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

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rough Draft Studios (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Misleading template. In very few cases was Rough Draft the only studio to work on any of these — in fact, most of the shows listed have had several studios. There is no precedent for having a by-studio navbox, and doing so would instantly clutter up any article. (For instance, I know there were at least six or seven studios that worked on shows like Animaniacs — could you imagine if that article had templates for TMS, Wang, Akom, StarToons, etc. gathering on it?) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not make more sense to simply remove the things which are not solely related to Rough Draft Studios, or edit the template in a way that makes the studio's involvement clearer? Many of the links contained therein are useful.

Also, not to make the "other stuff exists" argument, but since you did make the "other stuff doesn't exist argument": Template:Pixar Animation Studios, Template:Walt Disney Animation Studios, Template:Radical Axis, Template:Hasbro Studios, Template:Blue Sky Studios, Template:Fleischer Studios...

When I started that template, I made sure there were others already in existence and that I was not doing something without precedent.  Chickenmonkey  19:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The templates you cited are film related, or for shows that uneqivocally have ties to a studio. It's a lot more muddied with Rough Draft since they've only worked on parts of different shows, and have no individual shows they can claim as their "own". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be too blunt or rude--that is not my intention--but that is simply inaccurate. Rough Draft Studios has done 100% of the animation for Futurama and the Futurama films, as well as doing all of the animation for series such as The Maxx, Sit Down, Shut Up, and Drawn Together. (Even without mentioning the fact that Rough Draft Studios' Korean studio does ink & paint for virtually every series on television; information that I agree is not appropriate for a useful navbox).

What is more, other templates--namely Template:Blue Sky Studios--include productions where the studio only contributed to the film's animation.

Further, even if all mention of films or television series was removed, the "staff" section of the navbox would still be useful. I understand why you may feel the template needs improvement--and it is frustrating to watch ip editors repeatedly add erroneous information to the template--but I would argue the template should not be deleted.  Chickenmonkey  22:35, 4 July 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

After this discussion began, I went through the template and removed all titles that cannot be verified on Rough Draft Studios' website. To that end, I feel the template is now no longer confusing, in case that matters to whomever ultimately closes this dicussion.  Chickenmonkey  01:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, a perfectly reasonable template now that it has been cleaned up. Frietjes (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, this template must be be! Creators of Futurama's movies - it's notable. Vanquisher (talk) 16:23, 14 July 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. But, there appears to be some desire to be able to navigate between templates within template space, so I will repurpose this as templatespace navbox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U. S. Network Shows footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Improper use of navboxes. Breaks all the rules regarding inclusion and transclusion at WP:NAVBOX and WP:NAVBOXES. Not a link to a related article, but to a similar navbox for a different network. Designed to navigate reader out of article space and into template space. We should be looking to update guideline to be explicit about these. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep：Easy to use, you can quickly find the major U.S. broadcast on PBS in mainstream television programs and other programs.--Qa003qa003 (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what navboxes are for. They are for linking to similar articles not to other templates of a similar but different subject. A reader should not be directed into template space. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the intention is clear, I first saw that this is a template space, I think it is appropriate, but I think this template can remove some networks.--Qa003qa003 (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The intention is not clear. A reader expects that a link in a navbox takes them to another article, not out of article namespace and into template namespace, which is not part of the encyclopedia, but part of Wikipedia administration. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, Rob. However, like Qa003, I do think that the functionality is useful. Is there some way we can fix the footer so that it conforms with proper guidelines but also retains most/all of the current usefulness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.188.224.2 (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2013

