Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Closing instructions

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

How to use this page

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.

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

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

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

Notifying related WikiProjects

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

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

Notifying substantial contributors to the template

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

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

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

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

Twinkle

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

February 22

Template:Mexican brands

Does not pass WP:LISTN, vague scope is rife for promotional misuse. 1292simon (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:NSWMPs

unused; most likely replaced by other succession templates Frietjes (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Wenshan Line (Taipei Metro) RDT

unused; probably because it duplicates the map in Template:Wenhu Line (Taipei Metro) RDT Frietjes (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

February 21

Template:Academy of Magical Arts Comedy Magician of the Year

unused; and the notability of this award is not clear since there is no parent article listing the award winners Frietjes (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Abkhazian Railway

unused and generally duplicates Template:Adler-Sukhumi railway line Frietjes (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Thailand at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics

as far as I can tell, no other country has a navbox listing all the participants at the youth Olympics, which is excessive. if anyone wants to see the list, they can navigate to Thailand at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics and Thailand at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics, and note that the medallists are already listed in Template:Youth Olympic medalists for Thailand as well. Frietjes (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Micronesian political parties

"There are no political parties in Micronesia." Provides no useful navigation between topics directly related to the topic. Links in the header and footer are tangential only. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Kiryat Motzkin – Haifa line

unused; still no evidence that the route exists per the source at the foot of the routemap [1] Frietjes (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's referenced from Talk:Lev HaMifratz railway station and Talk:Haifa Bat Galim railway station. Both of those articles are stubs, so apparently there's some intention to use it at a future date. Also, the link at the bottom is a link to put the route into context in the network, not a reference. (Besides, it's a suburban commuter route, not an intercity line, so why should it be on the map of intercity routes?) And finally, Frietjes nominated this template for deletetion less than 60 days ago where the decision was to keep, supported by a deletion review. The nominator should have relisted at the time if they didn't agree with the original decision, they should have relisted at the time. Useddenim (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Useddenim, please provide a link to a reliable external source showing that the line exists. there is still no evidence that the route exists per the source at the foot of the routemap [2]. Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, appears to be either a hoax, the line no longer exists, or is simply not notable enough to be put on the maps. In any case, we don't need a map for it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Frietjes: How many times do I have to explain that it's not a reference, but a link to key the route's location within the network? Useddenim (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
the fact that you are unable to provide a reference speaks volumes. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Plastikspork: That's a harsh and prejudiced interpretation. I have asked Image of me (the template's creator) to give us the origin of the route. Useddenim (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Salvador Mejía Alejandre

TV producer is not primary creator per WP:FILMNAV. --woodensuperman 12:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 00:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Country data Odessa People's Republic

There was no such country as Odessa People's Republic, nobody even proclaimed this. This template should be deleted. Shmurak (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 00:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete. As per nominator's rationale. Borsoka (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Titled noble families in the Kingdom of Hungary

The template is aimed at listing all noble families that held a hereditary title (baron, count, duke) in the Kingdom of Hungary. First of all, there were hundreds of such families, as it is demonstrated by the well-referenced (and still incomplete) List of titled noble families in the Kingdom of Hungary, so the creation of a complete, but handy template can hardly be imagined. Secondly, the template contains OR that hardly can be continuously fixed. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. The template isn't only incomplete but confusing. I was one of the editors who tried to fix this template years ago, but it was futile. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

February 20


February 19

Template:AFLLadderByesLine

no longer needed now that {{AFLLadderLine}} and {{AFLLadderFooter}} have byes parameters Frietjes (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Mammals/Bats Task Force

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Mammals/Bats Task Force with Template:WikiProject Mammals.
Bats is a task force of the Mammals WikiProject. It seems that the separate and unnecessary bats template was created due to a failed attempt to update the mammals template. Jameboy (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Yes, I ultimately created a new WP template because the Mammals template uses Template:WPBannerMeta which could not hold another task force. "WPBannerMeta can accommodate up to five task forces, each with its own image, links and importance scale, if desired." If merging this template would not affect the hot articles bot and quality/importance assessment bot, then I wouldn't be bothered either way. Another option is to migrate the Bats task force out to its own WikiProject similar to WP:CATS being a WikiProject with its own template, not a task force, despite being under the umbrella of WP:MAMMALS. Enwebb (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I've given this some thought and I oppose a merge for several reasons. 1) It will create a lot of work. The bats template is already out on thousands of talk pages, with importance and quality scales that differ from the Mammals template. 2) The status quo is effective. Bat articles have seen a lot of growth and organization since the inception of the template, with a 7% reduction in stub frequency in the past 9 months and 30 missing bat articles created. No issues have been raised within the Tree of Life or Mammals WikiProject re: the separate talk page template (although they are certainly welcome to chime in now with any). 3) I'm not really seeing a merge rationale and you didn't really present one other than a subjective statement that it is unnecessary. Yes, there is overlap with WP:MAMMALS but that is the nature of taxonomy. There have been several offshoots from WP:MAMMALS. In short, as someone who spends the majority of my time on Wikipedia editing and creating bat articles, I find the template useful and necessary. Enwebb (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Enwebb. Merging the templates will not help if it is not possible to add another task force. Having a second template for the task force is an easy solution that has already been implemented in thousands of cases. Pagliaccious (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment (from nominator) I suppose my rationale was that having some task forces as part of a wikiproject banner and one out on its own just seems inconsistent, especially as it appeared to be based on technical limitations that could be overcome rather than a genuine edge case that required an exception. Fair enough, I wasn't aware of the five task force limitation, possibly because I've seen several wikiproject banner templates that can accommodate more than that (Template:WikiProject Football has more than 30, for example), so I wrongly assumed that it was easy to add just one more. However, according to Template:WPBannerMeta#Task_forces, it is possible to support more than five task forces via the use of Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks. This would presumably require a rewrite of Template:WikiProject Mammals but I assume it would then make it easier to incorporate mammalian task forces in future? (Hopefully someone who knows more about templates than I do can comment on that). In terms of the work required, I can't help with template syntax but i would be willing to do a large share of the work in updating talk pages. Is it still worth doing? I don't know. --Jameboy (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Enwebb. The current situation may not be perfect, but it is not troublesome in any way, and merging will leave a hole, given current technology. Clearly making a WikiProject would be a solution, but to a problem that doesn't really need solving. Let's leave it alone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Through Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces it should be possible to add another taskforce. Isn't complicated to implement that I can see. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:!Promo

Redundant to {{Promotional source}}, {{Primary source inline}}, {{Irrelevant citation}}, {{Self-published inline}}, and {{User-generated inline}} respectively. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:!Cite

Redundant to {{full citation needed}} and other, more specific templates in Category:Inline citation cleanup templates {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Distinguish2

Propose merging Template:Distinguish2 with Template:Distinguish.
Similar to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 18#Template:Redirect3 and Template:About2, the ability for custom text can be implemented in {{Distinguish}} as a text= option. feminist (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added {{tfm}} notices to the two templates. Given the high transclusion of the latter, I've opted to noinclude the notice on articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Support same rationale essentially - as being nom of that previous discussion Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

February 18

Template:Ethiopia call-ups (past 12 months)

This is basically a 'current squad' template for a national team, which 1) doesn't really exist and 2) simply isn't needed. GiantSnowman 18:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • delete, excessive. Frietjes (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Homophone

