Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

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

Closing instructions

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

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

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

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

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

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

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

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

Listing a template[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018_December_17#Template:template_name.css */
II: List the template at Tfd. Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors[edit]

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

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

Notifying related WikiProjects

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

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

Notifying substantial contributors to the template

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

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

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

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

Twinkle[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

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

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

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

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

December 17[edit]


December 16[edit]

Template:Nah nigga[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems unlikely to be used for a constructive purpose. Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:18, 16 December 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:Daily CFD logs[edit]

Propose merging Template:Daily CFD logs with Template:Daily archive log.
These 2 templates are similar to each other. The differences are that the version specific to CfD has "index" links, and unlike the general XfD version, shows links to future dates. There is no need to have 2 separate templates if one can just add an "index" parameter directly to Template:Daily archive log. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

December 15[edit]

Template:Infobox film festival[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox film festival with Template:Infobox theatre festival.

Very similar events, and most of the templates' collective parameters apply to either. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Merge - seems (to me) that the only unique theatre only parameter is |play_type=, while others parameters in {{theatre festival}} not found in the film festival could be applied to it as well. Not sure what would be the final name. --Gonnym (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep the templates are used in quite different ways and for different subject matter. I don't think it's helpful for editors to have them replaced or merged into one (confusing) super template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose theater and film are 2 fairly different mediums. I don't see any benefits to merging them. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • As usual, the issue is not how distinct the subjects are (and, while film and theatre are different, their festivals are not so much), but whether or not we need separate templates to describe them; doubly so for just 48 articles of one class. See also Gonnym's analysis of the parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: The overlap between the templates is exemplified by the fact that South East European Film Festival is using the theatre festival infobox - and has been since June 2015, before it was approved from Draft. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Two different mediums and it makes no sense. I cant see the sense in continually pushing for generic WP template, when knowledge itself is highly specialised. scope_creepTalk 15:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge - As I've noted elsewhere, where the parameters and display of templates exactly overlap, then sensibly they should be served by a single template. The learning curve is not helped by a proliferation of specially named duplicate templates for my special event-type. Neither is maintenance and development of templates assisted by needless duplication. As POTW notes, the subject of this template is a festival; the media - film, theatre, puppetry, yodelling, Tuvan throat singing - is immaterial. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NFL Draft[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox NFL Draft with Template:Infobox sports draft.
So this is one where I'm actually on the fence... I'm all for Infobox consolidation but I have a feeling this might be a case for keeping a separate template. The NFL draft seems to have a number of parameters/fields that are unique to it. I'm thinking it might be good to add a few |custom= fields to {{Infobox sports draft}} and then make {{Infobox NFL Draft}} a custom wrapper? Seeking feedback... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox flash series[edit]

Flash is a near-obsolete technology; and the technology used is in any case immaterial to the content which is the actual subject of relevant articles. Template is redundant to {{Infobox website}} (or possibly {{Infobox television series}} or {{Infobox film}}). Only 15 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge to television high degree of overlap between the two templates. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge to television per nomination and above comments. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

December 14[edit]

Template:Comparison computational complexity.svg[edit]

Unnecessary template whose only purpose is to display a file link with specific parameters. Substitute and delete. Steel1943 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete per nom. Just an image. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Baseball at the 2018 Asian Games[edit]

doesn't provide any navigation Frietjes (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Ball family series[edit]

unused; probably replaced by Template:Lonzo Ball Frietjes (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Time zones and time offsets[edit]

Unnecessary template that consists solely of text. Had a transclusion in UTC offset that I substituted since it’s article content. (Anyone can feel free to revert that if they feel the need to do so.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Argentina FH Squad 2014 Champions Trophy[edit]

unused; non-notable squad Frietjes (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Antigua and Barbuda general election, 2009[edit]

unused; should be added to 2009 Antiguan general election or deleted. Frietjes (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Apollon Larissa squad[edit]

unused; duplicates Template:Apollon Larissa F.C. squad. Frietjes (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Angola squad 2013 FIBA Africa Championship[edit]

unused; squads are saved in AfroBasket 2013 squads Frietjes (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Andorran parliamentary election, 2005[edit]

unused; probably replaced by 2005 Andorran parliamentary election#Results Frietjes (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Ancient capitals of Sri Lanka[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Ancestors of Duchess Luise of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel[edit]

unused; duplicates the tree found in Duchess Luise of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel Frietjes (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete duplicate template. Lorstaking (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Anaconda & Lake Placid[edit]

unused; probably replaced by Template:Anaconda and Template:Lake Placid Frietjes (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Don't really need a combined template. Sorta made sense with the crossover, but at the same time, they're otherwise separate series. oknazevad (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:American Samoa legislative election, 2004[edit]

unused; duplicates tables in 2004 American Samoan general election Frietjes (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Alpha nav[edit]

rarely used, the standard is to use {{Compact ToC}}/{{Go to top}} or others. Frietjes (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Replace and delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete. I am the creator of these, and sorry, I had forgotten all about them. Eno Lirpa (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment But you will not I think get away with an exact replace. Eno Lirpa (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Alpha sect[edit]

rarely used Frietjes (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Replace and delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete. I am the creator of these, and sorry, I had forgotten all about them. Eno Lirpa (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment But you will not I think get away with an exact replace. Eno Lirpa (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Albanian parliamentary election, 2017[edit]

unused and basically blank; duplicates the results in the article Frietjes (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Albanian legislative election, 2001[edit]

unused; should be merged with the article or deleted Frietjes (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Airports in Ashantiland[edit]

unused; articles are connected by Template:Airports in Ghana instead Frietjes (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Administrative divisions of the Sui dynasty[edit]

all red links Frietjes (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Also, all the red links are not in English--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Administrative divisions of Western Sahara[edit]

unused; navigation is being provided by Template:Prefectures and provinces of Morocco instead. Frietjes (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Acceptance of evolution per country[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:A Train to Autumn[edit]

unused; insufficient navigation Frietjes (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:2028 Summer Paralympics[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:2018 Asian Games women's rugby sevens game A1[edit]

and

unused after being merged with Rugby sevens at the 2018 Asian Games – Women's tournament Frietjes (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:2018 Asian Games men's rugby sevens game A1[edit]

and

unused after being merged with Rugby sevens at the 2018 Asian Games – Men's tournament Frietjes (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Split media - processed[edit]

per deletion of {{split media}} Frietjes (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch[edit]

The project behind this template has been inactive for years it seems. I'd have suggested redirecting it to the Sexuality and Sexology WP banner if it weren't for the fact that most articles (all?) this is on appear to already have that banner too. Thus I think deleting it and removing all transclusions would probably be the best option. Ipatrol (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Ltp[edit]

Seems that the "Topic:" namespace was removed from the English Wikipedia a couple of years ago, rendering this template useless. (I could have tagged this redirect for {{Db-g7}}, but I’m bringing it here just in case.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not needed anymore. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Flow cruft. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Brazil city navboxes[edit]

Navboxes were made up nearly entirely of duplicate links to main article, and inappropriate category WP:EGGs. Nothing left to navigate with these removed. --woodensuperman 13:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Doctor Who external link templates[edit]