I think the only way would be if each link directed to "List of shows broadcast by..." articles, but I'm not sure that's completely appropriate either. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking articles only would be a huge improvement, but the proper way would be to copy the lists of American shows from this bad boy and create a new navbox like this one and add it to all articles linked from it, but not to articles on individual shows. jonkerz ♠talk 18:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That really shouldn't be titled "List of American television shows by broadcaster" because the shows aren't all American; it should be Lists of television shows broadcast in America". Or is Doctor Who now an American show? Rookie Blue and Motive are Canadian but they appear in the list for ABC. That said, having now seen that those lists actually exist i am even more fond of the navboxes because they are lists of current shows and they have "YYYY - present" which is just a bit redundant. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SURPRISE. With a few exceptions, the template namespace should never be directly linked from mainspace articles. jonkerz ♠talk 15:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Though even if it linked to articles on those networks rather than other templates, I think it would be of questionable use, to link to different networks other than the one that aired the show the article is about. It's also arbitrarily selective as far as which broadcast and cable networks are included. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, we don't need send users from article space into template space. a better solution is to turn this into a navbox that is transcluded exclusively template space. Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not sure I understand the Frietjes suggestion, but WP:NAVBOX and WP:NAVBOXES are silent on including templates in NAVBOXES. Templates do contain encyclopedic content and it is not clear that readers don't want to see them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, but even if all the template links could be replaced with article links, and if the criteria for inclusion could be worked out, it's not obvious why individual shows on one network should link lists of shows on other networks. This footer serves the same purpose that a proper navbox like ((Lists of American television shows by broadcaster)) would if created. Would we add that template to articles on individual shows? WP:NAVBOX suggests we should not. The guideline does not say what to do if the same links are added to a footer embedded in another template, but I think the answer should be the same. jonkerz ♠talk 18:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your analogy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks guys - do you think the guidelines need updating to be explicit about this? There's a lot of this intertemplate linking going on. Have started discussions here and here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Worth a nerve to say that this joke created template Template:Lists of TV programs by country And this template is still very useful, is to remove some of the more marginalized networks.--Qa003qa003 (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Sinden: "A reader expects that a link in a navbox takes them to another article, not out of article namespace and into template namespace, which is not part of the encyclopedia, but part of Wikipedia administration."

It is not apart of the stict WP administration "WP:name" are. Other wise having catagories would be problematic as they take you out of the article namespace and should be deleted. Most normal Navboxes link to the template space via the "V T E", so that once again shoot major holes in your argument. How did you come up with what is or is not a readers expection? I would expect as a reader if this navbox doesn't have what I want (or what to head down a different direction) to click quickly to the right one.

jonkerz did you actually read WP:SURPRISE which states: "You should plan your page structure and links so that everything appears reasonable and makes sense. If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense." It make sense to send some one to a similar navbox as the navbox may had to split up do to too many links. Spshu (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "V T E" are editing tools, not for navigation, much in the same way that each article has a "talk" and an "edit" tab at the top. They cannot be considered in your argument. As far as category links in the navbox go, personally I'm against them, as any page on the template is most likely (or at least should be) in the category, so the category will be linked at the bottom of each page anyway. I'm not going to fight for removal of those mind you. As far as a "similar" navbox goes, the argument is much like saying that we should have reciprocal links for all the navboxes for all the towns in Britain. They are about completely different subjects: CBS is not the same as ABC, etc., much the same way that ((Brighton)) is not the same as ((Manchester)), they just have similar attributes. Remember, navboxes are not articles and should not be treated as substitutes for articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as it produces a confusing mixture of links to article and template space. Per Frietjes, a better solution is to replace with a "navbox of navboxes" (see for example ((Universe navboxes))) containing links restricted to template space. Boghog (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yuk!!! That's awful, and completely unnecessary - should be covered by Category:Universe navboxes. But at least it can't be seen from article space. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - rules, fools, drools... i find these evil, nasty, vile creatures to be quite useful when i am just browsing reading up on whatever show or actor or actress caught my fancy that moment. So what if the links take me to templates! The first time i encountered it i wasn't so stupid that i couldn't understand what the link was to. I clicked on it because i wanted exactly what the template was offering. Yes, there are lists for most every American channel and if i could i surely would delete each and every one of them as unnecessary, cumbersome, and redundantly excessive. ;) These little navboxes are quite uesful and i honestly can't understand why people want to get rid of the bridges that connect all of them. I want to build them for other countries! delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:55, 12 July 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

