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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Air France Flight 447/flight path (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

subst and delete this is used in only one article, and would only be appropriate for one article. 76.65.128.222 (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete This is just the insertion of an image. Not a template. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Subst and delete per above comments -PC-XT+ 05:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• delete, I merged it with the article. Frietjes (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus, there is no consensus to delete this template, but there appears to be some consensus to merge this with other RNLI station templates, but those templates were not tagged (e.g., Template:Lifeboat Stations in Norfolk). But, please feel free to continue the discussion on the talk page, or in another centralised location. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Lifeboat Stations in Suffolk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This Navbox does not really have many articles to navigate to - just 3 lifeboat stations. Previous discussion had people indicating it was useful in some fashion, but it fails to be useful to readers when we have insufficient articles to navigate to. Whpq (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The earlier discussion is at WP:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_8. When this template was first brought up for discussion in March, it navigated only two (existing) articles; since then, one more article has been written. If someone intends to write articles about the boats, this should be kept (but renaming to something like "Lifeboats and lifeboat stations in Suffolk" would be in order, I think). Otherwise, "See also" sections ought to suffice for navigating the articles about the stations. A suggestion was made about having a single template covering a longer stretch of coastline. I notice that Template:Lifeboat Stations in Essex does not exist, while Template:Lifeboat Stations in Norfolk is largish. —rybec 14:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that navboxes should only link to existing articles. The redlinks should be removed until the articles are written, which doesn't leave us with much. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep This template is worth keeping as a start point for the future creation of historic lifeboats which may be created. In the past there were several red links, which have now been harshly removed, to Historic lifeboats which, assuming good faith, the original author had intended to create. Other editors may well also add further articles. There is no harm in keeping the template and I don’t understand how deleting the template is in anyway a constructive way to enhance this encyclopaedia.Cheeseladder (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep I still stand by my original argument! Why has this issue once again need to be discussed. The consensus leant towards a keep last time, although by a small margin. But the discussion was not popular and as such a majority of only one carried the argument last time. The same verdict is likely again. I still stand by my original argument that the Layout that includes the lifeboats such as the Norfolk template is better, its easier to navigate through. The red Ink links should be reinstated as was the original format, giving those articles a chance to be to be produced.Dennisbluie (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, please see WP:NAVBOXES#Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles regarding redlinks and unlinked text. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep This Navbox may only have the 3 lifeboat stations at the moment but it has the potential of becoming more useful to readers when more articles are created on this subject, as per the Norfolk template, then it will become a useful navigation tool. Keeping it hopefully will encourage others to contribute lifeboat subject articles for this county. Deleting it achieves nothing. Another alternative would be to expand the template to Lifeboat Stations in Suffolk and Essex as per Template:Lifeboat stations in Somerset and North Devon. Haydnaston (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - The way to encourage such article creation is to provide a red link in the articles on the lifeboat stations. -- Whpq (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge & Rework to realize templates for the six divisions of the RNLI plus a separate template for the non-RNLI lifeboat stations. Not every lifeboat is notable. I don't know how many independent lifeboat stations are active but when there are not too many, they can be doubled into the RNLI-template as a customer service and ease of navigation. The Banner talk 15:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge & Rework per The Banner -PC-XT+ 06:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note - Have now added a further Lifeboat station to the Template. Although it is a station that is now closed it is still a part of the History of the RNLI operations in Suffolk and in fact was responsible for the saving of two people’s life on the inshore waters of the Norfolk & Suffolk Broads.Cheeseladder (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge & Rework per The Banner. The template as it stands is too small to be useful for navigation, but a merger to a template with a wider scope will solve that problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note - Have now added a further article to the template, namely the historic Lifeboats Lucy Lavers and Spirit of Lowestoft. The template is now on the way to being a viable navigation tool.Cheeseladder (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Reply. Neither of those articles comes remotely near meeting WP:GNG. I have tagged them accordingly, amd if unless some evidence of notability is forthcoming, they should be deleted.