In the same fashion as Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 21#Template:Brief, these templates were created in 2006, and are fan sites that provide no new information that cannot be gained from other more reliable "external link" websites (e.g. the BBC itself), making them unnecessary. Nor would using these websites directly in an article as a source satisfy WP:RS. Per WP:ELNO: one should generally avoid providing external links to: Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. Some sites can provide further information, yes, as long as they're considered a reliable source. These are not. These are fan sites, not written by a recognized authority, and hence do not conform with WP:ELNO #11. It fails WP:ELYES #3, because they cannot they fail WP:ELMAYBE #4, because of the amount of uncertainty as to who these sources are. -- AlexTW 12:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: This is a discussion about templates not links. Consensus here can decide to delete the templates, but not to remove the links, so the former should be substituted if not kept. Absent consensus, in a more appropriate forum, to remove the links, it's better to Keep the templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    • So, your only reason to keep is for the links, with no backing guidelines or policies? My beginning of this discussion was to deleted both the templates and the links. Why would I nominate the deleting of just the wrapper? -- AlexTW 00:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussants may wish to look at our article about Outpost Gallifrey wherein there are mentions of it being subject to critical acclaim (and hence might be a RS). Absent any further discussion, I will close this as delete in a week's time, though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WBGconverse 12:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:WNBA Playoffs summary[edit]

These articles should just use {{Infobox basketball tournament season}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Rnd[edit]

Propose merging Template:Rnd, Template:Round and Template:Decimals.

All redundant to each other. We should move {{rnd}} to {{round}} as Template:Round is the better name, but {{rnd}} has more features when compared to {{round}} and {{decimals}} such as adding trailing zeros (expected behavior), adding commas (makes it easier to read) and removing decimals by default (expected behavior of a template of this type).

Features
Feature {{Rnd}} {{Round}} {{Decimals}}
Default for parameter 2 Yes Yes No
Removes decimals by default Yes No No
Adds commas Yes No No
Adds trailing zeros Yes No Yes
Transclusions 261,105 7,427 14,472
Module Module:Math Module:Decimals
Examples
Template Output Notes
{{template|-91234.567}}
{{Rnd}} −91,235 Rounds abs. value to integer,
inserts "comma", uses true "−"
{{Round}} -91235 Keeps at least 4 digits, last digit is rounded
-34.57 Result of {{Round | -34.5678}}
{{Decimals}} Lua error... Parameter 2 required
{{template|1234.56789|5}}
{{Rnd}} 1,234.56789 Adds comma
{{Round}}} 1234.56789
{{Decimals}} 1234.56789
{{template|12731273.1273|-2}}
{{Rnd}} 12,731,300 Adds commas
{{Round}}} 12731300
{{Decimals}} 12731300
{{template|123456.456789|3}}
{{Rnd}} 123,456.457 Adds comma
{{Round}}} 123456.457
{{Decimals}} 123456.457
{{template|123456.456789|10}}
{{Rnd}} 123,456.4567890000 Adds trailing zeros
{{Round}}} 123456.456789
{{Decimals}} 123456.456789000 Adds trailing zeros
{{template|123456.456789|-50}}
{{Rnd}} 0
{{Round}}} 0
{{Decimals}} 0

BrandonXLF (t@lk) 00:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I added transclusion count and module to the first table. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge: I changed the example value in the first group to exhibit the rounding feature, and tried to describe the behaviour more precisely. I ask for adding as grouping separators spaces instead of commata, because they are easier on the eye for those being accustomed to "comma" as decimal separator (pro domo). Purgy (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge Clearly duplicate templates and should clearly be merged. One more lua module falls! {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

December 13[edit]

Template:Location map Lancaster[edit]

equivalent to using Module:Location map/data/United Kingdom City of Lancaster with AlternativeMap equal to Lancaster UK ward map 2010 (blank).svg Frietjes (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Location map Ryukyu[edit]

equivalent to using Module:Location map/data/China with AlternativeMap equal to Ryukyu edcp location map.svg Frietjes (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Suicide by country[edit]

This template is redundant: The content of this template is included as a group in both Template:Suicide navbox and Template:Suicide sidebar. This template was previously nominated for deletion for a different reason (too many red links), but that deletion discussion closed (on 16 September 2011) before Template:Suicide navbox was created (on 12 November 2011‎). Biogeographist (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Television shows by U.S. city[edit]

Use of this navbox is primarily in categories linking to other categories (therefore, also misnamed as "Lists of television shows") and a few poor list articles, and this might be a case where navigation through categories outweighs any additional benefits for this navbox. First, there are now 74 cities under Category:Television shows set in the United States by city (at the very least, this needs to be updated to match), which means this template will be unwieldy and large to be productive. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

    • Keep I don't think this list is that unweildy, and the template does provide some navigational benefit when used in articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Location map Thrumshingla National Park[edit]

redundant to using Module:Location map/data/Bhutan with the AlternativeMap parameter (see, e.g., Thrumshing La) Frietjes (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Lusaka[edit]

Not enough links to warrant a navbox --woodensuperman 11:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:KandaharTopics[edit]

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. --woodensuperman 11:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Woodensuperman: if it is possible to get some days, there are many link's which I would like to include, instead of deleting this template. If answers is no, then you can just delete it :-) Amjad Khan 13:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Promising draft[edit]

