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) 04:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wards of Belfast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Most of the articles in the template were one line permastubs along the lines of "X is a ward in Belfast." A discussion here reached consensus on redirecting most of them to a new article, Electoral wards of Belfast. Consequently most of the links in the template are now merely redirects and the template is now superfluous. Valenciano (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~Asarlaí 08:17, 19 September 2010 (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 Not a suitable basis for a navigationl template. Salix (talk): 09:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Home Office list of individuals banned from entering the United Kingdom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a suitable basis for a navigationl template. Firstly, there are many other people who have been banned from entering the UK, as List of individuals banned from entering the United Kingdom makes clear. Secondly, this is grouping people together by a non-notable characteristic: these people have nothing in common collectively beyond being banned from entering the UK, and indeed some of them represent directly opposing ideologies. I don't think there's really any need for a template to navigate between them. Robofish (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2010 (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. No consensus - no delete votes made (other than nominators). Some work has been done, but please bring back to TfD later if needed. Dana boomer (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thermodynamics philosophical context (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Thermodynamics timeline context (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

rarely-used, nonstandard and pretty ugly counterpart to ((see also)) and the like. Dropping these entirely would not significantly impact readers' understanding of the subjects in question. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This template was created as a counterpart to Template:Thermodynamics timeline context which is used in a similar way. The benefit of these templates is to draw attention to a broader context, but without including a much bulkier navbox such as Template:Statistical mechanics or Template:Thermodynamics. While a see also note would provide a similar link, it would not provide the same emphasis.

That said, I agree this template (and the history one) could probably be executed better (de-uglify, perhaps relocate on page). Perhaps feedback in that direction rather than outright deletion might yield a better result?

Regardless, for consistency I suggest that this template and the history one be treated similarly. David Hollman (Talk) 10:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed as to consistency: I was looking for companion templates to co-nominate, so have added this one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. No opinion as to how useful these are in the articles where they are used, but regarding their appearance it seems clear that they should conform to the stylistic standard for hatnotes. PC78 (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Another one for consideration, seems to be similar: Template:Unsolved. David Hollman (Talk) 19:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've had a crack at converting these into standard hatnotes, which may at least be preferable to the current templates. See ((thermodynamics timeline context/sandbox)) and ((thermodynamics philosophical context/sandbox)). As for ((unsolved)), that should probably be discussed separately, but I think that template has even less merit. In that case, I think a ((see also)) to the relevant list of unsolved problems should be sufficient. PC78 (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2010 (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 and replace with ((Infobox officeholder)) or one of its redirect that fits better. Magioladitis (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox French parliamentarian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 10 mainspace transclusions. With only a bare minimum of fields, this template is redundant to and easily replaceable with the more established ((Infobox officeholder)). PC78 (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tim Pierce (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2010 (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 and replace with ((Infobox person)) Magioladitis (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only 318 mainspace transclusions. All parameters in ((Infobox revolutionary)) have an equivalent in ((Infobox person)), therefore this template is both redundant and fully replaceable (see Template:Infobox revolutionary/testcases for examples). PC78 (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Do you have a plan for replacing ((infobox revolutionary)) with ((infobox person)), should this go through? I can help by writing a bot if necessary. Tim Pierce (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No plan as such. It's doable with AWB, but I'll take up your offer of a bot if you're willing. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am not against change at all as long as it is some one else who has to do it..--Oracleofottawa (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-one is volounteering you for anything, if that is the sole nature of your opposition. ;) PC78 (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no point in keeping (and maintaining) redundant infobox, unless there's a very special reason to keep it -- OnesimusUnbound (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom as redundant. Note that all parameters have an equivalent, but they're not equal, so parameter names will have to be replaced too. --Bsherr (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If all parameters have equivalents, then this change is probably useful, as it avoids the possibly polarizing "revolutionary" in the infobox name. That said, do all the parameters function the same in the two templates? I know that different infoboxes treat the image parameters differently. —C.Fred (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, it looks like the image parameter will need to be split out. Good catch.

Infobox revolutionary	Infobox person
name	same
birth_date	same
birth_place	same
death_date	same
death_place	same
alma mater	same
image	split into image and image_size
caption	same
alternate name	other_names
movement	same
organizations	organization
monuments	same
prizes	awards
religion	same
influences	same
influenced	same
footnotes	same

Tim Pierce (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Thanks for that, Tim. --Bsherr (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2010 (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.