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 to Template:Infobox Australian rules football season Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox VFL season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparent fork of/ redundant to ((Infobox VFL Premiership Season)). Undocumented. Only seven transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Understandable mistake to make, Andy, I'll try and explain. This infobox is for Victorian Football League (VFL) seasons. The confusion comes in because the Australian Football League (AFL) was called the VFL from 1897–1989. A few years after the VFL changed to the AFL, the Victorian Football Association changed their name to the VFL. So basically, ((Infobox VFL season)) serves for all seasons of what is currently known as the VFL, and ((Infobox VFL Premiership Season)) serves for the 1897–1989 seasons of what is now known as the AFL and the two infoboxes are definitely not interchangeable. Does that make sense? Happy to try and explain further if you need me to. Jenks24 (talk) 02:47, 21 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) 00:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A merge here would be trivial. There's no reason to have separate infoboxes when so much of the content overlaps. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• @Jenks24 Your comment does not put forward any argument as to why two infoboxes are needed, nor to support your claim that they are "definitely not interchangeable", nor why one will not suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per my comments on the TFD on ((Infobox WAFL season)). If you can explain exactly how the different field names and labels will be maintained without the end user needing to enter (in this case) things like Awardlabel=J.J. Liston Medal as well as the things that actually change from year to year, then I'm happy to have a single generic infobox, but these are all different leagues with different awards, so I'm interested to see how you can make an easy to use generic infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Pope (talk • contribs)
  • We have many, many infoboxes with optional paramters, so that no-one needs to do as you suggest. As Chris says above, "a merge here would be trivial". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ok now we are finally starting to understand what the tfd regulars mean - next time it may be better to clearly state in your opening nomination how you intend to maintain the functionality of the forked/redundant template in the "master" template. I am concerned that a heap of optional parameters would lead to a more complicated template but I guess more flexible-we can just keep adding more opt fields as required to suit any league or name change. Documentation is of course essential and the lack of doc on these hasn't helped anyone. Again I suggest that if the single generic box is the desired/only acceptable outcome to TFD regulars then it cannot be called AFL as that will cause confusion as to true fans that is the name of one league not the generic name of the sport. The-Pope (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to ((Infobox Australian rules football season)) not any league specific title. The-Pope (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• General comment (applies to the WAFL infobox as well). I know you guys haven't done this intentionally, but you probably could have been clearer at the outset (the way you presented it, Andy, it looked like you thought a simple redirect would be fine and not break anything). If, as you guys say, it is best to merge, then we shouldn't just merge to the VFL Premiership Season template, but we should merge all Aussie rules season infoboxes (this one, ((Infobox VFL Premiership Season)), ((Infobox WAFL season)) and ((Infobox AFL season))) to a generic Aussie rules template like The-Pope suggests. It would be weird (and probably detrimental) to merge one or two templates, but not all of them. Before I agree that a merge is the best option, though, I really would like to see a mockup/sandbox of how this new infobox with all these optional parameters would look. To be honest, I'm not convinced that it will be easier to use and maintain. And considering that this time last year WP:AFL was assured that our player infoboxes would be easy to merge, and they are still sitting in WP:TFD/H, I'm not convinced that a merge will be as easy as you suggest. Jenks24 (talk) 08:28, 29 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 keep, now that more links have been added. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:College Republicans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template with a single listing does not seem to be an appropriate usage of a template. This functionality can be accomplished by simply using categories. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete due to lack of links. Frietjes (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPI created the template and lo and behold ConcernedVancouverite nominates it for deletion (he stalks every article I edit or create; I don't know if I should be flattered or offended). I have added and will continue to add appropriate links. There are over 5 links, the basic threshold for templates, and will have more as time progresses. I encourage ConcernedVancouverite to not nominate templates and articles for deletion the moment they are created. It inconveniences the creator and editors and makes them take the time to explain themselves, even when they have taken the time to improve that which they created.Theseus1776 (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since more links have been added. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this version, which is a useful navbox. Immediately before nomination, it wasn't at all a useful navbox, and the deletion nomination was quite correct. Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 3 April 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) 00:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Football player list player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Football player list start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Football player list end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old, unused, unnecessary. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:39, 27 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 redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Youth Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

template has been merged with ((infobox games)) awhile ago, and is completely orphaned. attempts to redirect it to the generic template have been resisted, so taking it here for discussion. Frietjes (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (possibly eligible as speedy), or otherwise redirect, as redundant an unused, per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete. No opinion on keeping or redirecting, but if the template contents got moved over, deletion would cause licensing problems. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 3 April 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 or userfy upon request. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