Experience at Miscellany for Deletion has been that the Promising Draft template is not useful. It is applied (by editors who evidently dislike the G13 concept) to drafts that are not "promising" and are not then improved. It merely permits drafts to accumulate. Editors who disapprove of G13 would do better to use a Request for Comments to change the speedy deletion criterion. This template merely creates discussion to get rid of stale drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete This template is widely misused by inclusionists and causes a backlog of stale drafts which aren't being improved. CoolSkittle (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The template is useful and, in the discussion that gave rise to this TFD, WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Santa Rosa (steamship) (2nd nomination), it actually prevented a draft "accumulating". Because the draft had already survived deletion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Santa Rosa (steamship) speedy deletion would not have been permitted ("If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedily deleted ..."[1]). Everyone at the MFD2 discussion (even eventually, it seems, the nominator) thought the draft should be moved to main space and G13 was therefore inappropriate. The wording of the template is very moderate in its tone. Thincat (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Something with only 14 transclusions can hardly be called widely misused. The most I've ever seen in the related category is probably about 100 pages. The template does not cause a backlog because it is merely a request (which was decided in an rfc a while back). The real problem is the incessant need some feel to delete all drafts after they hit a certain age and go unedited, even if the drafts have potential. This template serves as a lightweight way to demarcate drafts as not junk, which is useful (when userfication is not desirable). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I had proposed changing the template to be a call to improve or submit the draft, instead of a fruitless call to avoid deletion (see Template_talk:Promising_draft#A_further_proposal). There was rough support for it, but I never went ahead with the change because I was out of the country and didn't have access to a computer for a while. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 15:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete it has few uses right now because I went through the category and cleared it out yesterday, something I've done before a few times. Almost all the remaining pages so tagged are up for deletion and will be gone in a week. I may be the only editor that regularly tries to clear the category.
Having reviewed hundreds of "promising draft" tagged pages I can say there are five uses 1. Tagging crap that has no use (a fairly large portion of tags) 2. Tagging mundane maybe useful but abandoned pages no better than the pages typically G13ed. 3. Tagging pages that should have been moved to mainspace but where the "promising draft" tagger is too lazy to move the page or even submit it to AfC. 4. Tagging content fork pages where the topic is already represented in mainspace (proving the tagger did nothing to assess the usefulness of the page including a google or onsite search that would have quickly shown that the topic exists). 5. Occasionally someone tags their own creation as a "promising draft".
None of these are reasonable exceptions to widely supported policy that we don't pile up drafts forever (G13). It would be much better for editors to DO something to improve or accept the page instead of using this problematic tag and leaving it to others to sort out.
Thincat I do not believe that policy, and definitely not practice, support not G13 deleting pages that survived a deletion discussion. Pages are often kept at MfD on the idea to give them time and G13 will apply in 6 months. Some voters would vote differently if they knew an MfD keep would mean the page had to be brought to MfD again to get it deleted. Legacypac (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I know that the practice can be to speedy delete drafts that have survived their most recent XFD. It is an abuse of policy all the same. I suppose it is, strictly, the deletion rather than the tagging that is contrary to WP:CSD but I think we should be deprecating tagging that may beguile admins into deleting wrongly. Thincat (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The draft system is not working. I agree with Godsy on the idea that time-abandoned is arbitrary, but also think that it should be easier to delete bad drafts (like 60-70 percent of them) to give more attention to good ones. PrussianOwl (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep this is an alert, not a way of forcing the draft to remain. We need some way to avoid deleting reasonably promising drafts after 6 months, and there have been a number of inefficient workarounds--this is the best so far; the purpose of AfC is primarily to find articles that are suitable for mainspace or can be made suitable, and only secondarily to remove the others; there are other ways to delete content, but without AfC , we'd need to reject incomplete articles that might be suitable because they are incomplete or inadequately referenced. We need to emphasis the possibility of improving--deletion is easy enough, but improving is harder. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC) .
  • Delete Creates useless busywork in MfD and widely misused. jni (delete)...just not interested 08:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - The solution for misuse is to check the history of the editor. If they have been gone from Wikipedia for months then chances are that the draft is abandoned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
DGG uses the template correctly but the creator and some other users tag junk regularly and almost indiscriminately. The supporters insist that this template is a command not a suggestion and that it may not be removed by any other editor. It's weird. Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I've never understood why this is separate from {{AfC postpone G13}}. (I also never understood why {{AfC postpone G13}} was invisible, even before this was created.) —Cryptic 20:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Godsy. -- Tavix (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per everyone. The template has no relevance to G13. – Uanfala (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Img-unclaimed[edit]

Nominated for deletion, on the grounds that concerns were raised off wiki that it doesn't necessarily assume good faith on the part of uploaders. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Img-claimed[edit]

Bureaucratic overkill, Images with good metadata shouldn't need this anyway. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:No-date[edit]

Nominated for deletion as breucratic overkill, images with good metadata should not need this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Media by uploader[edit]

Deprecated, Bueraucratic overkill, either media IS by the uploader (and obviosuly indicated) or the media isn't (and thus is techncially unsoruced) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:NFUR not needed[edit]

Proposed for deletion as the fix this is intended to flag should be made directly, or resolved at MCQ/FFD rather than with a "drive by tag" ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: This template has 629 transclusions. Steel1943 (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox water ride[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox water ride with Template:Infobox roller coaster.

These are fundamentally the same kind of object (see, for example, Journey to Atlantis, a "water coaster" which uses the roller coaster infobox). Although there are a large number of parameters to merge, most are not unique to one type of ride or the other; and many are simply pseudonymous (e.g. |homepage= vs. |website=). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Question/Comment Is there a problem with having two separate templates? How do you propose handling the ride vehicles parameter? Water rides have boats, roller coasters have trains and cars. Crossovers of water rides and coasters, such as the example that you listed, are rare. There are a number of water ride articles that use this template, I see no compelling reason to merge.JlACEer (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose because not all water rides are roller coasters, and the RC infobox says this template should only be used in articles on individual roller coasters. Log flumes, River rapids rides, and Bumper boats are water rides, but they're not roller coasters, so articles about individual rides of those types need either a water-ride infobox or a general amusement-ride infobox. If such an infobox exists already, it would be fine to merge this one with it, or we could merge Water ride with Roller coaster to produce a general Amusement ride infobox if it doesn't exist. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Obviously, if the templates are merged, the documentation will be amended to reflect the new purpose. The existing wording is not a reason not to merge them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – While the proposal appears to make sense on the surface, there's a lot more going on under the hood. For starters, there's auto-categorization in place for a whole slew of parameters such as opening/closing years, manufacturer, type, status, etc., that creates categories with titles like "Roller coasters introduced in year" or "Roller coasters manufactured by company". This function would clearly be lost if merged with water attractions. I looked at some article examples that are using the water ride template. The better solution might be to simply force water ride articles to use the {{Infobox attraction}} template, but of course, they'll be in the same boat and will lose the auto-categorization in place. I'm less concerned about that, however, since there are less than a 100 water ride articles (and I seriously doubt a lot of those are even worthy of having a standalone article to begin with). Worst case, they can rely on manual categorization. The roller coaster template should be remain untouched, however. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    • If needed, these can be mainainted through the use of a switch - but should infoboxes be generating categories? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
That may be out of scope of this conversation, but it's a valid question/concern that should probably be addressed at some point. In the scope of this discussion, however, without an adequate proposal that demonstrates how a proposed switch would be implemented, I cannot support the merger at this time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per above rationale.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose because in my personal opinion because that would cause a debate, and by debate I mean argument over how to classify rides. I also think this could be a potential issue with the GP, considering a lot of them generally consider all rides at a park to be roller coasters.MitchellLunger (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think a switch to handle the categories is a good idea. But I don't think a merge makes sense without inclusion of Template:Infobox attraction. But I do think a merge should be considered of these three templates. --Bsherr (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
We just have to keep in mind that there are amusement attractions and amusement rides. While I think it's reasonable to look at ways of reducing from 3 templates down to 2, going all the way down to 1 wouldn't be practical. Realize that some shared parameters carry different meanings depending on the object they're being applied to. Status, for example, doesn't mean the same thing when you're talking about a parade, exhibit, or event, as opposed to an amusement ride. That's one angle. The other is the lengthy, convoluted documentation that would result from the merger. There would be lot of example use cases to cover because of such a broad scope being defined by the template. At the very least, I would encourage beginning a discussion at WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks to hash out the details. Then we can relist a proposal here, publicizing it at the WikiProject. If done in that order with a proposal that's reasonable, getting consensus shouldn't be a problem. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Two templates, one for rides and one for other attractions, seems a good idea to me. Right now, Infobox attraction's documentation seems to use attraction and ride interchangeably, so I suspect there will be some sorting required of its current transclusions. --Bsherr (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @Galobtter: I don't know why this has been relisted (twice) when none except the nominator supports a merge and many others oppose it. Why not !vote support and give your reasons? Thincat (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    I don't have an opinion on this (otherwise I would not relist and would indeed !vote); however, while the bolded votes are all in opposition, some of them don't actually object to a merger (e.g Nyttend says "we could merge Water ride with Roller coaster to produce a general Amusement ride infobox if it doesn't exist.", which is essentially what is indeed being proposed) and some don't make sense (though there are certainly substantial objections raised). OTOH, looking over it again it doesn't look like a relist is going to make a consensus emerge in this discussion, so I'll reclose it in a minute as "no consensus". Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:02, 13 December 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:Trademark[edit]

