Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText, Topic, or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
"WP:TD" redirects here. For TemplateData, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/TemplateData.
"WP:TDF" redirects here. For the WikiProject Cycling run Tour de France taskforce, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Tour de France task force.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Closing instructions

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

How to use this page

What not to propose for discussion here

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

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

Reasons to delete a template

  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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twinkle

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

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

March 28

Template:MNDR

Barely links anything. No need for a footer yet. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 07:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

March 27

Template:Sony Franchises

Speedy delete under WP:CSD#T3 as a duplicate of {{Sony Interactive Entertainment Worldwide Studios}}. -- Rob Sinden (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • redirect, redundant. Frietjes (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Clickable button 3

Template not used anywhere, and offers no improvements over existing button templates . T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, or move to userspace. Frietjes (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

March 26

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of KG 100

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, the category is sufficient for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 2nd MD

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, the category is sufficient for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:List of awards and nominations received by Annette Bening

Orphaned template and seems more like an article than a template. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 18:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Db-u1/log

Delete - Twinkle log pages are just like any other user page for {{db-u1}}, there is no need for a separate template. — Train2104 (t • c) 16:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Video game ratings

This template was deprecated five years ago and has no uses in mainspace. czar 15:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --A Sword in the Wind (talk | changes) 12:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as deprecated and now unused. I cannot think of any reason why it would be needed, given we don't list out video game ratings like this. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Thatcher I Cabinet

This navbox isn't transcluded anywhere in mainspace, and is largely made redundant by {{Thatcher Ministry}}. --Nevéselbert 15:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cvgproj2

Unused. Created in 2006, seems like a substitute of the project banner per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive 20#Template:Cvgproj2?. A Sword in the Wind (talk | changes) 14:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as deprecated and now unused and superseded by standard naming. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:TES-in

I see no evidence on the article page "Tatar Encyclopedia" that text from the Tatar Encyclopaedia is in the public domain. If someone can show evidence that it is in the public domain or a copyleft licence then the template can to be kept. -- PBS (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:West Coast Conference men's soccer navbox

One link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. Template is fixed to reflect all linked articles to meet WP:EXISTING. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Also would like to go on the record for these articles, having this template can help with WP:AOAC Quidster4040 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Still only linked to two articles, which is not enough to navigate. It needs to be in at least 4. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 18:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Well I just cleaned up the template to meet that threshold, so I'll continue to support that it's kept. Is there a policy that explicitly says that templates need four links? Quidster4040 (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Test

The template is a duplicate of {{uw-test1}} and {{uw-vandalism1}}. Delete the series, please. UpsandDowns1234 05:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Merge with {{uw-test1}} since it is actually a duplicate of this template, just with different wording. Plus, this is a user warning template, yet does not have the uw that should precede it. UpsandDowns1234 21:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • These arguments were hashed out and rejected in 2007, 2013, and 2015. I realize that you start editing since then, but if you're making a fresh nomination you need to state what's different. It's disruptive to just keep renominating this template. Also, if you still want to "delete the series" then you should tag what other templates you consider to be within the scope of this discussion and list them here. Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. The nomination appears incomplete if {{test2}}, {{test2}} and {{test3}} are not included. They would fall under the same rationale. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 23rd ID

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 19th Waffen GD

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 13th SS MD

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only one actual article remains; the other two are redirects to a list.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 10th FD

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Dutch politics/party colours

Redundant to {{*/meta/color}} templates for political parties Mélencron (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Mélencron, please be more careful. The TfD notice broke the infobox in every article this template was used in. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, there were only a handful of valid transclusions, which I have now replaced. we should do the same for the subtemplates. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

March 25

Template:Uw-userspacenoindex

Now that userspace is NOINDEX'ed by default, this template message is unnecessary. — Train2104 (t • c) 23:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep Unfortunately the default setting can be overridden – see this current discussion. When setting a user page or subpage back to "no index", it is very useful to have this template to explain to the user what has been done: Noyster (talk), 07:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The template could use a rewrite, since it's now a matter of removing __INDEX__ not adding __NOINDEX__. But given the typical use pattern of user warning templates, I'm not sure if it's accepted practice to significantly change the tone/wording/meaning of an existing template under the same name. (since indexing is now a manual decision, a "you shouldn't index this!" should probably be a little stricter) — Train2104 (t • c) 13:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Null edit

Unused template with a broken tool link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cite doi/subpage

Template:Cite doi was retired, so this template probably should as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Miami Sting roster

A template which is potentially useful only if kept current, but has not been updated since its creation in 2012. Most of the links are red, and the 2 bluelinks both link to articles which appear to be unconnected to the topic of indoor American football. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Vgm sample

Unused. Created in 2006 per Talk:Video_game_music/Archive_1#Some_video_game_music_samples.3F. If it was needed, it would probably have been used by now. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Södertälje SK seasons

Pointless navbox which is just a sea of redlinks, with precisely zero navigable links. Even the title link is non-navigable. Created in 2008, so doesn't look like it is going anywhere. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Archive for converted wikitext talk page

This template does not appear to be in use anywhere anymore. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  • delete. Seems it was overlooked in the last discussion; so delete per that discussion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. I omitted this template in my first listing because it seemed like it might have been used on some "/Flow archive" page, which apparently isn't true. Pppery 17:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per consensus to delete Flow_templates. This one was missed at the time. Alsee (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Citation/core/testing

This template apparently is not used anymore. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  • delete. I created it for testing many years ago. No longer needed. COGDEN 04:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Archive list/display25

This template does not appear to be in use anymore and has no transclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Archive list/check25

This template does not appear to be in use anymore and has no transclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Editintro/db-r3

This template does not appear to be in use in system messages anymore, or anywhere at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Main talk category other

It looks like the use of this template never really took off, given that it has only a few transclusions that don't appear to be proper uses. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Pp-main-page

This template does not appear to be in use anymore. Should it be deleted or simply marked as historical? (It has a fair amount of links) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:NotA-Class

Template does not appear to be in use anymore. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Historic Places in Canada

Unused. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:WPBannerHeader

It looks like this template never really got into use. Pinging @MSGJ: given that it's on User talk:MSGJ/to do Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:When on page

This looks like a {{Namespace and pagename-detecting templates}} that never really took off. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, we don't need it, and there so many other namespace/pagename detecting templates. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Task force categories

This template does not appear to be in use anymore. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:User5-rfcu

This template does not appear to be in use anymore. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, we don't need it, and there are so many other userlink templates. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:User5-norfcu

This template does not appear to be in use anymore. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, we don't need it, and there are so many other userlink templates. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Str index/logic

This template does not appear to be in use anymore anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Str index/getchar

Is this template still needed anywhere? It does not appear to be in use anymore. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:UK ISPs' Transparent Proxies

This template was apparently never used, or isn't used anymore, on MediaWiki:Blockiptext. It is prolly obsolete and should be deleted or marked as historical and unprotected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Protected title

This way of salting titles is obsolete. Does it merit deletion, tagging as historical and unprotection? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Skin-file disambig

This template does not appear to be used in system messages or MediaWiki:Common.js anymore. Is it still needed? It also needs to be delisted from WP:CASC if deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: This requires investigation - if I go to Special:MyPage/skin.js when not logged in, I see this template flash by for a fraction of a second before the regular "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name" page loads. — Train2104 (t • c) 18:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Found the trouble spot - need to remove the skin.js and skin.css lines from {{No article text}}. common.js sends the user immediately to the proper skin file name anyway. See sandbox. — Train2104 (t • c) 18:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Per request of Train2104 I have removed the transclusion of this template in {{No article text}}, and also removed it from WP:CASC — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Precision/a

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 uncontroversial clean up of redundant subtemplates. Jimp 20:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this template still in use anywhere? Because if no it should probably be deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Template:BSkm

Unused and deprecated template; all uses have been replaced with {{BSsplit}}. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
05:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Long overdue. Useddenim (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I count 19 transclusions of which 18 are in article space, so the claim that it's unused is questionable at best. If this is deleted these will all have to be replaced by whatever the successor is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.145.8 (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment there are many places where BSkm is still in use and the the diagrams are displaying badly because of the deletion notice such as Rhine Railway (Baden).--Grahame (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Deletion notice noincluded — Train2104 (t • c) 15:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104 and Grahamec: My bad, I assumed AnomieBOT had substituted all of the uses. I've replaced the remainder of the transclusions with {{BSsplit}} (no change in display). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
16:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks.--Grahame (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Deprod-afd

Propose merging all into {{Deprod}}. Having separate templates for each reason for deprodding seems excessive to me. Either merge with a parameter switch, or just use {{deprod-m}} that takes a custom explanation. I deliberately did not nominate {{deprod-reprod}}, as that is more of a policy reminder. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Seems fair. Maybe {{deprod-m}} can be adjusted to fit the standard WP:WARNING style. TheDragonFire (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:PRODNote

Delete both as redundant with {{Proposed deletion notify}}. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

March 24

Template:Chris Cottrell (American Basketball Coach)

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 13:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