Was used only 4 times, I've orphaned it (diffs:[3][4][5][6]). Doesn't seem to be a use case that needs a seperate template; in cases where it needs to be specified as a homophone, custom text with {{Distinguish2}} can be used (as I did here) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Agreeing that this template isn't helpful. Hatnotes should use the most simple and clear language possible, and text that contains 10-dollar words like "homophone" is a no-no. – Uanfala (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Redirect3 and Template:About2

Propose merging Template:Redirect3 with Template:Redirect and Template:About2 with Template:About.
Implement their ability for custom text as a text= option in the main template that would add custom text to the end. (and which would suppress the automatic "for other uses see foo (disambiguation)" in the case of say {{about|foo|text = xyz}})). Then the templates {{About2}} and {{Redirect3}} can be deleted after the instances of use converted. Note: can't tag {{Redirect}} or {{About}} Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Strongly agree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If you would like to add |text= to existing templates, by all means do, but is there any benefit whatsoever in then deleting the templates that the new functionality will duplicate? I don't see why people should be forced to write {{about|text=}} instead of {{about2}}. Also, {{about2}} is intuitive as it follows the pattern of other hatnote templates, where the appended "2" is used to distinguish the templates that take free text. – Uanfala (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I plan on (proposing) merging all of those appended "2"'s also, eventually. By reducing the number of templates it makes maintenance easier, reduces confusion by not having templates that are superseded by another and are similarly named, and it's clearer what is occurring when a parameter is specified in the wikitext. It's 4 extra characters to type on a function that isn't used all that often (109 transclusions for {{about}}, 400 for the other). Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, it isn't really consistent. As you can see here {{Redirect2}} is for two redirects and {{Redirect3}} is the custom text one. {{distinguish-otheruses2}} and {{other uses2}} add a disambiguation suffix instead of being a custom text version. So not really intuitive. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Thinking over it, there can be a short form of |t= Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, if that is your plan, then I think it might be better to start a bigger discussion that covers all cases as these templates work as a system and it's probably not productive to create gaps in it in a piecemeal fashion. There definitely is a case for seeing a |t= parameter as a better solution than the current system of different template names (although I'm not entirely convinced), but even if the alternative is adopted the old templates had better be retained, possibly converted into wrappers. Either way, the gains in maintainability are slim: the family of templates are already pretty simple to begin with, and are there's rarely, if ever, any need to modify them. At any rate, I don't see deletion as a viable option: I know how frustrating it can be to try improving things in the system once people have become set in their ways, but if the behaviour of these templates is altered, the disruption will be high: the templates are well established and widely known – they have been around since the early days, most of them have hundreds of transclusions, some (like {{Other uses2}} and {{Distinguish2}}) have thousands. – Uanfala (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The other ones probably can't be deleted, but they can be deprecated. The other ones are similar but not really exactly like these which is why I haven't added them + they're used a lot more often. The templates really aren't that consistent and I don't see much of a "gap" so to speak. {{about2}} was created two years ago. I don't think eliminating low use templates like these will cause much of a disruption. These templates are really not widely known. (similar stuff was done to {{redirect4}}, {{about3}}, and {{about4}})Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
In forcing people to switch to using something else, deprecating a template will have the same effect as deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
re opposer's {{about2}} is intuitive: quite nonsensical. Which editor can use {{About2}} without checking its documentation? Using |text= sounds OK; using #2 does not. And while nom may think of moving this forward, that is not relevant here. (So nom, don't get distracted into this off-topic ;-) ). - DePiep (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm finding that >50% the time that {{about2}} is being used, it is not needed - literally the same text can be produced by {{about}}. I think those people may think that all {{about}} can produce is "This page is about Use1. For other uses, see About (disambiguation)" and so {{about2}} must be used for anything more than that. Thus I think deleting those templates would help in reducing confusion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Really, more like 80%. Think its causing more confusion than help. One instance I saw admin SlimVirgin use about2 when {{about}} would have sufficed..I think forcing people to using {{about}}, and perhaps looking at the documentation (i've added a note to {{about2/doc}} that in general {{about}} should be used and not {{about2}}, if |text= is added I'll similarily warn against using it), could have some benefits. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support merge to simplify use. Migration can easily be accomplished by a quick bot run. No opinion about other templates that could be changed or merged: the case for {{about2}} and {{redirect3}} is well-articulated and straightforward, let's focus on those. — JFG talk 00:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --★Yexstorm2001★ (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Daask (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --Ita140188 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with the merge, is it possible to remove the TfD note from {{about}}? It shows up *everywhere* and looks awful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    Done, and for the record, I support the merge for the above reasoning. — Earwig talk 03:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support provided all features are preserved. Remember WP:NOTAVOTE by the way. Nuke (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support no need for extra templates. Many editors (including yours truly) have made the mistake of using the wrong hatnote template when it's not necessary. feminist (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support To simplify. The only thing I can remember when hatnoting is that I need to go open up 3-5 template pages and figure out which one to use. Every. Single. Time. ~ Amory (utc) 20:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
And how will this change with the merge? About2 is an exception and should be rarely used. From all the support votes it sounds like you just want a way to make your own customized text. Christian75 (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I think Amory means to say this (at least I want to): Two hatnote templates will disappear (being redundant), the other two are left with a single parameter added (parameter works similar in both ways). This is simplifying the documentation.
  • Support. I can add: four years ago I've spend a lot of time on rationalising these hatnotes, similar way. -DePiep (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Customized text should only be used in seldom cases. Adding text= to this template legitimize the use of all kinds of individual phrases. If merged anyway, there should be added a maintenance category for all uses of text= Christian75 (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
only be used in seldom cases: could be true (I did not find this), but these merges do not add legitimation. It is an existing option. Then, our main goal is to help the editors out by easifying hatnote usage, not prevent proper usage by complicating things. This also helps writing good hatnote sentences. As for tracking: this tool already does a nice job. -DePiep (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:No Limit Forever Records

Unneeded navbox to simply list the founders of the record company. WP:NENAN. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  • delete, founders can be connected through simple in-article links, or see-also-section links. Frietjes (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

February 17

Template:8TeamBracket-2Legs

Propose merging Template:8TeamBracket-2Legs with Template:8TeamBracket-2Leg-NoSeeds.
These two template are the same usage. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Huskies of Honor navbox

Template provides navigation with respect to a minor award that is not defining for its recipients. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. School “halls of fame” just aren’t significant enough to warrant navboxes in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame

Template provides navigation with respect to a minor award that is not defining for its recipients. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. School “halls of fame” just aren’t significant enough to warrant navboxes in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Italian American Sports Hall of Fame

Template provides navigation with respect to a minor award that is not defining for its recipients. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Lizard (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame

Template provides navigation with respect to a minor award that is not defining for its recipients. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Lizard (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:PFW Golden Toe Award

Template provides navigation with respect to a minor award that is not defining for its recipients. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable.--Yankees10 18:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Lizard (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:NFL Alumni Career Achievement Award

Template provides navigation with respect to a minor award that is not defining for its recipients. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable.--Yankees10 18:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Lizard (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Metro Dagupan

Help fix malformed TfD: Dagupan is no longer a metropolis as per definitions by the National Economic and Development Authority -ERAMnc 08:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

