< March 20	March 22 >

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is made redundant by ((Football in England)), ((Football in Scotland)), ((Football in Wales)) and ((Football in Northern Ireland)) — Kanaye 22:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the exception of the inclusion of the national teams for the Home Nations, these templates don't overlap. They perform very clearly-defined functions: the UK template is for UK-wide competitions and teams, whilst the Home Nations' templates are for subdivisional competitions, teams, and administration. Bastin 02:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Same reasons as Bastin8. - MTC 07:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If that's true, then shouldn't the overlapping links be removed and the template only used on genuinely UK topics? Kanaye 09:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the Football in (England|Scotland|Wales|Northern Ireland) and Football in the United Kingdom templates should only be on a page together if the page is linked to from both templates. An appropriate place to use both templates would be at the bottom of Football in England, since that's under the topic of Football in the UK, and all articles related to football in England are under that. Keep, so long as it's used correctly. Gracenotes ^T § 19:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted at author's request.John Reaves (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another single-article template that just transcludes a normal infobox. Kirill Lokshin 19:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as for WW2, given their associations on the mediation case. Xaxafrad 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per some guy here. Gracenotes ^T § 20:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A double-transclusion like this only makes sense if the template will be used across multiple articles. Since this is so general, it really only usable in one. If you need help editing ((Infobox Military Conflict)), ask for help. Don't create a fork. —dgies^t_c 01:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the template's creator, I think I can call for some type of speedy delete, or prod, and save some hassle. I'll keep the article/user subpage in mind, should a similar urge strike me in the future. Please see ((Infobox Military Conflict2)) and delete for similar reasons (do I have to put a special tag on it first?). Xaxafrad 06:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete at author's request. John Reaves (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another recreation of the oft-deleted ((World War II infobox)); we've already established that having a separate infobox template for each article that does nothing but copy the normal infobox is pointless. In this case, it's been made even worse, as the main infobox code has been subst:ed rather than transcluded, producing an unreadable and unmaintainable nightmare. Kirill Lokshin 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the template's talk page, you'd notice I tried to edit ((Infobox Military Conflict)) or ((WPMILHIST Infobox style)), but they're protected. I was just now going to add an ((editprotected)) tag to one or both of them, when I noticed the template I unknowingly recreated was nominated for deletion.

"we've already established that having a separate infobox template for each article that does nothing but copy the normal infobox is pointless". We have? I missed that discussion. I don't think it's pointless. In fact, the specific point I used as my reasoning for creating the template was the massive bickering going on over who should, or shouldn't be listed in the infobox. This massive bickering was cluttering up the talk page for the whole article and is the primary obstacle in between here and good article status. If people want to argue about a template, let them do it on a template talk page.

