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 due to issues with having too wide a scope. There were about an even number of editors !voting to keep the template as those !voting to delete it. The reason for keeping it is to use it as a mechanism for hiding the infobox in articles where there is consensus to not include an infobox, but still have the article contain the summary data that can be parsed by third party sources. This would be similar to the way that templates like ((persondata)) contain hidden meta-data. The objection to this approach (and probably also an objection to ((persondata))) is that since the data is not visible, it may not be actively updated by editors, since it does not appear in the article. My decision to delete this template should not be taken as any judgement for or against using templates like ((persondata)) to hold meta-data. My decision to delete this template is based on the consensus/realization (even by many !voting to keep) that this particular implementation is not functional, and probably could not be made fully functional due to the scope. As was pointed out by WOSlinker, hiding the infobox could be accomplished by either wrapping it inside a ((void)) or adding bodystyle=display:none to an existing infobox. The "display:none" option could be toggled using a flag passed to the particular infobox. Yet another alternative that was suggested was to create a ((buildingdata)) and ((companydata)) template. None of these methods would not solve the "data must be visible" issue, but many would be functionally equivalent to the intent of this template. Hence, this template is redundant to other methods for achieving the same result. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not and cannot work as claimed. Does not emit machine-readable metadata. No consensus to hide data in articles. I've just replaced the only two article-space instances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of this template I am not going to fight for it if it was used so little. [Edit: I changed my mind, given that there appears to be more interest in using it now. 20:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)] Maybe it wasn't sufficiently known.

However:

• "Does not emit machine-readable metadata." - If you want machine-readable metadata, implement it.
• "No consensus to hide data in articles" - I am not aware of any consensus to not hide data in articles either. If you don't want to hide data, nobody forces you to use parameters.
• "Does not and cannot work as claimed." - That's tall. Here is its purpose: "To prevent recurring conflicts each time another editor discovers that an article has no infobox, the present template can be used to mark it as an article which intentionally does not have an infobox." It worked perfectly well until Pigsonthewing came along and replaced it by visible infoboxes in the two articles where it was used. [1] [2] In a sense it still worked even then, because everybody can now see these edits as what they were: A WP:POINT violation in order to push metadata. Hans Adler 22:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • It did not work, because it did not - and cannot - emit machine readable metadata, as our existing infoboxes, in which I and others have implemented it, do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, emitting metadata is not the purpose of the template, and if you think it should do that, you are welcome to implement it. You seem to be under the impression that the question is invisible infobox or visible infobox. Wrong. The question is invisible infobox and slightly less disputes, or no infobox at all. Hans Adler 00:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you could inform those editors who assert that it does provide metadata, then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • To judge from the various discussions that I have seen which you might be referring to in this way, I won't bother as they clearly aren't interested in your silly metadata. Last time I challenged you to name one actually useful way of using them, the only thing there was was saving an article's infobox in a bookmark. Clearly, metadata are dead. Hans Adler 13:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • "...saving an article's infobox in a bookmark" Untrue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

            Well, at the time I kept asking you what it is that one can do with metadata, and you kept banging on what one could theoretically do with it. So I did my own research, came to the realisation that metadata are essentially vapourware with no useful implementations, and the only thing I found was a Firefox plugin that saved the content of infoboxes in bookmarks that can be used offline. I am not sure what is weirder: That you claim the thing about bookmarks is untrue, or that you don't even try to deny that metadata is dead. Hans Adler 12:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, a better option is to simply comment out the infobox and start a thread on the talk page. if you want a template that is not visible, but emits metadata, try ((persondata)). perhaps you want a version of persondata but for companies and buildings? Frietjes (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting out an infobox means it won't emit machine readable metadata (nor indeed human readable content), too. Persondata is not an adequate substitute for the metadata emitted by our biographical infoboxes; as explained in my (draft) essay. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment wouldn't making coords display as topicon remove the need for this particular box? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need for this template, which is not an infobox, at all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: is it technically possible to make this template emit machine readable metadata? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost certainly yes. Some extra work may be required for parameters that occur in different types of infobox with different meaning. Not sure if that's a good idea, though, as most people would not notice incorrect information. Hans Adler 00:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in manner compatible with international and open web standards, as our current infoboxes do. (In other words, only in a manner which would also require other people to write special, Wikipedia-specific, tools to read it; in which case you may as well use HTML comments) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The function of this template is a purely social one. Its aim is to reduce stress for experienced editors who are allergic to infoboxes. The comment displayed on the template's page is an important part of that (social) functionality. Pigsonthewing has been tampering with that text during this discussion and is now edit warring for his version. If you don't immediately understand the function of this template, look at this version. Hans Adler 00:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the more reason for its prompt deletion. I haven't "tampered" with anything; I deleted your PoV and irrelevant essay about the use of infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Could be useful for articles with a working consensus against an infobox, such as the FA-quality Emily Dickinson biography. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve: assuming that Hans' response to my question above is correct, this would seem to be a workable compromise solution for cases where typical infoboxes have encountered opposition, allowing us to enable metadata emission. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was unaware of this template's existence, but if it serves the purpose Hans Adler created it for, I can see that it could be useful. I know some articles where, although there's a consensus to omit an infobox, editors continually have to explain this on the talk page in response to recurrent queries and challenges. Deor (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Machine readable metadata is good. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 01:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Machine readable metadata is indeed very good. Not only does this template not emit any; but it's designed to prevent the use of those templates which do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm reading what's at the top of the page -- I'm stating my interest in implementing this at some point in the future. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 01:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This template will never emit standards-compliant machine-readable metadata. Its contents are not in the rendered HTML. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seems to me that your idea of "metadata" is closely linked to screen scraping if that's an issue for you. Ever heard of XML? George Ponderevo (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • WTF does XML have to do with this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is becoming very confusing — I'm going to withdraw my !vote. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 22:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The purpose of infoboxes is not to emit metadata. There are potentially many better ways of emitting metadata should that be considered a useful thing to do, without impacting on the visual presentation of an article, as the ((persondata)) template demonstrates. Why not have an analogous ((buildingdata)) template for instance? George Ponderevo (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's precisely because ((persondata)) exists that this need not. We already have a way of injecting invisible metadata into articles; we don't need another one, especially not one masquerading as something it's not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the purposes of infoboxes is to emit metadata. Their use for that purpose is supported by the community, as RfCs have demonstrated. I recently began to list the problems of the persondata model, in this essay, (which is still in draft). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where and when did this community discussion take place? Can you provide a link? George Ponderevo (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't provide "a" link, because the discussion has taken place over a period of nigh on six years and on countless talk pages, deletion debates, and more than one RfC (hence my use of the plural). It's also evident in current practise, not least that we have over a million instances of infoboxes, several hundred infobox templates which emit such metadata, with documentation clearly identifying this, and we emit several million microformats. None of which is germane to your "keep", for which you have offered no meaningful justification. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most people, in this situation, would then be quite willing to give a range of places where such discussions took place. The rigidly literalist interpretation of a question, where the poser cannot be said to have reasonably known whether there was a place or a number of places is not helpful. Just give us a range of these places, and all will be well.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete pointy. It's easier to put in a fake infobox than get consensus an article doesn't need an infobox? Imagine you're editing an article and come across it -- now you have to follow the template to the doc only to find you just wanted your time on something that does nothing. NE Ent 02:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously it's easier. But the real point here is the confusion of presentation with implementation. There is absolutely no reason why the emitting of metadata should be linked in any way to infoboxes, or to any other visible screen furniture. And the discussion about microformats is simply a red herring, as they're about as dead a Dodo as QR codes. Were I not such a trusting individual I might suspect that Pigsonthewing sees another commercial opportunity in the offing. George Ponderevo (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are various good reasons: it's in line with the general ethos of the semantic Web; it's easier to do it in one place than in two, and it's a somewhat unproven assertion that microformats are "dead" anyway. Compare that to the argument against, which basically boils down to "a tiny minority of active editors have an intense dislike of an article convention that is otherwise completely uncontroversial, and need to find loopholes which enable them to keep fighting the general consensus without appearing to do it solely out of personal preference". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've had RFCs on microformat and the community has shown its clear support for them. If you wish to lobby to replace them with something else, you're welcome to try; but this ridiculous template is not the way to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Is that so? I challenged you below on a similar claim. When are you going to prove it? Hans Adler 13:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as utterly Pointy. The creator should be sanctioned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh? Any reason why you shouldn't be sanctioned for putting a borderline fraudulent WP:CSD#T3 template on this template? That's a pretty clear WP:POINT violation, and I strongly suggest a self-revert before an uninvolved admin sees this. Hans Adler 07:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's not going to be any self-revert forthcoming, nor is there going to be any block of me by an uninvolved admin, because your "template" is a piece of crap, the only purpose of which is to push your POV. It's not beneficial to the project, but it's typical of the b.s. you indulge in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I suggest that you take this personal attack back. I am not even against infoboxes. I just don't think they are more important than valid layout concerns by an editor who has bought several books and spent several weeks of their life on an article. And I don't think we can afford such editors being attacked until they leave. Your behaviour here is very inappropriate. Hans Adler 19:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • As it stands, this template does nothing that ((Coord)) does not; as such, it's patently redundant to that template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is a template that has absolutely no purpose on Wikipedia besides existing to make a point on behalf of the creator's POV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Mabbett seems to have some quixotic crusade going on regarding templates and meta-data; having failed to get Template:Marriage & Template:Event deleted last month, he's now on to the next target. I see no reason given for deletion other than "I don't like it or "I don't like how it's implemented". Well, really, tough shit. Don't use it then, Andy. Tarc (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes; I'll gladly "crusade" [sic] against any pointless, harmful or redundant template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you should learn what sic actually means before pompously trying to use it in a conversation, Andy. There is nothing incorrect or unusual about how I used the word. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Something something disruption something something point. If that tiny proportion of the community that vehemently oppose infoboxes want to fight that corner then they should do so honestly by arguing for articles to not have infoboxes at all, rather than pushing some sort of neutered fake. This isn't any sort of compromise. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are completely missing the point of this template: Easing the tensions that regularly occur at various articles when a local consensus not to use an infobox (for whatever reason) collides with some cross-article busybody's belief that there is a global consensus for using infoboxes wherever they are applicable. Unless I have missed a huge RfC over the last year, there is no such consensus. This template says very clearly: The lack of infobox at this article is intentional. It plays a similar role as an ENGVAR template, but experience has shown that putting something on the talk page is not enough because most editors are ware of ENGVAR but think there is a global infobox consensus. Hans Adler 11:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a reason that most editors think there's a global infobox consensus. That a minority of editors find it tiresome to have to explain themselves over and over and over again to the rest of the community over why a particular article lacks an infobox is a feature. It's not like ENGVAR at all: ENGVAR is purely a historical matter that society as a whole agrees does not have a "right" answer, whereas whether or not to have an infobox is an argument with substantive arguments (on one side, at least). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      And I take it that according to you the side with the substantive arguments is not the one that includes FA reviewers and serial FA writers? Hans Adler 13:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • False dichotomy is false, in the vernacular. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim that this template could, or does, "ease tensions" is bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. Several massive conflicts that drew in high-profile editors and burned lots of time were caused by attempts to put infoboxes on architecture or opera articles where they were not welcome. Obviously there are no statistics proving that this template is successful in making this less likely, but it's obviously plausible. Here is the case that finally prompted me to do this: Talk:Little_Moreton_Hall#Infobox. (Oh, wow. That actually involved you.) But the real reason was an earlier case that caused much more disruption, as well as the regular eruptions around the Opera project. Hans Adler 14:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If only for the joke value. Add ((Humor)) to the doc page. --Auric talk 11:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "This template does nothing" in the documentation says it all. Waste of space, waste of time. GiantSnowman 12:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• commment/question, for those !voting to keep this template because it could potentially be changed to emit metadata, like ((persondata)), I would like to know if you are suggesting that a single template could handle every possible case (people, buildings, companies, ...). I personally think this would not be feasible. a better option would be to either (a) create a ((buildingdata)) and ((companydata)) template to hold the metadata, or (b) add an option to ((infobox building)), ((infobox company)) to allow these templates to function like ((persondata)) in the cases that there is consensus to not have a visible infobox. Frietjes (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I'd made it clear above that I'd be fully in favour of a series of templates along the lines of ((persondata)), and if a ((buildingdata)) template is ever produced I'd be all in favour of deleting this ((infobox invisible)) template. But until then ... George Ponderevo (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the present template is used on all articles that intentionally don't have an infobox, then we will have a good overview and it's easy to see which additional data templates of this kind are worth creating. E.g. ((composerdata)). Hans Adler 19:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are not "better options". The community has already expressed a preference to mark up visible content as metadata, using open and web-wide standards, as our current infoboxes do, rather than to use additional hidden metadata templates that are proprietary to Wikipedia. Any move to overturn this requires a different forum than one template's TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that so? That must have been a great moment for you. No doubt you can easily provide a link, so that I can read the fine print of that community decision. By the way, you just made your third revert on the template in 24 hours. Hans Adler 20:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Still waiting for the link. I am sceptical, as I seem to remember that you made exaggerated claims of this type in the past. Hans Adler 22:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I am still waiting. Did you tell the truth? Hans Adler 13:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Are you really suggesting that the infobox templates are not proprietary to Wikipedia? Really? George Ponderevo (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course not. But - as I said above - the metadata emitted by them is in a standard, open, generic set of formats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • So why could the metadata emitted by ((buildingdata)) not also be emitted in a "standard, open, generic set of formats"? Why this blind spot about the inadvisability of linking metadata with visual presentation? George Ponderevo (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You claim elsewhere that you've probably forgotten more about computing than I will likely ever know; so why don't you show us how it could? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but why don't you try and present a case to prove that it couldn't? George Ponderevo (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Good line there, describing Mabbett, reminds me of the beginning of Neuromancer. Tarc (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to HA's argument, it can and should be used in articles for which this is a consensus that there should not be an infobox. It's out of scope, here, but a topic ban for Pigsonthewing would probably reduce edit warring even more. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no problem—if someone doesn't like this infobox, they don't need to use it. No one is forcing content builders to use this infobox. If someone wants to control infoboxes on Wikipedia, they should get appointed to a suitable formal role allowing them to impose their infobox rules on others. Until that happens, content builders (and people who support them) will be able to discuss which infobox, if any, would be appropriate in a particular article. Johnuniq (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite its misleading name, this template is not an infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the first potential reason for deleting. Perhaps rename to ((Invisible template))? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not obvious why "someone" who "wants to control infoboxes on Wikipedia" requires election to some unspecified "formal role" allowing them to "impose their infobox rules on others", while "content builders" (there's that lie again) are permitted to do so without such formal designation. Surely any real consensus to refrain from putting an infobox on a given article should be strong enough that the community as a whole, rather than a self-selected group of "content editors", enforces it. That should preclude the need for a permanent articlespace null template for that purpose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same should be said of a consensus to add an infobox—but, apparently, it isn't, because certain editors want non-microformatted machine-readable metadata. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not really true, though, is it? While the number of articles which deliberately do not include an infobox is relatively small, for the last two years none of them have required this template in order to enforce that. The community at large has done its job. This TfD is more a result of unfortunate timing and the clashing of personalities than anything else. If someone had tagged it for speedy deletion a month ago, before its author returned to active editing, it's quite possible that this whole drama might have been avoided. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until these commments/questions are answered and resolved, and then the proposal might be re-submitted, pending resiolution of other mattersI say this, because there is no answer to the question I placed on Talk:Little Moreton Hall where there seems to be a consensus against adding an infobox: Is using an infobox the only way metadata can be added to an article? If it is, then why do we have this conflation between having an infobox and the emission of metadata? Supplementary question: why has there been no notification or comment about this discussion on Talk:Little Moreton Hall where the issue is (or was) being hotly discussed, starting on the 12th January (one day after this deletion nomination was made), when one of the prime instigators of removing the "invisible infobox" and of adding a straightforward infobox to Little Moreton Hall was the same person: Andy Mabbett? This strikes me as being somewhat disrespectful of the editors who are trying to discuss the issue there? I will add a suitable notice now.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such questions are irrelevant to the discussion of this template, which is neither an infobox nor, its creator states, intended to serve metadata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could just use bodystyle=display:none; against an exisitng infobox to make it hidden. Or could redirect this template to ((Void)). -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and make it work (unless there really are other ways, as the last post suggests). Should not be strangled as part of a campaign to have visible infoboxes everywhere. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Make it work" how? To fulfil what function? This is not "part of a campaign to have visible infoboxes everywhere" (nor does any such campaign exist); it is part of my long-standing and on-going work to remove redundant or unnecessary templates from Wikipedia. This is the third time in recent weeks you have falsely described my actions. It's time you stopped. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename - if it is not an infobox it should not come along named as such. Drop the part "Infobox" from the name if it serves a function (that I actually don't see), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It serves no useful function. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is a trolling, bad faith nomination, but everything Hans Adler (above) says is correct.  Giano  19:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Useful for articles that don't have an infobox. - ʈucoxn\^talk 11:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Useful in what way? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move. This appears to be an essay masquerading as a template and is in conflict with Help:Infobox and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Since a template is merely code and markup adding, like removing it, is an editorial decision and as such is governed by consensus (be it on the article's talk page, the overarching wikiproject, or wherever). If there's consensus against adding an infobox then that's fine; it makes no more sense to add this template than it does to insert an HTML comment at the top of the article saying "Consensus is to not add an infobox." That might be better actually, since this wouldn't even do that. If I came across this "template" in the normal course of editing I would probably remove since it was a complete no-op, generating no content and probably distorting the whitespace on the top of the page. Moving it to the project space and renaming it Wikipedia:Not all articles need an infobox might be a good outcome. We shouldn't encourage adding templates that don't actually do anything, especially not as a proxy for a content/policy dispute. Mackensen (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2013 (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; deleted as G8 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EHF European Cup seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template should be deleted, as there is already Template:EHF Cup seasons, its the same handball competition. (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

tagged it with ((db-author)), since you appear to be the only significant editor. Frietjes (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2013 (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.