This template (specifically and only for public domain images not subject to copyright, but which are or contain trademarks) appears to have no legitimate use case on Wikipedia, and is just being added to images as a bit of WP:BUREAUCRACY. We do not need it because:

  • The template's own documentation says that {{non-free logo}} should be used instead.
  • There is no use case for such an image on Wikipedia that could cause trademark violation problems. We already have a hard rule that non-free images cannot be used outside of articles to which they pertain (and this is not limited to only those that are non-free for copyright reasons). E.g., if you take the Los Angeles Times logo (the example provided at the template) and try to use it for your own little on-wiki newsletter about L.A.-related editing updates, this would be both against that rule and confusing even if it weren't, so other editors would undo it, and give it a more sensible name (or WP:MFD it entirely if it didn't appear to be an editorially useful page, though that probably wouldn't happen in this case unless the page were intended as a "canvassing farm" to push some specific L.A.-related point of view).
  • Wikipedia does not use trademark and other legal disclaimers, like putting "™", "®", or "©" on things. This is just a huge banner version of doing the same thing.
  • Wikipedia does not give legal advice or veer anywhere near it. WP does not exist as a public-use image server, only as an encyclopedia, so it does not need to mirror every template that exists on Commons (which does exist for that image-serving purpose). Images hosted directly on WP are intended for use in WP itself (images not subject to restrictions are moved to Commons). In short, WP has no reason to engage in trying to advise people that their off-site use of an image found here might have trademark implications.
  • Should there actually be a perceived need to identify a specific non-free image hosted here as being subject to a trademark in one jurisdiction or other, this is better done in a plain-English sentence on the image's wiki page. This could also be done as a simple parameter of {{non-free logo}}. That is, even if there is some WP:OFFICE red-tape rationale for keeping a template for this, we do not need a separate, banner-sized one.

 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Question – I see it's used on something like 5000 image files, such as File:Tazo.png, but it's very unclear what it means, or what its purpose or intent is there. I'd like to know if anyone can provide a rationale or justification to discuss before deciding what whether to support this deletion request. Dicklyon (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is useful in basically every instance of {{Do not move to Commons|reason=USonly}} where the content is trademarked. If the documentation states otherwise then the documentation should be changed. We regularly inform when there are restrictions to use unrelated to copyright. If you would like to change that practice broadly, then you're going to need a broader consensus that a TfD. Much of the rest of the arguments, I'm not entirely sure what the relevance is. GMGtalk 18:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • That's a straw man, not a keep rationale. No one said anything whatsoever about changing practice or policy, and if that specific use-case is in fact the rationale for the template, it can be handled by one or more additional parameters of {{non-free logo}} (and, if applicable, other non-free image tags).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per SMcCandlish and Dicklyon. I have started a DELREQ on Commons for their version of the template, for the same reasons. Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 19:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay...umm...just so we're clear here, because it's not...super evident that those here understand the use of this template, or for that matter uploading or dealing very much with local files...or...files.
  • The template documentation says that {{non-free logo}} should be used instead in most cases. That's because in most cases free images should be uploaded to Commons, and not locally. That does not account for any case where the image is free in the US but not free in its home country. In these cases, the images cannot be uploaded to Commons, and must be uploaded locally. If these images are trademarked, they should have this tag in order to notify potential reusers that there are additional restrictions not related to copyright.
  • The second bullet point makes no sense. This template is only for use in free media.  
  • Wikipedia certainly does use trademark and other legal disclaimers. Just because we don't use them in mainspace does not mean we don't use them regularly in file space. As has already been pointed out, this template is used some 5,000 times. Other templates, for example Template:Nazi symbol or Template:Ir-Money give notice of other types of restrictions not related to copyright. Each of these templates are used several hundred times.
  • Wikipedia does give legal notification. You are given legal notification of CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL every time you open an edit window. Every piece of media should come with some type of legal rationale why it is usable here, whether under fair use or free use. You are misapplying a content guideline to file space where it means basically nothing.
  • better done in a plain-English sentence on the image's wiki page That's what this template does. This could also be done as a simple parameter of {{non-free logo}} It's already done as a parameter on {{non-free logo}}. This template is for free media; not for non-free media. That's why there are separate templates.
So...it's not entirely clear what part of this nomination is based on something other than misunderstanding. GMGtalk 20:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • That doesn't track. If it's legally encumbered by trademark concerns, then it's not free media, it's just a different kind of non-free media than the kind that are non-free because they're encumbered by copyrights.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No. That's a common misconception, but it's a misconception none-the-less. Trademarks have to do with unfair business practices; copyright has to do with intellectual property rights. This image is trademarked. It's free, and not copyrighted, because you cannot copyright fonts and simple type settings, because they do not have sufficient creative contribution to quality for protection. I can do whatever I want with that image as far as intellectual property rights are concerned. What I cannot do is use that image to engage in unfair trade practices, because it is registered as a "mark of their trade".
As indicated above, many Nazi symbols are free and not copyrighted or not copyrightable. But their use is still restricted in many countries according to other laws regulating hate speech. The design of many currencies is public domain according to the laws of their home country. But I cannot use them to violate laws related to counterfeiting. In the US, works by the Federal government are automatically public domain. But that doesn't mean you can take a top secret document and disseminate it to the public, even though it's a "free work", because it's also governed by laws related to national security. An image of Mohammed might be public domain because of it's age, but that doesn't mean it's use isn't regulated by local blasphemy laws that could subject you to prosecution.
Whether or not something is free has to do with ownership, whether someone owns the copyright, and thereby restricts its use for the duration of their ownership. In other words, it's not free because they'll legally make you pay to use it. But that doesn't mean there might not be a whole host of other laws restricting use that are unrelated to copyright. Trademarks are one of these. GMGtalk 11:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Think about it this way. My bank gives away branded pens for free. If I take that pen, I'm not violating any laws related to theft. But if I use that pen to scratch someone's car, I'm still violating laws related to vandalism, and if I use that pen to stab someone, I'm still violating laws related to assault. Neither of these have anything to do with whether I stole the pen. GMGtalk 12:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Pope list item[edit]

Suite of templates used on only one page and only used to create a pretty simple table. HTML and MediaWiki markup handle simple tables just fine. Delete and convert to MediaWiki markup table. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 02:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted all of the tagging that Editor Koavf added to the templates because that tagging broke the templates and thus broke the page where they are used.
Trappist the monk (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose: The templates were created in response to this WP:VPT disucssion wherein an editor was looking to simplify the drudge-work required to consistently change the formatting of all of the tables on List of Popes. View the article source of this version to see the pretty simple table markup. Suite of templates used on only one page. So what? The purpose of templates is to ease repetitive tasks and to produce consistent output time and time again. Where is it documented that templates must be used on more than one page? Proposer should withdraw this tdf. —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose: These templates are needed for the 20 wikitables at List of popes article. Provides a consistent look throughout, whereas previously over time various editors would modifiy each wikitable differently creating different size columns & page widths. JoeHebda (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:The Japanese Popstars[edit]

Unneeded navigation box for an article on one album, which itself was just redirected. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

December 12[edit]

Template:5855850[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Used on only one page, user page User:Kotetsu804. —Bagumba (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Move to user space or delete. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 13 December 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:585585[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Used on only one page, user page User:Kotetsu804. —Bagumba (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Move to user space or delete. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 13 December 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:Barbarian kingdoms[edit]

