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) 14:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hejaz Railway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Now used. The template was inexplicably removed from the article by an edit with a misleading summary. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2013 (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) 14:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-release (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates ((PD-author)).

On Commons, Template:PD-release tells that the uploader is the copyright holder, while our Template:PD-release doesn't tell who the copyright holder is. This risks causing all kinds of errors if files aren't cleaned up properly during a Commons move. Therefore, I suggest that we replace all instances of ((PD-release)) with ((PD-author)) and then delete ((PD-release)) without a redirect anywhere. Stefan2 (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it should not be called "PD-author" as the releasing authority is not universally the author. Copyrights can and are bought and sold, so who releases it into the public domain is the rights holder, not the author. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support there are already too many PD related image tags. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:42, 20 December 2013 (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 Apparently needs a different TFD nomination. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-release (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:PD-author (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:PD-release with Template:PD-author.
Duplicate template. We only need one of them.

On Commons, Template:PD-release tells that the uploader is the copyright holder, while our Template:PD-release doesn't tell who the copyright holder is. This risks causing all kinds of errors if files aren't cleaned up properly during a Commons move. Therefore, I suggest that we replace all instances of ((PD-release)) with ((PD-author)) and then delete ((PD-release)) without a redirect anywhere. Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close: no need to merge, because they already are merged - ((PD-release)) is a transclusion of ((PD-author)). --Redrose64 (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template nevertheless needs to be replaced and deleted as there otherwise will be lots of problems when such files are moved to Commons. As I wrote, having a redirect is bad here, and transcluding one from the other is essentially the same thing as having a redirect. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to delete one of them (either one), please nominate as a delete, not as a merge. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, closing this, then renominating. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2013 (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) 23:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-art-US-only (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicated by other templates. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment all the general templates should have US-only variants. It seems what is meant many times when the general templates are used on English Wikipedia, it really be US-only, and when transferred to Commons, end up being deleted. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can simply use ((PD-Art|PD-US-1923-abroad)) (or some other USA copyright tag) instead. "PD-art-US-only" is not a very good tag as it doesn't say why the underlying object is in the public domain in the United States. Therefore, delete this as too unspecific. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2013 (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) 23:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Studio60 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of the character articles have been redirected to a list for notability concerns and the main series article serves perfectly well as a navigational aid for the remaining few articles. Serves no function. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, articles already well connected. Frietjes (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2013 (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) 14:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Third Sacred War (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox contains no independent articles, but rather serves as a second section index for the Third Sacred War article. Hence it is completely redundant. Constantine ✍ 21:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)  Relisted 21:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No navgigation between separate articles. The Banner talk 01:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the others - nothing more than a TOC. Also, I'm not sure why this was relisted. Admins aren't always instantaneous in closing overdue discussions. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2013 (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 until more articles are written. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ouachita Baptist Tigers football navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A few months after its creation, this navbox still only links two articles (the main team article and the rivalry game). Everything else is red links. Jameboy (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)  Relisted 21:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, unless someone wants to write the articles. Frietjes (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:CFB, standard formatting for all NCAA football team navboxes (see here). Also, keep in mind that this navbox could be re-designed to include other links, but is not solely because of it's adherence to the WP:CFB standard format. That's something that could be discussed further at the WP:CFB talk page. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails WP:NENAN The Banner talk 01:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2013 (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 relisted on 2014 January 2 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:36, 2 January 2014 (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) 23:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lamar Hunt Award (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a notable enough award to have it's own template in my opinion.Yankees10 00:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Yankees10. Nobody has cared enough to update it either. --charge2charge (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2013 (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) 14:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Essays on building Wikipedia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Humorous essays (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Essays on notability (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikipedia essays (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Civility, Template:Essays on building Wikipedia, Template:Humorous essays and Template:Essays on notability with Template:Wikipedia essays.
I found these merge proposals incorrectly templated, and decided to fix it. As a matter of fact, these template are part of the merge target. Still, the target is a much larger template, so instead of simply doing the merger myself, I prefer to let the community decide on this. Debresser (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose as per previous talks about the bloated template. Have no need for jokes templates on pages about policy like Wikipedia:The rules are principles. Best these are separated as they originally where. To put it simply we dont need to spam every essay on every page...thus we have specific templates for specific topics-- Moxy (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia essays is collapsed, so having a "bloated" template would not be a real problem. And it may even come in handy to have other essays from other fields readily available, if needed. Debresser (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - we have no need to overwhelm people (especially new editors) with 500 plus links to non related essays. The purpose of theses types of help templates is to help navigate related articles (essays in this case) not every article or essay out there. Just my opinion -- Moxy (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The sub-templates of essays are intuitive, and a merged mega-template would be too large to navigate comfortably. Miniapolis 01:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Moxy, Debresser, and Miniapolis: I created the all-in-one-template (see May and June discussions), thinking that it would be a good solution to the problem of: the meta-links that appeared at the bottom in each of the separate-templates (which are/were all varying in content), which were duplicated when multiple of the separate-templates appeared in a single page. Also, I'd hoped that it would help with watchlisting / updating / organizing / non-duplication / discovery. I'm totally open to a reimplementation/rethinking of this, however works best. Apologies again, for creating the confusion. –Quiddity (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2013 (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 reverse merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Relevance-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Relevance note (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Relevance-inline into Template:Relevance note.
I found this merge proposal incorrectly templated, and decided to fix it. As a matter of fact, these templates are both much in use, but the proposed target, Template:Relevance note has the better wording, imho.

I would propose a redirect, deletion of the redirected template's documentation, and an update of the documentation of the target. Will be happy to do all this, should the community endorse this proposal. Debresser (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge "relevance note" doesn't indicate it isn't a section, paragraph or page tag. "inline" indicates it is a line tag. It would conform to the naming of other inline tags (vis-a-vis ((Inline tags))). -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we could simply copy the code of Relevance note into Relevance inline. No problem here. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2013 (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.