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) 00:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Garridosinfo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is article content, transcluded into only one article, Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard. There's no good reason to put this content into the template space, which makes the article less maintainable. I propose substing and then deleting.

I raised this at Talk:Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard#Template:Garridosinfo, with no responses. TJRC (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge template into article and delete I cannot see any reason for the split. Mangoe (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There's no need to have a separate template simply for the infoboxes (which need converted into proper ((infobox criminal)) instances as well). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• merge with article using standard ((infobox criminal)) boxes, possibly glued together with a ((stack)). Frietjes (talk) 18:34, 23 May 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RTD 2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is station map template for the light rail system as it existed in 2010 (though someone has come along and added stations that opened this year). I don't think there is any benefit to having this. The current station map that will be updated as stations come online is here: Template:RTD station map, and as the proposed map is largely the same, but stuck in time, I think it should be deleted. Killian441 (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I'm not clear on why the current diagram is being transcluded since it appears in only one article. The 2010 map isn't used at all and I see no reason to keep it around. Mangoe (talk) 01:52, 17 May 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 relisted on 24 May 2013 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:55, 24 May 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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPFW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No relevant links The Banner talk 19:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Navbox has four links that say "IPFW", two links that say "Mastadon" and nine links total related to IPFW. Exactly how does this navbox have "No relevant links"? Perhaps an RFC should be filed against The Banner for dodgy XfD nominations (as Template:IPFW, Template:Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Template:University of Northern Iowa and Template:Vincennes University have plenty of relevant links)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please start with using the correct template (university instead of musical artist). In that case you can assign the links to a proper place and not put everything under "related", what means that it is not directly linked to the subject. The Banner talk 22:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - OK, I added an athletics category to the navbox, and removed all references to the navbox being for a music group. This is the first time I am creating university navboxes, and I know people don't want me to make mistakes, but it is going to happen. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, but remove the current basketball season link. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply - Until IPFW men's basketball has enough articles (unlike University of Northern Iowa men's basketball), I respectfully disagree with removing the current season link. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:46, 20 May 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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No relevant links The Banner talk 19:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -

1. Chauncey Rose contributed enough to build and endow the Rose Polytechnic Institute
2. Cryptologia was published at RHIT for close to two decades
3. Oakley Observatory is located at RHIT
4. PRISM is hosted at RHIT
5. Rose-Hulman Human Powered Vehicle Team is located at RHIT
6. WMHD-FM is owned by RHIT --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, perfectly reasonable navbox for a university. Frietjes (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to your work, Frietjes. The original of mr. Jax was another example of his sloppy work. The Banner talk 22:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - This is not the forum to discuss the quality of my work, this is the forum to discuss "Template:Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology". My template had six links from the start, so per WP:POORLY, there is no reason that this should have gone to TfD in the first place, especially based on the statement "No relevant links". Perhaps an RfC should be filed against The Banner for nominating navboxes to TfD that should not be there at all, especially since there is only one vote for delete and two votes for keep so far? I also ask again, exactly how does Template:IPFW have "No relevant links"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is the right place, because you sloppy work has to be corrected by others. And what about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jax 0677, where you was asked to up the quality of your work. Are these university-templates the culmination of your better work? Gosh, time to panic! The Banner talk 23:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply - This is the first time I am creating university navboxes, and I know people don't want me to make mistakes, but it is going to happen. And your inflammatory comments are in violation of WP:CIVIL. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your filibustering is also contrary to civil behaviour. The Banner talk 22:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - According to the filibuster article on Wikipedia, "A filibuster is a type of parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal". What PROOF is there that I am filibustering??? What I am doing cannot possibly delay a vote on this proposal, and is simply asking legitimate questions regarding the XfD. These questions are being blatantly ignored a great deal of the time instead of being answered with either a legitimate answer, or being told that it is none of my business. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:55, 20 May 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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:University of Northern Iowa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template with completely different content than the title of the template suggests. Or the content has to be improved (and widened in scope) or the title needs to be changed. The Banner talk 19:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's not what I expected when I clicked the link. I would move this template and then kill the redirect by creating a more appropriate navbox for UNI. –Fredddie™ 05:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Navbox has 9 links that say the words "Northern Iowa" in it, plus other related articles.

