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) 22:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rated R (Rihanna album) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Like all the other album templates, this one is useless since everything is needed is in the template ((Rihanna singles)). — Tomica (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per consensus concerning other Rihanna album templates. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant. mabdul 11:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, precedent and WP:NENAN. Despite precedent, these album templates continue to be created with new ones now existing for albums by Madonna, Taylor Swift and Katy Perry. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:24, 6 May 2012 (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 do not merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another user placed a merge tag on this page suggesting to merge it with Template:Overly detailed. I deleted the merge tag, since it totally screw up the merge categories, and I believe this is the proper venue to handle template merges. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did the right thing. Just that now there is no link on those templates to this discussion. Which is fine with me, because being overly technical and being overly detailed are completely different things. Propose to close this n-th unfounded nomination of a maintenance template forthwith. Debresser (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. However, this template is not nominated for deletion. But now he template page says it is, can this be altered. e^xtra999 (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose/keep per Debresser. Overly technical does not mean the same thing as overly detailed. It could mean the presentation of the topic should be reworded. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the template as it it. Just used the techinical tag and this merger discussion popped up. Technical language / format ≠ overly detailed. If anything it may be similar to the ((tone)), except that template suggests that the article is not formal enough --Cooper⁴² 16:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep separate. These templates have different purposes: ((technical)) is for articles which are too difficult for readers to understand and need to be made simpler, ((Overly detailed)) is for articles which, while understandable, have excessive information about trivial subjects and need to be refocused to suit a more general audience. That may be a subtle difference, but I don't think we'd be improving Wikipedia if we combined the templates into one. Robofish (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep under WP:SNOW. How are both similar? There is nothing "technical" about overly detail, and there is nothing "overly detailed" about technical. Even both are better templates than Template:very long, which needs to be nominated for deletion and is inappropiately used. --George Ho (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SK#NOT. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If not speedy, why is everybody saying "keep", and why am I feeling that it will be closed quickly? And how is one discussion qualified as "speedy", excluding withdrawls. --George Ho (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep separate - ditto. -- Beland (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep separate While they may be similar, they are not the same. Technical means it is too difficult to understand. Overly detailed means there is too much detail on unencyclopedic information (such as trivia, fancruft etc.) There are rare cases where the article is too difficult to understand because it is too detailed, most of the time, the problems are not related. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• These templates are orthogonal, but I do wish people wouldn't do such silly things as claim "snowball keep" on, like, the fourth comment in a discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen people snow-and-close after two comments, and less than two hours after discussion opens... I agree snowing like that isn't all that proper appearing. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Overly technical is used for when an article uses too much jargon and not enough explanation of concepts. Overly detailed is used when there are many inconsequential and useless pieces of information. They are not related. Shirudo talk 05:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge - I often see the overdetail template used in articles that have become crufty (i.e. "Cody and Bailey break up in the second episode. They get back together in the third one. Then they break up in the fourth one because girls are swooning over him. Then he becomes the first doctor-lawyer in space! [proceeds to list everything the character has ever done. Ever.]). Technical doesn't necessarily mean there's too much detail, but it can mean that the language used to explain the subject is too hard to understand. There are some cases where the possible use of these templates could overlap, but for most instances, I believe that these are for separate problems. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge - Overly detailed means too much information; Technical means the information, even if not excessive, is too presented in too technical a way. Not the same. --Stfg (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "this is the proper venue to handle template merges" - yes it is, but this is a bad proposal and keep per above. mabdul 14:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge - Over detailed is for articles that have too much detail (like whether or not Barack Obama ate a PB&J or Grilled Cheese on 1-17-2012) and Technical is when an article includes details that are far too technical for the average reader and can/should be "dumbed down".
• Oppose merge. No good reason to merge the two. And even if they both did describe the exact same type of problem, I don't see how having multiple options of phrasing it is in any way a bad thing. -- œ^™ 00:49, 6 May 2012 (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) 22:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox football rivalry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is not being used on any pages and a better copy of nearly the same template exists at ((Infobox college sports rivalry)). ben_b (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The same editor attempted to un-merge ((infobox football derby)) from ((infobox sports rivalry)). That plainly isn't appropriate. ((infobox college sports rivalry)) itself should definitely be merged to ((infobox sports rivalry)) as well; I've TfDed that separately. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• See also: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 1#Template:Infobox college sports rivalry. mabdul 14:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after merge into ((infobox sports rivalry)). (depending on the outcome of the other TfD). mabdul 14:51, 3 May 2012 (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 after replacement with ((United States topic)) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I typically don't find category navigational boxes useful or even common, although this one is transcluded in a number of categories. If it is, so be it, but I can do the same thing just as easily by going to the parent categories usually named as Foo by state to see all its sub-categories. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I can see this as useful for an editor who is maintaining articles and categories. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and replace with ((United States topic)). ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:18, 1 May 2012 (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) 01:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't work with Georgia or Washington states. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because those states have disambiguators, right? But that doesn't mean this can't be fixed. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• replace with ((United States topic)), like this, then delete. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after replacement per 198.102.153.2. mabdul 13:25, 3 May 2012 (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.