Propose merging Template:Barbarian kingdoms with Template:Europe Hegemony.
Perhaps worth considering for a merge? Scope seems much overlapping. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete Europe Hegemony knowing something about this subject area, I just can't see the use of the Hegemony template, and feel wikilinks should suffice. I do not support a merge because the Barbarian kingdoms has a clear subject matter whereas Hegemony is confusing and would pollute the better template with, I feel, no navigational benefit. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Azerbaijan in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

Only links three articles (2012 link is a redirect to main article). WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 16:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:American diaspora[edit]

copy-and-paste of Template:African diaspora Frietjes (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. How sad, would have made an interesting template --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Anatomists[edit]

unused; appears to duplicate part of Template:History of biology Frietjes (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep! per myself. Have been dreaming about such a template for many years, and will deploy it shortly. There's no easy to access way that links famous or important anatomists across time and I think this is an excellent idea. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Selective inclusion. Fails WP:NAVBOX. Better served by category navigation Category:Anatomists. --woodensuperman 09:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep! That it is a duplicate of History of biology is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. In that case we ought to delete {{History of medicine}} as well. Seeing as the template is in use now there is little argument remaining in favor of deletion. Carl Fredrik talk 15:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a massive argument in favour of deletion. Selective inclusion. Why have only a dozen or so anatomists been selected from the hundreds at Category:Anatomists? However, if all were included, the navbox would become pointless and unmanageable, which is why it is best to leave navigation between these people to the category. --woodensuperman 14:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Disagree (but I do acknowledge there is probably consensus at the moment for deletion). Several anatomists (Galen, Hippocrates, Vesalius, Avicenna, Henry Grey) make an outside contribution to the study of anatomy. For anatomically interested editors, a navbox such as this provides a useful navigational aid to better understand this history of anatomy. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Anas Aremeyaw Anas[edit]

navigates nothing Frietjes (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Really wish there would be an option to speedy delete unused template and navbox without navigation. --Gonnym (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Arab World[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Ashes summary[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Switzerland in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

Doesn't navigate anything. The only article (year) is a redirect back to the main article. --woodensuperman 14:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I guess the creator of this template needed a lot of space for all this information. --Gonnym (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Wales in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

Nothing to navigate. Artist and song redirect to the year article. --woodensuperman 14:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Africa country portals[edit]

replaced by other templates (e.g., {{Africa topic|prefix=Portal:}}) Frietjes (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Asian Golf Circuit seasons[edit]

all red links Frietjes (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Atomic volume[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, unused. Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, violations of WP:NOR in some of them. In Template talk:Atomic volume (Alternate) I describe that template's flaws: a nonstandard arrangement of the Periodic Table of Elements that is presented without justification, a poorly justified choice of atomic size that ignores details like chemical bonds, and unsourced data used: "radius of ground shell". Lpetrich (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Geological period category nav templates[edit]

Templates now superceded by Template:Geological category see also, now all unused.

Back in January 2018, we had a discussion where we decided to replace these navboxes on category pages with a simple see also of links the preceding and succeeding time periods. I built Template:Geological category see also to automatically generate this see also. That new template has thus replaced these navboxes on category pages, leaving these navboxes deprecated. I propose deleting them.

Please note a discussion at TfD in 2016 for some of these templates. —hike395 (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Later --- discovered some uses for {{Cambrian on nav}}, so removing it from the proposed deletion list. —hike395 (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Even later --- {{Cambrian on nav}} was a wrapper for {{Phanerozoic eon nav}}, so I just used the underlying template. {{Cambrian on nav}} now unused, so adding it back to the list. Sorry for the thrashing. Pinging Frietjes for full transparency. —hike395 (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

December 11[edit]

Template:ALeagueMatchSummaryLine[edit]

Only used at one article and the content is fairly generic despite the template name (home/away team, score etc.). In any case the article is only referenced from the league’s page and may not be notable. Eldumpo (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Poland in Junior Eurovision[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 18:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

appears to be a fork of Template:Poland in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest Frietjes (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete as Creator: I made the template due to a mistake where the actual Template:Poland in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest was not showing up, which made me believe there was no template. It should be deleted. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under G7 and T3. --woodensuperman 13:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete appears to be created in mistake by the creator who admits so. Sdmarathe (talk) 15:52, 12 December 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:Hypothetical Vomit[edit]

Completely redundant. The band itself is up for AfD as a non-notable group, but as none of their records are notable and there isn't a single link contained in this navbox, it's literally useless. Richard3120 (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as pointless. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - Nav box that navigates literally nothing. -- Whpq (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was planning on nominating this for deletion if the article were deleted, but it's true that this navbox doesn't aid navigation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete – fails to aid in navigation. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 20:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Greek letter templates[edit]

The short version is that these templates are no easier to type than their HTML entities that they produce. A longer version is that that they also are used inconsistently. Theta uses {{IPA}}; Tau and TAU use a <span>...</span> that duplicates {{math}}. I want to keep the main listing fairly short, but I'll add a bit more information in a comment below. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment. I've finished converting all uses of these in article spaces (which were invariably used in math formulas, even theta, which seems to be intended for IPA, but I don't know if it even works as intended) to HTML entities, and think they're ready to be deleted. A further problem is that there are templates with the names of other Greek letters but have completely different functions ({{alpha}}, {{beta}}, {{ETA}}, {{kappa}}, {{NU}}, {{Sigma}}, {{Psi}} at least). I'd like to get {{pi}} as well, but it's in rather wide use and will take a lot more work to get to here. Two others worth pointing out are {{delta}} and {{phi}}, but these both have some other functionality, so I'm not doing anything with these for the moment, although input would be welcome. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. One other thing to mention is that {{mu}} is transcluded from Module:Val/units, but I can't see how, so hopefully someone can clear up what's going on there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC) Never mind, it was just there indirectly because of the /doc subpage which I went ahead and converted as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. γ λ τ γ λ τ γ λ τ. On the Google Chrome browser I'm viewing this with, the version of tau produced by the template is distinctly better than the one produced by the html entity, although it is still lousy, and the templates for gamma and lambda produce results just as execrable as what the html entities give us. The template for π, on the other hand, works well. If templates can be created for other Greek letters that make them look as good as π, then they should be kept, since html performs abominably in this regard. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. These Greek letters are mainly used in math. So, they should normally used inside {{math}}, and must be italicized per MOS:MATH#Greek letters. I have put Michael test list inside template {{math}}, and added the templates between double quotes for an italic result: γ λ τ γ λ τ γ λ τ γ λ τ. It appears that, for getting γ in a math formula, one has to type either ''&gamma ;'' or ''{{gamma}}'', that is 11 or 13 characters. The least that should be do is to modify the templates for returning italic greek letters, at least inside {{math}}. The only other acceptable alternative is to recommend using LaTeX when Greek letters are involved. D.Lazard (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:History of fashion[edit]

Propose merging Template:History of fashion with Template:Fashion.
For plain convenience, "fashion" being on ongoing historical theme anyway. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Frietjes - no problem to have two templates with different subject matter, and the historical template does do a good job of linking relevant articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:London Lightning[edit]

Now tangential, duplicate, and non-existing articles have been removed there is hardly anything worth navigating. --woodensuperman 11:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - not useful as a navigation template. --Gonnym (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wikilinks suffice. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Halifax Hurricanes[edit]

