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) 04:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Harvest (band) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navigates nothing. Frietjes (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - only link is to the band's main page; template appears to have very little value.  Gongshow ^Talk 06:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Informative and good information. But Delete if Templates only serve to navigate. Harvester^talk 20:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  yes, navigation boxes are for navigation. all the information is in the article. Frietjes (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I checked all "prepared articles" in the template and non of them exists. This is not a navigation template since it is only in one article... mabdul 13:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't even navigate anything. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no value at the present time to this template. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:26, 26 February 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; deleted as G7 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The one use of this template was substituted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:32, 22 February 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) 04:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:B.A.P (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not enough useful navigation. Frietjes (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The template seems a bit premature for now; perhaps once/if articles are created for the charted album and single.  Gongshow ^Talk 06:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• On January 26, 2012 the group officially debuted with the release of the single, "Warrior". - simply to new! Delete! mabdul 13:13, 24 February 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) 04:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox MLB manager (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only no transclusions (2 before I fix them). Template:Infobox MLB player does the job better. Check [1]. I think we should delete this one and rename the Infobox MLB player to Infobox MLB biography. -- Magioladitis (talk) Magioladitis (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete after replacement with MLB player, which could be renamed as MLB biography if necessary. Frietjes (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the MLP maganger template supports the same parameters as the player template and thus totally redundant. mabdul 16:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 29 February 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 substitution Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1968–69 Phoenix Suns season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1970–71 Phoenix Suns season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1971–72 Phoenix Suns season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1972–73 Phoenix Suns season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1973–74 Phoenix Suns season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1974–75 Phoenix Suns season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1976 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1978 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1979 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1980 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1981 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1982 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1983 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1984 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1985 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1989 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1990 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1991 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1992 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1992–93 Phoenix Suns season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1993 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1994 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1995 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1996 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1997 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1998 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1999 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2000 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2001 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2003 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2005 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2006 Phoenix Suns playoffs game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Category:Phoenix Suns game log templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Subst and delete single-use templates per precedent at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_16#Game_logs, among others. Note to closer: I'm willing to help with substing. TimBentley (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously now. How many of these are there? Subst and delete per all the rest. Resolute 15:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and Delete I had started doing each for the teams but got side tracked since my last nom of some. -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete all One use template, without any potential use on any articles. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:55, 29 February 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 Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ann Township (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With two working links, I doubt this navigation box serves any navigation purpose.Withdrawn Muhandes (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy if someone would like it and Delete per nominator's simple rationale. I know userfication is redundant because nothing is lost form Wikipedia, but it may provoke creation of the relevant articles. I'm for anything that provokes new notable articles. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This template was made for a reason, didn't that occur to you?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - looks very essential to me, actually. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, comment out the red links if you don't like them, but the articles are being written. Frietjes (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn The template stood seven months with two working links. However, I see articles are now slowly being written (four were created yesterday), so the rationale I gave no longer applies. --Muhandes (talk) 10:19, 23 February 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) 04:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jennette McCurdy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links only three articles right now (the fourth is a redirect). WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:15, 22 February 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) 04:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

at first glance this might look like it has some useful navigation, but if you look closer, the links are all to other artists who have made guest appearances, and none of the albums, singles, etc. have working links. Frietjes (talk) 00:12, 22 February 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 redirect after converting all transclusions to use ((infobox person)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