For some unknown reason, a Speedy Deletion of this template has been declined. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy close, give the creator a chance to expand their article (it was CSD-tagged only a minute after creation). If they do expand it – move away from the template namespace. If they don't – delete per WP:A7. – Uanfala (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Admin note - I'm not going to close this and then wait to see if they don't do anything with it so that we can bring it back to TFD. Request to close declined. I have, however, notified the creator of the reason why their template was nominated. I think a week is sufficient time for them to respond. Primefac (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
      • At the least, that wouldn't be the right venue: if the article doesn't get speedy deleted, then any discussion about it will have to take place at WP:AFD. – Uanfala (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Articles don't belong in template space. There was another such instance of this within the last month but I can't remember the topic....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@WilliamJE: I see at least 4-5 of these a week. Something is leading new users to create their articles in template space, not idea what. Usually I just move without redirect to articlespace and apply whatever deletion process fits. — Train2104 (t • c) 16:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, or move to article space then delete Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not meet WP:NCOLLATH. — Train2104 (t • c) 16:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:United States squad 2017 CONCACAF U-20 Championship

There is consensus that youth national team squads are not needed. — Michael (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. — Michael (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - squad templates for youth tournaments are not notable. GiantSnowman 07:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Rhode Island Rams navbox

Propose merging Template:Rhode Island Rams navbox with Template:University of Rhode Island.
Program is not large enough (like the Florida Gators program) to have a separate navbox for athletics. The standard is usually just to include the athletic stuff into the main university navbox, which should be done here. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support merge. This is an unnecessary navbox and the university one is better suited for a more encompassing coverage of University of Rhode Island topics. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge, but suggest interested parties (Corkythehornetfan & Jrcla2) with a vested interest in such classifications and templates ought also generate a broader policy discussion via a CFD for the categories and all such templates... which are currently based on both or either the teams & names in sports and the schools. Add in the by state features and the preferable solution gets pretty murky mighty fast. Having gone to college for a school without any modern teams to speak of, I have no interest. Others will. FrankB 04:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This particular template is substantially identical to Template:Stanford Cardinal navbox (the most broadly successful college athletic program for 20 years) and better organized. So we're not reviewing a defective template with limited links. I'm sympathetic to an argument to merge all seven of these templates (Category:American college athletic program navigational boxes) with their corresponding academic navboxes, but oppose narrowly culling just this particular one from the seven. We should decide now, as cleanup/merge of seven is much easier than after it has inevitably spread to ~100 of the common FBS colleges. UW Dawgs (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • If this one is deemed to be unnecessary and a merge occurs, then it will be easy to open up the other 6 in a blanket nomination. Opposing the merge of this one on the grounds that all 7 should supposedly be lumped together is not a solid argument. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Heads of the Ministries of the Government of India

Propose merging Template:Heads of the Ministries of the Government of India with Template:Union ministries of India.
Most of the links are similar. Further, most of the heads of ministries redirect to the ministries, so it would be good to keep only those heads, which have their pages. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Rubber stamp - this one seems to be a no brainer. The one with most offices doesn't have the office holder listed by the other. Styled the same too. FrankB 04:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:BritishTerrorism

A bit of a strange intersection for a navbox, which also seems to contain other articles not related to its title. Not really useful as it stands. Would be better for category navigation. No article on the topic, fails WP:NAVBOX. -- Rob Sinden (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep people interested in British terrorism would be interested in the incidents and perpetrators listed in the template. It could probably be expanded to a portal.MeropeRiddle (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nom. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, I feel editors should be aware of what this is, and always has been. It ISN'T 'British Terrorism', since it omits numerous examples, notably N.Ireland related events and people. Actually, until a few days ago, the title was "Alleged militants in the War on Terror who have lived in the United Kingdom", some of us have been trying to improve that title over the last few days (see and add to the discussion on talk). I can see the value of such a template, but obviously title and contents need to align and have some objective criteria for inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, better as a list article. Frietjes (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Nueva Rosita TV

With only one local station in this region of Coahuila (XHSDD-TDT), there is no need for this template other than to connect a bunch of redirects that don't even use it. Raymie (tc) 07:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Baja California TV

A template to link two templates. I've substed it on the templates using it so this can be safely deleted. Raymie (tc) 07:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Televisa Chihuahua

A template with little to no navigational use, as most of the links are redirects. Two other templates cover the actual articles that are linked here. Raymie (tc) 04:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:TV Azteca US Border O&O stations

All TV Azteca stations are owned-and-operated, and most as network relayers do not qualify for articles. This template does not have much navigational use. Raymie (tc) 04:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Chihuahua State TV

This bottom-navbox template used to link to more templates. Most of those have been deleted as redundant. I've substed this now-useless template so it, too, can be deleted. Raymie (tc) 04:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:NPB labeled map

Subst: and delete--only one transclusion ―Justin (koavf)TCM 00:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I have also added it to List of NPB stadiums to show where the current stadiums are located. --TorsodogTalk 01:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, this template was made in the style of several other team templates such as Template:NFL Labelled Map, Template:MLB Labelled Map, Template:NBA labeled map and Template:MLS labeled map --TorsodogTalk 01:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • merge with one of the two articles and use LST to transclude in the other. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: Almost all of the templates located at Category:Labelled map templates are used in only one or two articles. Is there a reason this specific template is being singled out? It seems like by the logic of this deletion discussion the there should be no labeled map template at all? --TorsodogTalk 22:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Paris Metro/line 3bis stations

Single-use template; substitute in article. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
13:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:MTV Movie Award for Best On-Screen Transformation

Not enough links to provide meaningful navigation. Also, do we really need a navbox for this kind of award? -- Rob Sinden (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - since unlike me there are millions that care about MTV and things like honors, so will happily go from article to article seeing who last won such and such an award (a category, n'est pas?). So happens, this is a 'new award' here in the days of rampant CGI, so the lists population (Today) is small compared to those better populated by years of links like Template:MTV Movie Award for Best Kiss or many other MTV award categories. BUT.... fairplay makes me say, I believe strongly in those maintaining a project area have the say in managing its formatting and in this case, that means supporting the continuance of the template because they (who are editing MTV awards pages) are being consistent within the way they have organized and linked the year to year articles. These templates are clearly part of a family, and in effect are succession templates like we used to use with infoboxes to navigate between dynasts passing crowns and titles. That approach has been superceded by large and complicated infoboxes which incorporate the successor/predecessor information in the large templates.
For example, a simple one has this partial set of lines:
{{Infobox royalty|monarch
| name            = Gustav I
| succession      = [[List of Swedish monarchs|King of Sweden]]
| coronation      = 6 June 1523
| predecessor     = [[Christian II of Denmark|Christian II]]
| successor       = [[Eric XIV of Sweden|Eric XIV]]
| spouse          = [[Catherine of Saxe-Lauenburg]]<br>[[Margaret Leijonhufvud]]<br>[[Katarina Stenbock]]
| issue           = [[Eric XIV of Sweden]]<br>[[John III of Sweden]]<br>[[Katharina Vasa]]<br>[[Princess Cecilia of Sweden|Cecilia, Margravine of Baden-Rodemachern]]<br>[[Magnus, Duke of Östergötland]]<br>[[Anna Maria of Sweden|Anna Maria, Countess Palatine of Veldenz]]<br>[[Princess Sophia of Sweden|Sophia, Duchess of Saxe-Lauenburg]]<br>[[Princess Elizabeth of Sweden|Elizabeth, Duchess of Mecklenburg-Gadebusch]]<br>[[Charles IX of Sweden]]
}}

... and clutters the top of articles, yet we tolerate them. We can tolerate with these very unobtrusive bottom dwellers even easier. These tabulate titles at page bottom. I'd prefer an infobox approach myself, but that danged principal intrudes... they are maintaining the pages, have the interest, so get to make the rules. FrankB 04:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

March 23

Template:Winston-Salem State Rams men's basketball coach navbox

Two links... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Southern Indiana Screaming Eagles men's basketball coach navbox

Two links... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - I would also add that I question any presumption of notability for Division II coaches. So many of these folks won't have articles anyway. Rikster2 (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Lenoir–Rhyne Bears men's basketball coach navbox

Two links... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - I would also add that I question any presumption of notability for Division II coaches. So many of these folks won't have articles anyway. Rikster2 (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:*mp

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

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Seems like the transclusion counter was fooled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This template is supposedly deprecated and no longer in use (the past deletion discussion happened when it was still in use). Worth noting that if it gets deleted the listing on WP:CASC should be removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I am not sure how you can say it is not in use when it claims to link to 34,000 pages.--Grahame (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Grahamec: That is just the documentation - but apparently WhatLinksHere shows transclusions when the tool doesn't. Huh? JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 07:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Well it is used at "In the news" at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and I am sure at many other places.--Grahame (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:InlineImageAnnotations

This template does not appear to be in use anywhere anymore. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:ImageWithNotes

This template does not appear to be in use anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:ImageNoteColors

This template does not appear to be in use anywhere, nor has it any links. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Editnotice loader

It seems like this template was never put to use, as it has no transclusions and no sensitive links. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Documentation/links