Now tangential, duplicate, and non-existing articles have been removed there is hardly anything worth navigating. --woodensuperman 11:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - not useful as a navigation template. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wikilinks suffice. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Island Storm[edit]

Now duplicate and tangential links have been removed, there is nothing to navigate. --woodensuperman 11:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - not useful as a navigation template. --Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wikilinks suffice. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox settlement wrappers[edit]

Unnecessary wrappers for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

See also a recent batch of similar wrappers, which were all deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Cool Air[edit]

Speedy delete under WP:CSD#T3 as this navbox duplicates links all present in {{Media based on H. P. Lovecraft works}}. --woodensuperman 10:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This discussion makes no sense because the template that you are saying this duplicates is still under discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_30#Template:Works_of_H._P._Lovecraft. That template may be merged away in that discussion. This should be discussed jointly with that consideration. Furthermore, as a template based on a work, it is a more meaningful contribution to the pages it is related to. Its contents are cluttered with unrelated derivatives of other works in the broader works templates. Those broader templates cause derivatives of one work to appear on the pages of derivatives of other unrelated works simply based on the fact that the author of the original is the same.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Tony, {{Media based on H. P. Lovecraft works}} is not currently under discussion. You seem to have confused it with another template, maybe {{Works of H. P. Lovecraft}}. I have already pointed this out to you. --woodensuperman 09:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I see the talk page post now. There you say "the whole system of navboxes for Lovecraft is a complete mess". This is the wrong solution. {{Media based on H. P. Lovecraft works}} should be deleted or used only on derivatives of works that have at most a two or three derivatives (thus not having their own template). Most authors have a biographical template that encompasses their own work and templates for their individual works that have spawned lots of derivatives. Lovecraft has several templates, such as this, for works that have spawned derivatives. They should not be mashed together in a single template that is confusing to the reader and causes derivatives of one work to be on the page of derivatives of another work as well as causes variously-named derivatives to be points of confusion more than anything else.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The single navbox for all adaptations/media is absolutely the correct approach here, rather than individual templates, especially as some of this media is derived from multiple works, including two in this navbox: Necronomicon (film), which is based on three separate stories; and Call Girl of Cthulhu, which doesn't even seem to be based on "Cool Air", instead being "very loosely based on the writings of H. P. Lovecraft". No matter what happens with any of the other navboxes, this one is redundant. --woodensuperman 14:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

December 10[edit]

Template:Infobox skateboarder[edit]

Recently created and probably redundant to {{Infobox sportsperson}}. I made it into a wrapper for that template, but have been reverted. Has just 15 transclusions. The long list of sponsor parameters are trivia and should probably be discarded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - I can understand people having trouble of letting go of an infobox that was created during the wild west days of the wiki, but there is no reason to keep a new infobox that could have easily been made to work with existing ones (or at least even given it a try). New infoboxes should need to receive consensus before being made, not being created and then left to other editors to clean up after. --Gonnym (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Top level men's association football leagues around the world[edit]

Propose merging or reverse merging Template:Top level men's association football leagues around the world with Template:AFC leagues, Template:CAF leagues, Template:CONCACAF leagues, Template:CONMEBOL leagues, Template:OFC leagues, Template:UEFA leagues or delete Template:Top level men's association football leagues around the world.
{{Top level men's association football leagues around the world}} is mainly folk of {{AFC leagues}}, {{CAF leagues}}, {{CONCACAF leagues}}, {{CONMEBOL leagues}}, {{OFC leagues}} and {{UEFA leagues}} Hhkohh (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Watanabe2004Table6[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Windsor Express[edit]

unused; the core links all point to one article Frietjes (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. Personal note: that god awful color scheme, bolding of random links and regular prose text in a template. Wow. --Gonnym (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: You'll find a lot of sports teams navboxes are like that - they also include a lot of additional tangential links such as TV stations in order to pad them out. Picking one at random: {{London Lightning}} --woodensuperman 11:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Seems both were created by the same editor, how unsurprising. --Gonnym (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --woodensuperman 11:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Mes time user[edit]

unused; seems unlikely that it is being substituted, since it would not substitute cleanly Frietjes (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and redundant to {{subst:EP|d/nd/a}} ~~~~ BrandonXLF (t@lk) 17:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:MMTS color[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, unused. Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:MYED[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:MA user topicon/Guye[edit]

unused; could be moved to userspace Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:MARCOM ships St. John's River SB Co.[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Template is being used now.Pennsy22 (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • keep using in several articles now Hhkohh (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:MARADships[edit]

unused; all red links Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Luxembourg commune density[edit]

unused; probably because density can be automatically computed from population and area. Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Lunisolar calendar[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was withdrawn Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep: At that time, I used this template in articles for some historic Korean people. But I don't know why this template was removed. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 14:43, 10 December 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:EA Sports 10 games[edit]

Unnecessary navbox template, EA Sports games released in 2009. No cohesive subject. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep - There obviously is a cohesive subject, you said it yourself. These are all EA Sports games released in 2009 that generally correspond to the same sporting season as each other. – PeeJay 14:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Disagree. These are games developed by EA Sports, released in 2009. That's it. [x] in [x] for a navbox doesn't work. FIFA 10 is an association football (soccer) video game, NBA Live 10 a basketball video game. Completely different games, different franchises. What they have in common is the developer and year of release. It's redundant to boot: {{Electronic Arts}} lists all franchises, while specific templates like {{PGA Tour}} and {{UFC video games}} list all entries. And to make an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, we don't have navboxes on Nintendo releases in year [x]. And there aren't any other "EA Sports [x] games" templates either. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, completely agree. Should be a category if anything, not a navbox. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:US TV schedule Saturday morning[edit]

Per already closed AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) and soon to be closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1980–81 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) all articles will be deleted and this template will no longer serve any purpose. Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

December 9[edit]

Template:California Baptist Lancers women's basketball navbox[edit]

It's been six months since this template was created and not one of the 50 seasons of basketball listed has had even a stub of an article written about it. Nor any head coaches. I don't think this template will ever be put to much use or serves any purpose. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Is seasonal coverage of this team even notable? --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep All D1 teams have been established as notable by numerous afds and all teams typically have articles created for every year. This is their first year in D1 which explains why no prior articles exist. By the end of the year an article should be created for this season at least, and almost every D1 basketball team (men and women) has a Navbox. Mjs32193 (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

December 8[edit]

Template:BPP Holdings[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, only navigates to one article. Unnecessary navbox Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 9 December 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:BPP University[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Only navigates to one article, the rest are redirects Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 9 December 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:Table7 January 2019[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Iridescent (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 11:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Completely pointless templates. Bellezzasolo Discuss 20:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Strong delete Seriously, what? — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hah! Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as a result of these [2] revisions. I've gone ahead and requested SD's. -- AlexTW 04:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 05:50, 9 December 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:Mli[edit]