American TV industry developed, some like to watch American TV series Friends certainly are covered five major U.S. television networks, the role of this template also manifested.--Qa003qa003 (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Why can't it be replaced with links to lists of shows broadcast by American networks instead of templates? Nick1372 (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although this isn't ideal, it would be better than the current situation. And each list of shows would have the desired template at the bottom, so no-one loses out, addressing the ease of navigation concerns of some of the "keep" !voters. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional keep. Although calling another navbox isn't a good solution, it is useful to have some means of getting to the programming of other networks. Until a better solution can be devised, getting rid of this nav aid reduces ease of navigation and so should be avoided. -- spin|^control 07:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator. Banhtrung1 (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easy, cool to see programming from over the years. 190.213.37.19 (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the premise that readers need a collapsed navbox buried at the bottom of an article to find their way around is flawed. Usage of this template is tiny. People don't need a way of getting to the programming of other networks; nobody even thinks about networks anymore. People are capable of figuring out how to search for TV shows. Abductive (reasoning) 02:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator24.231.78.74 (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and also because it's not remotely relevant to the reader. No reader of a random tv show article (which is where these are found) is going to find that the best way to navigate to some other random tv show on a different network is by clicking to a linked template etc etc... These links are just too remote to be useful. If a reader of The Simpsons, for example, is interested in programming on ABC, he'll just type "ABC" into the search box. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This template is completely relevant. It shows all curent and former programs by television network. It provides easy links to the shows. The only policy I'm citing is ignore all rules! This template improves the encyclopedia, so it should not be deleted. Think about this: It is too much hassle to remove this templates from the hundreds of articles where they are transcluded. Keep it! ~~JHUbal27 03:27, 25 July 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, technical issues are being resolved on the talk page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox U.S. county 2TZ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fork of ((Infobox U.S. county)) to accommodate dual timezones. The functionality should be merged into the parent template. Only two transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I would probably have done that to begin with if it weren't fully protected. You want to request the edit (and get someone to do it) or should I? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Turns out I did so originally. I'm asking again. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No help offered at Template talk:Infobox U.S. county § Dual time zones and my plate is kind of full with somewhat higher priorities than a housekeeping job, so I'll get to it, but it may be a while. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, seems it has now been merged. Frietjes (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Status not yet ready for deletion. New version has some issues. I will advise when resolved. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nominator. Banhtrung1 (talk) 06:32, 22 July 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) 22:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox N.J. Cabinet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to some more specific legislature template. Only two transclusions. We don't need a separate cabinet infobox for each state. Note: ((Infobox Jon Corzine cabinet)) and ((Infobox Chris Christie cabinet)) are hard-coded instances of this template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, seems to be a perfectly reasonable frontend for ((infobox cabinet)). Frietjes (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we need multi-level, hard-coded front ends for two articles? Why not just use ((infobox cabinet)) on each of these articles? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • the better idea would be to substitute ((Infobox Jon Corzine cabinet)) and ((Infobox Chris Christie cabinet)) as single use templates. Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the content. I don't know which format is optimal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a proposal to discard content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only 4 transclusions. Banhtrung1 (talk) 06:38, 22 July 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) 22:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Mass Town Govt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to some more specific legislature template. Includes a level of trivia ("Register of Deeds" & "Register of Probate", etc., for a town) that probably shouldn't be in articles. Only 16 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and replace with a simple table. far too much trivial information. Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 14 July 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) 22:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Massachusetts/old template1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 13 July 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 after replacement. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hawaiian island (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox island)). Only twelve transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: If we delete, what should we do about the color and flower parameters? —hike395 (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

use ((Infobox state symbols))? Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is: these are symbols of the islands, not of the state. ((infobox state symbols)) says "state" explicitly. Should we remove that? —hike395 (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