This template appears to belong to an old form of {{Documentation}}, but is apparently no longer in use anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cockermouth & Workington Railway

Unused duplicate of Template:Cockermouth and Workington Railway RDT. Useddenim (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If it really, really, really is unused then I'm perfectly happy for it to be deleted. As a human I can't be sure I haven't missed an instance of it being used. Can a machine do an exhaustive search? DavidAHull (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Mentor Nestle Nesquik Torun Cup

Pointless navbox, where all the listed pages (apart from the title) are redlinks. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:HealthLine lines

Unused template. It apparently relates to HealthLine (a bus service in Ohio), but that single-page tpopic looks fine without it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Superseded by {{GCRTA lines}}. Adding the remaining non-redirect templates of the rail color box support system for HealthLine. — Train2104 (t • c) 13:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete it is obsolete. 128.172.32.16 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:World Series television announcers

As a list of television presenters, it fails WP:PERFNAV. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

That link that you provided, mind you lists not only the so-called "negatives", but also the advantages. So in this regard, your respective opinion/argument is a case of "to each his own". BornonJune8 (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
"Avoid adding performances of entertainers into the navboxes for the productions that they appeared in, or crew members into navboxes for the productions they worked on. This includes, but is not limited to actors/actresses, comedians, televison/radio presenters, writers, composers, etc." --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You still didn't answer or take for account for the "advantages" as if there's only one perspective to take or agree with. BornonJune8 (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Super Bowl television announcers

As a list of television presenters, it fails WP:PERFNAV. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Please give a better, more thorough, or more proper explanation for how exactly "it fails"!? BornonJune8 (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
"Avoid adding performances of entertainers into the navboxes for the productions that they appeared in, or crew members into navboxes for the productions they worked on. This includes, but is not limited to actors/actresses, comedians, televison/radio presenters, writers, composers, etc." --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

NCAA Division II football coach navboxes

The above either have one or two links in the navboxes, which fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 09:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I request that any of these be moved to my userspace if they are to be deleted as a result of this discussion. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

March 22

Template:Diplomatic missions in Portugal

Not enough links to have a viable navigation template The Banner talk 22:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not enough active links to provide useful navigation. Also, per recent RFC, {{ill}} links should not be in navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete not enough english WP links.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: How many articles does it need to reach the standard of "enough"? Maybe some improvement can be done before it is deleted.--Howard61313 (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:F.C. Imabari squad

Unused template which doesn't do what it says on the tin. It looks more like a single-use category header. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, looks like an experiment. Frietjes (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:American Stanley Cup Finals television announcers

As a list of television presenters, it fails WP:PERFNAV. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, better to use a category/article for navigating between announcers. Frietjes (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
There's currently no individual or respective list for the Stanley Cup Finals television broadcasters (as it has since been deleted), so this might as well be the "second best" option for the time being. And plus, it would be much easier to navigate if the info is "right in front of you". BornonJune8 (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, a category would fail WP:PERFCAT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Announcers are not performers or entertainers, so WP:PERFNAV does not apply. And since the article was deleted, this is the second-best option and the information should be somewhere as it is significant and notable. Smartyllama (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Technically, sports announcers like this are broadcast news journalists (albeit for live sporting events), not "performers" like say entertainers in the traditional sense. BornonJune8 (talk), 23:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:AC/DC timeline

Only used on "List of members" page, removes text from page, and can easily be substituted and deleted. Primefac (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Db-spamuser-sandbox

Delete as redundant with {{db-spamuser}}. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

A user sandbox IS-A userpage, thus it's completely superseded with nothing to merge. — Train2104 (t • c) 02:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

March 21

Templates on Wikipedia:Wikiproject Fun comment templates

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. This is being discussed in two places (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiproject Fun comment templates) and between them delete seems to prevail. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:No can do (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Give me time (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Have coffee (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:But (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:I agree (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Hello IP (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:LOL (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:I say (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Lets talk (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Ban hammer (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Heya (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Guidance (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

These templates have only one transclusion which is on Wikipedia:Wikiproject Fun comment templates (which is going under deletion at MFD) and most are duplicates of other templates -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 23:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • "clerk" question KAP03, I'm assuming you want all of the templates listed in this nomination? Primefac (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Cool, just wanted to check. Some people want them all in separate noms. Primefac (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @KAP03: Also adding the header message box. — Train2104 (t • c) 02:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • another clerk note these aren't all 100% unused, though obviously they would be easy to subst. Primefac (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • keep Template:I saylolI didn't say keep inWikipedia:Wikiproject Fun comment templates, however, these templates can be used. maybe Template:Done/See also? ProDuct0339sayworkproj 09:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Procedural note: "Comment on content, not the contributor" etc etc, but for anyone who's not aware these templates are all the work of a single indefinitely-blocked long-term troll, and have never been used by anyone other than by him (the transclusions of {{but}} are the result of partially-translated imports from fr-wiki as they have an unrelated template of the same name). ‑ Iridescent 17:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all as disruptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 65th ID

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two actual articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 60th ID

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two actual articles remain.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 17th SS PGD

No entries that are stand-alone articles. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two names remain, which are both redirects to a list themselves.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hollyoaks family navigational templates

Per WP:NENAN and WP:TFD#REASONS. These templates are redundant to Template:Hollyoaks characters, which lists all the characters with articles. JuneGloom07 Talk 20:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Medicine disambiguation

Unused. Has existed since 2013, and clearly hasn't caught on. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Open tunings

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Street Fighter chronology

Navigation provided by Template:Street Fighter series, appears to be unused to boot. Izno (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Sigma Gamma Rho Grand Basilei

No navigable links. Used only in the head article Sigma Gamma Rho, where it is inappropriately placed in the middle of the page as a sort of embedded list. The content could in theory be moved there, but a long list of non-notable people doesn't seem like encyclopedic content. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • merge the list with the article, and delete the template. Frietjes (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Advanced Space Civilizations (Media)Userbox

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

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. Added to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Advanced Space Civilizations (Media). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


Unused userbox for a WikiProject which never got off the ground. Project itself is nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Advanced Space Civilizations (Media). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Template:Komplisert mal

Unused template, last edited in 2008. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, we don't need it, and not in English. Frietjes (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Stock sound effects

WP:NENAN. Howie scream was redirected, so this now has only 4 articles of relevance. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Florida Agricultural College football coach navbox

Two links is not enough to navigate... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete -- insufficient navigation. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association men's basketball coach navbox

Template doesn't link to anything. Also, you cannot assume that Division III college basketball coaches are notable. These programs get minimal coverage outside the local paper. These coaches would remain redlinks. Rikster2 (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom an WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete A navbox box without links fails the very purpose of a navbox. To link articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Old discussions

March 20

Template:Nryf

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 Alexf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 13:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Unused. Created in 3 edits over 3 minutes edits on 10 September 2016‎ by User:AppleRED, then nothing. Purpose is unclear. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Template:Global Force Wrestling employees

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Global Force Wrestling personnel. Same reasons, GFW hasn't a regular roster. It's impossible to create an article or template about it. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete: Support per nom. APM (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Straight Edge Society

Small wrestling stable. Just 4 members, I don't think the SES needs a template for just 4 members. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete: Support per nom. Would also suggest a deletion of Template:Vince's Devils for similar reasons. APM (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Nice. I'm watching the category and I found some similar templates. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Routemap-Infobox

Propose merging Template:Routemap-Infobox with Template:Infobox UK railway.
Two templates serving basically the same purpose. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
14:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox name module

Propose merging Template:Infobox name module with Template:Infobox Chinese.
Two translation/transliteration templates which have similar purposes, except {{Infobox Chinese}} has a lot more options and is often used as a standalone infobox instead of as an infobox module. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
02:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment What exactly would the merge entail? Would the merged template retain the functionality and behavior of the individual templates or would it result in a huge headache on thousands of articles (both are heavily utilised templates with over 10,000 transclusions between them)? It's important to note they transclude in very different ways: Infobox Chinese is an entire infobox while Infobox name module just adds some sub-fields to an existing infobox. And while it's true that Infobox name module has fewer options than Infobox Chinese, its stripped down format makes Infobox name module a bit more general purpose i.e. an editor can use it to add any language field to an infobox. In principle though I am not against the merge. Betty Logan (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think we need some clarification: is the proposal that we merge Infobox Chinese into Infobox name module so that {{Infobox name module}} would become the all-inclusive template? Infobox name module is used with Indic scripts, not just Chinese, so my concern is that we are promoting wide, not narrow usage. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Cyphoidbomb: I think it would be best to use "Infobox name module" as the resulting template name, although the features of Infobox name module would be merged into {{Infobox Chinese}} and its subpages. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
      to reply to me
      04:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I am leaning towards merging it into that template box. Personally I do not see much value in a infobox just to translate things into multiple chinese names (usually on Chinese foods, places, or events), when you can also use the chinese wikipedia. Also if you check other languages you would not see a Spanish/Portuguese template, a Thai template, or an Indian template. One of the issues with merging that chinese template is the dialects each have their own pronunciation which can make the template very large very fast. I am in favor of keeping everything somewhat consistent for displaying foreign languages for the reader. --Cs california (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Cs california: I think they're useful for understanding how to pronounce the characters (zhwiki actually doesn't have transliteration data). In languages using alphabets it's obviously a lot easier to figure out the pronunciation from the spelling. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
      to reply to me
      04:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
      • @Jc86035: if the pronunciation was the issue why not just linkout to wikitory. The template also should have another name other than Chinese there are Burmese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Laotian, Japanese and Indian language fields that serves the same functions as the chinese fields.--Cs california (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
        • @Cs california: Some phrases are quite long and having to go to each character's page would be a bit inconvenient. (Regardless, I don't think it would be a good idea to remove the templates from ten thousand pages just because the information is duplicated in Wiktionary.) The naming issue would be solved by moving the template to "Template:Infobox name module" or "Template:Infobox translation and transliteration" or something. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
          to reply to me
          10:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
          • @Jc86035: as I stated before I do not mind if is kept as long as pages are consistant with using it. --Cs california (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't merge. Infobox Chinese should be kept as a standalone infobox as it makes the linguistic information easier to spot. Scriptions (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Scriptions: The merge is to be the other way round. The infobox will remain transcludable both as a standalone table and as part of another infobox. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
      to reply to me
      08:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Hindu temple

