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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Now Commons (MtC drive) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a totally unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Admins are supposed to check to make sure transfers are done correctly before deleting local files anyways, that's why the CSD F8/nowcommons backlog is the longest of the CSD backlogs by far. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Ebe123 has apparently resigned from doing drives, so the future of this drive is uncertain. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The template started as a small part of the MtC drive as an alternative to the normal ((Now Commons)) - see this post.

We have ((Move to Commons)) for files that have a free license and therefore may be eligible for Commons. If someone find that the file is ok for Commons and move it to Commons they should add the normal ((Now Commons)) and an admin should check and delete if (s)he agree.

((Now Commons (MtC drive))) was intented to use on files we as a test moved some files with a free license to Commons WITHOUT a human checking if they were ok. Admins should NOT look on these files or delete them before someone has checked the file. The plan was that if we move some files to Commons then it is easy for users to join the MtC drive because they do not have to move the files - all they have to do is check. Once all the moved files were checked we could evaluate if it was a succes or not. --MGA73 (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. This template really does add more bureaucracy to the process. I understand the desire to get more people involved in drives, but it adds another step to the process and you have to edit bots to process another type of file. Just unnecessary clutter. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this "add more bureaucracy to the process"? --MGA73 (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original process: Someone does a transfer > admin reviews transfer and then deletes the file if the transfer is okay

This process: Someone does a transfer > a user reviews the transfer and then changes the template if the transfer is okay > admin reviews transfer and then deletes the file if the transfer is okay

The admin still has to review it because the ultimate responsibility for the deletion is the admin's, and "someone else cleared it" won't fly if he gets it wrong. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original process is still the main rule (if you ask me). The new process is an exception for a limited number of files.

Lets see the full process:

* Normal process: A bot adds a mtc > someone reviews the file (first review) and transfer if ok > admin reviews transfer (second review) and delete if ok.

* This process: A bot adds a mtc > a bot transfer the file and does some cleanup > someone reviews the file (first review) and marks it as ok if it is ok > admin reviews transfer (second review) and delete if ok.

So we have 2 reviews in both cases.

Perhaps what is confusing is that Ebe123 suggested that this template was also added on files moved via normal process. --MGA73 (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is only being used for bot transfers, it's misnamed, and has been misadvertized. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And that is not the only mistake made in the MtC Drive this time. As you have noticed things got a little out of hand. Personally I don't need it because I have my bot and can move 10, 100 or 1.000 files in no time if I want to. It was ment as a help for users that have problems moving files to Commons.

But since the drive seem to be dead there is no longer a need for the template. So I change my vote to delete. --MGA73 (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the irony. I had just removed the TfD per your keep only to see that you withdrew the keep. For what it's worth, I'm quite sorry to see the drive fall apart, I've set forth a reboot proposal that'll hopefully fix things. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:12, 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.

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 Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chrome TOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. I can't see where it would be necessary or useful. Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:26, 1 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.

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hard-coded hand-hacked TOC: can be replaced with a ((horizontal TOC)) on each of its four transclusions without negatively impacting layout or readability. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - ((horizontal TOC)) is better. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Someone might want to trawl through Category:Japan-related lists looking for other articles where this would be handy. I've added ((horizontal TOC)) to List of cities in Japan. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. The new template also has better accessibility and standards-compliance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 1 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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Replaced by ((horizontaltoc)), which doesn't need to hardcode the names of the sections. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Prefer the former. As someone who watches and edits that article the former TOC is better, the hardcode names of the sections are useful...Modernist (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardcoded names are less maintainable. ((Horizontaltoc)) gives exactly the same links as output; if its formatting needs improved (such as to remove the heading numbers) that can be worked on separately. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chris it's a difficult article to work on - having the color names makes it a little easier to navigate. See what you can do...Modernist (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The colour names are still in ((horizontaltoc)). I think the ideal layout for that template will require the numbers to be hidden, which means the site's CSS needs to be updated. I have an idea of who to ask about that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, there is no need for a hardcoded TOC. Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Thumperward and Frietjes; ((Horizontal TOC)) with class="hlist" is much more appropriate per WP:HLIST. Alarbus (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep ((horizontaltoc)) is new and unused, and I can see why. It includes the section numbers which are just ugly in this type of TOC. Recommend this be closed until the technical issues are resolved.
  • See this version of List of colors. I can't recommend use of ((horizontaltoc)) until the numbers are suppressed.
  • But, ((ColorTOC)) needs work. There is a lot of excess markup and it can be classed with hlist for accesibility. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree for now with User:Gadget's recommendation although keep as it is works best...Modernist (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This template is very important and useful to allow people to easily navigate to different parts of the long list of colors article. This template should be left it the way it is. Keraunos (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. The new template also has better accessibility and standards-compliance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep new template is extremely ugly and not ready for action. It needs more work before it can replace "ColorTOC". In total, both templates are used on exactly one article. That will survive until the new template has matured. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for now at least. I can see a very useful future for ((horizontaltoc)) and there are good reasons for its deployment in articles where it already acceptable to editors. However, in this case I understand people thinking that its display is currently less acceptable. There is absolutely no reason at all for a rush to delete ((ColorTOC)), it is not creating a maintenance load and it will not start taking on multiple transclusions making it difficult to get rid of later. Once it becomes unused by agreement at Talk:List of colors I am sure it can be deleted uncontroversially. Thincat (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• update I created ((List TOC)); the doc example shows how it would replace ((ColorTOC)) in the article with a minimal footprint. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:20, 1 March 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) 14:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was about to close this as no-consensus, but it appears that the new List TOC may satisfy everyone as a suitable compromise. It would be great if we could discuss the merits of that template as a replacement. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and replace with ((List TOC))} per example. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment about ((List TOC)). (I !voted above). This template looks good to me and I think it would usefully replace ((ColorTOC)) at List of colors. I think its appearance is good, even preferable. However, I would still defer to any consensus of the editors at that article. I am often doubtful about the wisdom of generalising templates and so having more and more parameters (maintenance and naïve use become more complicated) but in this case that does not seem to be a problem. ((Horizontal TOC)) remains a useful template. Thincat (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been an area of the project which has sorely needed generalising (and indeed, remarkably, has already been through several rounds of it). I'd originally hoped to avoid the need for more than one new general template, but if this does enugh to overcome the reservations of those who feel ((horizontal TOC)) is too limiting in this case I'm more than happy for that to be the result. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The newer template also has better accessibility and standards-compliance, which reinforces my delete !vote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• the new ((List TOC)) looks good, we should go with that one, and delete the ((ColorTOC)). Frietjes (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I appreciate the work put in so far. It looks good on the talk page - can we do a trial run? It's a tough article to work with, however your new template looks good...Modernist (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – As we develop generic templates that meet higher standards of accessibility, then it is only sensible for them to supersede the older ones. List TOC is a direct replacement which returns an improved experience for those using screen readers, and is also available for other uses as it contains less hard-coded content. --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• New ((List TOC)) looks good, a better replacement than ((Horizontal TOC)). Nice work, guys. Alarbus (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As long as the new template works as well as the old template to get you to where you want to go in the article, then it is OK. Keraunos (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, striking my earlier keep, for the reasons in my earlier !vote and subsequent developments. An unusually productive discussion. Thincat (talk) 13:34, 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.