just change state to region and that problem is solved. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and modified ((Infobox state symbols)), in case this deletion succeeds. See User:Hike395/Lanaibox for an example of using ((Infobox island)) and ((Infobox state symbols)) to describe Lanai. It looks perfectly functional to me. —hike395 (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacement with ((infobox island)) and ((infobox state symbols)). Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Squidville1 (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • why? Frietjes (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why does this need to be gotten rid of? It's not redundant enough to be considered a duplication in my mind, and the transclusion count has nothing to do with whether or not a template should be kept. It's not like every template is going to have 12 gajillion transclusions, or even 100 transclusions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "need" is to reduce the number of similar templates, so that when we make future changes (such as basing infoboxes on {[tl|Infobox)) or adding an |alt= parameter, there is less work to do rolling it our to every template, and none get missed. What makes you think this template is needed? In what way are Hawaiian islands different to those in the rest of the World? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not so much that I think the Hawaiian islands are wholesale different, I just feel that the parameters like color, flower, and a few new ones that could be added (Hawaiian county, associated volcanoes, etc) would seem oddly specific in a generic infobox like the island infobox. I've always viewed such generic infoboxes as being last resorts when there are no suitable more specific infoboxes. In this instance, the Hawaiian island infobox is the more suitable one to use on articles about the Hawaiian islands. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 10:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we can't have a separate template for every archipelago in the world. Limited use and redundant to a better template.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It's difficult. When you look at other islands, for example, the Isle of Wight it is defined as an English county, rather like Hampshire. But, when you look at say one of the South Georgia islands, you just have an infobox named "islands". It is true that this Hawi'ian island is similar legally to this island in South Georgia, but at the same time, different in the sense of legality. 81.158.32.181 (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Banhtrung1 (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Underlying lk. We really need to reduce the number of similar templates, and the differences between this and the normal island infobox are small and insignificant enough that they need not occupy our concern. Colors and flowers aren't really so crucial that they absolutely must appear in the infobox, especially since islands without specific governmental existence can't easily have their own official anythings. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: can be covered by ((Infobox island)), with a suitable tweaked ((Infobox state symbols)). Nyttend: each major island is its own county, which is governmental. —hike395 (talk) 10:11, 2 August 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 to delete. There may be some consensus to rewrite it as a wrapper template, but that can be hashed out on the talk page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox settlement)). Only 17 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, uh, wouldn't that be because there are only 10 provinces and three current territories plus a few historical ones? Not like there's gonna be 50 transclusions....Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Why would we need a separate template for such a few cases, when a more generic template does the job? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as we can use Infobox settlement for the same function, and it's easier to maintain one template for the same use rather than two.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or rewrite as a wrapper for ((infobox settlement)). Frietjes (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously. This templates does not violate any specific policy or guideline of Wikipedia, and is used for general purposes to transmit data for each province and territory of the country. It is not redundant in any process, having used several unique parameters from ((infobox settlement)), such as government parameters and largest political subdivisions. Furthermore, the style of the settlement is not suitable for provinces or territories, in my opinion. This provincial template's design is appropriate for articles of these types, and is similar to that of ((infobox U.S. state)). That template is almost the same as that of this, hence why I don't understand the reasoning for that template not also being nominated. However, they both are required for obvious purposes. Of course there are "only 17 transclusions", there are only ten provinces and territories in the country itself. I strongly oppose the removal of this template. TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your arguments seem to make the case that this template may exist; not that it should exist. Why is the style of the settlement not suitable for provinces or territories, in your opinion? As for the US template, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As explained below, this WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS accusation is inaccurate and a red herring.