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) 00:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ten-Day War (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

relatively small single use template, merged with article Ten-Day War, so no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2011 (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 speedy delete - useless and now unused. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Produced By The Crumb Bros. Jeff Kollman & Mark Renk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is used, but in a haphazard way, and is hardly formatted correctly. It's a template from and to nowhere created by an editor who seems intent only on giving one person's name a presence on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Phearson (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It may have once been "used, but in a haphazard way", but it is not in use now. In any case, it is difficult to imagine a more pointless template: why would anyone write "((Produced By The Crumb Bros. Jeff Kollman & Mark Renk))" when they could achieve exactly the same effect by writing "Produced By The Crumb Bros. Jeff Kollman & Mark Renk"? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2011 (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) 00:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

should be in user's namespace.Frietjes (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At first I thought that "should be in user's namespace" was a reason to move, not to delete, but then I found that (1) there are quite a few transclusions in the user's user space, so it would take a bit of time to change them all, and (2) the user left Wikipedia in December 2005, so it's not worth the effort. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2011 (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) 00:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Holland Province 5p (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

replaced by template:South Holland Province. Frietjes (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2011 (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 Merge infobox athlete into infobox sportperson.. Courcelles 20:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Propose merging with Template:Infobox athlete. All parameters, but 2, are the same. The infoboxes have the same functionality but have some slight differences to their style. Magioladitis (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, if the proposal is for ((Infobox athlete)) to be merged into ((Infobox sportsperson)). ((Infobox sportsperson)) is intended as a generic infobox for use when there is no specific infobox available. Since ((Infobox athlete)) is the more specific template applicable only to track and field sportspeople, it should be merged into ((Infobox sportsperson)) and not the other way around. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am good either way. Just choose the one with the most appropriate name and merge the other there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. sportsperson is the more generic name, so would be the best to keep with athlete being changed to a redirect. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Kumioko (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merger/redirection. In my English variety, "athlete" refers to all competitors in physical sports, but I realize that "sportsperson" is the more appropriate term for worldwide usage . —David Levy 19:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Merging athlete into sportsperson. Lugnuts (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge, with a redirect from the unwanted template to the one kept. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Am I right in thinking the only differences are the "updated" parameter in Infobox Athlete and the ability to change header colour in Infobox Sportsperson? Just to clarify, the athlete infobox is meant as the sport-specific box for athletics (track and field etc), not another multi-purpose infobox. However, there seems to be little productive difference between the two, thus a merge should simplify/unify things a bit better. SFB 17:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And it would reduce the potential for confusion caused by the fact that "athlete" also can refer to sportspeople in general (depending on the English variety). —David Levy 20:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - They serve the same function. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support only 2 parameters are dissimilar. Why not.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact he don't need header colour at all. There is no good reason why we should be using different colours for header in infoboxes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. When I created the template I wanted to make it as flexible as possible, and at the time there seemed to be a trend towards having different coloured headings for different sports, judging from the different sportsperson-related templates existing then. But of course this is a matter for community consensus, and if the consensus is that there should be one fixed colour that is absolutely fine by me. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge of athlete into sportsperson with a caveat. This sounds like make-work to solve a non-problem. There are so many other items that need to be fixed on Wikipedia, are we sure we want to spend our time on this? Yes, I know a simple redirect will do it (for now), but eventually all of the pages that use the athlete template should be modified to use sportsperson instead, and that is probably thousands of pages. Truthanado (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2k transclusions each but a simple redirect would do. No modification is needed. All the parameter names are the same. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both: A specialised template may be useful, in my opinion. If someone made it an almost exact copy of another template, it doesn't mean it should be deleted, but improved and specialised for what it stands. Plus even more strain put on a template that's for general purpose already isn't going to result in good things. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it makes sense to maintain a separate ((Infobox athlete)) template (and, indeed, other sportsperson-related infoboxes) only if there are fields specific to particular sports that would be unwieldy if inserted into ((Infobox sportsperson)). Are there such fields applicable to track and field athletics? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A more realised sport-specific template for athletics biographies can be seen on the French wiki at fr:Modèle:Infobox Athlète. However, for such changes to be implemented, you would have to overhaul the whole code on each athlete's page anyway. Maybe an alternative model could be created at "Template:Infobox athletics biography", which should save a bit of confusion over the roughly analogous "athlete" and "sportsperson" terms. This could then be implemented separately rather than overhauling every use of the "Athlete" template on a case by case basis. SFB 21:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current Infobox athlete can be merged. In the future we can discuss if track and field athletes need a new infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 7 days are up. Lugnuts (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with a spine around? Lugnuts (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I bet User:Plastikspork will close it soon. I don't want to do it since I am the one who opened this TfD. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's close this already as "merge, with a view to making a different athletics template in future". Ten days is more than enough a prominent banner for a minor technical change. SFB 20:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merger. No need for two, really. "Simplify, simplify." Guoguo12--Talk--  19:31, 18 May 2011 (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. NW (Talk) 21:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox MotoGP rider (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Few transclusions. Already covered by Template:Infobox motorcycle rider with a small addition (or no addition if the MotoGPxxx parameters do the job already). We followed this practice in all motorcycle related infoboxes so far. Magioladitis (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The 11 transclusions can easily be changed to Infobox motorcycle rider. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Nom--Kumioko (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete. Unnecessary specificity. —David Levy 19:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the Department of Redundancy Department. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2011 (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) 00:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of settlements of Republika Srpska (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Provides no navigation. Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2011 (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 Redirect to Infobox sportsperson. Parameters are the same, so redirect is fine. WOSlinker (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Infobox has same functionality with ((Infobox athlete)). All parameters of it are parameters of Infobox athlete. It fails under T3 criteria to be honest. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Magioladitis (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this is the wrong venue for discussion. It appears that this is an attempt to use ((Infobox athlete)) for subjects well beyond its present scope, and violating the instructions that appear on its documentation page. From looking at Magioladitis's recent contributions, this attempt appears to include swimmers (and possibly others) in addition to triathletes.

The proper procedure here, if it is indeed proposed to expand the scope of Infobox athlete in this way, is to propose the change on its talk page (or some other suitable central discussion point) and then post notices on the talk pages of templates proposed for replacement and of the relevant Wiki Projects. For starters, triathlon involves the combination of three sports (plus transition), so although the parms are said to be currently included in the athlete box, that may not necessarily be the case in future. In addition (but less important) I don't much like the appearance of the athlete box. A proper centralised discussion will give the chance for these and other points to be considered. Possibly the athlete box may need to be modified if it is proposed to extend its use in this way, or the other boxes, if they are to be kept (say, to avoid unnecessary bloat in the athlete box), might be modified slightly for consistency.

I suggest this nomination be withdrawn, in order to allow for discussion along the lines I have proposed, and so that any resultant change (including, importantly, the template documentation) can be made in an orderly fashion.

--NSH001 (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't propose any extension to the scope of anything. Infoboxes are just templates. that the name is "Infobox triathlete" doesn't mean anything. Infobox athlete already does the job. In WP:TFD we read "Reasons to delete a template... the template is redundant to a better-designed template". Infobox athlete supersedes Infobox triathlete. We don't even need to change the parameter names. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there has been extensive discussion on this already (as appears to be the case), then it would have been helpful to provide a link somewhere useful to it, so as to avoid springing really nasty surprises like this on people. --NSH001 (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with the nominator. A triathlete, a baseball player, etc are all athletes. We don't need a 100 different infoboxes all with the same parameters but different names. We don't need Infoboxes for Jewish Americans, African Americans, Washingtonians, Hawaiians, French, etc. We need one template for Person, thats it. Allowing subboxes for specialization items such as Actors, Athletes, miitary and politicians that embed within the main Person template looks better and is easier to use. There has been long discussions about Infobox standardization already. Additionally, this is only used on a few articles anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  There has been long discussions about Infobox standardization already. - have you got a link to such discussions? --NSH001 (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or delete. This is yet another example of a WikiProject (or a participant therein) believing that it deserves a special template for "its" articles. Such specificity is unneeded, as is the massive community discussion that NSH001 advocates. Improvements to ((infobox athlete)) can simply be suggested on its talk page. —David Levy 18:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could probably live with a redirect. At least that will retain the ability to check "what links here", which is useful for maintenance purposes, and make it easier to cope with changes should additional parms for triathletes prove necessary. --NSH001 (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am OK with a redirect. User:WOSlinker/Infoboxes reports all infoboxes about persons. Template talk:Infobox person/birth death params contains a discussion on parameter standardisation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the links. I don't have a problem with standardising parameter names, but I am more interested in the pros and cons of consolidating and merging templates, which those discussions don't appear to cover (or cover only incidentally). --NSH001 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a free discussion. You can raise your voice! -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((Infobox sportsperson)): see the discussion above. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:36, 13 May 2011 (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) 01:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused infobox whose purpose is unclear. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:46, 10 May 2011 (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) 01:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Seinfeld (season 2) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. --Kumioko (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2011 (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.