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template without any potential use. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Unused and not useful. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Not used at all - created as only edit remaining from new user. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 14:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - I see no valid use when/where/in which situations this "template" can be used... mabdul 14:36, 4 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.

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) 02:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

PD or other free-use copying should be attributed using an articlespace attribution template. This isn't an appropriate use of a talk banner. Redundant to ((include-NASA)). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but with a reservation about timing --- before deleting, we should have a bot run through and insert ((Include-NASA)) in the reference section of all articles whose talk pages transclude ((NASA)). My AWB skills are quite rudimentary: I can try to do this, but I am not sure I will succeed. Chris: are you an AWB user? —hike395 (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That work is implicit in the closing of the TfD, and yes, it'll be necessary: currently this template has nearly five times as many transclusions as the correct attribution template, so lots of pages will need migrated. I don't have AWB myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant after the editing mentioned above has been properly completed. Thincat (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, because wrongly constructed. (talkpage instead of article transclusion) mabdul 15:02, 10 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge with the associated navbox template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template provides links to other articles only, therefore it does not serve useful purpose on articles. Callanecc (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand the rationale. Isn't "providing links to other articles" the whole point of navigation sidebars? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Really should be a navbox, so merge into ((Australian Defence Force)). ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What I meant was that with only linking to three articles, it would be of more help to have the links in the "See Also" section or to use a navbox. Callanecc (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Gadget850. mabdul 14:38, 4 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.

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amanda Blank (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template of a musician who only came out with one album, no-notable singles, and the main article barely claims notability, template is a too soon case Delete Secret ^account 05:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. "Too soon" is what I'm thinking as well; the template navigates very few articles.  Gongshow ^Talk 04:36, 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.

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BC Lions seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Calgary Stampeders seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ottawa Renegades seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Saskatchewan Roughriders seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only duplicates a section of their parent navboxes, (Template:BC Lions, Template:Calgary Stampeders, Template:Ottawa Renegades, Template:Saskatchewan Roughriders), the Ottawa Renegades is the worst with only five links. These were previously nominated for deletion, being lumped in with clubs that existed before the CFL. 117Avenue (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per everything we have already talked about. The result was no consensus. In terms of the best way to reduce redundancy, I would suggest deleting the seasons sections of the parent navboxes. Cmm3 (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I could get behind that, except for the Ottawa Renegades. I don't think navboxes are needed for so little articles. 117Avenue (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as redundant. mabdul 14:41, 4 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.

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Liberia District  (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, obsolete infobox (superseded by Template:Infobox settlement). Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 20:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant, hard coded (HTML) infobox. mabdul 15:19, 10 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.

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) 02:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sale el Sol (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant as Shakira's singles template already exist. Plus the template track listing already exists in each of the single for the album. Erick (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Same information that can be written in Template:Shakira and Template:Shakira singles. No need to share the information, two templates is sufficient. This version does not add any information for articles. Lucas S. ^msg 16:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the user Erick. Template unimportant for the articles. RobertaFlores22 (talk) 14:43, 7 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.

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese city (no images) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, obsolete infobox (superseded by Template:Infobox settlement and perhaps other Japan-specific settlement infoboxes). Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unused — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadget850 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 March 2012
• Delete, bad coded infobox which is totally redundant. mabdul 15:27, 10 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.

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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

no working navigation beyond the band members. Frietjes (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The title link is to Nick Menza; the only connection is the one album Menza: Life After Deth. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:35, 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.