Infobox Hindu temple should be merged into Infobox religious building as it takes in similar fields to other religious buildings that are redundant. Template box can also be automatically recolored for differences. --Cs california (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong support per Cs california -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: the Hindu temple template has customized forms on language etc, which seems helpful. @Frietjes: can we create another wrapper? While we are working on this, perhaps time to add additional entries such as Stupa height, Gopuram height, Shikhara height, etc just like we have for Spire, Minaret etc in the current religious building template. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I personally don't think the language things are too useful because there is a side bar for wikipedia in other language. But to keep it I would just put it in fields native_name_lang and native_name. --Cs california (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The Infobox religious building is a template tailored to Christian and Muslim religious buildings. It lacks fields for Buddhist, Hindu etc. temples. The proposer has neither made a detailed comparison of which field matches which, nor stated what is wrong with having a dedicated Hindu temple template. I don't see the "taking in similar fields" (e.g. mandapa, gopuram(s), etc related). If the main religious building template were expanded with tailored entries for other religions just like it does for Christian with Dome, Islam with Minaret etc, or a wrapper proposed, I would reconsider my vote. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
If you want to know all the matching fields it is all the images, captions and name data; the pushpin maps and coordinate data, country and local data, establishment data. But if you check the documentation Buddhism is already combined into Template:Infobox religious building. The only one that is not added is the Mormon temple one which is loading data from a table (I think). I nominated it because most of these templates were already condense and it seems out of place to exclude some of them.
If we decide to merge it there are two options for adding the fields that are not there
  1. add an smaller module for the subfields like Template:Infobox pepper within Template:Infobox cultivar on pages like 'Fresno Chili' pepper.
  2. Add more fields.
--Cs california (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cs california: I must not be looking at the right page. The template documentation you linked only shows how the coloring for Buddhism is integrated in. No mention of stupa height or diameter, nor of chaitya-griha, nor of viharas, and so on. Is this all explained on some other page? My main concern is encouraging editors for whom English is not the first language. Minaret, dome, spire are incorrect and unfamiliar terms (spire approx applies in some cases). Most notable Buddhist, Jain, Hindu and Sikh temples are a regional south, southeast and east Asia thing. Regional editors are likely to know the data or sources better. If we create or revise existing template, to include useful information with religion-specific terms that are verifiable in English language RS, we would avoid confusing newbies, may be get more participation, and improve the quality and quantity of notable information in the infobox. How to do this best, only template code writing wizards may know. By the way, while we are at this, let us also add color code for Sikhism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Arguments that the generic template lacks certain properties from the other are illogical; the merge would include them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

March 19

Template:IAM Cycling riders

redundant as the team is now defunct BaldBoris 19:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tinkoff riders

redundant as the team is now defunct BaldBoris 19:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:AFL squad

Unused. The creator @Cashie initiated some brief discussion of it in 2011 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive_5#Squad_template, but I don't see any sign of further interest in it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete redundant template, all AFL squads use {{Rls}} which is nearly exactly the same template. Flickerd (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Turriff United F.C.

Unused, with insufficient navigation. Contains links only to the head article Turriff United F.C., its ground, and the league in which it plays. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - not sure useful aid to navigation, the article's are all interlinked within the main body of the text. Hard to see that any season article would pass GNG and they would definitely fail NSEASONS so not sure what else could be added to this template. Fenix down (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Faith primary

Propose merging Template:Faith primary with Template:Religious text primary.
2 templates that do the same thing.

66 "Faith primary" transclusions to 271 "Religious text primary" transclusions.

So "Faith primary" is going to be the one to go. Mr. Guye (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Conditional support, if we merge the texts also. 'Faith primary' reads "uncritically uses the texts and opinions from within a religion, faith, or other belief system" and 'Religious text primary' reads "improperly uses one or more religious texts". We could merge them into "uncritically uses texts from within a religion or faith system", for example. Debresser (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 26th ID

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain; pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Tibetan Buddhist monastery

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 religious building. Convert to wrapper if necessary. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Tibetan Buddhist monastery should be merged into Infobox religious building. Previous infoboxes of the same purpose were merged such as Template:Infobox Buddhist temple, Template:Infobox mosque, Template:Infobox Hindu temple. There are very few unique field. --Cs california (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine Frietjes. As long as we retain the design and don't lose any info I don't mind.Tibetan Prayer 14:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I also agree with User:Tibetan Prayer as long as it retains all info it is fine--Cs california (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

March 18

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 82nd ID

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain; pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 94th ID

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain; pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:US executive actions introduction

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 08:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This is meant to be a transcluded lead section of articles about the executive orders issued by various presidents. Transcluding prose appears to be discouraged, and leads, of all things, should definitely not be boilerplate. — Train2104 (t • c) 02:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep Speedy Delete. Original justification for prose transclusion stands: The pages involved were already headed by boilerplate prior to me creating this template.
Each article that uses this template is conceptually identical in concept: they are each a list of executive decisions (currently, those by Donald Trump, Barack Obama and George W. Bush, with applicability likely to be extended to other presidents as the series of lists continues to be overhauled). As a result, they all had essentially the same lead. In the process of editing the heading for one of the lists, I realized the same edits would be applicable to the other lists, so moving the already-identical text to a common file seemed like an obvious idea that would simplify the work of future editors, which would in turn improve the experience for future readers.
...but as discussed below, a template is the wrong tool: The idea for doing this as a template came from seeing a similar idea in play in other series of articles. The specific example that had been in my head was the header template for articles related to calendar years (such as 1968, as a random example): {{Year article header}}.
I read the referenced 2005 discussion on transcluding prose, and it doesn't look like anything like a consensus on a policy or guideline was ever reached.--NapoliRoma (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment/question: This certainly looks doable, and the content of this help page implies that transcluding prose is not unheard of.
Maybe I'm misreading the concern here: is it that content should be in mainspace, not template namespace? That was not at all clear to me from the kickoff to this discussion. If that's the primary concern, than switching from a template to LST makes sense.
Otherwise, it seems like either approach has about the same advantages and disadvantages.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Read the first sentence of the first bullet point of WP:TMPG, which says Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. Pppery 23:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a very direct applicable guideline -- thanks! I will convert to LST.--NapoliRoma (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I've changed the articles per the above discussion (specifically, they now use section transclusion per WP:LST); the template is no longer in use and can be deleted.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not sure why this has been relisted. I created the template; someone above pointed out why I should have used another method to achieve my intended result; I've done so, and deleted it from all articles; it's no longer being used, and is extremely unlikely to ever be used again. Shouldn't it just be nuked?--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Bemani series

All contents of this template have been replaced by the navigational boxes {{Konami franchises}} and {{Konami Holdings Corporation}}. All links to the Bemani template have been removed on the respective articles. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- serves no purpose. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Footlights presidents

Too many unlinked entries for this to be a useful navigation tool. Best left to list and category navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- the list of presidents is already provided in the main article Footlights and the template is excessive / not needed, plus the non-article issue. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 96th ID

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only one blue-linked article remains; pls see prior version. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 98th ID

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain; pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 100th JD

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain; pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 102nd ID

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain; pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 116th PD

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain; pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 134th ID

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain; pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Pink Grand Prix: 1991

Insufficient navigation: only two listings are articles: Kazuhiro Sano & one of the movies. Going by the state of AfDs/PRODs in the related area, the non-link subjects are highly unlikely to be considered notable in the future. Thus the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the HPBs

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two actual articles remain (one of the links listed is a redirect); pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 294th ID

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only one article remains; pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future. Thus the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as insufficient use being made of the template, Better off deleted. –Davey2010Talk 17:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of TPA

Insufficient navigation. After the red links have been removed and articles on nn subjects redirected to alphabetical lists, only two blue-linked articles remain; pls see prior version.

Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the removed subjects would be considered notable in the future and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as insufficient use being made of the template, Better off deleted. –Davey2010Talk 17:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Pink Grand Prix: 1990

Insufficient navigation -- only two blue linked entries, after non-links and red-links have been removed prior version. Going by AfDs/PRODs in the related area, these removed entries are unlikely to be deemed notable in the future, and the template is not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

March 15

Template:2013 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference men's soccer navbox

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned tempalte; all redlinks... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Template:Paris Metro/line 3bis stations

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 March 24. Primefac (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Template:Chennai Metro line 1 Route

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Unused and obsolete: has been replaced by Template:Chennai Metro Blue Line Route. Useddenim (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete; unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me
    15:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:NPB labeled map

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 March 24. Primefac (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Template:Use British (Oxford) English

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:Use British (Oxford) English. Action performed by creator. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 23#Template:EngvarA spelling.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep for now: I have made this template - it is intended to be a neutral spelling marker for Oxford spelling, in analogy to the existing template Template:EngvarB. There was a long discussion about whether that template should be deleted and the result was to keep it: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_5#Template:EngvarB
My rationale was along the same lines, but I'll reconsider it. Perhaps "Use Oxford spelling" would be better as a name. Acopyeditor (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

How is it different from Template:Use British (Oxford) English?--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
"EngvarB" marks British/Commonwealth spelling, but not British/Commonwealth English. A national variety of English encompasses more than just a spelling standard. What do I mean by that? For example: "The colourful lift has just gone up" is British English with British spelling. "The colorful lift has just gone up" is British English, but with American spelling. "The colorful elevator just went up." is American English. "The colourful elevator just went up" is American English, but with British spelling. EngvarB was introduced as a marker for a semi-automatic script (of the same name) that ensures consistent British/Commonwealth spelling. "EngvarO" does the same for Oxford spelling. The other template that you compare it to is called "Use British (Oxford) English", which has a broader scope. It asks the user to use British English, not just British spelling. For articles closely connected to the UK, that's fine, of course, but for nationally neutral articles this template appears overly prescriptive. I have noticed that the corresponding template for the talk page is called "British English Oxford spelling". What do you think about renaming the current "Use British (Oxford) English" template to "Use British English Oxford spelling"? "EngvarO" could be a redirect to that, and then I would not use "EngvarO" any longer. Acopyeditor (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
"EngvarO" does the same for Oxford spelling" does not make sense to me. Could you say what EngvarO does, in a few words or a sentence. There are so many of these templates that I do not keep track of them all, so saying it is the same relative to Z as how X relates to Y is just confusing. The examples don’t make sense: you should not mix American spelling with English vocabulary, or vice versa, that is simply wrong.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I think I have explained it well above. "EngvarO" only marks Oxford spelling, nothing else. But I realize now that this distinction is probably too nuanced for Wikipedia... I propose to rename "Use British (Oxford) English" to "Use British English Oxford spelling" because that is clearer and directly corresponds to the existing talk page template "British English Oxford spelling" Template:British_English_Oxford_spelling. Would you be ok with that? Acopyeditor (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
So EngvarO marks Oxford spelling, the standard only used in British publications. And you want British (Oxford) English renamed Use British English Oxford spelling. So that means you are happy with the merge as they essentially do the same thing? Nevermind, I see that you are from the end of your note below. I would add that here is not the place to decide whether to move the other template: as a long standing template, part of a larger group, I think that requires a separate discussion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I will make "EngvarO" redirect to "Use British (Oxford) English". Re: the proposed move -- I would suggest to go ahead with it. On Wikipedia:Requested moves, it says: " If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." The current English variant templates all follow a pattern: Template:American English -> Template:Use American English, Template:Canadian English -> Template:Use Canadian English. But Template:British English Oxford spelling and Template:Use British (Oxford) English. It's the only exception. And it is not clear what "Oxford English" is supposed to mean, but "Oxford spelling" is clear, there is even the Wikipedia article about it. So I would go ahead and move the template, unless you object. Acopyeditor (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Propose renaming and redirect: Rename (move) Template:Use_British_(Oxford)_English to Template:Use_British_English_Oxford_spelling for clarity and consistency. Make Template:EngvarO a redirect. Acopyeditor (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Talk-warn

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

  • Merge: I think both templates forfil the same criteria, merging should be easy to perform. AtlasDuane (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - while they both may be G6 rationale, they are very different reasons. It would make no sense to receive a "this redirect is broken" note when it was in fact a talk page that was tagged (and vice versa). Primefac (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep They're two very different templates, so it makes no sense to merge them, and policy requires users be notified, so we can't delete them. Smartyllama (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment I never suggested merging, I suggested deletion. This is a template for G8, a criteria that is almost always used for uncontroversial cleanup. In fact, if you look at the the code behind suggested CSD warning template ({{CSD-warn}}) you'll see that G8 isn't even one of the choices, and that {{db-g8}} doesn't suggest a notification template nor does it have a button to contest. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the clarification Train2104; I let the first !vote by AtlasDuane colour my perception of the nomination. I'll strike my "oppose merge" vote since it makes no sense in the new light. Also pinging Smartyllama, since they seem to be under the same impression. Primefac (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-NZSection27

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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

  • delete, if it's PD, it should be uploaded to commons directly. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This tag may be used on a file which is not PD in other countries, for example one that is not PD in the US and so is only allowed under fair use. Thincat (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no requirement in policy to upload free content to commons rather than to en-wiki. Most of these templates should be expected to appear unused because anyone who uses them, will probably have their content moved to commons anyway. There are editors who choose to avoid commons, and deleting these templates only makes their work more difficult, for really no good reason. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep This tag may be required for files temporarily copied from commons for protection purposes. For work in joint copyright this tag may be one of several for a file that is in copyright in one of the source countries and so may not be hosted on commons. Template deletion is not an appropriate way of encouraging uploading to commons. This is a template associated with a policy, WP:Image use policy, and so should not have been nominated here ("cannot be listed at TFD", see above). Thincat (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - It's currently the prerogative of an uploader to upload a file locally, regardless of its acceptability at commons, and they may even choose to tag it with {{keep local}}. The appropriateness of that is not a debate to have here. If an editor chooses to do so: making properly licensing easy is much preferable to the lack of licenses. Weak as it is unused. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:PD-Highsmith