Propose merging Template:Mli, Template:Mlix, Template:Module link and Template:Mlx.
{{mlx}} and {{mlix}} have the same function, {{module link}}/{{ml}} and {{mlx}} should also have the same function ({{module link}} shouldn't have the code tags it currently has, as {{mlx}} is meant for that). We should keep the documentations pages of {{mlix}} and {{mli}} as they are more complete but we should keep {{module link}}/{{ml}} and {{mlx}} as the names are shorter and follow similar naming to the {{tl}} family of templates. I'm also proposing that {{mlx}} should be replaced with {{#invoke:Module link|link}} and {{module link}} should be replaced with {{#invoke:Module link|link|code=yes}} to take advantage of Module:Module link. The module provides several advantages including allowing for an unlimited number to parameters and removing Module: and module: from the input. BrandonXLF (t@lk) 20:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support merge but oppose module as module creep: Removing double namespace prefixes seems to me to be out of scope for this template (and besides, {{tl}} doesn't do it), and likewise a module isn't warranted for just unlimited parameters (that should use my recent enhancement to Module:For nowiki or Module:Separated entries). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Either way is fine with me but I prefer the module. I created a version that doesn't use the module at User:BrandonXLF/sandbox/3. For {{mlx}} We can just add <code>...</code>. BrandonXLF (t@lk) 04:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_baronetage[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox nobility title or some other suitably named template. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

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

  • Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not merge: if the template is "entirely about a coat of arms" why would we merge it with Template:Infobox peerage title? They're two completely different templates with different uses. If a merge is needed, a much more sensible thing to do would be to merge with something like Template:Infobox emblem. --Inops (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Because the infobox is used on articles about baronetages, not about coats of arms, and is preventing the display of pertinent data about the subject of the pages on which it is used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Oh I see -- more of a deletion than a clean merge. I've seen a load of suggested merges of very different infobox templates covering two (seemingly) related concepts, but without explanation of how they would be implemented as one template. It make would sense in this case.
I would note baronetages are not peerages, so "Infobox peerage title" isn't the best name for the resulting template. "Infobox hereditary title" seems too general, as it would include monarchs. Perhaps "Infobox hereditary honour"? --Inops (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Inops: We already have several Coat of Arms templates. I don't know why this one was developed the way it was and they abandoned working on it. I have no problem renaming it "Hereditary title." I like that idea because there are also several other titles that could be used for this (see these positions). I doubt the monarchy would become involved in this infobox. МандичкаYO 😜 03:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge into a greater template per nom. There surely is a description of a bestowed honour that can cover the myriad forms throughout history and geography rather than individual templates for each. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can the (merged) template also be renamed to "Infobox nobility title"? The template is also widely used for description of (non-British) foreign peerages (such as Spanish peerages, e.g. Duke of Alba) or foreign noble titles in general (e.g. the Dutch noble title Prince of Waterloo). Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 20:14, 9 December 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 400-series highway[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Not used, redundant to Template:Infobox road. BrandonXLF (t@lk) 06:53, 8 December 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 UK feature[edit]

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

So are you seeking prior agreement before making these changes yourself, or what? Thincat (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Author I agree that there are some specific templates available but not for everything included. Most, if not all of those templates are too complicated for the average editor. I wanted something simple. I am picking away at the articles that use this and its usage is now below 500. I don't think that deleting it is really going to improve the articles. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Twiceuponatime: Please give examples of the articles for which no other infobox is available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Maybe I was wrong to say that there is NO other infobox available, but it is often difficult to work out what the feature is; and then find the appropriate infobox. Doom bar is a typical one. That feature is small and only really needs a location map; a proper infobox seems like overkill. It is a while since I tidied the usage up and I can see that there a lot which clearly shouldn't be there. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
        • The template on Doom bar has just an image, map and coordinates. I have replaced it with {{Infobox landform}} which displays the same data equally well; and which also displays the location as text, and the rather crucial information that the feature is a sandbar, formed by tidal action. There are plenty of places you can ask, if ever you are unsure of which infobox suits a particular article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support replace with topic-specific templates. There has been no example given for where a topic-specific template will not work here. --Gonnym (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:School of London[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Article School of London describes the term as a "loose movement". This is not a defined set, so not appropriate for a navbox. --woodensuperman 12:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose, the School of London has had books, major newspaper articles, and other back-up sources identifying it. Please notify the visual arts WikiProject of this deletion discussion, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not questioning its existence, merely that the association is not definite, therefore to group "members" in a navbox is inappropriate as sources differ as to who may or may not be included. For example, School of London is not mentioned at Patrick Swift or vice versa. --woodensuperman 16:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense. Will watch this page to see if WikiProject visual arts members comment. The list of names on the template are listed on the School of London article, but are not sourced. David Hockney, recently in major news items, is listed as a member. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • delete, no need for a navbox here. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Can be linked to in articles as necessary--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:13, 9 December 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:Hampden County politicians[edit]

It seems odd to me to have a template for 2 Massachusetts counties. Doesn't this information go in the {{Infobox settlement}} under the government/leadership? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment: @Zackmann08:, {{Infobox settlement}} government listings are usually for officeholders of that municipality. If you review any town or city, you won't find county, state, and federal officials in their main infoboxes, Washington D.C. being the exception. I didn't make the original template used in Worcester County, but copied it for my work in Hampden. In theory it should exist for all 14 MA counties. This is a convenient way to list public officials representing but not tied directly to a settlement, it would be a loss without an equivalent template for government sections of town/city articles. --Simtropolitan (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Simtropolitan: thanks for the explination. My thing is that there MUST be a more generic template that does this. How many counties are there in the US, not to mention cities... No reason to have a custom template for each one. At the very least this should be a generic {{Area politicians}} or something. It sounds like {{Infobox settlement}} is not where this information goes, but I have to believe there is someway that this information is displayed on other pages... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: That may well be, and as I'm sure you know area governments vary considerably from one state to the next, but that is a much larger discussion than this deletion thread then. Until there is a suitable replacement with consensus, I would respectfully ask that this template not be deleted.--Simtropolitan (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Simtropolitan: part of this discussion is to locate whether such a template exists. But the more research I do the more I think this template should just be deleted. Every city and county page I have looked at has this information displayed in the body of the article. The two transclusions of this template have multiple issues. For one they violate WP:OVERLINK by linking to the parties multiple times. Additionally, most of these positions are not worth including. State and federal representatives are included in the body of the article, but county level heads are not notable and none of them have articles so I'm not seeing any added value here. --Zackmann (Talk to me/<sub What I been doing) 21:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: Town level administrators are notable enough to have in a settlement infoboxes and bodies of text in many cases, and most will never have their own articles, so I have a difficult time seeing how county-level government is not relevant to include in this way. Again, if the point of Wikipedia infoboxes is to provide relevant information quickly, it makes little sense to offer a list of city mayors or council members who are referenced in the body text, but not have a short-list of officeholders like sheriffs or district attorneys who represent multiple town governments. --Simtropolitan (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Simtropolitan: the issue is that you need to draw the line somewhere with Infoboxes. You can't put every single name in the box. As you said, the point is to provide relevant information quickly. If you put ALL the information there then it defeats the purpose. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which states (in part) The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. I think the amount of info you are including is overkill. That being said, I think we could talk until the end of time and not see eye to eye. Let's see what others have to say on the mater and circle-back? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: >If you put ALL the information there then it defeats the purpose.
Which is why it exists in its own infobox rather than trying to put that in a settlement infobox. Deleting the specific template is fine but again, arguing this information shouldn't exist in an identical template infobox, by a more generic name, is where I will continue to make my case.--Simtropolitan (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think there's a difference between having this content in an infobox in the lede section, where I would not think it should be included, versus having it in a sidebar in a comprehensive politics and government section of the article, where I think it's quite appropriate. It doesn't seem to me that the discussion above distinguishes that. --Bsherr (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Brexit note[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON and breaches WP:NPOV as the UK leaving the EU is not a certainty. The date is also wrong, the UK is currently due to leave on 29 March 2019. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep - I think the template itself is a good idea. The date is actually correct in the template, just a typo in the documentation, which took about a second to fix. Either way, one value being incorrect in a template is hardly grounds for deletion. I do not think that this comes close to violating WP:NPOV. This is not advocating one way or another, supporting or opposing Brexit. It is simply saying "when this happens, we need to review the information". Not even pushing for a specific change to the information, just noting that the information will need review. If it would quell your concerns, I think a very simple fix would be to change the template documentation so that instead of saying when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union..., it says IF the United Kingdom leaves the European Union as currently planned.... Additionally since it will only display after the given date (which can be changed in a matter of seconds in the template if the date changes) it doesn't violate WP:TOOSOON. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: The date, as you say, is a minor thing but as per this discussion: Buckden & the Brexit note, I think the template itself is a contentious thing. Edits like this one and this one are inherently problematic as is the addition of Category:Priority articles for attention after Brexit. Readers do not see it but other editors do. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
It was intended to be helpful. There are certainly hundreds, maybe thousands of articles which will need adjustment when the United Kingdom and Gibraltar leave the European Union, so I wrote a marker which can flag them up in advance. Some are a greater priority than others of course, which I have tried to reflect. The Category it adds to an article is invisible until 11 pm BST on 29 March 2019, to avoid unnecessary categorisation until it is actually necessary to find and amend the articles. At the point the category appears, to flag up that attention is needed. I added additional functionality, so it is possible to bracket the tag around text that will need deletion (as in the examples which Zackmann08 refers to). That is secondary to tagging the articles.
The point is that when the UK has left the EU, there will be a lot of work to be done finding and amending articles, so doesn't it make sense to be able to mark them in advance?
Most of the articles I tagged were reverted, which disheartened me, as did the fact that no one else took the task on, so I stopped. I still think it is work that should be done, to mark for later the articles that will be affected. LG02 (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I still don't see any problem here. This seems to be a case of one editor being bothered by a maintenance category. Not an issue. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: There are certainly hundreds, maybe thousands of articles which will need adjustment when the United Kingdom and Gibraltar leave the European Union - when? The issue is we don't know if the UK will definitely leave the EU so adding it makes no sense which is why it has been reverted everywhere it was put in July this year e.g. this revert and this reception that the template had, so not just one editor. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Keep I agree this template is a good idea. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Template is useful if properly used. One can name articles where it is improperly used. Auto5656 (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. The template is useful, there's (potentially) a lot of maintenance work here. I suggest LG02 persues an RFC on tagging articles this way, so that any opposition is dealt with, one way or the other. Bellezzasolo Discuss 20:54, 8 December 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 natural region of Germany[edit]