In order to ease newbies into discussing the template infobox on the template talk page, I had to subst a few things to insert V-D-E links, by way of ((tnavbar-header)). As soon as ((tnavbar-header)) is added to ((Infobox Military Conflict))....you know what, nevermind, I'll just fork the infobox and add it myself, I'll let somebody else replace ((Infobox Military Conflict)) with a redirect to ((Infobox Military Conflict2)) or whatever the procedure is, until then WW2 can use ((Infobox Military Conflict2)). Xaxafrad 19:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the whole point of infobox templates is that the actual content is in the article itself, and the template just handles the formatting and layout of it. There's no "intermediate" template involved, and thus nothing to edit aside from (a) the article, where the content resides, and (b) the infobox, where the formatting resides (and which shouldn't need to be edited very often). Kirill Lokshin 19:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For these two reasons:
1. Double transclusion of this sort is not a good idea. The purpose of templates is to display the same content on multiple pages. If there's content that's meant to put only once on a certain page, actually put it there!
2. POV forks, which generally not ideal (although good if they prevent edit warring), belong on a subpage of the article talk page, or a user subpage, not in the template namespace.
Gracenotes ^T § 20:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A double-transclusion like this only makes sense if the template will be used across multiple articles. Since this is so general, it really only usable in one. If you need help editing ((Infobox Military Conflict)), ask for help. Don't create a fork. —dgies^t_c 01:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the template's creator, I think I can call for some type of speedy delete, or prod, and save some hassle. I'll keep the article/user subpage in mind, should a similar urge strike me in the future. Xaxafrad 06:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template (and matching category) is both redundant and unused. On November 26, 2005 the WP:PUI page was modified to instead instruct that ((PUIdisputed)) be used to dispute an image's source or copyright status and ((PUInonfree)) be used to indicate that an image is only available under a non-free license. In addition, ((subst:nsd)) and ((subst:nld)) are available to mark images missing source or license information. —RP88 18:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or mark as deprecated, unused and obsolete – Qxz 20:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused and classic template. Deprecated for use on images. Alex43223^{T | C | E} 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template probably ends up appearing mostly in edit previews, and is quickly replaced, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its purpose. Mango juice^talk 03:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? I think you've mistaken this template for something else, this used to be a "I've listed this image on the PUI page" template, it couldn't be removed by anyone other than the closing admin (after 14 days). Perhaps you're thinking of ((subst:nsd)) and ((subst:nld))? —RP88 12:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debate relisted in order to generate further consensus. Mart inp23 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: with the new templates, this one's existence can only hurt (by confusing people and creating non-standard backlogs), not help. No real historical value. Gracenotes ^T § 19:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It states it's obsolete and is not in use on any image page. There are a few redirects that should be re-redirected should this TfD succeed. - grubber 15:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or mark historical. There are still references to the template around in archives, so it should be clear what happened to the template. --ais523 09:29, 23 March 2007 (U T C)
Keep gotta go rouge here. The difference between the nonfree and disputed template is already terribly subtle, and often people get them mixed up. I actually think we should remerge these new templates into the one, as the text of the new ones helps nothing; if we need a more specific message, we can put it in this one. However, the category might be bad, unless we can find a way to link it to the others. Patstuart^talk·edits 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not a bad idea actualy. WP:PUI in it's current form makes no use of the categories anyway, unless you manualy list a image at the PUI page nothing will happen (I've seen "orphanded" PUI tagged images lying around for several months). No practical reason for having two different categories exist that I know off. It was a well meaning change, but unless the PUI process itself is updated to differinciate between the two "classes" of images there is not a whole lot of point to having two different templates. Might as well rewrite this one and redirect the two others to it to cut down on complexity. Unless there are iminent plans to reform PUI that I am not aware of that is. --Sherool (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, appears to have been created to add image credits. Special:Linksearch/www.roe.ru indicate that the website is not widely credited on Wikipedia, thus instances may be considered individually and do not need a template. Delete as nominator. — Iamunknown 06:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well said by nom; a template is not needed for this. Gracenotes ^T § 20:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template was originally used by its creator (Nateji77) in "Nashville Metros" (see history). It has since been superseded by Template:Infobox Football club in that article and elsewhere. Template contributors and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football have been or will be notified. — Iamunknown 05:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant due to ((Infobox Football club)). Qwghlm 11:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per author request. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

((subst:fc|Floriana)) already create same effect. — Matthew_hk t c 04:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 04:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i also put these to tfd, the original plan of these TP is a link plus image, but the image is not fair use thus it is useless/meaningless to create extra TP. Matthew_hk t c 04:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - now that they do not break WP:FU, these seem remarkably useless. They should all be subst:ed before deletion, however. Qwghlm 08:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all by author request. I created these before I understood the rules for fair use images, I'm surprised they managed to stay for so long. I've removed the templates from the article they were being used on, and replaced them with ((subst:fc)), they can be safely deleted now. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unencyclopedic (this encyclopedia, that is). Punkmorten 22:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Showspecific infobox that was replaced with ((Infobox Television episode)). no loss of information, no visual change. Can perhaps be speedied ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 02:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although this could possibly be redirected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as other replacements TheDJ has put up. - grubber 15:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant/unused. –Pomte 04:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 21

Template:Football in the United Kingdom

Template:Pacific War Infobox

Template:WW2infobox

Template:PUI

Template:PD:Rosoboronexport

Template:PDL team

Template:Floriana F.C.

Template:Prison Break episode

Template:Maintained