February 16

Template:1966–67 AAWU Conference men's basketball

Redundant template, duplicate of Template:1966–67 AAWU Conference men's basketball standings. Bigcheddar (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:1966–67 Pacific Coast Conference men's basketball standings

Redundant template, duplicate of Template:1966–67 AAWU Conference men's basketball standings . Bigcheddar (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:1986–87 Pacific 10 Conference men's basketball standings

Redundant template, duplicate of Template:1986–87 Pacific-10 Conference men's basketball standings. Bigcheddar (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Atlanta United 2

duplicate of Template:Atlanta United 2 squad Joeykai (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete beyond the fact that this is a duplicate, templates for second teams are usually not maintained, but rather incorporated into the first team's template. This template isn't needed. Jay eyem (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Dead to Fall

Band navbox. The people in this navbox all have no articles. The four albums don't really need a navbox. Sandstein 19:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep - Navbox has four albums which was not connected without the navbox. The ensemble plans to release a new album in 2018. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, plenty of links. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Metro Dagupan

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 Template does not exist. If the template linked contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT 09:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Dagupan is no longer a metropolis as per definitions by the National Economic and Development Authority -ERAMnc 08:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Editnotices/Page/Pokémon X and Y

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. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This game was released over four years ago. The game only occasionally has news articles written about it and there is no information that could be leaked anymore. While it might have been useful in 2013, it is now superfluous. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Lakes of Kenai National Wildlife

Unmaintained list of mostly redlinks. I’ve nominated the only three with articles at AFD as these lakes are all in an area that is more lake than land and they are not really notable, so this will almost certainly soon be nothing but redlinks. It may be possible to have a navbox for this subject, but this ain’t it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The AFD was relisted, but looks likely to end in a decision to delete. It should close on the 18th. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd rather have the TFD close after the AFD is finished. Relisting mostly for that purpose, though obviously more input would be grand.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete -- insufficient navigation & not everything needs a nav box. The entries appear to be insufficiently notable; they are up for deletion, with the discussion trending "Delete". Delete regardless of AfD outcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Julius Evola

The quantity of articles about Evola has fluctuated pretty wildly since this template was created, but they've constantly lacked reliable sources establishing notability. After a year without improvement, I just turned Le Parole Obscure du Paysage Interieur into a redirect to Julius Evola. This leaves only three articles remaining. One of those also has tags for its serious notability problems. There isn't enough left to bother with a navbox. Grayfell (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:USL Premier Development League Southwest Division stadiums

Entirely unnecessary template, we don't maintain stadium templates for semi-pro leagues. Jay eyem (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC) I would like to change my nomination to merge. There is no need to maintain a template for each individual division, but there could be usefulness for a template for the entire league. I have already asked the admin that closed the other stadium template to userfy it to assist with merging. Jay eyem (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  • delete, not useful. Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 15:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete No need. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, so far, all of delete comments are WP:JNN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, which should carry zero weight, because they do not show any effort in justifying deleting the template. The stadiums and teams meet WP:GNG and it is a notable term to know where PDL teams play, and the PDL teams in general are a noteworthy GNG item. The idea that the PDL is not fully professional carries a WP:DIDNOTWIN feel. Quidster4040 (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:GNG is for articles, not templates. The articles themselves may be notable, but that does not mean that the templates are useful. Under WP:DEL10 they can be deleted. I would also think that merge might be an acceptable alternative such as to a Template:Premier Development League stadiums Jay eyem (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
      • But that assumes that they are redundant or useless, which they are not. Quidster4040 (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, I found the template useful, enough that I marked it to watch. Unfortunately, by design, it is more difficult to watch templates, requiring going through multiple pages. I don't mark them enough because of that and templates often get deleted in secrecy. Templates are navigational tools. I used these to navigate to a bunch of stadiums I have related other content to. So they are useful and thus needed. The above people's delete votes simply show their ignorance of the usefulness of the templates and cannot be a definitive statement of these not being needed. Instead, they impose their value judgement on the league these stadiums are associated with and in the intent of diminishing (or ultimately deleting) its presence on wikipedia, wish to delete the supplemental content created by the editors who have contributed to that league. Trackinfo (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment ok 1. Dial back the accusatory tone. 2. You need to recognize that these templates are primarily related to WP:FOOTY and that determination is the primary one used for keeping and maintaining these templates 3. There is already a precedent for deleting these exact kinds of templates. I have proposed merging them as an alternative because I believe that it could potentially be useful as a single template but not as they are now. Jay eyem (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Do not stand on a precedent established by a severe minority of three people. The same three people who are placing delete ivotes on this page. Finally you have some pushback for an ill advised prior deletion which should get replace. Trackinfo (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment It was closed by an admin unaffiliated with the project. Take it up with them, not me. And again, watch your tone, please. Jay eyem (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge I don't see a compelling reason to delete. Evidently we do maintain such templates, and some editors above have found these useful. Mamyles (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment just as a quick aside, if you look at Category:Association football venue navigational boxes on the whole you won't find football templates for semi-pro leagues other than in the United States. No National League, no Regionalliga, no Championnat National, etc. I think merging is the minimum of what must be done, but I still don't see how this is useful for WP:FOOTY to maintain. Jay eyem (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:New Zealand Squad 2006 ICC Champions Trophy

unused; 2nd place squad (squad membership is preserved in 2006 ICC Champions Trophy squads). See 25 July 2017, 29 December 2016, 18 December 2014, 8 December 2014, ... Frietjes (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete confirmed it's unused. Mamyles (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; unused. Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Now I have inserted this template into those cricketers' biographies who have played at the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy. It is also a useful template. Abishe (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per @Abishe: (thanks for the work). Useful navbox for notable ICC tournament, nothing to do with examples mentioned above. Störm (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, navbox creep. We don't need navboxes for every squad; especially squads that didn't win the trophy. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. We don't need navboxes for every intricate little detail. Ajf773 (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

February 15

Template:6 Hours of Circuit of Fuji

appears to be created by mistake (copy of Template:6 Hours of Fuji) Frietjes (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:2017–18 Catholic Conference Hockey standings

all redlinks; high school sports conference Frietjes (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:2003 World Rally Championship season

unused, all redlinks; duplicates the this of events in the main article Frietjes (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:2002 World Rally Championship season

unused, no links; duplicates the list in the main article Frietjes (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Four Great Classical Novels Television Series

Redundant, Template:Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Template:Water Margin, Template:Dream of the Red Chamber and Template:Journey to the West all include TV adaptations already. The 4 Chinese novels are not related in any meaningful way such as setting, author (Water Margin may share one co-author with ROTK but that's debatable), or story, to warrant inclusion of their TV adaptations in the same template. (Four Great Classical Novels has already been moved to Classic Chinese Novels for what it's worth.) Timmyshin (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

NC license templates

All needs to be deleted because Wikipedia don't allow NC licenses. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:AD9E:5801:81C:7CD9 (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the templates. Those who use those templates are licensing their contributions under multiple licences: GFDL, CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC-SA. This is permitted as long as one of the licences is a free licence.
{{MultiLicenceWithCC-ByNCSA-IntEng}} and {{MultiLicenceWithCC-ByNCSA-IntEng-3.0}} seem to duplicate each other: the only difference I can find is that one uses British spelling ("licence") while the other uses American spelling ("license"). Confusingly, both use British spelling in the page title, though. It may be possible to merge those two. The third template uses a different version of the licence and therefore can't be merged with the other two. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:LUMS