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

  • Comment: Correct, you will notice I created the template for temporary uploads from Commons for use of the image on the Main Page. I see no point in deleting this template when the next admin who uploads a file under this license to this project will have to recreate the template. Regards SoWhy 15:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Also, local uploads are no longer necessary for main page images because they are protected by cascading protection. -FASTILY 02:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
::WP:CASCADE seems to say otherwise but what it says may not be true. Is this the right place to be looking on commons? Thincat (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Disregard my comment, I've found Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en Thincat (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Locally uploading a Commons images remain necessary in certain situations, including KrinkleBot's recurring outages. It also remains one of the accepted methods (and the only one that's instantaneous for Wikipedia admins who aren't also Commons admins) of protecting images for use at Template:In the news, whose content does not pass through a queue that triggers KrinkleBot's cascading protection before appearing on the main page. (The other local method is to transclude the file at WP:CMP, but that relies on KrinkleBot and entails a delay – even when the bot is operational.)
    When a local upload is needed, the applicable license template's absence is one of the most inconvenient and time-consuming aspects. We should strive to increase the tags' availability here, not reduce it. —David Levy 01:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    Agree that admins should take over during infrequent outages of KrinkleBot. Disagreed that "license template's absence [is]... inconvenient and time-consuming". If the uploads in question are meant to be temporary anyways, then I don't see a problem with directly filling out an {{Imbox}} with the license details. Note that WP:CSD#F4 only mandates declaration of copyright status, and not specifically a license tag. I am also of the opinion that we should be encouraging uploaders to contribute free files to Commons, where they can be a benefit across WMF projects globally. Leaving a myriad of unused copyright tags here speaks otherwise. -FASTILY 02:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    Firstly, I'm not sure that I'd describe KrinkleBot's outages as "infrequent". We've gone fairly long stretches with little or no downtime, but we've also experienced periods in which we've averaged about one per month (with each lasting up to several days). I'll note that this often occurs due to factors beyond Krinkle's control (such as MediaWiki updates that unexpectedly break or otherwise alter functionality on which the bot relies).
    Secondly, I'll reiterate that locally uploading Commons media is not limited to such outages. We must routinely protect Commons images (via one method or another) before using them at ITN.
    Thirdly, under the best of circumstances, ensuring that administrators follow the proper file protection procedures is a constant struggle. (As you might imagine, this garish notice was far from a first resort, and it still gets ignored sometimes.) The type of workaround that you've described might seem simple to you and me, but all Wikipedians have areas of relative weakness – and this is no exception. Anything that complicates matters – even slightly – increases the likelihood of something going awry (owing either to error or to sheer frustration). Pestering my fellow admins is a necessarily evil (and one that I don't enjoy, I assure you), but I've also attempted to make things as easy as possible. Deleting valid license tags runs counter to that.
    Even with the ability to tell admins that they need only copy and paste the Commons description, I already have to twist arms to prevent main page images from being left vulnerable to vandalism such as this (NSFW: a pornographic photograph that actually appeared on our main page). Can we please not make this more difficult?
    Fourthly, while I certainly agree that users should be encouraged to contribute free files to Commons, I disagree that withholding suitable copyright tags from Wikipedia accomplishes this goal; it's more likely to increase the quantity of local uploads lacking appropriate licensing information. A properly tagged file that can be transferred to Commons is vastly preferable to one with the wrong tag (or no tag at all) that gets deleted instead. Uploading to Commons in the first place is better still, of course, and we can encourage this through ample documentation (including mentions in and around the templates themselves). We need to point out the benefits of Commons, not purposely make Wikipedia inhospitable to free media in the hope of forcing contributors to find Commons on their own. —David Levy 04:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    No issues with points one and two; these are accepted practices, but are not entirely relevant to this discussion. As for point three, you do not explicitly address my {{Imbox}} suggestion? I review many files each day, and I often find files with no license tag and text such as "CC-BY-SA-2.0". This is literally as easy and lazy as it gets, and it is perfectly valid under policy. Furthermore, we're talking about infrequent temporary uploads, which will be deleted or moved to Commons anyways. As for point four: "purposely make Wikipedia inhospitable to free media". David, that's ridiculous. I do not support such a thing. What I am against, is leaving a mess of unused/unmaintained (sometimes wrong or outdated), obscure, and very specific copyright tags, where they are likely to a) confuse newbies, and b) be misapplied. In fact, I find misapplied obscure tags from newbies *all* the time, so much that I'd rather they use tags such as {{PD-because}} so that it's possible to see their thought process and actually verify the copyright status of their uploads, as opposed to outright nominating for deletion. Now I think anyone that knows what they're doing would have uploaded the file to Commons, making the argument of likelihood of frequent legitimate use completely moot. If we agree on anything, it's that the current upload procedures should be easier. This makes it easier. -FASTILY 07:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    No issues with points one and two; these are accepted practices, but are not entirely relevant to this discussion.
    They became relevant to the discussion when you stated that "local uploads are no longer necessary for main page images because they are protected by cascading protection", a scenario in which the template would be obsolete. I'm addressing this point by noting that the need for such uploads has merely been reduced, not eliminated outright. Therefore, license tags for "temporary uploads from Commons for use of the image on the Main Page" (as the template's creator explained above) remain helpful.
    As for point three, you do not explicitly address my {{Imbox}} suggestion?
    I acknowledged that workaround's simplicity from the perspective of someone familiar with such matters. I'm attempting to convey that some administrators are less knowledgeable in this area and more inclined to err, just as you and I likely are in relation to certain areas with which they're intimately familiar. I encourage admins to take the appropriate protection measures by stressing that the Commons description can simply be copied and pasted, with no need to analyze its content or adapt its formatting. You "don't see a problem with directly filling out an {{imbox}} with the license details" because this is a task that you (and I) find trivially easy. For others, it's burdensome at best and a seemingly insurmountable challenge at worst. (Unfortunately, this has no impact on the ease with which an unprotected image can be transcluded on the main page, particularly when the associated risks are not understood).
    I review many files each day,
    And I deal with main page images every day. I'm citing a problem that I encounter with alarming frequency and explaining why templates such as this one help to counter it. Likewise, I assume that various tools whose utility might be unclear to me assist you in your daily file review efforts.
    and I often find files with no license tag and text such as "CC-BY-SA-2.0". This is literally as easy and lazy as it gets, and it is perfectly valid under policy.
    Indeed, copying and pasting the text "CC-BY-SA-2.0" from Flickr (for example) is perfectly valid under policy. So is copying and pasting a Commons license tag call, but deleting this template and others like it would deprive editors of the ability.
    Furthermore, we're talking about infrequent temporary uploads, which will be deleted or moved to Commons anyways.
    However you're defining "infrequent" (and there's no question that we're discussing an occurrence far removed from the scale of Wikipedia file uploads in general), I don't see the relevance. Unless infrequent main page image vandalism (again, NSFW) is acceptable – and I'm not suggesting that you've said anything of the sort – these temporary uploads remain important, despite their relative infrequency.
    As for point four: "purposely make Wikipedia inhospitable to free media". David, that's ridiculous. I do not support such a thing.
    Perhaps I've misunderstood your point. Are you not arguing that the existence of free license templates at Wikipedia contributes to an environment unduly conducive to local uploads of free media, thereby discouraging users from contributing them directly to Commons instead?
    What I am against, is leaving a mess of unused/unmaintained (sometimes wrong or outdated),
    To my knowledge, no one advocates that we retain "wrong or outdated" license tags. Any flaws in their content should be rectified as soon as they're discovered. The sheer quantity of templates involved raises a legitimate concern that issues might be overlooked, but potential solutions other than deletion are available. In particular, I filed a relevant bot request (which, unfortunately, received no response). I focused on the automatic creation of Commons-specific license tags not currently duplicated at Wikipedia (and special categorization intended to clearly indicate their nature), but automatic checks of our templates copies for inconsistent wording and usage in conjunction with files not present at Commons are other possible applications.
    Perhaps such tasks could be added to your bot's repertoire. (If not, their omission isn't a subject of criticism on my part. I don't even possess the ability to author such code.)
    obscure, and very specific copyright tags,
    I agree that many of the tags are obscure and very specific. So how is it reasonable to expect persons inexperienced in this area to recognize them and effectively express the underlying licenses (however common those might be) via an-{{imbox}}-based implementation?
    where they are likely to a) confuse newbies, and b) be misapplied. In fact, I find misapplied obscure tags from newbies *all* the time, so much that I'd rather they use tags such as {{PD-because}} so that it's possible to see their thought process and actually verify the copyright status of their uploads, as opposed to outright nominating for deletion.
    I've acknowledged the importance of appropriate documentation and demarcation. I certainly don't discount your experience, which suggests that improvements are needed. But I know from my experience that the templates' deletion would exacerbate a different problem (one that exists in far smaller numbers, but with far greater potential harm in each instance).
    Now I think anyone that knows what they're doing would have uploaded the file to Commons, making the argument of likelihood of frequent legitimate use completely moot.
    In the sense that you appear to be using the word "frequent", I'm not making such an argument.
    If we agree on anything, it's that the current upload procedures should be easier. This makes it easier.
    See above. —David Levy 18:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
    Hi David, thanks for your reply. I think I have made my position clear in my previous replies, and I continue to stand by them. However, the issue isn't nearly as important to me as you might imagine, so I do not feel that it is a good use of my time to continue this discussion. Moving forward, it sounds like you have some bot ideas you'd like to explore, and I'd be interested in collaborating with you on those. Let me know. Respectfully, FASTILY 01:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep This template and other such. Unless it becomes policy that PD files should not be uploaded to enwp, it is appropriate that appropriate licence tags exist. Replacing PD licences with text does not help with moving to commons where this is appropriate. Thincat (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no requirement in policy to upload free content to commons rather than to en-wiki. Most of these templates should be expected to appear unused because anyone who uses them, will probably have their content moved to commons anyway. There are editors who choose to avoid commons, and deleting these templates only makes their work more difficult, for really no good reason. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Mobile phone companies in Ukraine

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:Mobile phone companies in Ukraine. Primefac (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • merge, seems like a reasonable idea. Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge, same function. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me
    15:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Guldbagge Awards hosts

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

  • Keep If this template is being considered for deletion, should'nt the {{Academy Awards hosts}} template also be deleted as it also covers presnters of an awards ceremony? -- Regge_robban2 (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, tangential association. Frietjes (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete after adding to the article as a list - the navbox does provide useful navigation (since these people aren't known for being hosts), but the information is still of encyclopedic interest. Add it to the article and delete the template. As for the OSE argument above - maybe {{Academy Awards hosts}} should be deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Do you really propose adding this information to every single article in the template? That's completely impractical. It's a useful template, since these people aren't known just for being hosts, but mainly for other things. Smartyllama (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    Smartyllama, you clearly wouldn't add this list to every single person's page, because as you say, these people aren't known just for being hosts. A navbox is supposed to allow people to navigate between people who are related by something they are well known for. Having a list on the main Guldbagge gives the encyclopedic info without cluttering up the bottom 30 articles. Primefac (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:I liga Top scorers

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

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Only opposition is the creator. WP:REFUND applies, provided that sources and/or an article are given/created. Primefac (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Completely unsourced template that links to an article that does not support this list. Qed237 (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eemiratess (talkcontribs)
As the nominator says, the template provenance is unsourced. GiantSnowman 20:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Please, even on this side of the wikipedia were previously the same information published and accepted, so please restore my template, or please help me to improve it, anyway edition live well and anyone can add something, if you see errors, but do not see the point of reset if the earlier Polish Wikipedia editors accepted it.
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kr%C3%B3l_strzelc%C3%B3w_w_pi%C5%82ce_no%C5%BCnej#Kr.C3.B3lowie_strzelc.C3.B3w_polskiej_pierwszej_ligi
source informationEemiratess (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Eemiratess
if everything is OK? Eemiratess (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Eemiratess
  • keep if someone writes a list article, with sources, demonstrating the notability and source. otherwise, delete as unsourced trivia. Frietjes (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - no corresponding article, unsourced. GiantSnowman 07:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Giant Snowman....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • keep give link where the source is indicated, the template will be expanded, calmly, please give a chance to grow and leave. https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Król_strzelców_w_piłce_nożnej#Kr.C3.B3lowie_strzelc.C3.B3w_polskiej_pierwszej_ligi Eemiratess (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)eemiratess
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).