More single-purpose meta-template boilerplate used only on a single page. Rather than making it easier to create pages, the massive layers of overengineering here simply make it impossible to edit the output or comprehend the code. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There is no need to delete these templates. I will deploy these in time.  Buaidh  17:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You absolutely should not. Templates (especially meta-templates) should be deployed if and when the community requires them, rather than contrived on some perceived need and deployed with neither discussion nor consideration towards editors' existing workflows. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't don't see the use of deleting these templates, only to resurrect them later. If you are horribly offended by them, I can hide them away. I really have a great deal of work to do besides babysitting templates.  Buaidh  01:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as template overkill. Frietjes (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't seem to be a need for this, can just use ((Usbk)) instead. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:41, 31 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 speedy delete under G7. — ξ^xplicit 00:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

More massively-overengineered portal box meta-templates. All they is aggregate another layer of overworked meta-templates (which I'm gradually peeling back). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: These templates have been superseded.  Buaidh  17:23, 27 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 speedy delete under G7. — ξ^xplicit 00:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yet another couple of portal meta-templates which were never deployed or discussed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: These templates have been superseded.  Buaidh  17:23, 27 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((portal)). The additional border colour option is entirely unnecessary, and this should not have been forked off lightly nor deployed to 400 articles without discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This template is largely redundant with Template:Portal, but it gives users some options. It does no harm whatsoever.  Buaidh  17:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The harm it does, as with the dozens of other templates of this sort rolled out without consensus, is to reduce consistency and to introduce uncertainty and confusion when editors want to add templates which were otherwise standardised long ago into articles. Thus it is actively harmful. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This template may be partially redundant with ((Portal)), but it gives the option to combine multiple portals into a neat box. That way, they are kept together and look more presentable. Allen (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is already a feature of ((portal)). It has been for years, ever since I created ((portalbox)) and it was rolled into ((portal)). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete all the features are in ((portal)) after the merger with ((portalbox)). Frietjes (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One portal template will do. -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:26, 30 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet more incestuously-interlinked Wikiproject / userbox metatemplates which were never deployed. The right time to create metatemplates is when they are required, rather than creating dozens of them in advance and then mass-deploying them to get fait accompli acceptance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Template:Cwpm: This template will be deployed in the near future.  Buaidh  17:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the other six templates: These templates have been superseded. I think Chris is being a tad paranoid about my evil intentions.  Buaidh  17:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evil", no. Thoroughly misguided, yes. This is absolutely the wrong way to approach template development and actively damages the consistency and ease of use of the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been doing this for over 40 years, so it's far more likely to be subversive than misguided.  Buaidh  00:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete them all as template overkill. Frietjes (talk) 22:40, 27 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 with ((Sar)), ((Portal)), and ((Wikipedia books)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Part of a series of templates by the same author which together are almost entirely redundant to ((portal)) (which supports the same syntax and essentially the same styling) and whose additional features are occasionally undesirable (for instance, Commons links do not belong in the See Also section, and headings should not be created by templates as this makes it difficult to edit sections). If truly necessary, it shouldn't be difficult to add support for linking to "books" from ((portal)), but that shouldn't be a dealbreaker in a redirect which would consolidate these very similar templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as now redundant - Best to merger I guess so we dont have to re-edit thousands of pages.Moxy (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substituting will reveal the next layer of deletable templatesm which is the present goal; there are multiple layers of redundant templates here but they obfuscate one another. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or Merge: I'm sorry, but I'm having problems seeing how your objection handles the existence of 501+ pages using Satop. Do you have a bot available to do a wholescale replacement of Satop on these pages, with all applicable settings kept including any book, etc links if it's desired to retain these? Allens (talk | contribs) 13:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There is absolutely no need to either delete or merge Template:Satop. This template is designed to be used with articles related to geography. Template:Portal already has too much to do. The Commons feature of Satop has been turned off and I will be happy to remove it completely. Template:Osatop is no longer used and may been deleted.  Buaidh  16:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons feature has been deleted from Template:Satop, and Template:Osatop is ready for deletion.  