No article to navigate. Redundant temp. Störm (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Monastic houses of England

Propose merging Template:Monastic houses of England with Template:Map link to lists of monastic houses in England by county.
{{Monastic houses of England}} duplicates scope and content of {{Map link to lists of monastic houses in England by county}}, which has older edit history, except for the footer links. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 20:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:2018 UPSL Wild West standings

Template for an article that fails WP:GNG Jay eyem (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination for these templates as a result of the deletion review. Jay eyem (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 15:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, article itself is notable and receives WP:SIGCOV, the template helps preserve the article from being too long in length. Quidster4040 (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep/Delete Useful template for the 2018 UPSL season article. Keep if that article is kept, delete if it is deleted. Bashum104 (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep As I mentioned above, there is a mass move to make this league disappear from wikipedia, so its component articles and the templates to support the articles are under attack. The league is notable, the season they play is already (and will continue to be) notable. The templates that support the layout of that season's article are useful for the cleanliness of that presentation. Even if it is a single use template, templates make content more orderly and are justified. Trackinfo (talk)
Comment "Under attack"? Please dial back the accusations and allow the content to be discussed in a civil manner please. Whether or not the league is notable remains to be seen. Jay eyem (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Every TfD is an attack on the content. There is no other term for it. The intent is to destroy. Trackinfo (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment I would appreciate it if you read/re-read WP:CIVIL before your next response. "an attack on content" and "The intent is to destroy" are highly accusatory, and such comments are not needed for this discussion. Jay eyem (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
wikt:attack, #1 and 2 apply; wikt:destroy, #7 certainly, and 2, 3 or 4 could also suffice. This is not an issue of civility, this is a statement of fact. If you did not want this content to disappear, you would not have started this action. Trackinfo (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment your word choice clearly implied ill-considered accusations of impropriety and implies that deletion of content that is somehow equivalent to destruction, neutralization, and euthanization. It absolutely is a WP:CIVIL issue, and unless you intend on making actual arguments about the merits of keeping the templates, you should not be making such comments. Jay eyem (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I feel that this nomination is premature. This is being used in an article for good reason. If that article is deleted, then would be the appropriate time to nominate these templates. Mamyles (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Note 2018 UPSL season deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 UPSL season (closed by me). AFAICS, these templates are now unused. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Further NoteThe above editors' closure of that article has been taken to Deletion review. Please do not base any decision on that status until the DRV process has been completed.Trackinfo (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article was in WP:DR
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

:*Wait pending the outcome of the deletion review. Jay eyem (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Old discussions

February 14

Template:2017 Major League Baseball postseason

per prior consensus and prior discussion. we don't need to keep these separate from the article. if we want to share the bracket between more than one article, we can use LST. Frietjes (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? These should be templates to put in so you don't have to type in whatever article it came from (like the setup we currently have). Plus, it saves space, which means less of a bloating article. This was swept under the rug and I wasn't involved then. –Piranha249 (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
the setup that we currently have is that the tables are in the main article, and any uses in other articles are transcluded through LST. check any of the other years (like 2016 in baseball and 2016 Major League Baseball season). Frietjes (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

February 13

Template:Country data Odessa People's Republic

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 February 21. (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 00:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:MacOS derivations

The purpose of a navbox is to help people navigate Wikipedia but we already have a surplus of navboxes for this topic: {{Apple Inc. operating systems}}, {{Mac OS}}, {{macOS}}, {{iOS}} and {{Apple software}}.

However, I strongly believe this navbox is meant to advertise a certain opinion while evading verifiability requirement.

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep but as the creator of the template I'm horribly biased, so I am open to this discussion. The intent of this template is to have all the operating systems that were derived from NeXTSTEP at Apple Inc. in one straightforward table. This began with Mac OS X (later OS X and currently macOS) and Mac OS X Server and was subsequently expanded to the OS for the original Apple TV (initially from Mac OS X 10.4, later iOS 4), iPhone OS (later iOS), watchOS (from iOS 8), tvOS (replacing the previous Apple TV OS, based on iOS 9), and now finally audioOS (based on iOS 11). With the exception of audioOS, which is brand new (and I'm working on it), all of these links between the various operating systems are verifiable and have sources on their respective pages, particularly the version history pages/sections. I'm not sure what Codename Lisa means by advertising an opinion. The template is brand new and probably needs some changes, but I don't think deletion is the solution.
Regarding the similar navboxes mentioned above, in my opinion:
  1. {{Mac OS}} is not relevant at all as it relates to the original Mac OS, prior to Mac OS X.
  2. {{macOS}} is mostly related to the various components of the OS and is large and unwieldy.
  3. {{Apple software}} is also mostly related to other software that Apple makes and is large and unwieldy.
  4. {{Apple Inc. operating systems}} is probably the closest to this template, but it has a lot of additional information and other operating systems that are older and not relevant to any modern Apple platform, furthermore the common links between and among Apple's modern operating systems is completely obscured.
  5. {{iOS}} has more of an emphasis on hardware and does not include anything about the roots of iOS, furthermore it would not be appropriate to have information about other operating systems in this template such as tvOS, watchOS, or audioOS even though they have a common link.
If there is a way this template can be improved or even merged into an existing template without getting lost, I'd be happy to pursue that, but I don't think deletion is the answer (at least right now). ~ PaulT+/C 14:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC) (P.S. My apologies if I'm not doing this correctly. I haven't participated in a deletion discussion in some time.)
  • Hello, Psantora. And welcome to Templates for Discussion. As its name says, we decide the fate of the templates here and it is not exclusively a venue for deletion. I am open to other outcomes. The problems we need to solve are:
  1. Your creation of this template, regardless of whatever shortcoming you have seen in other templates, has aggrevated the already severe issue of link bombardment.
  2. Your navbox chiefly consistitutes non-navigational items. Every single link you have placed between <small>...</small> tags is redundant as they don't go to unique articles. So are links for "audioOS" and "audioOS 11".
  3. This template presents information in way that clearly conflicts with how the corresponding articles explain them. You have presented "Mac OS X", "OS X" and "macOS" as different operating systems instead of new names for the same thing. You have done the same thing with "iPhone OS" and "iOS", "Apple TV OS" and "tvOS", and "Mac OS X Server", "OS X Server" and "macOS Server". And you didn't stop there. You have explicitly claimed that "iOS" is something based on "iPhone OS". There are many "based on" claims, for which I suspect you have no evidence other that visual similarity. All of these claims require a source and the contradiction must be addressed. A navbox isn't supposed to create new disputes.
  4. I can clearly see subjective bias. For example, in "other operating systems that are older and not relevant to any modern Apple platform", I would question the meaning of "modern", has it not been for the fact that Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, actually cherishes history while you are trying to ostrachize it.
If we solve all these problems and remove all these emblishments, we end up with something slightly less comprehensive than {{Apple Inc. operating systems}}.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok, there is a lot to cover here. I'll start with the subjectivity. I was referring to what is written in the template not being opinion- of course my comments here have a point of view. Isn't the point of a discussion here to be convincing and to make a directed point to change someone else's mind? Regardless, I disagree with the point. I am not trying to ostracize history, in fact the opposite and I'm not sure how you jumped to that conclusion. Speaking of subjectivity, how would you determine what link bombardment is if not to make a subjective opinion about what is too many links? My intent was to make a more focused template on those distinct operating systems that have been created by Apple that were derived from NeXTSTEP. The current templates either do not have this detail or include way more information and other, unrelated operating systems that have no relevance to NeXTSTEP. I'm not saying that they don't belong on Wikipedia, just not in this template. How does that translate to ostracizing history?
Regarding the "non-navigational" items, each of those server links in theory could have a full Wikipedia article about them. I understand that is not likely to happen though and it might be better to remove them. audioOS on the other hand is brand new and there will (eventually?) be a separate article about it similar to tvOS and watchOS.
macOS was originally branded as Mac OS X, then OS X, and finally the current macOS. (The same is true for the server.) The template reflects this, why is this wrong?
The same is true of the original iPhone operating system. It was originally "based" on "OS X" (which was still branded as "Mac OS X" at the time, a notable difference) and didn't have an official name until early 2008, almost a year after the phone was released. The name "iPhone OS" was given with the release of the SDK just before iPhone OS 2 was released. It wasn't renamed iOS until 2010. Is it false to say that iOS 4 was based on iPhone OS 3? Would it be better to say "continued from iPhone OS 3" instead? (I made this change.)
Apple TV's operating systems are completely different. The first 3 versions of the OS ran on X86 hardware, the next 4 were an embedded variant of iOS running on ARM that didn't allow for 3rd party development, and then finally a new OS allowing for official development support with a full SDK was released with tvOS. This is why they are separated in the template and this is all backed up by information present in their links.
Perhaps it would be better if some other voices chimed in on this? ~ PaulT+/C 15:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Opinion and subjectivity in editorial decisions are allowed; but not in contents. Editorial decisions are bound by the consensus; but contents are subject to WP:NPOV, WP:RS and deriving policies. For my part, I was discussing WP:NAVBOX. I hope that clears everything. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: I believe this has significant value, however, it could perhaps due with being cleaned up and renamed something along the lines of "Darwin OS derivations" or some such. 17.226.15.50 (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