1. How does the template have "completely different content than the title of the template suggests" or "content [that] has to be improved (and widened in scope)"?
2. Why must the title be changed if all of the articles are related to Northern Iowa?
3. How is this navbox not "appropriate"?

--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? The Banner talk 22:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I am not "kidding". What I am saying is evident in the navbox itself. Please be more specific in the questions that you ask, as I am not going to try to predict exactly what you are getting at. I am now going to repeat the ignored questions that I have already asked.

1. How does the template have "completely different content than the title of the template suggests" or "content [that] has to be improved (and widened in scope)"?
2. Why must the title be changed if all of the articles are related to Northern Iowa?
3. How is this navbox not "appropriate"?
4. Exactly how does Template:IPFW have "No relevant links"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are just filibustering here or you are completely st.... The Banner talk 20:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC) gosh, I hope it won't take long before you get your topic ban and are kicked off templates.[reply]

Reply - A filibuster involves me crowding out other people and taking time to prevent other people from speaking, which a written forum does not permit. I am responding to the concerns addressed, which is a lot more than The Banner is able to do. Maybe The Banner should try answering the questions directly, instead of ignoring them and making personal attacks and discussing off topic matters. Was The Banner about to say "completely stupid"? Because this amounts to a personal attack. It is also useful to note that many of the May 8th templates such as Template:Londonbeat that The Banner nominated were kept. I will repeat the ignored questions again:

1. How does the template have "completely different content than the title of the template suggests" or "content [that] has to be improved (and widened in scope)"?
2. Why must the title be changed if all of the articles are related to Northern Iowa?
3. How is this navbox not "appropriate"?
4. Exactly how does Template:IPFW have "No relevant links"?
5. Lastly, on what grounds will a topic ban be issued if I have fully complied with the RfC against me? I am well within my right to voice my opinion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain first why you think the University of Northern Iowa is a musical group? The Banner talk 23:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My biggest problem with the template is that it gives undue weight to the men's basketball team. If you strip out the seasons and move the link to the men's BB team to the related links, the whole thing falls flat on its face. Compare to ((Iowa State University)). –Fredddie™ 02:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - This is the first time I have worked on university navboxes, and although people do not want me to make mistakes, it is going to happen. I have just removed all references to the navbox being for a music group, which I never thought was the case in the first place. The revised table is not perfect, but like its predecessor, is still a good navigational tool. Before people make uncivilized comments like the ones already made, they should read WP:BITE. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, but remove the section on the Men's basketball team, which should have its own template. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I went ahead and made the changes that this template needs. Sure, most of the links point back to sections of the main UNI and UNI Panthers articles, but it leaves room for future expansion. –Fredddie™ 01:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That is for sure the path to follow, Freddie! Now we are coming somewhere. The Banner talk 09:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Multiple links in the navbox should not point to the same exact page, even if they are different sections. The basketball seasons should not be removed from this navbox until a new navbox for these seasons is created. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to whom? Relevant topics are now directing readers to relevant parts of UNI articles. The basketball season links are not relevant to the university at large, so they should not be in the navbox at all. –Fredddie™ 01:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - According to WP:NAV, "Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template". --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which, to quote you (below) "is an essay, not policy, 'and you know that well enough'." –Fredddie™ 02:29, 23 May 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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vincennes University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no relevant links in the template The Banner talk 18:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -

1. Delta Gamma Iota was founded in 1965 at Vincennes University
2. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana - "In 1999, Ivy Tech entered into a partnership with Vincennes University to form the Community College of Indiana. The partnership ended in 2005 and Ivy Tech was rechartered as a system of community colleges, and renamed Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana."
3. O'Neal Airport was a public use airport owned by Vincennes University
4. W06BD is owned by North Gibson School Corporation in partnership with Vincennes University
5. WVUB operates out of Davis Hall on the Vincennes University Main Campus
6. WVUT operates on digital channel 22 and is located at Vincennes University

