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 merge. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tennis event MSE (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox tennis tournament event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Tennis event MSE with Template:Infobox tennis tournament event.
Merging requires the addition of another |type= option, team. |otheryear= are |otheryear-defchamp= are unused. The parameter comparison can be seen here and a side-by-side comparison below. Alakzi (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Side by side comparison ((Tennis event MSE)) ((Infobox tennis tournament event)) Women's singles 1996 Summer Olympics Final Champion  Lindsay Davenport (USA) Runner-up  Arantxa Sánchez Vicario (ESP) Score 7–6(10–8), 6–2 Events Singles men women Doubles men women ← 1992 · Summer Olympics · 2000 → Women's singles 1996 Summer Olympics Final Champion  Lindsay Davenport (USA) Runner-up  Arantxa Sánchez Vicario (ESP) Score 7–6(10–8), 6–2 Events Singles men women Doubles men women ← 1992 · Summer Olympics · 2000 →

• Merge per nom. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 07:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 27 June 2015 (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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ananda Mahidol (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Improper use of navbox format. Navboxes should be placed in all listed articles so that they link between each other. This one appears to be a general see-also box appropriate only on the main article page. Paul_012 (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Alakzi (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2015 (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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bhumibol Adulyadej (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Improper use of navbox format. Navboxes should be placed in all listed articles so that they link between each other. This one appears to be a general see-also box appropriate only on the main article page. Paul_012 (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Alakzi (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2015 (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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Belize Super League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two blue links to season articles, plus the parent article indicates the league is disbanded so the club section (currently entirely unlinked) is no longer needed. Fenix down (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails wp:navbox. template navigates to 3 links: 2 seasons and main article.96.52.0.249 (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2015 (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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Ordabasy matches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No Blue links at all. Not a useful aid to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NAVBOX. template stores links to nonexistent articles.96.52.0.249 (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - simply not required. GiantSnowman 13:23, 30 June 2015 (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 2015 July 3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Board games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NAVBOX, specifically 1, 2, 3, 596.52.0.249 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Hyacinth (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2015 (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 Merged with ((Cardgames)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Card games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NAVBOX, specifically 1, 2, 3, 5 96.52.0.249 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 1. The article "card game", the "playing cards" used in those games, various actions with those cards, and awards received for playing those games seem highly and clearly related. 2. Card games are mentioned in every article. This proposal seems either poorly thought out or possible vandalism. Hyacinth (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No: The only links that could be argued to be related are in the 2nd row "Introduction", a pointless relationship to the article card games; the links within that group lists:

Card game: unnecessary

playing card: the unit which defines a card game

Shuffling: unrelated to card games

Cut: also related to many other things

The rest of the links are to awards related to cards, only adjunctively related to "card games".96.52.0.249 (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that "cut", "cutting", and "cutting (disambiguation)" are related to many things, but it seems difficult to argue that "cut (cards)" is not related to card games. Hyacinth (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template was on only one article. Its title is redundant to ((Cardgames)), to which it now redirects. Hyacinth (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2015 (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. I am the nominator and I have decided to withdraw my proposal.Regards, Sovereign/^Sentinel 10:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality with Template:Infobox settlement.
Per WP:TFD#REASONS no. 2. The Infobox Russian inhabited locality template is redundant to the Infobox settlement template. Sovereign/^Sentinel 08:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. It was already nominated previously and kept. Seriously, people, it is great that someone comes and says "It is redandunt, boooo", without any interest in working on the articles where the template is used, and then Ezhiki and me, who work on these articles, are expected to sort out the mess which will be there after the template is deleted. Just leave it in peace.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. This merger was proposed in the past and did not succeed. Note that the Russian template supports several sections which the generic Settlement does not, and incorporating those sections into the generic template would be counterproductive because they are only used in the context of Russia. Also, the Settlement template does not allow for controlling the flow for presenting Russia-specific information in a way that makes sense. In all, there is nothing wrong with having a dedicated template for complicated cases which don't fit the mold; Russia is most certainly such a case! And I agree with Yaroslav's point above—while there seems to be no lack of volunteers to merge things, there are hardly any who stick around to clean up the mess.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 23, 2015; 13:29 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - argument per WP:TFD#REASONS no. 2 doesn't seem to be justified in the merging rationale. Exactly how is it "better designed"? For the purpose of generating Russian locality infoboxes the Russian-specific template is much better designed. It simply doesn't require the level of knowledge of the framework of administrative divisions that the more general template does. I don't think I would ever have got started on any articles on Russian places if I had had to do all the additional work that the general template requires in order to populate it. I just don't see how not having specific templates for complicated instances is not of benefit to the community both in terms of ensuring accuracy and consistency across the subject and ease of use. Fenix down (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to wrapper if the only thing stopping Russsian pages editors from using ((infobox settlement)) is difficulty in syntax, this does not mean that the Russian infobox shouldn't standardize on infobox settlement. Thus the Russian template coding should be replaced by an intermediate transclusion to infobox settlement -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  These arguments have been previously examined and rejected.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2015 (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.