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not an accusation; it's a pointer to a page which helpfully summarises points previously made, rather as a FAQ does. You object because "entire comments should not be dismissed" based on it, yet I have not dismissed TBrandley's comment, much less done so on that basis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was not intending to use that comment as an argument for keep and I'm sorry if it seemed that way; I was attempting to make a note. Furthermore, I must explain: as already noted, there is no actual reason that this template needs to be deleted from the encyclopedia and it does appear helpful with extra parameters automatically installed within the template, creating an easier process than that of ((Infobox settlement)). TBrandley (T • C • B) 05:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep largely per TBrandley. The template includes features not covered by the generic box, and is much more useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Features such as..? "More useful" how? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as TBrandley said NewFranco (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because I see absolutely no reason whatsoever that it needs to be deleted. TBrandley is also most convincing with his argument(s). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Apples to oranges comparison. Near as I can tell, Settlement is used mostly, if not exclusively, for cities and towns. Settlement does not include information such as largest city within the settlement, or government information. Grande (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From its documentation: "[((Infobox settlement))] should be used to produce an Infobox for... administrative districts, counties, provinces, etcetera - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". 'Largest city' can be added there, if required. Government information is included, see |government_type=, etc. The issue of how Canadian provinces or territories are supposedly different from other nations subdivisions remains unaddressed; earlier questions unanswered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/RewriteKeep I know that WP:OSE is a pretty clear counter-argument to what I am about to say, but seriously, I took a quick look around at other provinces/states/oblasts/counties/etc and it really doesn't seem like using the settlement infobox is nearly as universal as indicated above. In fact, it seems like the most common practice is to have a dedicated template for each country. Otherwise I would have voted delete.--Ejl389 (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of those are wrapper templates for Infobox settlement or redirects to it. You give no reasons why a redirect or wrapper would not be adequate in this case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies for my delay in replying. I didn't mean to say that your rationale was invalid, I just thought it would be best to stay consistent with established practice. A misunderstanding, I assure you. Given this new information I've changed my vote; additionally, I can assist in the rewrite if necessary.--Ejl389 (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Ks0stm and the results of the last two TfD discussions ([[1]] and [[2]]), both of which also resulted in keep. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those were in 2009. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So? I'm not allowed to point to them and say that I still agree with the logic? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Where do you think I said that? Am I not allowed to point out they were in 2009? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [Note that my comment appears malformed because it follows the malformed indentation of Skeezix1000's comment; see source Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I was questioning the relevance of the point. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note A comparison of the two templates, built in 2009, can be seen here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if the states south of the border get to have their own infobox, I don't see why the provinces don't. --Truflip99 (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, FFS!' This isn't a pissing contest. Is this why we're getting so many keep "votes", devoid of any rationale? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, calm down. Stop treating everyone that disagrees with you as an idiot. Please go read WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY. I think you also need to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, an essay which quite clearly states that entire comments should not be dismissed because they reference a comparable. Here you're saying that the template is redundant - it's a valid argument to say that it isn't redundant when clearly there is no existing consensus that infobox settlement should handle all such functions, given the existence of other templates similar to this one. As far as I am concerned, it is inappropriate to tackle the issue of redundancy in a piecemeal fashion such as this. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • It merely seems that you are not treating the rationale of the "keep" !voters as legitimate, not that the "keep" !voters don't have rationale. Airplaneman ✈ 02:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary; I've addressed ,them above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am - and was - perfectly calm, and perfectly civil; and assume good faith everywhere it's appropriate to do so. I haven't treated anyone as an idiot. What functions in this template can infobox settlement not handle? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [Note that Airplaneman's comment appears malformed because it follows the malformed indentation of Skeezix1000's comment; see source. My comment appears out of content, because Skeezix1000 insists on moving his comment, to which I reply, back out of chronological sequence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Responding with "for fuck's sake" and then resorting to unconstructive insults of the other person's opinion is the opposite of calm and civil. There are no exceptions to the policies requiring that we treat others with respect because you decide it is not "appropriate to do so". If you say that it was not your intention to be uncivil, however, I accept that.