February 12

Template:Meanings of asteroid names/navigator

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) 03:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Cathead cold war merchant ships of

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. speedy delete - creator agrees. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. Josh (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Furt entire image

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) 03:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:For/aux5

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) 03:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

no longer used by Template:For Frietjes (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Main Page discussion footer

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) 03:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Low-power TV channel categories

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) 03:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:FACfailed/Small

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) 03:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Geobox blank

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) 03:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

unused, probably replaced by Template:Geobox 0 Frietjes (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox neuron/usage

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) 03:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:BAB-Plan-Tunnel-

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) 03:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Football jersey box

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) 03:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Football lineup player1

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) 03:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Media1

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) 03:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

unused? Frietjes (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Frame right

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) 03:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

unused; probably replaced by {{image frame}} Frietjes (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Interurban Change

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) 03:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

old and unused, probably replaced by {{s-rail}} or {{rail line}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Fooian social scientist types

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) 03:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

unused Frietjes (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Kiryat Motzkin – Haifa line

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 February 21. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Fb team Sporting Arizona FC

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) 03:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems an unused template Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I created this template when i was updating information in 2018 Mobile Mini Sun Cup, the Fb cl team template did not exist at the time. it was later removed from this page because a match that was previously scheduled between Colorado Rapids and Sporting AZ FC was removed from the schedule. If there is no other use for this template then it should be deleted. at the same time i created this template i also created Template:Fb team San Antonio FC (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) if the scheduled match between New England Revolution and San Antonio FC is also removed from the schedule then this temple should also be put up for deletion. User:Jlater 17:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  • delete, the fb team templates are generally deprecated at this point in time. new articles should be using Module:Sports table instead, and we don't need to create new ones. Frietjes (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 13:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Salvador Mejía Alejandre

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 February 21. (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 00:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Imran Khan

NAVBOX purpose is to help user move from one article to another. This temp isn't useful (no article is actually his work) and comes under WP:TCREEP. Not every article needs NAVBOX and we can use 'See also' section for one or two article not NAVBOX. Störm (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:2018 UPSL Southeast standings

Article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 UPSL season. So no need. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 13:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment That article is currently undergoing a deletion review. This template should not be deleted until the DRV is complete. Smartyllama (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per outcome of the deletion review. Jay eyem (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • merge with the article, and delete, single use template. Frietjes (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:2018 UPSL Midwest – West standings

Article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 UPSL season. So no need. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 13:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment That article is currently undergoing a deletion review. This template should not be deleted until the DRV is complete. Smartyllama (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per outcome of the deletion review. Jay eyem (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • merge with the article, and delete, single use template. Frietjes (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:2018 UPSL Colorado – Pro Premier standings

Article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 UPSL season. So no need. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 13:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment That article is currently undergoing a deletion review. This template should not be deleted until the DRV is complete. Smartyllama (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per outcome of the deletion review. Jay eyem (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • merge with the article, and delete, single use template. Frietjes (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:2018 UPSL Colorado – Championship standings

Article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 UPSL season. So no need. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 13:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment That article is currently undergoing a deletion review. This template should not be deleted until the DRV is complete. Smartyllama (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per outcome of the deletion review. Jay eyem (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • merge with the article, and delete, single use template. Frietjes (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:2018 UPSL Midwest – North standings

Article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 UPSL season. So no need. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 13:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment That article is currently undergoing a deletion review. This template should not be deleted until the DRV is complete. Smartyllama (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per outcome of the deletion review. Jay eyem (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • merge with the article, and delete, single use template. Frietjes (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:2018 UPSL Midwest – East standings

Article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 UPSL season. So no need. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 13:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment That article is currently undergoing a deletion review. This template should not be deleted until the DRV is complete. Smartyllama (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per outcome of the deletion review. Jay eyem (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • merge with the article, and delete, single use template. Frietjes (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:2018 UPSL Midwest – Central standings

Article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 UPSL season. So no need. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 13:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment That article is currently undergoing a deletion review. This template should not be deleted until the DRV is complete. Smartyllama (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per outcome of the deletion review. Jay eyem (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • merge with the article, and delete, single use template. Frietjes (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Kind of Blue

Each song already has a link to other songs on the album, and the Kind of Blue article has a song list. Squandermania (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  • weak keep, seems no worse than any of the others in the album navigational boxes category. I could see deleting these, if there is wider consensus that album-centric navigational boxes are not needed. Frietjes (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

February 11

Template:Golf courses in the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Only has two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't fit into the normal WP:GOLF structure. One of a small number of fairly random templates that were created in the past. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Golf/Templates#Courses.
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:IMDb character