Buaidh  17:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • There is absolutely, utterly no need for a specialised geography portal box. ((portal)) suffices in every way. Neither of these templates were ever necessary and should not have been deployed in the first place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could not disagree more.  Buaidh  00:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete this template does too much, which makes its functionality not that transparent. it's a wrapper for ((ports)), which is somewhat redundant to ((portal)) and a wrapper for ((sar)). if we substitute it, then this will better expose the underlying functionality. if someone wants to get rid of ((ports)) and ((sar)), we can leave that for another discussion. Frietjes (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The documentation for Template:Satop could not be any more clear about its functionality and dependencies.  Buaidh  00:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I totally agree with  Buaidh , there is indeed no need to either delete or merge Template:Satop. It is very clear that the template is designed to be used with articles related to geography, otherwise if it was not, there would have been more participation in this nomination, considering the amount of Wikipedia article's that are using the Template:Satop. As for the Template:Osatop since it is really no longer used, it might as well be deleted, as their is no longer a relevance for its use. MarkMysoe (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why on Earth can editors not simply manually add appropriate links to the see also section like they do on every single other part of the encyclopedia? Even if the automatic functions are desirable (by no means a given, as this was implemented and deployed with no apparent discussion), why can the functionality not be added directly to ((portal)), instead of forked out into another template for editors to have to learn? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Template:Portal should be used to link to portals and nothing else. If additional functionality is needed, it should be incorporated into more specialized templates such as Template:Satop. Template:Satop has great utility in geographically oriented articles. Template:Satop is not intended to be used throughout Wikipedia as Template:Portal is.  Buaidh  23:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • which is exactly why satop can be replaced by ((portal)) + ((sar)). Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Umm... neither of these does a book link. Allens (talk | contribs) 11:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • okay, then ((portal)) + ((sar)) + ((Wikipedia books)). Frietjes (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This basically does the same thing as the Portal template. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge: It is redundant, but my biggest problem is the huge white space it leaves between the top link Outline of Sudan and the next link in the "See also" section. See Sudan for an example.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 17:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a problem.  Buaidh  01:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was a problem (at least in my browser) but looks as if it has been addressed. However, it is still redundant with the aforementioned template(s), does too much, and I don't believe making sub-heading titles ("See also" in this case) should be a function of templates.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand how a template can be redundant and do too much. This template adds no spaces or titles.  Buaidh  01:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • it's redundant to the combined use of two different templates, and does too much by acting as frontend to two different templates. Frietjes (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant per Template:Portal. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For Mauritius, for example, I looked on the Portal page and didn't see "Outline of Mauritius", which is what I look for...Smarkflea (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • that link is created by ((sar)), which is called by this one. as far as I can tell, no one is suggesting we delete ((sar)) yet. Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template:Satop displays the links commonly required for geographical articles. A useful feature of Template:Satop is that it does not display red links.  Buaidh  17:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I checked on Mali. Deleting Satop removes "Outline of Mali" and "Index of Mali-related articles". I don't want to have to go to a portal to find these, so Satop should stay...Smarkflea (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • again, no one is suggesting that we deleted ((sar)), which is what is creating those links. see here, for example, which is what would happen if this template were carefully substituted. Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is absolutely no need to delete this template, especially because it connects Wikipedia pages and makes it easier to use! Filipdr (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • that would still be the case if it were replaced first by ((portal)) + ((sar)). Frietjes (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Let's keep things simple and just have one portal template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Satop is not intended to be a portal template!  Buaidh  17:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • then why does it create portal links? if it is carefully substituted, then it can be easily replaced by ((portal)) + ((sar)). Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and then Delete: Redundant to ((Portal)), and the additional functionality is undesirable, as the nomination has mentioned.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per several above (combines too many functions, some undesirable, and redundant). Kanguole 07:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The satop template definitely needs to be kept, unless you or someone else plans on editing the 750+ article that use the satop template, so they use the portal template instead, which quite frankly would be a waste of time. What harm is the satop template causing?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icedog (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That can be trivially fixed and I'm happy to do the necessary transformation work on this template to allow it to be substituted myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you'll be putting in all three (including the book linking functionality), then I'll change my vote to abstain - I really don't care one way or the other as long as something's there to have the functionality. Allens (talk | contribs) 12:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - another instance of template overkill. These things have to be rationalized.