          Handling functions is not the issue. There is no demonstrated need or advantage whatsoever to delete this template. If you think infobox settlement should be the default template, this is neither the right forum nor the right means to achieve that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

          • [I've restored your comment to the correct chronological sequence; and fixed the indenting, in order that it meet our own and accessibility guidelines] My response was not what you claim, but "Oh, FFS!". I made no insults, unconstructive or otherwise; and claim no exceptions to our policies. I did not say that "it was not my intention to be uncivil"; I pointed out that "I was not uncivil". the advantage of removing redundant templates such as this is that it reduces the future maintenance overhead. It was you who raised the straw man of the unnamed functions supposedly not handled by infobox settlement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not move my comments to suit your personal preferences. The location and indentation is consistent with Wikipedia requirements and practices.

If you are honestly saying that "FFS", and that your derision of Truflip99's contribution, are not uncivil, then there seems to be very little point in engaging in any discussion of civility with you. The use of acronyms does not allow you to sidestep WP:CIVILITY.

I never said that there were functions not handled by infobox settlement. I said there was no consensus that it must handle all such functions. And what future maintenance overhead problem are you talking about? Can you point to the specific problems and burdens that have been encountered? Otherwise, this is a solution is search of a problem. Consolidating the templates is likely to create more problems since general changes to the main template may very well create problems at the micro level when such changes do not take into issues related to specific jurisdictions - that is not a problem if we maintain the situation as is. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • • [Note that this comment appears malformed because it follows the malformed indentation of Skeezix1000's comment; see source. I haven't moved anything to suit my personal preferences. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. You violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, move comments unnecessarily, respond out of order, pepper the disussions with unhelpful and inaccurate tiny comments. Please let me know when you are willing to discuss this constructively. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Could one of the delete votes create an example of what Infobox settlement would look like with all the information that one of the uses of this infobox has? Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already linked to one above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I guess I missed it because it was a short comment. 117Avenue (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Infobox settlement can handle it. 117Avenue (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and convert to use Infobox settlement. It should be consistent with the widely used template, but remain easy to use. 117Avenue (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, better one general template, one maintenance (in music: not Bruckner symphony, but ((infobox musical composition))) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously the project took non content editors need to stop making work and wasting the time of editors.Moxy (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That someone took great care in making the template may well be obvious; but it is not obvious that the template is necessary, or that the more generic template cannot be equally useful. You make no case for that. Also, I don't know which "non content editors" you have in mind - please elaborate - but I don't believe there's any Wikipedia policy which prohibits the from commenting here, or that devalues their comments, Perhaps you could indicate which you have in mind? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry will be more accurate in my assessment - there is absolutely noting wrong with these templates that where made by consensus by a large project to conform to there Canadian Manual of Style. I think better questions then is it a bit redundant are - Why is there a need to disrupt all these articles and upset the editors involved with making and maintaining them when nothing is apparently wrong? What all should ask themselves before nominating old templates is........ the template in question not violating any policy or guideline? - Has it been stable in its current form for a long time? - does it have special parameters that may fall under MOS:TIES? If the answer is yes to all of them people need to ask themselves if nominating them for deletion would be disruptive and considered "reasonable" or "acceptable" by an objective third person. -- Moxy (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that we have a number of people here saying "delete"; and given the vast number of similarly redundant templates which have been deleted or merged following such debates over the last number of years, not least in order to reduce the unecesary maintenance overhead, and the cognitive burden on editors, the answer to your final question is clearly that they would be considered reasonable. However, this is not the place for such debate (and you still make no case for why this template is needed); though you are of course welcome to raise an RfC or refer the matter to ANI. Did you miss my question about "non content editors"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Will explain even more - those of us that contribute to project(s) and content work hard on making sure templates conform to our guidelines. We also do this so that editors are not overwhelmed with parameters that may not apply to certain pages. We are here to make things easier not harder. As has been explained above some templates are made to conform to MOS:TIES (like this one) - Senate seats - House seats - Confederation - etc. Think of our editors over back room maintenance always please - what would be easier to edit a template with a few parameters to fill in or one with hundreds of parameter that dont even apply. Good-faith, productive and accurate templates made by project consensus should not be deleted because some think its best to have just one main template with thousands of parameters. Template:Country topics is a great example - all was merged - then slow over time project after project simply made there own again.Moxy (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Would you be opposed to the template using Infobox settlement? That way it would be consistent with Infobox settlement, but retain the parameters. 117Avenue (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why? What problem are we trying to remedy? Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think that templates and infoboxes are for consistency across Wikipedia, and Infobox province or territory of Canada is just a variant of Infobox settlement. I would like consistency, and I hope that this begins the discussion on the other "similar templates for every type of state, province and oblast" that you refer to below. I do agree with one of your points below though, with only 11 edits in the past year and a half "burdens are more likely to increase with its deletion". 117Avenue (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • You didn't answer the question; please do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Moxy has raised excellent points (although I disagree with the one comment on non-content editors, since every contributor, whether they create articles or check the copyright status of images, is entitled to speak their mind in discussions such as this). This template is the work of WPCANADA, and there is no policy or guideline that it offends. Its parameters are applicable to the articles in question. It can easily and efficiently be revised as needed to suit the articles it serves, in a manner that could never be achieved with a template that serves 1000s+++ of article. If deleted, we will undoubtedly be recreating this template down the road.