Recently IMDb eliminated all of their character pages. Anyone who clicks on the this template in the "External links" section of a Wikipedia article gets this 404 message. IMO it is time for this template to be deleted and for a bot to remove it from any articles where it has been placed MarnetteD|Talk 18:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Update. BangJan1999 has nominated this for a speedy deletion which makes sense. MarnetteD|Talk 18:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I understand that. But then again, it is a helper template and can be treated as an ordinary external link. Whereas you delete the external links, you remove transclusions of this. –Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It's just a little bit over 50 pages - 1,254 pages as of right now. --AussieLegend () 04:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • IMDb hasn't actually completely deleted the character information, there's just a lot less of it and the pages are at a different url now. See, for example, Mr Spock. This template could probably be fixed by updating Wikidata with the new character links. --AussieLegend () 04:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, I am aware. Like I said, I did investigate a bit. But look at your own link. It is quite clear that repairing the template (so to speak) is not feasible. Even WikiData cannot fix the problem of there being no contents to link. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, there is content at the pages, just a lot less than there was. The best part of what's left is the images of the characters. Linking to those really means we don't need non-free images in the infoboxes. --AussieLegend () 08:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not going to comment on that very old and controversial matter of replacing infobox images with external links or any derivative of it thereof. Sorry. I don't want to be part of that brutal controversy. But as for the fate of this template, if you have an alternative plan of action of in mind, please share with us now. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I wasn't suggesting we replace the infobox images with external links. It's more along the lines that we could replace the non-free images with free images and if anyone gets upset, point them to the imdb link. As for this template, it seems that the problem is made more complex by imdb making character pages for each series/film. That means that Mr Spock will have a page each for ST:TOS, ST:TAS, ST:TNG, each of the films AND The Big Bang Theory. (Did I miss any?) --AussieLegend () 06:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I never understood why we had a template that encouraged editors to link to a "Popular culture"-type page on a user-generated content site that doesn't pass muster as a reliable source. Had an editor copied the material on the target page into a Wikipedia biography, they couldn't have cited the target page as a source. Good riddance, in my opinion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    This template is meant only to be used in the "external links" section of an article where use of such links is acceptable. It's not meant to be used as a reliable source because it isn't. There are other, similar such templates and they are used to ensure consistency when linking. They also help to identify issues such as this, so they do serve a purpose. --AussieLegend () 04:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It should be noted that not all of the character pages have been changed/moved in the way that the Spock one has. In this specific case IMO the link to the Star Trek wiki (Memory Alpha) is more useful to the reader than the IMDb one. MarnetteD|Talk 05:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Do you have some examples of the pages that you are talking about? --AussieLegend () 05:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are referring to since most of the character pages don't exist anymore. As to the Spock one IMDb has a few pictures and a and a small list of quotes while MA has a full article with some of those and much more. MarnetteD|Talk 05:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but "MA"? The pages don't exist at their former locations and the scope has been reduced but they still exist, as I've already said. The examples I was referring to were the pages you were talking about when you said not all of the character pages have been changed/moved in the way that the Spock one has. So far all of the characters that I have checked still have character pages. --AussieLegend () 06:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Memory Alpha as seen in the parentheses of my earlier post. MarnetteD|Talk 06:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete Character pages on IMDb appear to have been eliminated. Grapesoda22 () 05:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify this, character pages have NOT been eliminated but they are a shadow of their former selves. (See the Mr Spock example above). IMDb stated here that character pages will contain "title specific images, quotes, and keywords" but not "character filmography, biographies, videos, character lists or polls". And, of course, most (if not all) are still available as archives. This edit demonstrates that. --AussieLegend () 06:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Indonesia at the 2016 Summer Olympics

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary template. Not used in another country. Yogwi21 (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  • delete, excessive. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Pageinprogress

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 09:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Unused template that advocates the generally bad practice of creating a mainspace placeholder, and then writing a draft elsewhere. The automatic draft detection in place for red linked mainspace pages replaces this functionality anyway. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Use Jamaican English

Propose merging Template:Use Jamaican English with Template:Use British English.
Jamaican English is a continuum between Jamaican Standard English (which uses British spelling and grammar, but different pronunciation) and Jamaican Patois (which is rarely written and not appropriate for a work intended to be understandable by most English readers). Articles related to Jamaica should use Jamaican Standard English/British English spelling. Since they are the same thing (as far as spelling), and this template is about which type of spelling should be used, the {{Use Jamaican English}} template should be merged into the {{Use British English}} template. Kaldari (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment - while Jamaican English spellings and grammar may be identical to UK, there remains an issue of vocabulary and wording choices (see potential examples in Jamaican English#Vocabulary). If the overall vocabulary differences are trivial, merging the template would seem warranted. Otherwise, it may indicate that certain UK wording choices are not necessarily appropriate. Dl2000 (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Information correct

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) 03:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Unused. Duplicates functionality in {{Update}}, {{Update after}}, {{Outdated as of}}, and encourages violation of MOS:DATED. TheDragonFire (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC) I realised after I listed this,

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:Too Many Revisions

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 09:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Unused bot templates for User:HersfoldBot, who's maintainer hasn't edited since 2014. Requesting soft delete with no prejudice against WP:REFUND. TheDragonFire (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Review wikification

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) 03:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Unused, unclear template. I'm honestly not sure what cleanup it's attempting to indicate (redirected links do not need cleanup). TheDragonFire (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Crazy Loop

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) 03:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Navbox that doesn't provide any additional navigational benefit since the listed articles already link to and from each other without it. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Leftism in the United States

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. Below, the nominator has written: "Please disregard my nomination." (non-admin closure) Codename Lisa (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there anyway to please improve the template? The V-T-E options need to visible on it, and it needs to be easy for me to (correctly) add names on it. It's under-populated. Mr. Brain (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't delete I'm sorry about the disturbance. I did see the V-T-E options on the template for Modern liberalism in the United States. Please disregard my nomination to delete this template. Mr. Brain (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Timeline of Microsoft Office

These contents-only templates are used in one article only. I don't see why their content should not be on that article, where any editor can edit them. I propose we substitute and delete them. Codename Lisa (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

February 9

Template:Random image array

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) 18:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

no longer needed now that we have WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES ... Frietjes (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Can't this be used outside of the ethnic galleries? – Uanfala (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, if this feature is needed, it can be added to Module:Image array directly, which would be much more efficient. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:WPLSY-M

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) 22:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

unused Frietjes (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:WPAI/doc/row

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) 22:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

not used by Template:WikiProject Article Incubator Frietjes (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:VicMPs

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) 22:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

unused; articles are using other succession templates. Frietjes (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:VFA

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) 22:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

unused; most likely replaced by the former clubs section in Template:VFL Frietjes (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:VMR blue style

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) 22:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

unused; all the VMR articles are using other styles Frietjes (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:VFLLadderByesHeader

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) 22:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

no longer needed now that Template:AFLLadderHeader supports |byes=y Frietjes (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Education in the Isle of Man

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:Isle of Man. (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 17:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Education in the Isle of Man with Template:Isle of Man.
I have nominated for Education in the Isle of Man template to be merged into Isle of Man template. I believe this would work well and the schools listed under the headings: Primary, Secondary, Independent, Further and higher should become a subgroup of Education in the Isle of Man template. The result would look like this:

What do you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The size of the merged template is reasonable, but merging them without losing content would result in {{Isle of Man}} having a significant overemphasis on education. A general template for a jurisdiction ought only to list general articles (e.g. "History of place", "Religion in place", "Education in place") and important individual entries, like major towns or important historical figures; the only way it should link to everything of a certain class is if those articles are all critical to the topic, such as the sheadings and parishes here. Education is a good general article to link, and I could understand an argument for linking the most important school (if there is one) from the main template, but The Buchan School and Bunscoill Ghaelgagh are not critical to the topic of the Isle of Man. By the way, why was I notified? No complaint; I'm just confused. I've never edited the template, and as far as I know, I've never seen the template before. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Fair point, I just thought because at present the Education in the Isle of Man template is small, and it would look nice if it appeared as a subgroup of Education within the main Isle of Man template. At present, the Education has three links; a link to a list of schools, Education in the Isle of Man template and University College Isle of Man. But having second thoughts now, think I may get an administrator to withdraw this or wait 7 days to pass for it to be closed. I notified you because you were the creator of the Isle of Man template and the TFD says I would need to notify the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger. You created it all the way back in 2007 haha Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, okay, I didn't realise that it asked you to notify the creator of the target template; I thought you notified me because you thought I had something to do with the education template. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Support I like template consolidation. Isle of Man is a small place so a single template is for the best. User:Nyttend, I think if all the schools are on the same line (no subdivisions) education won't be emphasized too strongly. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
That's impossible; there are too many of them to fit on one line. Unless you mean a single code group, e.g. making |group7= be "Schools" and listing them all there? Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I meant a single code group, "Education" - Alternatively it can be subdivided with one for primary and secondary schools and the other for "other" (universities and public libraries) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: @Nyttend: I like template consolidation too - I agree with you WhisperToMe, think it would be best to remove the Primary, Secondary, Independent, Further and higher headings and just have these schools listed together next to the Education heading, that way it would fall in line with the rest of the template. This should reduce the overemphasis on education. The Education text itself links to Education in the Isle of Man article which has a link to the list of schools. These schools currently listed are the only schools in the Isle of Man that have their own article and the current template is too small. I think it would be better in the main Isle of Man template. What do you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge I agree that it would look best without having multiple lines for education. Just combine them into one line of the overarching template. Mamyles (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge A separate template in this case isn't necessary....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele

A bit of a confusing navbox this one. Most of the content is related to Peele only, without Key. But with only four entries, it's not really necessary. Would suggest that in the future, separate navboxes could be created when the body of work is greater. --woodensuperman 15:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Repurpose to just Peele. Per WP:PERFNAV, the navbox should focus only on works authored and not appearances, which is the nature of Key's relation to almost all of the navbox's elements. The current navbox scope would make more sense if the two had co-created multiple works. czar 18:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep existent, but Neutral on repurposing - I definitely think we should keep this navbox. However, I'm neutral on the possible repurposing to just be about Peele. To be honest, I personally think it's fine the way it is. Not sure how we should go about this, but I'm kinda fine either way I guess. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • move to {{Jordan Peele}} per above, then reconsider if people still want to have it deleted. Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This approach is fine with me. --woodensuperman 15:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

February 6

Template:French Championships (tennis)

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 03:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Template not used anymore, superseded by Template:French Open championships. Wolbo (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:French Open tournaments

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 03:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Template not used anymore, superseded by Template:French Open championships. Wolbo (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Late ottoman genocides

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The three articles in this navbox are already linked to from 3 separate navboxes making this template redundant to the Turkish nationalism, the Genocide Topics navbox and the WWI navbox. Seraphim System (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - no purpose served. Störm (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I created this infobox, but I agree it is redundant. I might change how these topics are grouped in another infobox. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Inflation-related templates that were initially created by mistake

There is a series of secondary templates that were originally created in support of the main Template:Inflation functionality, but are now obsolete. The reason is that the series initially chosen happened to be chosen by mistake, and are not suitable for inflation adjustments. See Template talk:Inflation for details.