Should be replaced with {{Infobox region}} Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. Apart from the word "region" in the name, these templates have nothing in common. Natural regions in Germany are officially designated from a geographical and geological point of view; they are arranged into levels, types, physiotopes and geochores, each of which has its own parameter in the template, none of which are covered by Infobox:region. The template will eventually link to several hundred designated natural regions.Bermicourt (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Bermicourt: the template has been around for a year and a half. So far it has 12 transclusions so I'm very doubtful of your several hundred claim. Whats more, every other geographical region in the world makes use of standard infoboxes, what makes the regions in Germany so special? If it really must have its own custom infobox (which I see nothing to support) then it needs to be standardized to use {{Infobox}}. I will also concede that {{Infobox region}} may not be the best. Perhaps {{Infobox protected area}} would be better. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
      • The reason it only has twelve inclusions is that when I started creating articles on the natural regions, the template didn't exist (if it survives this deletion proposal in some form, I'm happy to retrospectively add it to the others). There are, however, dozens of officially designated natural regions in Germany all of which could or should have this template or a close English Wiki equivalent (in which case it should be a wrapper as Andy Mabbutt suggests below). The trouble is that I don't see an equivalent, unless we heavily modify Infobox region to cover the parameters that will come across. Infobox protected area is sort of similar; the trouble is that "protected" is the one thing these regions are often not. The nearest equivalent I can think of are the UK's National Character Areas but they aren't as heavily classified and have a 'flat' structure, whereas the German regions have a 7-level hierarchy. Of course we could just not bother with all this and delete the template, but I thought the aim of Wikipedia was to increase human knowledge, not restrict it artificially because of infobox considerations. Bermicourt (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, or keep as a subst-only wrapper for a more standard infobox, as we do for all templates with German parameter names (e.g. this one uses |FLAECHE-HA=, |FLAECHE_PRAEFIX=, |FLAECHEREFERENZ=, |FLAECHE-QKM=, |SYSTEMATIK=). {{Infobox protected area}} is a likely contender. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox runestone[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox runestone into Template:Infobox artifact.

Largely similar templates. See discussion here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  • do not merge without a demonstration of the merged template in Template:Infobox artifact/sandbox. Frietjes (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • tentative support I agree with both comments above. They do seem to be largely similar, but lets get a proof of concept first? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose owing to the uniqueness of Runestones. МандичкаYO 😜 03:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    • The question is not "are runestones unique", but whether the templates are sufficiently different as to require two. And the only parameter exclusive to ruestones in that template is |rundataid=, which is synonymous with |id= in the more general template. In any case, runestones are no more "unique" [sic] than are many of the other types of object that use the artifact template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Runestones are not your average artefact and you can see this from their infobox. Not everything in similar categories needs to be merged together. МандичкаYO 😜 03:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Again: The question is not "are runestones your average artefact", but whether the templates are sufficiently different as to require two. And again you offer no argument why a single template will not suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikimandia. Templates are used in different ways and it's confusing to merge them or replace them. It also is not logical in common English to call a runestone an artefact per se. I don't think what is proposed is useful for editors, the articles, or the templates.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • What "different ways"? The claim that "it is not logical in common English to call a runestone an artefact" is false, as a Google search for the two words makes abundantly clear; the very first result, for example, says "We have the Kensington Runestone in our museum. The Runestone and the enduring mystery of its origin continues to be the hallmark of the Runestone Museum. This intriguing artifact was discovered in 1898". The second is for an academic paper titled "The Heavener Rune Stone: A Viking Age Artefact or A Modern Day Creation?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge It does not help editors to make wikipedia more complex by a proliferation of templates that exactly duplicate eachother, varying only by the variable name they use for an ID. There is nothing so special about runestones that they require a dedicated template having runestone_id rather than id as a variable name. There is nothing to be gained by proliferating templates because of a refusal to apprehend valid collective names for sets items, and instead insisting that my special item type has to have a specially named template. There is everything to be gained, in terms of diminishing the learning curve, by the application of general purpose templates that can be applied as widely as possible. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Completed discussions[edit]

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

Closing discussions[edit]

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

To review[edit]

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

To merge[edit]

Templates to be merged into another template.

Arts[edit]

Geography, politics and governance[edit]

Religion[edit]

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

Sports[edit]

Transport[edit]

Other[edit]

Meta[edit]

To convert[edit]

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

  • None currently

To substitute[edit]

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

  • None currently

To orphan[edit]

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

  • None currently

Ready for deletion[edit]

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

  • None currently

Archive and Indices[edit]