March 10

Template:Dominican Summer League Orioles 2 roster

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Team no longer exists. Orioles will field one team this year. NYGiantsfan1991 (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Since the team doesn't exist, it doesn't have a roster. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Jeay Sindh Liberal Front

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Just text; unclear what it is intended to be used for. And it is unused. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Template:Cameron Aggies women's basketball coach navbox

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

The result of the discussion was delete. No opposition. No issue with a REFUND if a few more articles are written. Primefac (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Two links... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The number of bluelinks has increased since the nomination was made, hence the relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Adele songs

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

  • Oppose - And merge the songs template with the Adele template. She has only released three albums, with a limited amount of singles. Hardly any are non-singles which have their own article. It's completely pointless having two templates for such a small amount of links when compared with other singers who have released a lot more thus they need two navigation templates, I agree, but I don't agree with the which one should be merged.  — Calvin999 09:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I've just noticed the version you've linked to: that is the one I think should be re-instated. I would Support Adele songs being merged back with Adele. I misinterpreted which one you thought should be merged with the other. (The Adele songs navigation template isn't even on her song articles).  — Calvin999 09:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose it might not have been needed in the past, but she's released more songs now (even if only counting single releases) that have their own articles. It's getting close to (if not already at) the point where having songs in the main navbox would overfill it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It really isn't anywhere near that point! It's a relatively small navbox, and with all the singles in one group (rather than split by album like in the song-specific navbox), there's room for plenty more! Picking some completely random examples, have a look at {{Kate Bush}} or {{Tori Amos}}. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • support, no need for two navboxes here. Frietjes (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above Snuggums comment. L3X1 (distant write) 02:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge - if done like this, it's not cluttered, still maintains all of its information and links. We are very far away from being motivated by necessity (i.e. a too-large navbox) to be splitting it at this point. Primefac (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:ToledoWalleyeCoach

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Only has one link, only used in one place. Unnecessary. Yosemiter (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

March 9

Template:Footlights presidents

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

The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2017 March 18 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Template:Bemani series

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

The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2017 March 18 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Template:DEFAULSORT:Khumalo, Kelly

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 RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 16:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Malformed test template, unused Gbawden (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Tagged for G2 — Train2104 (t • c) 06:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Dubious

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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The template's documentation says:

Literally every instance I checked seemed to be ignoring the "specific statement or alleged fact which is sourced" and just being used incorrectly, as directed at Template:Dubious#Incorrect_uses, or tagging "unverifiable and probably wrong" content that should merely be removed.

To list just a few:

  • Apollo 8: If the burn had not lasted exactly the correct amount of time -- no source, no discussion on talk page
  • Anatolia: The Egyptians eventually withdrew from the region -- no source, no discussion on talk page
  • Abjad: allowing readers to guess the meaning of unfamiliar words from familiar roots (especially in conjunction with context clues) and improving word recognition -- accompanied by a [citation needed], which this seems to be redundant to
  • Foreign relations of Armenia: Right next to a [citation needed], which is all that is needed there
  • Avicenna: These were known in Latin under the title De Anima (treatises "on the soul"). -- appears to be a total drive-by tag
  • Adelaide: Adelaide's early history was wrought by economic uncertainty and incompetent leadership. -- also appears to be a total drive-by tag
  • Anaximander: as well as by observations made by older civilizations in the East -- drive-by tag
  • Casa_Milà: Right after a source, but otherwise appears to be a drive-by tag

tl;dr; every time I come across this tag, it's not being used for its intended purpose. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. The only templates that would be more disruptive to nominate than {{dubious}} would be {{disambig}} and {{fact}}. Just edit the documentation to reflect what the template is actually used for. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @KATMAKROFAN: Nobody ever reads the documentation. If they did, then this template wouldn't be so widely misused. Literally every instance I have ever found of it has been an egregious misuse. This was in no way meant to be a disruptive nomination. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@TenPoundHammer Speak for yourself, please. I do read it, and I edit template documentation too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talkcontribs) 14:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep If you find incorrect usage, just remove the tag. No reason to delete the template. But I'd like to add that I think the easiest way out of this problem is to remove from the documentation the requirement that statements tagged with this tag must be sourced. Debresser (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment. Agree with Keep, but disagree with deletion of anything except in cases of the most gross misuse. It is standard and widespread practice by those incapable of creating new templates or informed/enduring enough to engage in drawnout template documentation edits—thanks to TPH that he does—those so less experienced/endowed use the best available tag when one precisely appropriate is not available. And this type of tag placement is potentially a very valuable contribution to the encyclopedia (see for instance, the Electorate of Saxony article, a longstanding completely unsourced article, where "dubious" marks the WP:OR/plagiarising editor's confounding a parenthetical lifespan with the year span of an elector's reign). So, if "dubious" tags a copyedit or vandalism, remove and fix. Anything else, unless time is taken to research the problem, leave it for someone willing to do so. See also the suggestion below. Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If I removed incorrect usage, then this would have no transclusions. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Even if it's often used in a way not envisioned in the documentation, it does get "proper" use, see for example Chromium or Chalcogen. But then, even in the instances of "incorrect" use for tagging unsourced statements, this template is useful as it adds a semantic nuance not present in the other templates. – Uanfala (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes it different from {{citation needed}}? Because literally 100% of the uses I've seen are misusing it for that. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • {{Citation needed}} implies a statement appears valid but should be supported by a source. {{Dubious}} implies that a statement does not appear valid and ought to be removed unless a source is provided. With no tag for that purpose, the only "correct" procedure would be to delete the statements. —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this is not deleted, then can a workaround be proposed to curb rampant misuse? Like some kind of warning on the article if no discussion is linked? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Refine the documentation or enforce usage, but the template is too useful to trash. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clean up the documentation, possibly widened to reflect usage. Anmccaff (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Absolute, emphatic keep. Often all the necessary discussion is contained in the Edit summary made at time of placing the tag, see Comment above on the Electorate of Saxony article. Agree with points made by @Anmccaff: and @C.Fred:, regarding need for better documentation, and that disappearance of this tag would result in simple deletion edits (ruinous to quality/content, I think, by disrupting paragraph flow, deleting critically needed facts [like lifespan], etc.) just because first writer got things wrong. And, reply a firm No to the kind of warning suggested by TPH, because it is a slay the messenger approach. (The only warning most articles sprinkled with "dubious-discuss" needs is a warning that the content itself is suspect.)
Next, here is a simple suggestion which might satisfy TPH, and allow follow-on editors to make a contribution that is not destructive: Add the option, as in some other tags, to turn off the "?" and to turn off the "discuss" components of the tag. If the original editor does not discuss the matter in the Edit Summary or Talk, a follow-on editor can adjust the tag (removing "?", and removing "-discuss", if finding the content indeed dubious and documenting cause in their summary). That is, give us greater flexibility to get application of the tag accurate, and then better instruct new users through the documentation, to allow its improved use.
Otherwise, having run the foregoing suggestion up, if it does get a salute: The consensus here is clear. (Or, fine with me to make this a perpetual discussion, so that the TfD discussion link that now further highlights all the dubious statements in WP remains in place in perpetuity, to warn unwary readers.) Cheers, thanks for comments and effort to keep this useful tool. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. I am reminded of the practice in many campus quads of paving the walkways only after the footpaths in the grass have been established. If editors are misusing this template then that is an indication that there is a need that is not being satisfied by the current set of templates, and this misuse comes closest to satisfying that need. I agree with C.Fred, the {{Citation needed}} does not necessarily carry the implication that the statement is doubtful and this sometimes needs to be implied, whether or not there is an associated citation. Legitimately these are two different circumstances, so perhaps an option can be added to distinguish the cases...if that is really useful. The problem here can be dealt with by fixing the documentation, not removing the template.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Template documentation may need to be updated, but tracking usages of this template remains a fantastic way to find things that need to be fixed. I encourage "speedy keep" !voters here to review WP:SKCRIT and identify which of the very narrow criteria there apply. VQuakr (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and remove that ugly TfD tag ASAP. "Literally every instance I checked seemed to be ignoring the "specific statement or alleged fact which is sourced" and just being used incorrectly" Then change the documentation to match the reality of usage. It's a tag for dubious statements, regardless of whether they are sourced. The tag for statements that are sourced but still dubious is Template:verification failed. 71.167.63.188 (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
No, that is the tag for when the citation does not support the claim at all. Dubious may be used when the source itself is dubious. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • STOP TAGGING STUFF THAT WILL NEVER BE DELETED FOR TFD Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Snowball keep - Really? This is used all over the place and one of the essential cleanup tags. Olidog (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:US executive actions introduction