Bluerim (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and let SporkBot substitute them all prior to the deletion. This is template overkill, and several of the "features" should be handled separately, preferably by actual wikicode in the articles. Imzadi 1979 → 10:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely Keep - a very useful template that is currently used on over 500 articles. No other template provides the same action as satop. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 10:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other templates do provide all of the useful and MOS-compliant features of the template, though, and are much more widely used than the 500 or so transclusions these have. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Teemu Leisti (talk) 11:24, 7 April 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 T3 by Thumperward (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jews of India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This article is similar to History of the Jews in India. This can be deleted as detailed article is already present Madhuric (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a malformed AfD. I have reported it correctly at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews of India. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:15, 27 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Superfluous use of icons, per MOS:ICONDECORATION. We need not include tiny and barely-perceptible emblems next to the names of teams on maps, which appears to be this template's reason for existence. Teams should simply be named or linked in-place without the use of a formatting wrapper. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with your reasoning. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree with the above. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Bluerim (talk) 03:31, 5 April 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) 21:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused utility template which implements wrapping in a rather hackish and inelegant manner. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & explain (from author). This template is for advanced typesetting using the typical "undent" style of paragraph formatting, such as to indent-wrap long titles in infoboxes. An example of operation: "((inwrap|sp=11px|These words|are|triple-spaced|and|wrap|with|leading |spaces|before |the|words |to|indicate |continuation|of|the|phrase|by |indented|text))". The auto-indenting is to help sight-impaired users, per wp:ACCESS, with browser TextSize set to larger font-size, which causes more text lines to wrap. However, the implementation, while functioning on all browsers for flat text, fails to wrap some text inside tables when being displayed by the older MSIE-7 family of browsers. The template documentation, which I have recently expanded, needs a better explanation for how the template can be used in infoboxes, to indent-wrap long phrases beside each label in an infobox. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inserting invisible inline images into a paragraph certainly does not improve accessibility. It does the exact opposite. This is well-meaning but a fundamentally bad idea. More elegant, purely CSS-based solutions already exist and are more broadly deployed than this method. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:26, 30 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused tutorial content wrapper. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Help namespace and reformat as a help page. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:36, 28 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused utility template; there are plenty of existing specialised templates to handle what this general solution is intended for. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 22:48, 27 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WP Mathmatics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Some (broken) references, which are transcluded on the talk page of a PRODded article. Even if the article was not prodded, these are still not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to ((Maths rating)) -- 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: We don't need it. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:47, 28 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 to Template:Infobox Australian rules football season. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox WAFL season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to other, more generic, football/ sport season infobox(es). Only two transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, leaning keep. Could you please say which infobox has all the parameters that this one does? Also, although it only has two transclusions, all WAFL seasons would be notable (>100) and will be created one day. Jenks24 (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless an equally easy to use and identical parametered alternative infobox is provided. The-Pope (talk) 17:02, 23 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) 04:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh dear me. Why is it that I am the fourth person to comment at the TfD, and yet apparently the first to try knocking a letter off of the title to see where this was forked from? Strictly redundant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? The two infoboxes are definitely not interchangeable. Jenks24 (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two have an identical appearance and use; the majority of their fields also overlap with the same syntax. It is only the cup material which needs merged, which is trivial. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But what is the advantage of merging? Won't that just make Template:Infobox AFL season harder to use for no real benefit? Jenks24 (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Consistency, ease of maintenance (support for a new parameter which applies to all league seasons can be added to every article at once), and less confusion for editors looking to put an infobox on an Australian Rules football article they've created (they need only remember the name of one template). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • So how do you propose we deal with the different labels that apply to the different leagues ie Brownlow Medal vs Sandover Medal as an example? Do we need to add "B&F Medal Label=" fields and make the "brownlow medallist =" field into a generic "b&f =" field?? Should we have a more generic "Australian rules football season infobox" that either has customisable labels (which is in my mind more complicated, not more consistent or easy to use) or do we need a template guru to create a set of presets, ie a single type=AFL, WAFL, SANFL etc field that then prefills the labels? Or, do we keep it simple and just have 3 or 4 of these templates that cover each of major league? How confusing do you think it is if you make a WAFL season article to add the WAFL template, rather than have to fill in 3 or 4 extra data label fields on a generic infobox? Who is going to do the merging/genericisation of the AFL template? Do they understand AFL/WAFL/SANFL footy? Do they know what a B&F is? Do you know of other "applies to different leagues" season infoboxes that we can see in use? I really wish that discussion on ideas like this would take place FIRST, and once the issues are addressed or proposals put forward, then the redundant templates deleted, not the other way round. The-Pope (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • As would I, but you'd need to take that up with the nominating editor. The way to deal with incompatible fields is to first temporarily convert the template into a wrapper for the more generic one and then to substitute it: that should allow for foolproof conversion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • This set of pages is called "Templates for discussion". It's where that discussion takes place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• merge with Template:Infobox AFL season. Frietjes (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to Template:Infobox Australian rules football season, after the discussion above and in the VFL template above. Also merge all other similar templates like Template:Infobox AFL season and Template:Infobox VFL season to a new generic template with all of the possible fields as optional fields. The-Pope (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Thumperward. There's nothing wrong with adding a parameter to enable the template to display Brownlow instead of Sandover (or vice versa); adding a parameter to a template doesn't mean that every substitution of that template must be modified. It might take a little work, but there's nothing abnormal here: just your run-of-the-mill redundant template that needs to have its functionality merged somewhere else. Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'd really appreciate it if someone could address at #Template:Infobox VFL season, which also apply to this discussion. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 04:44, 3 April 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) 21:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((Infobox civil conflict)); only 29 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 19 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) 04:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant. Liam987 15:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• merge with ((Infobox civil conflict)). Frietjes (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 10:09, 5 April 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Taekwondo event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox sport event)), to which the generic "champions (men and women)" fields should be added; only 28 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 19 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) 03:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• merge with template:Infobox sport event adding a section for champions. Frietjes (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, Not completely redundant. Mohsen1248 (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after completing the redundancy/orphaning. Imzadi 1979 → 10:09, 5 April 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) 21:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((Infobox winter storm)); only four transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 19 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) 04:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnecessary. Liam987 15:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but not for the reason given by the nominator. This is an infobox for the winter as a whole, not for a specific part thereof. However, the idea of having a minimally used infobox for an entire season seems a bit of overkill. We have no ((Infobox summer)), ((Infobox fall)), or ((Infobox autumn)), and ((Infobox spring)) is for places where water comes up from underground. The two winter articles that use this template (Winter of 2010–2011 in Great Britain and Ireland and Winter of 2009–2010 in the United Kingdom) both use it rather incorrectly — one has winter beginning in November, and the other has it beginning in January — so there really aren't any correct uses anywhere. Nyttend (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unneeded. If it were needed, we'd have a generic "infobox season" for articles about the four seasons (spring, summer, fall/autumn, winter). Imzadi 1979 → 10:12, 5 April 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.