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) 20:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fenerbahçe SK Harington Cup Squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary - only two articles linked exist in English Wikipedia. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be deleted, because this throphy is a milestone of Turkish Football History and even Turkish Independence War. This football players are like heroes for Fenerbahçe Fans and Turkish People. Gökhan Tığ (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet only two of these players have articles in English Wikipedia. I'm not proposing deleting the article on the cup itself - though that is in a terrible state - merely this template which appears to be pretty redundant.Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Linking to the Turkish WP from a navbox is not an option. Navigation templates are for use in this version of Wikipedia. And while redlinks in navboxes are not prohibited we shouldn't have a mostly-empty template. De728631 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, now 10 of 13 have articles in English Wikipedia and i'm going to create other 2 person too (Şekip Kulaksızoğlu and Fahir Yeniçay) when i will have enough information. Although Ömer Faruk Osmanoğlu is son of Abdülmecid II who is last sultans of Ottomans and it will create with success informations. Gökhan Tığ (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. With the new English articles the navbox has a purpose. De728631 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep General Harrington Cup is the most important cup in Fenerbahçe Museum and milestone of Turkish Football History and even Turkish Independence War. 17:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.232.10 (talk)

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) 20:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cold War by year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I've never seen templates that link to categories rather than articles, and this one has a lot of red-linked categories. Seems like the categories can just use the ((Year by category)) template instead. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:CLN navboxes are used for related articles, not categories. De728631 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant to Category:Cold_War_by_year. mabdul 13:02, 9 January 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 No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((Infobox artwork)); only three transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see a whole lot of parameters in "statue" that don't appear in the "artwork" documentation, like Built for, Demolished, Rebuilt, Restored, Restored by, Inaugurated, Architect, Architectural style, Cost, and a map window. Many of those are sculpture-specific parameters and are not applicable to two-dimensional artworks such as paintings, etchings or print. De728631 (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, with only three transclusions, it seems there's no demand for them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 10 January 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POV-check-section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I have added section parameters to three main maintenance templates. Now that the main templates have support for sections, these individual section templates are fairly redundant to the main templates. I would like to propose that:

• Template:POV-check-section be redirected to Template:POV-check
• Template:Generalize-section be redirected to Template:Generalize
• Template:COI-section be redirected to Template:COI Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)))[reply]

I second this proposal. Especially since these templates are relatively seldom used, and the usage of a |section parameter is widely spread. Debresser (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment section templates are supposed to look like:

So... redirecting doesn't serve that purpose, an intermediate transclude that sets that up should though. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean somewhat like ((POV-section))? Actually, are you sure that an intermediate transclude is necessary for it to work? That is definitely what I wanted to be the effect of a redirect. Debresser (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no other way to specify that it uses the section appearance instead of the regular appearance, that I know of, unless you add handling code in POV template to detect "section" and then specify that it look like a section template. Which when some section templates were merged and deleted earlier, no one bothered to add into the main templates... so an intermediate transclude would be easier to maintain. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transclude or keep I don't care, but editors should be able to use these alternative section pseudonyms. There has been perpetual motion between combining and splitting these sorts of templates, which suggests that at least some people find it easier to add " section" or "-section" than "|section". In fact in some cases we deliberately migrate in the opposite direction. A consistent approach would be nice, but that's for an RFC I think. Rich Farmbrough, 21:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_Zero 16:13, 6 January 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talk Page Notify (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#January_4 about ((Vandalism-high-risk)). This was created after I nominated that one for deletion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete See my reasons at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 4#Template:Vandalism-high-risk. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. P. S. Burton (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BEANS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 9 January 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See last month's TfD. It appears that though said TfD didn't come to a consensus, work has been done to orphan this in favour of ((intellectual property activism)), which seems to have been the right choice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you point out what work you're referring to? --Waldir ^talk 16:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Last month this template had lots of transclusions. Now it doesn't. One assumes this means someone has orphaned it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial merge -- maybe not all entries belong in the ((intellectual property activism)) template, but many of them do (e.g. Open access) and they should definitely be in a nav template. I oppose deletion if the relevant entries aren't transferred, because the concepts listed at ((Openness)) are clearly related to each other and ought to be grouped together to ease findability and navigation. Waldir ^talk 16:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_Zero 15:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to something like Template:Open methodologies. A template would be helpful for navigating these topics, and I just proposed a category for connecting them too but discovered it already exists at Category:Libre. I don't think "Libre" is the best name either; I think a descriptive name like "Open methodologies" or "Open-source methodologies" would be best. Openness describes pretty much the same thing as Open source. – Pnm (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  See category rename discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_7#Category:Libre. – Pnm (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The recently created Template:Open navbox duplicates the nominated template. If this is kept, they should be merged. I posted a link to this discussion at the also recently created Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access. – Pnm (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not know what to think. I made the Open navbox not knowing that this existed and this seems rather clever and with most of the intent of what I made, but also is organized in a way I like. I am userfying a copy of this in case it gets deleted so that I can think about it in any case. I already put my navbox on some of the pages on which this one could have been used. Why is it an orphan? It should have been used because it is useful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 06:02, 12 January 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 No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Six60 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one album with two singles--hardly navigates anything. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's a total number of 4 articles in this template, a valid navbox. De728631 (talk) 19:46, 7 January 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox World Road Running (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:51, 6 January 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 Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox German location (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant fork of ((Infobox settlement)). It's not acceptable to have instances such as that on Schorndorf, with parameter names in German. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. English parameter names are supported by this template, German parameters are also supported (and widely used) because most of the infobox data were copied from German wikipedia. If this template is to be converted into a wrapper for Infobox settlement, keeping all the present functionality, that's fine with me. Markussep ^Talk 09:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is a need to be able to paste filled-out templates in German, it should be done in such a way that they must be Subst, and so that they then transclude ((Infobox settlement)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • All present municipalities have an infobox already, so I don't expect many more copies from German wikipedia. The main question for me is: is Infobox settlement a good replacement for the present Infobox German location, with all its functionality? Markussep ^Talk 15:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Translate parameters in existing articles (using bot), then delete Bulwersator (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 1. Other countries have their own info boxes. 2. These German info boxes seem to be very helpful 3. you couldn't put a different countries info box in Germany's pages Dontforgetthisone (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - which counties/ infoboxes? 2. How so? 3. I'm not clear what you mean here. Germany doesn't have any pages; and ((Infobox settlement)) is suitable for articles about places in Germany. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. See e.g. Category:City infobox templates. 2. This template features a drop-down map for the municipality's location on the district level, something that is not available in ((infobox settlement)). De728631 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there is a need and consensus for such a drop-down map, it can be added to ((Infobox settlement)). If not, then it shouldn't be in an alternative template; much less one which encourages the use of non-English markup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The district map is only one feature, another distinct parameter is the so called Gemeindeschlüssel, a specific, official municipality code that is used to automatically allocate population numbers from ((Population Germany)) to the specific municipality in question. I don't see how this sub-template could easily be nested into ((infobox location)) without creating a slot over there that would only be used for German locations. De728631 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Markussep and Dontforgetthisone. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 04:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Markussep and Dontforgetthisone. - and the work has been done and the pages work. All this proposal will do is cause a lot of effort with no improvement in the encyclopedic content or usefulness.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. Replacing this with ((infobox settlement)) would not improve anything. De728631 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will improve the lot of editors who maintain templates, and who will thus have less work to do; or use them, who will thus have fewer choices to confuse them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am one of those editors and I can tell you it will add huge amounts of work if we switch to a universal English only template, not least because every parameter in every new article will have to be laboriously changed. Also templates like infobox settlement are notorious for being too generic to be able to cope with specific subject areas. In your recent proposal to delete geobox (which I supported BTW) there was strong support for retention of subject-specific infoboxes. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What "parameters in every new article" would have to be changed? How can there already be parameters in new articles? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most of these infoboxes are lifted straight from German Wikipedia in the first instance because they have already done the work. So they come across with German parameters which this clever infobox can "translate" automatically to display an English language infobox. That saves massess of nugatory time and makes information quickly to our readers. In slower time, those who worry about these things can change the parameters to English if they so wish. Get rid of the German and I for one will not bother to import the infoboxes if I have to change every line and Wikipedia will lose out. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Threatening to take your ball home does not advance your argument; and I have already addressed how this template could be made to produce a populated version of ((Infobox settlement)), with English-language parameter names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Better keep No need to change a running system. Swapping out the template via bot sounds good until you think about all the possible problems in addition to all the useless edits. Just doesn't make much sense IMHO. Nobody needs to maintain this template anymore, it's done. What could be done is exchanging the German parameters with their English counterparts. Of course only if there are edits to do anyway. --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 04:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There needs to be a specific German location template to cope with the specific German administrative structure and changes to it. The fact that it can handle both German and English parameters is good because that speeds the transfer of information and the parameters can be changed to English at a later date. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain why you think "there needs to be a specific German location template to cope with the specific German administrative structure and changes to it"; and why you think ((Infobox settlement)) cannot cope with that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Well established and well maintained infobox. - Darwinek (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. As Darwinek mentioned, this is a well-maintained, well-established and copiously used infobox. I fail to see the benefit of moving to ((Infobox settlement)), nor the problem with the existence of both. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • you appear to have over looked my point about the use of parameter names in German. See rationale, above, for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's really necessary, the parameter can be replaced in the existing articles. Anyway, the German parameter names are translated and explained in the documentation. I agree with Bermicourt that the German parameter names should remain supported. In order to convince people (including me) that Infobox settlement would be a good replacement, I suggest you build a wrapper for it and show it in ((Infobox German location/testcases)). Markussep ^Talk 09:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Parameter names in German are used in articles, such as the example given above. It should not be necessary for English-speaking editors to consult a foreign-language dictionary to edit the English Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, they don't have to use a dictionary, if they use the documentation. Which anyone should do who is not familiar with a given template. Markussep ^Talk 16:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That documentation is a foreign-language dictionary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I guess we disagree on that point. Anyway, I don't oppose replacing German parameter names with the English equivalents in existing articles, although I think it's pointless. I don't oppose changing this infobox into a wrapper for Infobox settlement either (it works fine for ((Infobox Belgium Municipality)) and ((Infobox District DE))), provided it has the same functionality. Since you're the one that would like to replace this infobox, are you willing to create that wrapper? Markussep ^Talk 10:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bermicourt. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or delete German language parameters This is the English Wikipedia, we should not be using German language parameter names for parameter names, parameter names should be in English. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parameters are not a reason to delete the template. The existing German parameters could be translated by a bot script and the template does provide English parameters anyway. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your !vote is not to delete though, but to change the template. Please don't confuse the two. --87.78.6.126 (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It quite clearly is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to read what I wrote. I said Delete. The alternative if it is kept is to delete the German parameters. Why delete? Because we have ((infobox settlement)). 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and rewrite as a frontend to ((infobox settlement)), then decide if there is a reason to orphan it. Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 9 January 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. Ruslik_Zero 16:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox YouTube video (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. De728631 (talk) 19:47, 7 January 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 speedy delete per G2. mabdul 13:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox british speedway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