      Articles should exist only if the topic is notable. Please do not create articles simply to increase the number of blue links on a navbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Reply to Reply.The Lucy Lavers lifeboat page has four independent and reliable sources (The BBC, Dunkirk Little Ship Restoration Trust, National Historic Ships Register and the Rescue Wooden Boats website) which show this lifeboat is very noteworthy and should not have been tagged in the first place.Cheeseladder (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Please don't be silly. It was tagged because at the time, the article clearly did not demonstrate the notability of the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Football clubs in Erpe-Mere (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template only links to two football clubs both minor. Fenix down (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• delete, not a notable grouping, better to group by league. Frietjes (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - not enough links to provide useful navigiation between articles on a related subject. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:First-generation game consoles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Second generation game consoles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Third generation game consoles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fourth generation game consoles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fifth generation game consoles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sixth generation game consoles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Seventh generation game consoles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Eighth generation game consoles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging. Far more useful to see all the generations at once in a template as per Template:Video game consoles, rather than split to their component parts. The combined template is not so large that splitting is necessary. Also, this avoids the links to the other generation templates (i.e. away from article space) in the footers. Rob Sinden (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No - The point of having separate templates is because it allows for quick access to other consoles from a similar time period. Having one would defeat the purpose, and would combine eight generations of consoles into one, cluttered template. Ral539 (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It really isn't that cluttered! What we have at the moment are some templates with just 3-4 entries on, which really aren't that useful. Combined, we can link to all the generational history articles, as well as seeing an overview of the consoles in each generation. Say you were looking at the first generation article, but didn't know which generation, say, the PS2 was in. The combined navbox would facilitate easy movement in situations like this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Navigating generations like that was already accounted for in the template header links, which navigate to pages that more fully discus and list out the navigations. This was all discussed before. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it really isn't accounted for. The templates are useless split. There is no reason for them to be broken down from one useful table into eight tiny useless ones. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) Support Merging, would allow for greater vertical navigation. Half of these templates are narrow and semi-useless on their own, but a unified one would allow the user to navigate (that's the point, right?) the consoles topic with greater ease. Proposed template looks clean and uncluttered. Deadbeef 08:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No It seems the history was left out of this merge proposal, and for some reason it wasn't posted over at Wikiproject Video Games (the group responsible for these templates and where you want to post a request, since most people aren't going to check a talk page of a template, the merge proposal doesn't show up on the main content like it would a normal page). I've rectified that and put a posting there as well, and I would suggest giving time for the regulars to respond. As far as the history: Those templates were already split off from a single template in 2009 after an extensive discussion amongst members of the project to establish consensus and the current format (including an RFC at the WikiProject Video Games), which resulted in the current format. I don't see anything in this proposal to revert back to a single list that trumps the reason for the previous consensus. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your "extensive" discussion seems to be a little conversation between yourself and one or two editors four years ago, and it fails to take into account what navboxes are actually for. Namely, navigation. Template:Eighth generation game consoles (for example) is quite simply useless for this function. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your snide attempts to miss characterize aside, there were several regulars of the project involved in the discussion, not just "me and one other." The section that's myself and another was discussing the new format once consensus was achieved. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't see how you can claim consensus based on that discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, and Wikiproject Video Games are not "responsible for these templates" as you claim. WP:OWN. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, and responsible as in for creating them. Where did I state your context?. If you want to turn this into a pissing match instead of a discussion, I'd be happy to spill this conversation over to the conduct complaints area as well. Check the attitude, I'm not having one with you, and I prefer to keep it civil. Last I'm going to contribute to this too, I prefer to let others have their say and hope it changes in either direction from the current two for and two against--Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Merge: I believe I originally argued to split these templates a while back, but since then, I've seen that larger, merged templates actually add a lot of value for larger topics (eg. listing all of the games in the Super Mario Bros. series, broken up by generation, type and/or system). Given that there isn't an unwieldy number of entries in any one generation, the template as a whole can be condensed and remain uncluttered, and still be useful. (I will also say that as time goes on, opinions are allowed to change.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No It is inconvenient to merge them and some people are more interested in one generation rather than all of them. 142.134.147.211 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is it inconvenient? And by your own argument, surely you realise that some people are more interested in all of the generations than just one? Where is the justification for a split? --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge and parameterize add parameters to selection a generation to display (default=all) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not seeing the necessity for the collapsable generations - this would make a simple navbox overly complicated. This would be only be appropriate for large navboxes like ((Carnivora)) for example. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never said collapsible generations, I said selectable generations. This can be done with simple if statements checking for the existence of a "generation" parameter, which if not set, will show it, which if set to "all" will show it, which if set to a particular generation will only show that generation, the other fields would then not be shown at all. A #switch on each group-list pair for each generation could do it. If we wanted a more sophisticated version, we could do the collapsible one, with only the selected generation not collapsed. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still can't see what we'd gain by this. This would defeat the point of this proposed merge, and I can't see when we'd put it into practice. As others have noted, the merged template is perfectly manageable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge. I agree w/Rob Sinden completely. Nothing is lost and ((Video game consoles)) is quite manageable. Mackensen (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support merge per IP 76.65.128.222. I like it. -Kai445 (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per 76.65.128.222. This is an issue that should have been taken care of a long time ago. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 06:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per Mackensen, with weak support for generation selection -PC-XT+ 06:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC) I will revert to support of generation selection if evidence is provided that it will be more useful than the currently proposed infobox in multiple articles. -PC-XT+ 01:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge without parameters of any sort. The template is not large enough to merit such, whatsoever. --Izno (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge but show the years since the arrangement is chronological. —rybec 08:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Years are not necessary, as this is a navbox, not an article or an infobox. This would be unnecessary and would clutter the template. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge Agree with Rybec; there should also be subsections for certain companies (Atari) producing multiple consoles in an individual generation. Alternatively, the handheld consoles could be merged into the home console templates, thus making it an excess of clutter to do a generation-unified template, but I prefer having them separated. Nuke (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge - Per Kiefer. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Leaning merge. The template would need to be worked on to look better. [Soffredo] 13:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any suggestions? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge - Per Rob Sinden, agree with Sinden completely necessary to have separate templates when you can merge all the console generations into one template. TheDeviantPro (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge - The existing templates are quite small and can be more helpful. We can rebuild it. We have the technology. Shii (tock) 22:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like  Deadbeef 22:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've made an example of a merged template showing the years of production. —rybec 23:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:NTFL Seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Old navbox with only 1 bluelink. Deadbeef 06:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• uselessWWE fan 4.0 (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC) (Merged from user's duplicate nomination by Deadbeef)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Pramod Kamble (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apart from the the eponymous article this template only links to one article - and that is currently at AFD. WP:WTAF applies. DexDor (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• delete, after merging the list of works with the artist article. Frietjes (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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