--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First start with using a university template for a university instead of a template for a musical artist. And secondly: in a template about a university you would expect articles about colleges and famous profs. Not some random sideshows as a radio station and an airfield. The Banner talk 20:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC) gosh, I hope it won't take long before you get your topic ban and are kicked off templates.[reply]

Reply - OK, now we're getting somewhere. I will try to start "with using a university template for a university instead of a template for a musical artist" from now on. I was not advised of this until now . These topics all relate to Vincennes University, and to the best of my knowledge, there is no policy against this. Also, if I have complied with the RfC, on what grounds can a topic ban be issued against me? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, Jax. You have NOT complied to the RFC/U as your work is just as sloppy as before. Your clear refusal to enhance the quality of your work is reason enough to file for a topic ban. The Banner talk 23:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And when you start something new: RTFM. The Banner talk 23:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I absolutely disagree with my work being "just as sloppy as before", taking into account that these are the first university navboxes that I have created. And what evidence is there that I am "refusing" to "enhance the quality of [my] work"? I have separated the topics, so reading WP:BITE before making inflammatory comments will be helpful. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep now that it has been revised. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 20 May 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. Consensus is that it is better to simply uncollapse the content, rather than filling a category with articles with collapsed material. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC) (Updated 02:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Template:Uncollapse (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Very unhelpful template. The message fits better on the talkpage than maximal ugly in the article itself. The Banner talk 18:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it's a section template, it can't be used on the talk page as is, you'd need to convert it to an article template. It's also like any other cleanup template, so why would it be on the talk page? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It's actually more effort to add this tag than it would be simply to uncollapse the content oneself. There comes a point where the correct response is to JFDI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Now that the template has been reformatted, it should remain. Too many sections of Wikipedia are collapsed in violation of MOS:COLLAPSE, and prevent a wide variety of people from viewing the pages, especially when converted to PDF format. JFDI??? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:JFDI. The changing of this template to use small size doesn't make it any less useless, just less noticeable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - If there are a dozen collapsed tables, placing ((unco)) in the section will alert editors to the issue, and requires fewer keystrokes than uncollapsing. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Thumperward. –Fredddie™ 02:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just causes needless busy work. -- Whpq (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Chris. Frietjes (talk) 18:36, 23 May 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 relisted on 24 May 2013 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:34, 24 May 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Analog Rebellion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Not enough relevant links to warrant a nav box The Banner talk 18:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Navbox has four links that do not all link to one another, and Cavanaugh, Something (Pre-Sides and Varieties) was redirected without sufficient discussion. There are several Analog Rebellion albums that can be made into articles.

1. The Frequency E.P. does not link to Ancient Electrons nor Besides, Nothing (B-Sides and Rarities, 2003–2009)
2. Texas (album) does not link to Besides, Nothing (B-Sides and Rarities, 2003–2009)
3. Ancient Electrons does not link to ­The Frequency E.P.
4. Besides, Nothing (B-Sides and Rarities, 2003–2009) does not link to ­The Frequency E.P. nor Texas --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standard reply: use normal wikilinking in the articles. The Banner talk 23:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - If this is the solution, then why do we have ANY navboxes AT ALL? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the manual if you don't know when to use nav boxes. The Banner talk 22:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There is no logical place in some of the passages to wikilink some of the articles involved. In this case, The Banner (not I) has the burden of proof, so The Banner needs to show which navbox policy is relevant.

1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
5. You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the normal threshold is still five relevant links, not four as in this template. And you know that well enough. The Banner talk 09:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - WP:NENAN is an essay, not policy, "and you know that well enough". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep, four albums plus the band is enough. Frietjes (talk) 18:37, 23 May 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anata (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Not enough relevant links to warrant a nav box The Banner talk 18:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Navbox has four articles that do not all link to one another,

1. The Infernal Depths of Hatred does not link to Under a Stone With No Inscription nor The Conductor's Departure
2. Dreams of Death and Dismay does not link to The Conductor's Departure
3. Under a Stone With No Inscription does not link to ­The Infernal Depths of Hatred
4. The Conductor's Departure does not link to ­The Infernal Depths of Hatred nor Dreams of Death and Dismay