redundant to the far more richly featured ((Infobox person)). The only unique parameters appear to be |alias= & |credits=, whose functionality can be provided by |other_names= and |organisation=/ |television= respectively; or they could be added to the latter template. Conversely, the template under discussion lacks many of the useful parameters of ((Infobox person)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Template:Infobox writer there is much in common: journalists are, by and large, writers who specialise in stories of immediate interest. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A writer and a journalist is not the same thing. I would hate for a journalist to have an writer/actor infox. That's just not right. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal is to replace this template with ((Infobox person)) (of which it is a subset); not ((Infobox writer)) nor ((Infobox actor)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in favour of infobox person; nothing will be lost except a maintenance headache. This is normal practise. Alarbus (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, just use ((infobox person)). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to the widespread notability of journalists. Many wiki pages contain this template and to change this would be both pointless and time consuming. Journalists are different from writers, and the inclusion of notable 'credits' within the info box is crucial distinction from ((infobox person)) which in my opinion merits the status quo. Uvghifds (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal is to replace this template with ((Infobox person)) (of which it is a subset); not ((Infobox writer)). The time taken for replacement is not a factor in making this decision; and neither is the notability of journalists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep stress- writer and journal is not the same thing same as a astronaut and astronomer are different! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HasperHunter (talk • contribs) 00:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal is to replace this template with ((Infobox person)) (of which it is a subset); not ((Infobox writer)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: there should be no any problems,actually what matters,to be or not be mention?.Justice007 (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Uvghifds.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not even sure "credits" is really the best way of putting this: notable works or positions, yes, but that's already incorporated into the proposed parent. This fork is both unnecessary and stifling to articles on persons who may be noteworthy for aspects of their careers other than journalism. Most of the keep comments above are non-arguments which don't address the deletion rationale (or confuse it with a merge to ((infobox writer)), which wasn't the proposal). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per MouthlessBobcat. A writer and a journalist is not the same thing. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal is to replace this template with ((Infobox person)) (of which it is a subset); not ((Infobox writer)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, template could be better distinguished from other profession-specific ones, but that's not a reason to get rid of it. Daniel Case (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not all journalists are writers. There are also photojournalists as well. Some are videojournalists such as television news reporters, who, although most have to write their material to use on-air, their written material was not publicly-viewed prior to the advent of the Internet and social-media outlets such as Facebook. Other videojournalists are camera operators that capture images of news events.Bill S. (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal is to replace this template with ((Infobox person)) (of which it is a subset); not ((Infobox writer)). How any journalists are not people..? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to use Infobox person and gradually delete by replacing the 2 parameters as suggested. Most of the arguments above deal with the difference between a journalist and a writer but this is not what we discuss here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Don't delete this template. This is a helpful one. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is less "helpful" than ((Infobox person)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to use Infobox person as per Magioladitis. The nominator didn't propose merging this with the writer infobox and no one really favors the idea. Mackensen (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge It will make it easier for Wikipedia users if the infoboxes are the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.243.51 (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no reason to delete Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reasons for deletion are enumerated above; please feel free to attempt to refute them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• A note to say that I've now reimplemented the template as a wrapper for ((infobox person)) in its sandbox. When this TfD is closed, the code there should be copied into the main template and then existing instances substituted to automatically update all existing articles with the extra parameters we get for free in that conversion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've long wondered the difference between the many varieties of ((Infobox person)). If ((Infobox journalist)) can be deleted without breaking anything, I would support the proposal for deletion (and the same goes for similar infobox templates). As Chris Cunningham says, the template's use can be stifling for articles on those persons also notable for other reasons. -- Trevj (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, Andy's been one of the main drivers in eliminating the redundancy fo sub-templates of this sort. And yes, IMO this is a strict subset of ((Infobox person)): all of the existing parameters are accommodated in the subclassed code in the sandbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge (to permit redirection) into ((infobox person)) in order to ease maintenance of project and reduce editor errors e.g if using parameters from other infoboxes. If and when the redirect is in place and ((Infobox journalist)) becomes unused, I support its ultimate deletion. -- Trevj (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      For some anecdotal evidence of why this content forking is counter-productive, see this edit to Ian Livingstone, who became notable as a fiction author, then a retail entrepreur, video games executive and has recently co-authored an influential report on the state of the UK video games industry. -- Trevj (talk) 14:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. it is easy to understand (Jeevanjoseph1974 (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep: By the logic of this proposal, every occupational infobox would need to be replaced by ((Infobox person)) ARK (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A laudable goal. People are people first, and occupations second. Shoehorning people into occupation infoboxes can lead to articles being unduly weighted towards particular points of a person's life. The trend towards merging has been going on for a long time now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chris's sensible comments notwithstanding, slippery slope arguments are not valid reasons for a keep !vote in TfDs; we're discussing the future of one template, not many, based on its individual (lack of) merits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
• redirect to {infobox person} after replacement with {infobox person}. note that a significant number of the comments above appear to be mistaken in thinking that the proposal is to use {infobox writer}? I see no reason why that template couldn't be redirected as well, but that would be another discussion. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after adding the two missing parameters to ((Infobox person)) and redirecting (or updating the existing articles to use other parameters). Both templates have a similar appearance and the difference of two parameters is not enough to warrant a having a separate template (unlike, for example, ((Infobox football biography))). This has previously been done with other similar templates, including the aforementioned ((Infobox actor)). -- Zyxw (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Most of the keep arguments argue why this infobox should to be merged with the writer infobox which is not the initial question. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to ((infobox person)); agree with nominator's rationale.--71.167.157.17 (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to ((infobox person)); agree with nominator's rationale.--Azrich (talk) 23:01, 2 March 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.