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 section.

The result of the discussion was redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Peninsula (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

we already have a redirect, ((infobox peninsula)), since ((infobox islands)) serves the purpose of describing a peninsula. if there are missing parameters, we can add them to that template. this template is basically a cut-and-paste fork of ((infobox islands)) (for the main structure) and ((infobox settlement)) (for the divisions, area, coordinates, and location maps). note that there is also ((infobox cape)) (one of the articles using this template is actually a cape). Frietjes (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to ((infobox islands)), just like ((infobox peninsula)). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 05:28, 11 November 2012 (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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 AFC Champions League Group C (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 AFC Champions League Group D (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 AFC Champions League Group E (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 AFC Champions League Group F (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 AFC Champions League Group G (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 AFC Champions League Group H (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template that is not widely and can/is be substituted by a wikitable. Group A template was deleted earlier in January here, others should have been nominated then as well. NapHit (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• subst and delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:10, 7 November 2012 (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 section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete at this point in time, but there could be consensus after the group states finish. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group A standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group B standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group C standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group D standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group E standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group F standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group G standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group H standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates should be substituted with wikitables and deleted, as they are not required. Once the group stages is finished in December, these templates will be redundant, so the data should be substituted into a wikitable and then the templates deleted. NapHit (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete as single use templates. Resolute 14:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until Group Stage ends This templates should be kept until the group stage ends in December, since they provide a faster and easier way to improve a whole bunch of articles. JDamanWP (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but as they are only going to be updated another three times its rather pointless to keep them until December when they are redundant anyway. People updated previous season articles without these templates before, I'm sure they can continue to do so. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - These are being used over multiple articles. Kingjeff (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete Useless templates not used over multiple articles. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I created them I thought that it was used in 6 article (4 team season page, 2012-13 CL page and 2012-13 CL group phase), but someone doesn't want to put them on the season pages. Stigni (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The whole purpose of a template like this is to cut down the number of edits needed. Instead of doing the 6 edits, it can be reduced to 1 edit by using the template. Kingjeff (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since they're mostly exclusively used on 2012–13 UEFA Champions League and 2012–13 UEFA Champions League group stage they're pointless. Some of the clubs don't even have season pages and forcing others to use this template has no purpose. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Makes it much easier and it should be used on those "6" pages which makes those templates even more useful. Kante4 (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - NapHit, If the problem of redundancy is a problem in December, why are they being put up for deletion now and not December? Kingjeff (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why wait until they are redundant? They are going to be redundant, they shouldn't be kept just because it is slightly quicker to update information. They should be substituted by tables, which is what has happened for previous seasons and there was no problem updating info then. NapHit (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You wait because there are value to these templates. Kingjeff (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sorry why is this a question? Nlsanand (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep and revisit in December. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many such templates excist to be used in multiple articles and even in many different languages. It makes the style more consistent and safe a ton of work. Why should these templates be singled out among the many sports templates lying around? The suggestion seems illplaced. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Much easier to maintain. Making edits in one place rather than across multiple articles. In that sense they are required. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As others have said this template can be used on 6 articles. One edit updating up to six articles sounds like the only justification needed. In addition, this template helps unify the manner in which the information is displayed. EddieV2003 (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template is error prone. Case in point it is showing Porto a guaranteed spot when in fact they do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.18.2 (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2012 (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 section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chemical engineering (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a substantial duplication of the template ((Chemical engg)), and should have been speedy deleted according to criterion T3. However, a user stopped speedy deletion, claiming that (a) it is used on several pages, and (b) WP:SIDEBAR allows a sidebar template in addition to a navbox. I don't think the intent of WP:SIDEBAR is that a sidebar should offer essentially the same as a navbox on the same page. Also, WP:SIDEBAR says that "tangential information should be kept out of sidebars;" but this template is huge. On some pages the sidebar/navbox combination take up more space than the content (see Chemical process modeling). RockMagnetist (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment why is the other template named "chemical engg" instead of ((chemical eng)) ? -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not know why, although I previously suggested such a template (Navbox style; to be placed at bottom of page) to User:Sunilshamnur who originally created it. This User is now blocked - permanently I believe. Moving ((Chemical engg)) to ((chemical eng)) would fine with me. H Padleckas (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the presentation of the template should be chosen by a switch "form=sidebar/footer", as best for the organization of any particular article. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I've rewritten the template as a proper ((sidebar)), which helps with the size. Nonetheless, there is no need to have sidebars which simply duplicate the content of navboxes; if that's all this does, perhaps we don't need it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait. I was involved in editing both templates. I would like to have a chance to review the situation and decide upon a recommendation. H Padleckas (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am now thinking about simplifying and slimming down the Template:Chemical engineering, and making the Navbox template Template:Chemical engg fuller, i.e. possibly putting more entries in it, and leaving both. A slimmer sidebar template is less likely to squash content to the left of it, in particular for Users with a narrow screen monitor - having fewer pixels horizontally, thus allowing fewer characters across the page. There are fewer or practically no such limitations for a Navbox template at the bottom of an article, but the disadvantage is that it is less visible than at the top of an article. H Padleckas (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slimming down the sidebar would help, but it would be better to create sidebars for more focussed areas within chemical engineering. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Wait - Taken as granted that H Padleckas (talk) has been involved in editing both navigation bars... as long as he takes the burden not to just think but also to completely rewrite a unified code for both templates (which is going to be very VERY time-consuming) ... well then let's go for it... IMHO he is ultimately the one more qualified to decide on the matter. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still busy studying how re-organize both of these templates and making notes on the Template Talk page. I think they can use an overhaul. A decision should wait until I re-organize them. H Padleckas (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have overhauled Template:Chemical engineering, making it slightly smaller both horizontally and vertically, re-organizing it, taking out the poorer, less relevant articles and in some cases replacing with better articles. It is now better, in my opinion, and more different from Template:Chemical eng, the new name for Template:Chemical engg. When I get a chance, I plan to expand Template:Chemical eng to include an even wider selection of articles. H Padleckas (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2012 (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.