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

The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2017 March 18 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Template:YaleCranialNerves

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) links are all dead; (2) we have adequate cranial nerves here (3) no need therefore to preference Yale above an additional google search should readers wish to investigate further Tom (LT) (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Transwiki

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

  • Redirect to {{db-a5}} Pppery 00:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
That wouldn't work since A5 only applies to dictionary definitions, primary sources, and transwikis that were the result of AFD's. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, I don't think we need this one. Frietjes (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:RocheLexicon

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Tom (LT), I changed the url to use the web archive, so the links kind of work now. but, I can see how this may not be the best solution. Frietjes (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:ISP 1

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

  • Keep. {{ISP}} invites the editor to create an account, which is, of course, normally a good thing to do. However, occasionally, in a case of a persistent block-evading editor, asking him or her to create an account to get round the IP blocks that are there to stop him or her from editing is the last thing we want to do. I created {{ISP 1}} to deal with that situation. The need for it rarely arises, so I have rarely used it, but there are occasionally good reasons for using it, and I don't see that its existence does any harm, so deleting it would not provide any benefit. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • merge {{ISP 1}} with {{ISP}} by adding an option to change the language if desired (i.e. to suppress the encouragement to create an account). Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

March 5

Template:V

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

  • And yes, this nom is using <noinclude>...</noinclude> because navbar is used on 7 million pages. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No Merge While it is true that these templates work very similarly traditionally they have been adopted in different ways in separate wikispaces on the project. For example Navbar has been used primarily in article space while V is most typically used in non-article space. 80.12.85.225 (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    • So they work similarly, but because they're used in different places they should stay separate? That makes little to no sense. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge. Add parameters to {{navbar}} for H/M/W, then make {{v}} a wrapper and substitute it. Far less than 6k pages transclude it directly, it's used in a variety of templates. (side note - I'm not sure if a handy shortcut for "move" is a good thing to have!) — Train2104 (t • c) 07:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • support merging {{view}} and {{v}}, a no brainer. as for merging with {{navbar}}, I support this in principle, so long as there are no technical issues after a discussion at template talk:navbar with proposed code changes for review before implementation. Frietjes (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Merging V and View doesn't really work in terms of how the template calls work. About the only thing that could be done would be to make View dependent upon V but it would be a bit kludgey. As has been previously expressed the most logical move would be to have V (perhaps a Lua module of it) be the master template which Navbar and View would tap into. 2001:A62:101E:FC01:706D:5F17:967B:1998 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the code for Template:View shows that it already calls Template:V so it essentially acts as a redirect which means there's no need for a merge there. That leaves potentially turning Template:Navbar into a sort of redirect by having it as well calling Template:V. 2001:A62:1025:5501:1FC:1ED:7B9E:EA7 (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
bad idea, Module:navbar is the place to merge things, far better than adding a massive overhead to template:navbar by making it a wrapper for bloated code in Template:V. Frietjes (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Well Template:V could be a wrapper for Template:Navbar. Looking at its code the logic used to develop it will be broken if anything other than V is used (save perhaps Template:T) this logic will breakdown and it will just be wrong. Going through the talk archives for Navbar this popped up→ Template_talk:Navbar/Archive_1#Possible_new_Tnavbar_concept. It appears that the original creator of Navbar developed V as a potential alternative, not the other way around. 81.253.22.68 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tariq Nasheed

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

The result of the discussion was soft delete. No opposition. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:PD-NZSection27

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 March 15. (non-admin closure) J947 04:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Template:TLS/SSL support history of web browsers

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 with the article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

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

  • Keep: This template has some really useful information in it (speaking from practical experience here!). The template documentation gives the use case: "This template is for transclusion in Transport Layer Security#Web browsers to separate edit histories, due to this table receiving the vast majority of edits to the article, making edits to the main article hard to track." I think this is acceptable and should be permitted. gbrading (ταlκ) 15:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: This table is one of the most helpful in regards to varied versions and deployments of web browsers in today's connected society. This table provide immense amount of easily retrievable information for use in troubleshooting device connectivity. abitson 17:27, 3 Mar 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: I often use this table, it is hard to get these informations from browser histories 83.135.151.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. @Abiston and 83.135.151.209: You're misunderstanding the request. This isn't about removing the table from the rticle. It is about making directly part of the article's wikitext instead of transcluded from a template. Pppery 14:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: This matrix is extremely useful containing a lot of information in one place that is difficult, if not impossible to collect viewing individual browser histories. --216.136.108.250 (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    • You're misunderstanding the request. This isn't about removing the table from the rticle. It is about making directly part of the article's wikitext instead of transcluded from a template. Pppery 19:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • MOVE the data from the template to main article is fully ok for me as long the data will not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:2B9:5500:45E9:F7E3:D0C6:14E2 (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:PD-Highsmith

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 March 15. (non-admin closure) J947 04:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Template:Mobile phone companies in Ukraine

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 March 15. (non-admin closure) J947 04:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Template:Field marshal (India)

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

@Primefac: Field marshal (India) is currently a good topic nominee, and a common template is required per the GT criteria, and is required. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Field marshal (India) already is a Good Article, and there was nothing on the GA review that implied there needed to be a navbox. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: I am not talking about the good article status, but the good topic criteria. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
If you're talking about point 1.C at WP:WIAFT, it says preferably using a template, not "must use template"; if there are only two Field Marshals, they can very easily be linked in a See Also section. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, may be a good article, but that doesn't mean we need a navbox for two items. Frietjes (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:South Carolina Gamecocks women's basketball coach navbox

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 23:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Summit League baseball navbox

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

One link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete The template links to two independent articles but that is still not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Western Athletic Conference mascot navbox

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

One link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:I liga Top scorers

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 March 15. Primefac (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Template:NCAA Division I FCS independents navbox

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

One (1) link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, but can be recreated if more articles are written. Frietjes (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:NCAA Rowing Championships

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

One (1) link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, but can be recreated if more articles are written. Frietjes (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Trine Thunder athletic director navbox

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

One (1) link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Not enough links. Don't you like the template's other entry, unknown?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Olivet Comets athletic director navbox

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Two links... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:→§§ This Is A Streetway §§←

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 - vandalism or, at best, pointless. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-creation of previously speedied template. Not at all clear what appropriate use it could have : Noyster (talk), 11:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Also recreated by likely sock of blocked user; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JordanBaumann1211. JohnInDC (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox Christian church body

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Christian church body with Template:Infobox Christian denomination.
Essentially the very same thing. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I am throwing a wrench into this discussion. The template in question now called "Template:Infobox Christian denomination" was originally called "Template:Infobox religion". The original name gave folks like me the indication that it was appropriate to be used on pages about other religions and their denominations. So I and a few other editors put it on the article about the religion known as Unitarian Universalism as well the articles about its major denominations, the Unitarian Universalist Association and Canadian Unitarian Council as well as a few others. In fact it is still used on these pages. So to remedy this, I suggest we move Template:Infobox Christian denomination back to its original name Template:Infobox religion and rename Template:Infobox Christian church body to Template:Infobox Christian denomination (the more appropriate tittle), so we can have a generic religion template and an exclusively christian one. --Devin Murphy (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. They may as well both be merged into Infobox Church or the like. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Merging the two into Template:Infobox religion. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think my suggestion above was a good one, but I would also be more then happy, if merging is the consensus, to Support Pankaj Jain's suggestion of "Merging the two into Template:Infobox religion". --Devin Murphy (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose original nomination, support Devin Murphy's proposal. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 10:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge under whatever name is agreed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Merging the two into Template:Infobox religion.--80.182.95.111 (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • support merge as {{infobox religion}}. Frietjes (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support proposed merger of the smaller template into the larger; would like to see some of the parameters from the smaller template kept in the larger. Comment: We moved "Template:Infobox religion" to "Template:Infobox Christian denomination" a few years ago because the parameters use almost exclusively Christian terminology; there was also concern that "Catholic Church" or other Christian bodies is not a "Religion" - "Christianity" is the religion (not an argument I found compelling). If "infobox religion" is created, I would like to see it as a super template, and Infobox:Christian denomination be a wrapper for that template. Appropriate wrappers could then be created for denominations within other religions, etc. --Zfish118talk 03:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment 2: Perhaps "template:Infobox religious body" Withdrawn. Would accept either merge as "Infobox:Christian denomination" or "Infobox:Religion". "Religious body" or "Religious denomination" would only add extra verbiage, but little added clarity. --Zfish118talk 19:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
If so, I would argue better "Infobox religious denomination". Either way, the name of the future merged template should suitably be the subject of another, separate discussion after merge. Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Mississippi RiverKings roster

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Unused. All substantive content was removed[1] in 2011. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox French political party

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Redundant to Template:Infobox political party; merely uses dated syntax. Mélencron (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Completed discussions

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

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

To review

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

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Arts

Geography, politics and governance

Religion

Sports

Transport

  • None currently

Other

Meta

To convert

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

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

To substitute

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

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

  • None currently

Ready for deletion

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=772555614"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA