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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All templates above are used only once and using ((Elementbox)). All should be substituded and then deleted since they can't be used multiple times. mabdul 22:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what? The fact that a template is used only in one article is no automatic reason to substitute it, rather than keep it transcluded. It's a case-by-case thing, and the objective of further discussion could have been achieved just as well by tagging ONE article, not requesting that a bot tag 120 of them. I'm annoyed at the use of this bot for this, since although it was approved for mass-tagging templates for proposed deletion, the approval was for things similar to a case of orphaned templates that nobody cared about. Okay, so with use-creep or bot-creep, we now get a request to delete and substitute a bunch more templates, only now they are all in use for core articles that get thousands or tens of thousands of pageviews a month. It's not the same thing. And again, we could have had this discussion with tagging just one of them, not all of them. SBHarris 01:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Infobox actinium
• Template:Infobox aluminium
• Template:Infobox americium
• Template:Infobox antimony
• Template:Infobox argon
• Template:Infobox arsenic
• Template:Infobox astatine
• Template:Infobox barium
• Template:Infobox berkelium
• Template:Infobox beryllium
• Template:Infobox bismuth
• Template:Infobox bohrium
• Template:Infobox boron
• Template:Infobox bromine
• Template:Infobox cadmium
• Template:Infobox caesium
• Template:Infobox calcium
• Template:Infobox californium
• Template:Infobox carbon
• Template:Infobox cerium
• Template:Infobox chlorine
• Template:Infobox chromium
• Template:Infobox cobalt
• Template:Infobox copernicium
• Template:Infobox copper
• Template:Infobox curium
• Template:Infobox darmstadtium
• Template:Infobox dubnium
• Template:Infobox dysprosium
• Template:Infobox einsteinium
• Template:Infobox erbium
• Template:Infobox europium
• Template:Infobox fermium
• Template:Infobox fluorine
• Template:Infobox francium
• Template:Infobox gadolinium
• Template:Infobox gallium
• Template:Infobox germanium
• Template:Infobox gold
• Template:Infobox hafnium
• Template:Infobox hassium
• Template:Infobox helium
• Template:Infobox holmium
• Template:Infobox hydrogen
• Template:Infobox indium
• Template:Infobox iodine
• Template:Infobox iridium
• Template:Infobox iron
• Template:Infobox krypton
• Template:Infobox lanthanum
• Template:Infobox lawrencium
• Template:Infobox lead
• Template:Infobox lithium
• Template:Infobox lutetium
• Template:Infobox magnesium
• Template:Infobox manganese
• Template:Infobox meitnerium
• Template:Infobox mendelevium
• Template:Infobox mercury
• Template:Infobox molybdenum
• Template:Infobox neodymium
• Template:Infobox neon
• Template:Infobox neptunium
• Template:Infobox nickel
• Template:Infobox niobium
• Template:Infobox nitrogen
• Template:Infobox nobelium
• Template:Infobox osmium
• Template:Infobox oxygen
• Template:Infobox palladium
• Template:Infobox phosphorus
• Template:Infobox platinum
• Template:Infobox plutonium
• Template:Infobox polonium
• Template:Infobox potassium
• Template:Infobox praseodymium
• Template:Infobox promethium
• Template:Infobox protactinium
• Template:Infobox radium
• Template:Infobox radon
• Template:Infobox rhenium
• Template:Infobox rhodium
• Template:Infobox roentgenium
• Template:Infobox rubidium
• Template:Infobox ruthenium
• Template:Infobox rutherfordium
• Template:Infobox samarium
• Template:Infobox scandium
• Template:Infobox seaborgium
• Template:Infobox selenium
• Template:Infobox silicon
• Template:Infobox silver
• Template:Infobox sodium
• Template:Infobox strontium
• Template:Infobox sulfur
• Template:Infobox tantalum
• Template:Infobox technetium
• Template:Infobox tellurium
• Template:Infobox terbium
• Template:Infobox thallium
• Template:Infobox thorium
• Template:Infobox thulium
• Template:Infobox tin
• Template:Infobox titanium
• Template:Infobox tungsten
• Template:Infobox unbibium
• Template:Infobox unbihexium
• Template:Infobox unbinilium
• Template:Infobox unbiquadium
• Template:Infobox unbiunium
• Template:Infobox untriseptium
• Template:Infobox ununennium
• Template:Infobox ununhexium
• Template:Infobox ununoctium
• Template:Infobox ununpentium
• Template:Infobox ununquadium
• Template:Infobox ununseptium
• Template:Infobox ununtrium
• Template:Infobox uranium
• Template:Infobox vanadium
• Template:Infobox xenon
• Template:Infobox ytterbium
• Template:Infobox yttrium
• Template:Infobox zinc
• Template:Infobox zirconium

See the list above. The Helpful One 22:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment – I don't see anything listed. Keep until the specifics are clarified. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose Mabdul is referring to the "infobox" templates for each element, e.g. Template:Infobox copernicium, which have now been tagged for deletion. I think I agree with Mabdul's rationale to substitute these into the corresponding element articles - they're single-use each and complicate the editing unnecessarily. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, sry, I was having a communication problem with the bot operator. Is fixed now and the list is added. mabdul 23:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Here's a past discussion regarding why these templates exist. The relevant rule for why these shouldn't be separate templates is a guideline which is being WP:IAR'd, for better or worse. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep I suggest reading the various pros and cons in the above link provided by Cybercobra, before weighing in. There is no hard and fast rule which requires that these things go, or be separately incorporated (substituted) into each article (which would make them visible immediately to any editor). It's a guideline, and guidelines are there to be ignored if they don't fit the situation. These transcluded infobox element templates are useful for all the reasons that any infobox templates are useful, and the additional difficulty editing them here prevents much IP and newbie vandalism of stable element properties, and thus ends up a feature, not a bug.<g> The people who should be changing these things already know how to do it. Also, see a list of drawbacks in substituting vs. transcluding a complicated template: [1]. In many cases infobox templates are NOT supposed to be substituted, if it causes problems with consistency (which it would here). [2]. In any case, these are not among the categories of templates that MUST be substituted [3], as noted above. SBHarris 23:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Here convenience beats the formal rules. Element articles are core wikipedia articles and form one of the best-quality sets of wikipedia articles. I am open to any reasonable alternative to templated element boxes, but none has ever been proposed. Substituting templates will cripple those articles in several ways, partly mentioned by Sbharris above and in previous discussions of this matter. One more argument: those infoboxes form a homogeneous set of well-structured data; it is very much easier to update those data in the current setup. Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  "One more argument: those infoboxes form a homogeneous set of well-structured data; it is very much easier to update those data in the current setup" - and this can't be done by if the element infobox is included in the article? Substituted means in this case simply (in an example) ((subst:Infobox ununhexium)) which results in the content of the Infobox ununhexium is added to the actual article. Not more! (So no "html" codes, only going down one level) mabdul 09:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Don't speculate, just try it in your sandbox: take a popular article from the first rows of the periodic table - oxygen, helium, whatever; then substitute the elementbox with its code. Now try to correct some comma in the lede, compare the situation without the elementbox, and you'll understand better the opposers. Further. Placing a complex template in the article increases chances of accidental breaking (by removal of some { symbol). Materialscientist (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment – My primary concern here is that the information in these templates not be lost following whatever the outcome. Beyond that, I can appreciate both points of view here and so I'm neutral on the point. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's the reason to substitute the template. mabdul 09:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. The fact that we have 118 similar element templates is not a real problem. What is important is to have the information on all the elements easy to find and edit in a uniform format, including not only data but also references and talk pages for the infobox and each element. I suppose some clever programmer could manage to make the Wiki page for each element link to the same master template, but I fear that an attempt to set this up would result in some information becoming lost or harder to access or edit. As the old US army saying goes, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Dirac66 (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep I agree with you. e^xtra999 (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • There is even one infobox! It is used in every template, it's called element infobox. The only change would be that the nominated templates gone "away" and the real infobox is included directly (and thus resulting in "longer" article codes). mabdul 09:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep all, this isn't the first time this is discussed, and these infoboxes didn't suddenly become a problem overnight. There's no reason to subst them, except make the introduction articles cluttered with 3–5K of extra wikicode, and the article much more prone to newbie mistakes, etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Newbies can break every template, this happens de facto every day on multiple pages. Do you want us now to move every infobox of (e.g.) every singer to an extra page?
  • "and these infoboxes didn't suddenly become a problem overnight." - No, not really, but despite of marginal server ressources which are wasted, we could also argue that "non-techies" have a problem to edit them. (because they simply don't know where to edit) mabdul 09:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Procedural Note User:Thehelpfulone is removing the TfD notices for God-knows-why. For the TfD to properly continue, they really need to remain in place as adequate notice. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, technically, only one of the notices needs to be left (and only ONE should have been placed in the first place, in order to have this discussion again). We can leave just the one notice on hydrogen, maybe. As Einstein said, hydrogen is the second most common thing in the universe after stupidity.SBHarris 17:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oh no. I believe most members of WP:Elements are watching all element articles and infoboxes. Those procedural games only spam out watchlists. Please stop them. This is exactly the case of WP:IAR where we must think about the project first and foremost. Materialscientist (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep all. I like having the infoboxes on a subpage because it significantly reduces vandalism and other non-constructive editing to data that very rarely ever needs to be changed. The element pages are very heavily trafficked and are therefore prone to degradation through bad edits. Before the change to subpage infoboxes, I noticed that bad edits to infobox data often went unreverted because those edits got quickly buried under other edits and therefore didn't show up on watchlists. Moving the infoboxes to subpages was done by consensus and solved this problem. It should not be undone without some significant advantage to doing so. As stated above: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In a sense you want the ability to implement a type of soft "partial page protection" under a policy like WP:RFPP. To me that seems like a reasonable use for a template, barring some future technological innovation. Yes it's only at the level of sophistication of a child-proof lock, but for most vandals that's probably sufficient. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep all per the discussion linked to by Cybercobra. Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The main point of that discussion (as well as Ed's arguments above) seems to be that infobox contents are much more stable than the element articles themselves. This is very likely true for the natural elements, but not for the synthetic ones: Most substantial article updates on transactinides also necessitate an infobox update, in my experience. So it might be a good idea to keep the templates for Z≤99, say, but integrate them into the articles for Z≥100. The 118 articles would still look uniform, only the editing process would be slightly different. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I understand your reasoning, but object per uniformity argument. Elements with Z<100 should set the rule for the entire elements set. Materialscientist (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2012 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Heat index (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused utility template. It's not obvious why a conversion to a specific heat index would or could be used in a general-purpose encyclopedia, and the formatting doesn't lend itself to use in prose anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. The template is quite complex and potentially highly useful. Just because nobody happens to have a use right now is no reason to get rid of it. Note that the numeric values might not be entered directly at the source page, but be emerging from some other template, table, etc. I am unaware of any policy that templates have to be in constant use to be kept. Wnt (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Every additional template incurs a cost in terms of maintenance and the amount of knowledge an average editor needs to improve the encyclopedia. Furthermore, templatespace exists solely to benefit the rest of the project: it is not a free Web hosting service for clever uses of wikitext. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This template costs what? Something like 500 bytes of storage? If you didn't nominate it for deletion nobody would have to watch, edit, or otherwise "maintain" it at all. Compare that, for example, to the burden it places on editors and resources to defend the preservation of perfectly good templates in deletion discussions, let alone to recreate something that arcane from scratch when needed. You do understand that "deleting" this template will not actually free up one byte of space in the servers, because the admins can still read it - the only purpose deleting it serves is to make sure nobody can read what it said but admins, and thus, perhaps, to deter people from using it if they ever want to. But a simple notice that it is deprecated would do the job just as well, with just as much resource usage, if you had consensus for that (which you don't). The template could save much labor if I wanted to create, say, a chart in a story about a killer heat wave that contains heat, humidity and heat index data - especially if that itself uses some template of its own. Wnt (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • All theoretical uses which aren't borne out in practice. Templatespace is for things which have a demonstrable positive effect on editing here: it is not a testbed for innovative uses of MediaWiki's mathematical functions. Deprecating a template which has been been used and doesn't really have a purpose would be pointless bureaucracy. As for "the burden it places on editors and resources to defend the preservation of perfectly good templates in deletion discussions", that doesn't concern me, though obviously I wish fewer people saw this as some sort of end to itself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep it would be useful to also have a humidex calculator to companion this template (and (Canadian,American) wind chill). We can use it to compare values written in articles with what they should say, to see if we are using good references or not, and replace them when needed with better references. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep (by author). The intention was to create the template to support articles about climate (such as "Heat index"), in adding some examples where relative humidity affects the heat index of a region. The format of the output was still being developed, depending on future use, and there is no WP:DEADLINE to perfect a template, with all possible future options. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2012 (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) 01:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Don't feed the divas. Templates which encourage diva-like behaviour (through implications of retirement) should be discouraged. "Please check my contributions to see if I've retired yet" is also redundant, as seeing whether a user is active or not is a perfectly normal part of user interaction. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support deletion per nom. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose The template itself doesn't "encourage diva-like behaviour". Just as we don't delete Wikipedia policies just because they are abused, we should not delete the template either. And what about assuming good faith? This presumption that who wants to retire or planning to retire is insincere, doesn't seem to be complying with good-faith policy.

Moreover this template is used by those who either retired or not very active (like me) so you may not expect a consensus to rise here although there are people who have gotten help from this template. If this template is deleted then they will simply type in what the template says now. What's the big deal. I think the fuss over the diva-like behavior of otherwise unassuming and humble people is a tad too much. Thank you! "DrYouMe"→"Mrt3366" ^(Talk?) 11:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Per nom. This is pretty much a drama badge and nothing more. If you're gonna retire, retire. If you're feeling disillusioned and need some encouragement then discuss it with someone you trust. If you need a break, take a break. SÆdon^talk 23:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Actually, I just saw this on someone's user page and WP:DIVA was the first thing that came to mind. I began checking their history and in fact they've had it on their page for over six months (I just stopped checking after 6). The other thing this template does is that it chills discussion. This template basically says "Don't say anything I don't like or I'm leaving." Editors should be able to discuss openly with each other without threats of any sort, including threats to leave, hanging over them.--v/r - TP 01:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Only useful as a way of exacerbating personal conflicts. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 16 April 2012 (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) 01:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Vacation2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((vacation)). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2012 (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) 01:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Service Academy wikibreak (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not presently used and apparently never used by even its author. This is more or less redundant to ((atschool)). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't use it, as I was just declined from the school . I created this template because the amount of time commitment at these academies is significantly higher than an average university, and this should be annotated on the template. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:22, 11 April 2012 (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) 01:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Experimental and impractical attempt to increase contributions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete that tag would have to appear on every single content page on Wikipedia. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete unnecessary e^xtra999 (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep (by author). As described, this template was developed to handle the case of an article which is suspected of likely incorrect content, and enlist the direct assistance of concerned editors, the wp:Helpdesk, or explanations on the talk-page. The existence of this template was Step 1 in a process to better alert readers, especially newcomers, to the simple options available to update an article, rather than focus on formalized maintenance tags. Long term, this template is intended for widespread use, with articles which seem to attract incorrect text. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment seems like a delete as redundant with ((accuracy)) then. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2012 (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) 01:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Year3oldstyle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Intended for Old Style and New Style dates but no longer used there, if ever it was. Not practical as a general-purpose template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2012 (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.