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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:SharedIP US military (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:SharedIP US military with Template:SharedIPGOV.
(Further to just resolved TfD on these templates, but less radical than December 2008 TfD proposal.) See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 19#SharedIP for individual U.S military departments, and I include those arguments by reference. With esteem for the motive for its creation (see my comments in the previous TfD), this is unnecessarily US-centric, and since there is no functional difference in the use of it over the template it is to be merged into, I propose that it be orphaned by replacement with SharedIPGOV and then deleted. Bsherr (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support "soft" merge; I see no reason against replacing the former template's code with ((SharedIPGOV|(({1|))}|category=[[Category:Shared IP addresses from the military of the United States|(((({subst|))}PAGENAME))]])) to keep the categorization. The only potential problem I see is that the latter template currently has no option to clarify "multiple users" to specifically mention "in the U.S. Military", though that can easily be added. PleaseStand ^(talk) 05:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If done, could you please explain what the utility of the category and reference to the U.S. Military would be? Cheers. --Bsherr (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Perhaps this is related to WP:SIP? --NYKevin @008, i.e. 23:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • That's good thinking, but the US military isn't identified as a sensitive IP, and even if it were, could effectively be monitored from the category containing all government entities, many of which are actually on the SIP list. --Bsherr (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • As far as I know, all government IPs are considered sensitive. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • That's not what WP:SIP says. Are you relying on another source? --Bsherr (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support merging SharedIPMIL with SharedIPGOV. We might keep the subcategory for military IP addresses though considering the number of military IPs that exist in that category. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Question: If the purpose of identifying the source is to reduce or identify PoV edits, then surely the more fine grained it is the better? If on the other hand it is simply to identify the expected nature of the edits (schools, universities, businesses, government, cybercafes, libraries, residential might be expected to have differing profiles) then merging military to government seems bad. Moreover mil/gov/edu/com/org are relatively easy to identify automatically or manually, so that seems a good top level split. Rich Farmbrough, 15:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • Hi Rich. If I follow you correctly, the purpose is actually neither of those. (This template applies only to shared IP addresses. If its purpose were to identify POV or nature of edits, it would serve no purpose to limit its use to just shared IPs.) Rather, it's use is to identify the owner and users of the shared IP for the purpose of fashioning appropriate remedies against abuse. The remedies for a government shared IP are the same as the remedies for a military shared IP: (1) target blocking to minimize impact on good faith users, (2) check the IP address against the SIP list, and (3) consider notifying the adminstrator, who will likely be a public official, of the abuse. Because these remedies are the same, there is no functional reason to separate them. --Bsherr (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[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) 01:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:San Francisco 49ers Million Dollar Backfield (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Chicago Cardinals Million Dollar Backfield (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template with only four articles in it, for a subject that does not have its own article, strikes me as redundant. It will never include more names than the few it does now, and it clutters up articles such as San Francisco 49ers, which has no fewer than ten templates at the bottom. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree to Delete but an article exists at Million Dollar Backfield. Navigation is easily accomplished from that article. A similar template exists for Template:Chicago Cardinals Million Dollar Backfield. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Star, I stand corrected--I had looked for the entire phrase. Still, I don't think that makes a difference for the basic argument, but thanks nonetheless. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consider the second template added to this discussion, please. --Bsherr (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Templates for nicknames of groups of players now? Pure template cruft. Resolute 05:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[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) 01:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:WikiProject Record Charts Ad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused invitation template. No transclusions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. It appears that this template is substituted, so a lack of transclusions does not necessarily mean it is unused. However, the last instance I can find of it being used is from March 2009 (see User talk:Dabomb87/Archive 6#Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Charts). --RL0919 (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I've just put a notice on the talk page of the project. Would recommend allowing additional time for discussion here. --Bsherr (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[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) 03:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Norway year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of the pages where this template has been recently added already have the necessary navigational functionality embedded in ((Year in Norway)). The nominated template adds navigational options that are rarely needed and which intuitively are available through navigating the articles' category hierarchy (except that someone for some reason that I have not yet been able to ascertain very recently have removed the categories that were generally applied via the ((Year in Norway)) template from most of the articles. Obviously this must be corrected promptly.) meco (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - Year in Norway doesn't provide the navigation among all years that this template does, and this template is indeed in use. I don't think it's redundant to keep it. --Bsherr (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Clearly this template provides more navigational options, but is that at all necessary? Is it even likely that people visiting the pages where there are now two different navigational templates are going to use this one? __meco (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think so. This template spans the bootom of the page, like a navbox. Year in Norway is aligned right on the top of the page, like an infobox. I think they serve two distinct purposes. But I understand how a reasonable person could disagree. Oh, why not. I'll change to neutral. --Bsherr (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - I agree with Bsherr that it is definitely easier to navigate through these articles with this template. Besides, these type of templates also exist and have been proven to be useful in the other years in countries articles (see example) and I don't think we should make an exception here. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[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 pending any decision involving notability of individual episodes. If all the episode articles are merged, then clearly these can be deleted as depending on deleted pages. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Navbox House episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox House (TV series) season 1 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox House (TV series) season 2 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox House (TV series) season 3 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox House (TV series) season 4 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox House (TV series) season 5 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox House (TV series) season 6 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As to the first:

After a series of redirects, this template only contains four links. Given that almost none of the episodes are notable enough for their own articles, it should be deleted per WP:NENAN. The few notable episodes can be included on ((Navbox House (television series))). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As to the others:

See below; almost all of the content was redirected, leaving these templates almost entirely orphaned. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Episodes cannot have their own articles, and the links to the seasons already exist on the main template for the series. Totally useless. --Dead3y3 (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Episodes can't have their own articles? Where did you hear that? Kevinbrogers (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Unfortunately the editor who proposed the deletion might have vandalised the article by getting rid of all of the links in the template and then putting it up for deletion. All edits by TenPoundHammer have been reverted and the article now has links to every episode in the TV series House. Therefore it should be kept because it is very useful for navigation. Thecheesykid — Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 18 September 2010
• It looks like the nominator has redirected nearly all the episodes to the article about the respective season. If this is the consensus, then there is no need for the template, but is it the consensus? I've put notices on the relevant article talk pages advising of this TfD. --Bsherr (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - Regardless of the result, 10 lbs. is right about the lack of notability of many of these episodes. Be aware that deletion nominations on these articles seem likely to succeed. --Bsherr (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep - While the articles exist, the template should be kept. I think the nominator's rationale presumed the nonexistence of the articles.
• Keep. The articles are summaries of the episodes, and I believe the template is a MUCH easier way to navigate.--intelati^(Call) 03:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment I'm currently neutral on any decision to keep or delete the template at this time. I feel that at the very least, links that only redirect to the seasons should be removed as they don't go anywhere not already linked. If that removes the majority of the links in the template, then the box should be pruned down to just a season list or junked. Imzadi 1979 → 19:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. I believe the links are back, and currently link to actual articles. And I agree with intelati, it is definitely easier to navigate this way. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I've combined the season list and navbox nominations. --Bsherr (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• SpeedyStrong keep. The first template was full of (non-redirected) links before nominator removed them. It's a really useful navbox; the House series is really popular and kinda big. There has to be some way to navigate through all the episodes, and going through a "List of..." article is too hard. Plus, "List of [insert show here] episodes" usually only cover one season each, and this template covers all seasons. As for the other templates, they're useful for the infoboxes on House articles. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 14:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would oppose speedy keep. The nominator has advanced arguments. The discussion should proceed in due course. --Bsherr (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Noted, have changed my !vote to strong keep. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 14:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Something shady going on with this nom. --Captain Infinity (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd prefer it if you gave a reason for your "keep" vote other than your apparent distrust of the nominator--and if you'd extend some more good faith towards them. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. I personally don't have much of an opinion right now on the template[s]; if the articles themselves were to be nominated for deletion (a discussion which could involved a proposal to merge and redirect), there would be more clarity on the issue. I looked through all 24 (don't know if 10lb Hammer redirected all of them), and only Autopsy (House) has an independent reference (a single one, for an award). As Bsherr said, above, these articles are all likely candidates for deletion (see Wikipedia:Television episodes), and I think the nominator will realize by now that this template will only be deleted after all the individual articles are dealt with in (AfD) discussion--their BOLDness was reverted, rightly or wrongly. So while I think I would favor deletion of the template, it's contingent on the non-notability (in their current state, anyway) of the individual episodes. Hammer and your otters, are you ready for 24 AfDs? Drmies (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Clarification: I looked at Season 2, not at the others; I hadn't seen that all of them were nominated. That doesn't change my opinion in general, though it may well be that some episodes (from other seasons) have individual notability. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Your input is appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunting (House). Drmies (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Why delete the infobox if a lot of episodes have their own article? --VR-Land (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Went hand in hand with mass redirects which have been protested and reverted. Could be renominated when these articles go trough the proper AfD and are actually deleted. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• keep, and slap 10lbs with a reasonably sized trout. first get clear consensus on these articles, then, if consensus exists to remove those articles or to redirect them, try this one again 80.57.232.119 (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[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.