looks like a copy-and-paste editing test. Frietjes (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G2. De728631 (talk) 19:40, 7 January 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox canadian election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

articles are using template:infobox election, not this one. Frietjes (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:51, 6 January 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused infobox. Frietjes (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:51, 6 January 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox settlement/ukr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused wrapper for template:infobox settlement. Frietjes (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this has been discussed before without consensus. De728631 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I !voted before. Imzadi 1979 → 21:10, 14 January 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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox St. John's Neighbourhoods (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and probably redundant to template:infobox settlement. Frietjes (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Why do not you notify authors? This question is relevant for all your nominations on this page. Ruslik_Zero 16:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The author of this template hasn't edited for over a year. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 21:08, 14 January 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 Speedily deleted. Ruslik_Zero 16:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Simpsons animal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and redundant to template:infobox character. Frietjes (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Tagged as T3 (it is a better way to delete unused, redundant templates) Bulwersator (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to ((infobox character)) and ((Infobox Simpsons character)). Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:39, 11 January 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. Ruslik_Zero 16:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Georgian Kingdom Royal Style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It uses a generic unreferenced style for every single ruler of Georgia, Kartli, Kakheti, and Imereti which would be better off mentioned on the article itself with accurate and reliable sources like in Tamar of Georgia#Feudal monarchy or George III of Georgia#Title which both bolster the fact that there was no generic title or royal style for the monarchs of Georgia. And the coat of arms represents the Bagrationi dynasty before the 17/18th century not anyone before that period. Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with removing this title from pages of kings who where not kings of all Georgia, I am against removing the coat of arms. This is the present coat of arms of the dynasty and consequently represents all monarchs from the dynasty. Whether it was created in the 17th century or yesterday should not make a difference. Your example of using Flag of Egypt to represent Ancient Egyptians is a very bad example because flag of Egypt is not a flag of an uninterrupted, ancient royal house like Bagrationi. Also, as far as I know, Alfred the Great and Queen Elizabeth are not from the same royal dynasty.--Andriabenia (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what anachronism is? This coats of arms only represent the current dynasty; it can be used to represent people and places that existed before its existent.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the biggest problem is the unreferenced generic style, not the coat of arms. George III is "The Most High King Giorgi, by the will of our Lord, King of Kings of the Abkhazians, Kartvelians, Ranians, Kakhetians and the Armenians, Shirvanshah and Shahanshah and Master of all the East and the West" while Tamar is identified as "by the will of God, King of Kings and Queen of Queens of the Abkhazians, Kartvelians, Arranians, Kakhetians, and Armenians; Shirvanshah and Shahanshah; Autocrat of all the East and the West, Glory of the World and Faith; Champion of the Messiah." This shows that Georgian titles and styles were never set in stone like this template would want us to believe.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bagrationi is the same dynasty it was centuries ago and this is the coat of arms they have presently. This is not someone's personal or familial coat of arms. This is the coat of arms that we would apply to any king of Bagrationi, unless there is a different, clearly-identified coat of arms or a personal seal for each individual king, which will be difficult to find for medieval monarchs. And primitive sketches by Vakhushti do not count as coat of arms.--Andriabenia (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - anachronism. P. S. Burton (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE - per nom. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:49, 11 January 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.