argument, but how does it violate NPOV when all of the included cases are verifiably associated with BLM? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Does not fit a Category due dates can not be displayed in an category. Too less Articles for a category. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 19:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom МандичкаYO 😜 22:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Frietjes as well. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep – per Starship.paint and Robofish. I'm not seeing a violation of NPOV here. I think the nomination is incomplete without this rationale (specifically Starship.paint's argument that there isn't an adequately explained rationale for deletion in the nomination) (maybe I missed it?). Robofish points out substantial cleanup that has gone in to making this a unique resource. However, given the chance, I'd like to give a more nuanced !vote based on additional information that I seem incompetent to obtain. I'd like to know if other protest groups have their issue articles in a Navbox? If someone can point me to examples of either 1) Issue groups that don't have Navboxes for their protests that actually have existent WP articles, but more particularly, 2) Issue groups that do, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, or move to a appropriate name, should one exist, or refactor content a LOT. The people and articles in the template are somewhat related, so maybe there is a good title for a template very much like this one; but I doubt one specific protest movement is the link between them, they don't 'own' the protests over these events, brutality cases are not caused by belonging or supporting or opposing or whatever to BLM. OTOH there may be a template for subjects related to BLM, maybe major actions or key people or successes and failures or ...; but these are not it. So, unless there is a major change, the title does not match the content thus, delete, with nothing against recreation with some other content. - Nabla (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • delete- a nav box for an activist group is essentially an endorsement of their viewpoint. Defintely inconsistant with NPOV. There must certainly be a less biased way to present the same information. Even a title change to something like "Controversies involving Minorities and Law Enforcement" would probably be acceptable, but a Black Lives Matter template is unencyclopedic. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjphill1977 (talkcontribs)

Template:Infobox comrade[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 11:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Newly created, yet redundant to {{Infobox person}} (which it replaced here, and here, for instance) or {{Infobox officeholder}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • No : As the creator of the template, I oppose the deletion of the above template. I agree that some of the stuffs are from {{Infobox person}} and {{Infobox officeholder}} are placed in this template at this moment, but it can cover most of the details of a communist leader (like even if it is not from politically active party, but still quite popular). This template can be treated as a part of {{Infobox person}}, just like others are there... like {{Infobox dancer}}, {{Infobox fashion designer}}, {{Infobox chef}} and so on. This template has a scope of improvement in the future, that I am likely to improve. This is not totally redundant template, but quite a useful one. Logical1004 (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    • What parameters are unique to communist leaders? Alakzi (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
      • First of all, the template is using some parameters of {{Infobox officeholder}}, that can be edited and introduced as a part of module in the current template. In this way it will reduce the current template size and redundancy. Second, the current template can be treated as a sub-part of {{Infobox person}} as other similar templates, as I have said earlier too. Third, regarding uniqueness to communist leaders, there is a large info of communist movements/ideologies/line of thought and that can be accommodated in an infobox, as the idea of the whole infobox is to present the summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and sometimes to improve navigation to other interrelated articles. So keeping a separate template for that purpose will help. Logical1004 (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment All the changes regarding the replacements of the infobox have been undone, till this discussion is closed. Logical1004 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as crass stupidity. Wikipedia does not label individuals as 'comrades'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • A comrade is no different from any other person except that they hold office Delete96.52.0.249 (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Frietjes. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 05:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • thanks to whoever switched them back, now if we can stop this madness [13]. Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. Wikipedia should not have infoboxes for persons which are tailored to particular ideologies, especially when they include elements of propaganda -- and that includes labeling them as "Comrades". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:14, 16 July 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:Indian Toppers[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 deleteNorth America1000 13:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