--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Standard reply: use normal wikilinking in the articles to solve that. The Banner talk 22:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - There is no logical place in some of the passages to wikilink some of the articles involved. In this case, The Banner (not I) has the burden of proof. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep, four albums plus the band is enough. Frietjes (talk) 18:38, 23 May 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, but I can certainly userfy it if the user wants it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:China Marine Surveillance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only in main article China Marine Surveillance; since it's all in Chinese characters it's useless to the English Wikipedia to begin with, but my sense is that the template links would be to sub units unlikely to meet our notability standards. Mangoe (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not a usable template on the English Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Oda Mari (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Preserve I will complete it on a daily basis. We'll see.SummerRat (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or userfy, not useful on this wiki. Frietjes (talk) 23:01, 22 May 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cristian Nemescu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN this only navigates between 3 articles, the rest of redlinks 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete for now, but no problem with recreating if more articles are written. Frietjes (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice per Frietjes. –Fredddie™ 02:32, 23 May 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, but consider adding parameters to ((Infobox play)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((Infobox play)). Only 2 transclusions. Probably best left as a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I made multiple requests at Help Desk, Template request zone to create this template and finally Theo went ahead and created this template. Template:Infobox play has nothing to do with Infobox Drama. Infobox Play tells about the literary piece and Template Infobox drama deals with it when it is staged. Check the parameters. These are entirely two different mediums. Infobox play dopes not have the basic parameters of a drama like "Director", "Thetre group/production house", "Actors"! --Tito Dutta (contact) 09:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC) And it has few uses becuase 1) it is a new template 2) works have not been done to replace Infobox Play with Infobox drama in appropriate articles. I have at least 5 articles in hand where the work is pending! --Tito Dutta (contact) 09:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When would it ever be appropriate to have a separate article for a given performance of a play, as opposed to the play itself? Neither of the current transclusions fall under that category. It's not obvious why any of the extra attributes could not be added to the existing infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2013 (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) 04:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment On reading the two articles on which this template is used; both need to be rewritten to be about the play, with a section on major performances, rather than being about performances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to write about those plays. Those were never published as books and were made for staging only! --Tito Dutta (contact) 14:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be confused as to what ((infobox play)) covers, if not what the general concept of a play is. The point is that even if a play is only performed one single time, the subject of an article on said play is the play as a work of art and not the individual performance on the night. The vast majority of uses of ((infobox play)) "were never published as books", but may have been performed multiple times (or sometimes not). The existing infobox is correctly applied to all plays. If you wish for additional fields to be added to it, propose them on the template talk page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have started adding this Infobox drama in other articles too! --Tito Dutta (contact) 14:12, 17 May 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cubesats2012 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Small subset of Template:Orbital launches in 2012; completely redundant to the larger template. W. D. Graham 18:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand to become ((Cubesats)) for general cubesat template -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that would be too large a field to be feasibly represented by a navbox. --W. D. Graham 23:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  How so? Nav templates are not supposed to present every single article, only the major ones, otherwise they replicate list articles/indexes/categories. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  And which ones are the "major ones"? --W. D. Graham 07:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be an editorial decision to be decided on the talk page. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  In other words, subjectively. I still think a list (which we already have) would be more useful than a navbox. --W. D. Graham 09:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as redundant. Frietjes (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert, maybe use it as basis for a kibo module template. Fotaun (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there really enough content to justify that? --W. D. Graham 13:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, if people are unsure about deleting it, a possible compromise could be turning it into a navbox for spacecraft deployed from the ISS --W. D. Graham 17:08, 15 May 2013 (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) 04:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• We don't need to brainstorm what to transform this into. Not everything needs a navbox, and the material already exists in other formats elsewhere on the encyclopedia. The existing lists suffice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I quite agree, I was just looking for grounds for a compromise with the people who wanted to see it kept in some form or another. --W. D. Graham 16:10, 17 May 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.