The proposal is to remove these obsolete templates now, as the main template doesn't rely on them any longer. cherkash (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose GDP per capita can be used to compare relative incomes. Rename if necessary. DrKay (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Can you suggest an article where such a comparison would actually be done? Furthermore, would it be done in enough articles to justify doing it via a template?--Father Goose (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Daniel Lambert has just popped up on my watchlist, so I will use this as a typical example. If you look at Daniel Lambert#Weight, he receives an annuity of £50 on losing his job in 1805, which the inflation template tells us is equivalent to £3,700 now, but that is misleading. An income of £50 in 1805 was a respectable income, enough for an ordinary person to live on, and about twice the average earnings of a farm labourer. There is no way anyone in England could live on £3,700 per annum today. The correct relative measure is GDP per capita, which gives a better estimate of equivalent value today of £49,000. DrKay (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
        • No, the correct measure is not GDP per capita. Lambert really did make the equivalent of 3,700 pounds, and, no, he could not live on that in England today. That is because both production and consumption is greatly increased across these eras, as is the amount one must earn and spend to live in modern, prosperous countries. Just because GDPPC gives a figure in line with your modern expectations doesn't mean such a figure is correct. Living conditions, and expenses, in 1805 England, even for the relatively prosperous, were more in line with a Third World lifestyle today. I'm sure it's more than you want to read, but https://ourworldindata.org/economic-growth gives a good overview of how the very nature of prosperity has changed across the centuries.--Father Goose (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment We don't usually orphan a template before the formal deletion discussion. It's considered best practice to wait until after the deletion discussion has concluded with consensus to delete. DrKay (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    • The prior use of the template/dataset (to calculate inflation) created a factual error spread across many pages, as GDP per capita is not appropriate to use for adjusting for inflation. Removing all instances of its erroneous use is not just justified, but necessary.--Father Goose (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I looked at a random half-dozen of the AWB edits: I couldn't see anywhere the template had been used to calculate inflation. They were all being used to estimate relative values. DrKay (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
        • By "estimate relative values", do you mean adjust for inflation? Because that is what the {{inflation}} template does.--Father Goose (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
          • No, I mean "estimate relative worth", which is what the website linked through the template, MeasuringWorth, does. DrKay (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
            • Ah, I see. Unfortunately, if you can't describe what the meaning of the adjustment is, it's not appropriate to use on Wikipedia. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's basically WP:OR to use an adjustment (a numerical multiplier) that does not have a standard meaning in the economics world. Price indexes to adjust for inflation are bog standard, and the meaning of "adjusting for inflation" is standard as well. The Measures of Worth essay on Measuring Worth is an interesting academic exercise, but not one we should treat as some standard way of adjusting numbers, as it is most definitely not.--Father Goose (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as per DrKay, we should rename it. Incorrect uses of the template can always be updated to a deflator version. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    • All uses of this template/dataset to calculate inflation are incorrect, and as a consequence, all uses of it have been updated to use the deflator version. The only remaining use for it is some hypothetical, and unlikely, repurposing.--Father Goose (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Renaming suggestion is totally reasonable, but only if you can identify what it should be renamed to. Wiki should not be turning into a collection of random orphaned datasets. So unless there's a particular suggestion, the delete is a way to go. cherkash (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly support – as I've justified in my nomination and the linked discussion (on the Template talk:Inflation page), these are just service sub-templates whose existence could be justified only if relevant for the main template. As they are emphatically not relevant to the main template anymore (as they are not used to measure anything related to inflation), so they should be deleted. As a side comment, their contents are ultimately trivial, and can be re-created anytime in any other context when/if relevant. cherkash (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and reinstate. See the comments at Talk:Cullinan Diamond#Inflation-adjusted value. This template gave more realistic estimates for equivalent modern-day values for certain things. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment and a strong counter-point – You are wrong, the perceived inflation in the prices of (high-end) diamonds have nothing to do with the inflation of money. It's now been explained on the Talk page (Talk:Cullinan Diamond#Inflation-adjusted value). As this templates deal purely with inflation of money, and not of any other goods (diamonds or not), the point you made is quite irrelevant here. cherkash (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The datasets contained within these templates should never have been used on Wikipedia – at the very least, not for making inflation adjustments, nor for the other vague purposes suggested above either. We have at least stopped the use of these incorrect datasets (by deprecating the {{inflation}} parameter that invokes them), and deletion is the next step, because they are no longer used, and should not be.
    Unfortunately, those opposing the deletion of the datasets don't understand why the they are incorrect – or at least, didn't when they first !voted here. Cherkash and I have done what we could to explain the issue, but a deletion poll is not the right forum for it – "straw polls [cannot] be used to determine a question of fact", as WP:POLL points out. I doubt the templates will be deleted at this time based on how the above polling has gone, but I affirm once again that although the numbers they generate might seem right in certain contexts, they are not right. I would be happy to continue attempting to explain why, if anyone is still willing to continue the conversation.--Father Goose (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Migrate to Growth/.*. The Daniel Lambert article example is exactly correct. When dealing with relative wage levels / consumption levels over time in terms of societal status it is meaningless to give an as-of-2018 reader the comparison of a third world income, because this displays product preferences as of 2018 in relation to a 1805 expenditure. Product preferences of 1805 involve comparative status displays. The only correct way to get an automated social relativity comparison over time would be via NGDPPC. Our readers desire to understand what £50 meant to a person in 1805. In relation to understanding 1805£50 as social status CPI is useless, as is a GDP deflator. Correspondingly, in the decision to make large structural purchases, the question "what would it take to recreate this today," may be contrasted with, "to a contemporary, how ought they understand what was forgone at that time?" These are not equivalent questions in terms of the meaning of money over time. All in all the Inflation series (and if migrate is successful,) related social worth over time series need far better explanation for editors in their use. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Follow-up question – What do you mean by "Growth/.*." in this case, Fifelfoo? cherkash (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
    • If you do want want to take such an approach, Fifelfoo, what kind of language would you use to explain to readers what calculation is being performed? You can't say "adjusted for inflation", as that implies the use of a price index; "adjusted for growth" has no readily understood meaning; and "equivalent to" (if it means anything) means "adjusted for inflation". (One could argue that maybe we shouldn't use the language "equivalent to" in general...)--Father Goose (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
      1. Editors are crap at making comparisons in money over time. They don't understand consumption bundles to begin with.
      2. I have previously argued that any comparison over time is original research, as it requires intelligent selection of CPI/GDP/NGDPPC to reflect consumption bundle, reproduction cost, equivalent social exertion.
      3. However, given that we can't stop them, and that other editors have disagreed with me on original research we may as well do it the best way possible.
        • Fred bought a beer for AUD2 in 1997, (the equivalent of a beer of AUD6 in 2017).[cpi]
        • Fred bought a 1950 class Destroyer in 1950 for AU£50000, (the equivalent of making the same destroyer in 2017 for AUD2 million).[gdp]
        • Fred bought a beer for AUD2 in 1997, (the equivalent social power of buying beer of AUD14 in 2017).[ngdppc]
        • Fred bought a 1950 class Destroyer in 1950 for AU£50000, (the equivalent proportion of the Australian economy of the 1950s as AUD4 million in 2017).[ngdppc]
      4. Or similar. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Fifelfoo: Now I'm even less clear on what it is you want to do. You've given four examples: which of the four are "intelligent selections", according to your views? All four, only two, only one? And why?--Father Goose (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
          • The correct editorial choice depends entirely on why a comparison of a monetary figure over time is being made. If the comparison relates to wage worker wages in decade time spans, and the purpose of the comparison relates to understanding the past value as a portion of a households wage purchased expenses, then consumption bundles are relevant—how many beers was that hat worth? If it relates to a comparison where the modern reader wants to know the current reproduction cost of an item, then GDP—what would it take today to remake an A4 steam engine. If it relates to understanding the weight of past social choices, expressed against an equivalent dedication of social exertion today, then NGDPPC—how expensive was beer, or WWII, proportionate to the total economy of the time. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
            • This is unfortunate. You are not managing to make a clear statement at all.--Father Goose (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
              • I'm sorry that you're imputing your comprehension issues to me. Editors make comparisons in money values over time to explain the meaning of money in the past. For people in the past, they related to money in various ways. They purchased households with it. They purchased capital with it. They exerted social status with it. Purchasing a household is a consumption bundle purchase, a cpi purchase. Editors should use cpi to express this. Purchasing capital is a capital purchase, a gdp purchase. Editors should use gdp to express this. Exerting social status commands a proportion of the total economy. Editors should use ngdppc to express this. What meaning money had, and how to express that meaning to modern readers as of 2018, is an editorial decision. Many times editors wish to express what kind of social power was being exerted. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete These are unused. They do not have any relevant transclusions. No one is using these templates, and it's reasonably unlikely that they will be used in the future. Mamyles (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, looks like these are all unused, and can be safely deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mamyles:@Plastikspork: They were used extensively until the nominator used AWB to remove all of the transclusions. DrKay (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, DrKay. And the reason for this has been explained clearly during the nomination (see above): "The reason is that the series initially chosen happened to be chosen by mistake, and are not suitable for inflation adjustments. See Template talk:Inflation for details." So all these nominated series carry no value anymore, and are ripe for deletion. cherkash (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Neither of these two editors have voted to delete on that basis. This is why we deprecate orphaning templates before the discussion is concluded: it gives a skewed view of the template's usefulness. The template does not measure inflation, it measures relative worth. Misnaming a template is not a valid reason for deletion when they can be easily moved to new names. DrKay (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, I was just pointing out that your claim of previous "extensive use" is irrelevant – this was because these templates were created by mistake in the first place which has since been fixed. So the current state of being unused is quite relevant and meaningful, which was correctly noted by the last two editors' votes. cherkash (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Templarius Studios

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 03:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

No blue links whatsoever in this navbox. Clearly isn't ready for primetime. Izno (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Ray 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 delete. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There are only three games (which fails the soft WP:NENAN requirement) and the series is unlikely to grow. Izno (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not enough entries to warrant a template, not sure they're typically called "Ray series" either. Sergecross73 msg me 00:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete: While there is a Ray series (as shown here), this template doesn't have enough entries to keep. Namcokid47 (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

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

  • None currently

Transport

  • None currently

Other

You know, I know this isn't really the place to discuss this but the IUPAC templates are only used on a grand total of 12 transclusions. Does it make sense to add a parameter to a template used 5000+ times? Then again I don't too much about templates.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Adding parameters is easy; the existing uses of the template won't see any change since they're not using the new parameter. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Meta

Primefac A working merged version should be Module:Details/sandbox - it works with test-cases and preserves the label functionality of {{further}} (actually i don't know if that ability is even used, but whatever) and the ability to specify a topic from {{details}}; don't have too much experience with this so do you think everything is good to go? Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

  • None currently

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.

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.

Archive and Indices

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=826962055"
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