A navigation template with 11 links of which 10 are redlinks is not particularly useful. The template was created almost four months ago, but no attempt has been made to create any of the redlinked articles (the existing article was created several years ago). All the redlinked articles are lists, and I don't know whether they are all sufficiently notable to have an article. Some of them probably are, but again, the articles don't exist yet so linking to them in a template is pretty premature. Note that "topper" is a word that is used in Indian English to refer to a student who ranks first in their class or school - its use is well attested and it's not slang, merely a regional term. bonadea contributions talk 10:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. A list of special class railway apprentice toppers and entrance exam toppers? I strongly doubt that most of these will warrant articles — not on resource-availability or systemic bias grounds, but on encyclopedic grounds. Let's say the term's in common use in the USA; I still can't imagine articles for "List of Foreign Service Officer Examination Toppers" or "List of SAT Toppers", for example. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 5 July 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:Adler-Convertibles[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. — Earwig talk 20:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Template consisting of a hard-coded instance of template:cite book used just at Convertible#Bibliography. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I have been on holidays for the past 10 days. Now that I am back and have access to the book, which covers a large number of models of convertibles, I will add the template to other pages. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you actually need the template though? Why not just write out the citation? -- 23:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete This is {{cite book}} under a different name and with a few parameters filled out. {{cite book}} is more useful since it allows editors to cite pages, while this template has left those parameters out.96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This template is eligible for WP:T368.148.186.93 (talk) 06:08, 19 July 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:Cite MAG[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. — Earwig talk 00:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessarily complicated citation template used only at Michael Gerzon#Further reading which just take cite book templates and make it more complicated to cite the two books there. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete single article template, use the more general templates instead -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{Cite journal}}. I thought this was an abbreviation of {{Cite magazine}}, which is a redirect to journal. Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The template uses {{Cite book}} because it is citing books. 74.205.216.160 (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
      • My point is that, if we don't want to retain this title as a working template, it ought to be redirected to Cite journal and treated as an alternate name for Cite magazine. This only applies if the alternative is deletion, so its current operations aren't really relevant. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. At Talk:Michael Gerzon#Template:Cite MAG it describes how this template is to make future <ref>s easier. If deleted, it will need to be recreated when <ref>s are added to the article Michael Gerzon. 74.205.216.160 (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
    • That's senseless. There are only two subreferences inside this template, that hardly qualifies as enough referencing complexity to justify this, and standard template usage handles this anyways, since this is a single article template and is not used with other topics. Many articles contain multiple different citations to different pages to the same source without resorting to this kludge. They have a list of citations and a list of references. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • delete after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 14:26, 6 July 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:Cite renner[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 Mackensen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 15:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Template that is just hard-coded text for a citation in only two articles. However this template doesn't include a page number parameter so the one page that uses it with a page number just manually adds it at the end. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Same as below. BTW, you're an admin now, you'd better watch stuff like the scare quotes around "template" you used below. Smugness and adminning don't go together. BMK (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't meant to be smug, my apologies. I meant citation since it was a citation, just out of the typical format (which is beyond a minor issue to me). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete low usage template (or just delete, considering it was blanked) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:53, 4 July 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:Cite 500build[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 Mackensen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 15:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Template that is just hard-coded text for a citation. Used in only two articles but because the "template""citation" doesn't include a page number parameter, both uses (1 and 2) just manually add it afterwards in the reference which looks different from the usage at template:cite book. I think it's preferable to manually insert the text into the articles including moving the page references to the "proper" place. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Correction. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've removed the two transclusions and tagged the template for speedy deletion using db-author. I thought I'd be using cites to this book more often, but it didn't happen. BMK (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I used to create similar templates in my sandbox but I would substitute the text directly into the references. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete low usage template (or just delete, considering it was blanked) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:54, 4 July 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:Latin intro[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. — Earwig talk 23:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The contents here should be subtituted into each page and the template deleted. The template guidelines suggest that templates should not normally be used to store article text and this is largely article text at the start of each page. Locking it into a template prevents any customizing of the text (which is why it's not used at List of Latin phrases (full)), adds unnecessary difficulty to the page and (ignoring WP:BEANS) given that this template isn't protected, opens up an additional angle for vandalism. This is for discussion following substitution but the box itself may not need to inserted into every page (like it at List of Latin phrases (full)) given that every page also has Template:Latin phrases as a footer. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. These pages should have similar intros, because the situation's identical for all of them. If we identify a problem with any of them, we'll have identified a problem with all of them; it would be a waste of time to have to edit twenty pages when a single template edit could fix everything. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Normally I support the deletion of boilerplate text-type templates. But this is different: all articles in the series "List of Latin phrases" appear to require the exact same header and lead, so it makes sense to store that introduction in a template. If there were only two or three articles in the series, I would have said "delete", but with twenty pages, it makes good sense to standardise this boilerplate in the form of a template. — This, that and the other (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no reason to display anything different on the 20 letters. If we want to consistently display the same on 20 articles then a template is well-suited. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:09, 9 July 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.

Completed discussions[edit]

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

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

Closing discussions[edit]

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

To review[edit]

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

To merge[edit]

Templates to be merged into another template.

Arts[edit]

Geography, politics and governance[edit]

Religion[edit]

Sports[edit]

Transport[edit]

Other[edit]

Meta[edit]

To convert[edit]

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

  • None currently

To substitute[edit]

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

  • None currently

To orphan[edit]

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

Ready for deletion[edit]

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

  • None currently


Archive and Indices[edit]