  In particular, there is no reason to be deleting a template that works well and that was developed by the relevant Wikiproject when we have been given no good rationale for deletion. We have unsubstantiated claims of "unecesary maintenance overhead", yet despite a request to do so nobody has been able to point to any examples of the burdensome maintenance associated with this template. In fact, the burdens are more likely to increase with its deletion, for the reasons set out by Moxy and myself above. The claim that deletion will reduce the "cognitive burden on editors" is simply strange. Again, in the unlikely event "cognitive burden" is even an issue, the opposite is likely true, given that the proposal is to delete a purpose-made template with a massive general template with way more templates than are needed for these articles. That leaves us with the weak claim of redundancy. We are told templates such as this are redundant, yet Wikipedia has a wide range of similar templates for every type of state, province and oblast, demonstrating that there is no consensus whatsoever that Infobox Settlement needs to be the default template for these types of articles.

  This template is successfully being used in the articles for which it was designed, without any problems and without any record of overwhelming the cognitive limits of the editors involved, so it is clearly not redundant. As stated above, if templates such as this are to be all replaced with Infobox Settlement, then it is inappropriate to be attempting to do so in one-off deletion requests such as this. The proper approach would be to nominate all similar templates for deletion, and have a centralized discussion. Otherwise, there is no need to single out the one template that is serving articles on Canada's provinces and territories quite well. This deletion request is an ill-conceived attempt to impose a top-down solution where no problem existed in the first place. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You say the template offends "no policy or guideline", but offer - and can offer - no policy or guideline offended by this proposal, nor requiring the mass deletion nomination on which you insist. Redundancy is not a weak rationale for the deletion, or conversion to wrappers, of templates such as this, which is why most of the "similar templates for every type of state, province and oblast" to which you refer are already wrappers, or redirects from deleted templates (and hence the template under discussion has not been "singled out"). You further - like many above - offer no cogent rationale as to why this template is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a little insulting for you to say no cogent rationale has been given - as all can see many reasons have been given for its retention thus far. Would be best to say you don't agree with the reasons. -- Moxy (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologise unreservedly to any rationales, non-cogent or otherwise, that have been offended. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see how an infobox used for the major administrative divisions of a major western power is something that can be considered for deletion. Has Wikipedia really declared Canada to be non-notable? --Kazinsal (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again: this is not a pissing contest about the notability of the subject, which has not been questioned at all; but a discussion of the redundancy of the template; and the suitability of the prosed replacement. Would you care to address that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 28 July 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, feel free to continue any refactoring/wrapper discussion on the talk page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((Infobox election)). Only 69 transclusions. Maybe should be a wrapper? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Graham11 (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It isn't the same at all. Infobox election doesn't have resigning leader, ballots, number of candidates, entrance fee, spending limit, or a navbox. 117Avenue (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody said it was the same. It is redundant. Navboxes don't usually belong in infoboxes; the other parameters can be added to the generic template, if needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am saying that is can't be replaced by a template that is not the same. Infobox election looks like an infobox, with a logo and its information in a list, Infobox election is a results table with the information for each candidate in columns. 117Avenue (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • And why do you think that it would not be appropriate to have a results table (containing that which is arguably the most important information in the article) in the infobox? It works just fine for British Labour Party leadership elections, for example. Graham11 (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It makes sense to have results in the infobox and to have an infobox more consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Unlike what has been suggested, there appears to be a parameter for the previous leader in ((Infobox election)) (before_election). Infoboxes don't normally have a full navbox and I don't see the necessity to link to more than the previous and the following election. The number of ballots and candidates can be inferred from the results in the infobox. That only leaves missing parameters for the entrance fee and the spending limit. I don't think that information is sufficiently crucial to be in the infobox, but if others disagree, surely it can be incorporated into ((Infobox election)). Graham11 (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. - stop wasting editors time - cant you see how much time and effort went into making these -- Moxy (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The time and effort that went into making a template - a redundant template - is not a reason to keep it; any more than the time and effort that went into making an article about a non-notable subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before I reply I have a question - your saying Template:Infobox Canadian leadership election and Template:Infobox election are the same and/or close to each other?Moxy (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • See above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, they definitely aren't the same. However, ((Infobox election)) much better "summarize[s] key facts in the article in which it appears" (which is the whole purpose of infoboxes). The only features it lacks are a navbox (which could be easily placed at the bottom of the page as is done with other elections), the entrance fee, and the spending limit. When someone is looking for information about the 2003 Progressive Conservative leadership convention, I imagine that they would be more likely to want to know names of the candidates and the order in which they were dropped from the ballot than they would the entrance fee. And if those two missing parameters are deemed to be absolutely necessary, why not just add them to ((Infobox election))? Also, Andy Mabbett appears to have already covered this, but I'm curious to know why you think the amount of time spent creating the template is relevant here. Graham11 (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Personally I think that Infobox election has become bloated, and doesn't "summarize key facts in the article". Yes the winner should be in the infobox, but not every candidate, and their picture and leader since. But that isn't what this discussion is about. 117Avenue (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see no reason why that argument applies more to Canadian leadership elections than other elections. If the consensus is not to have the names of all the candidates, we should do that consistently for elections. Having a single election infobox would be the first step towards that. Graham11 (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Banhtrung1 (talk) 07:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's much easier for the reader to get a quick understanding of the leadership election. Isn't Wikipedia about giving free information in the most useful and informative way possible? If someone has another proposal, that is better and more helpful to the average reader, I'm all for deleting this one and creating a new one. However, no one has stepped forward (yet), and I am perfectly fine with this template, so don't count on me to make one. Keep this for the reader. It's quick, simple and informative. FRE1991DDIE (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal is to make this template a wrapper for ((Infobox election)).; or to replace instances of it with that template, so there is no need for anyone to write a new template, and you do not say how the nominated template might be "easier" for readers to understand than either of the proposed outcomes. That said, this nomination is overdue for closure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Maybe you can show how a Canadian leadership race wrapper would work. Right now I don't have enough information to see how this would work. Can you point me to an example? Suttungr (talk) 17:48, 12 August 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 merge with ((Infobox Canadian government department)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Northwest Territories government departments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant, most likely to ((Infobox organisation)). Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with ((Infobox Canadian government department)), parameters can be added to expand that template's use to other jurisdictions. 117Avenue (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete this templates. Infobox about departments located in a given region only. Banhtrung1 (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with ((Infobox Canadian government department)), as per above.Moxy (talk) 03:31, 26 July 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) 03:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ottawa ward (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox settlement)). Only 23 transclusions. We don't need a ward infobox for every city. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (the articles) municipal wards aren't notable. 117Avenue (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't about the notability of articles, but the redundancy of the templates used on them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: ward is the lowest division. Articles about wards are not notable. This infobox shouldn't be exist. Banhtrung1 (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - all one has to do is look and see that its not redundant at all - language!! Would also be nice if people had the courtesy to inform the project(s) that created the template(s). This type of deletion over the past few years is one of the reasons projects and editors are so discouraged with the bureaucracy. Implying these articles are not notable is also a discouraging path and the opposite of our vision and mission statement to collect and distribute all the world knowledge. The basic guys - not the extreme - keep it simple. -- Moxy (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean WP:CANADA? It was notified on 13 July, 14 July, and 17 July. Users who keep the templates on their watchlist would also have been notified that way. 117Avenue (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're discussing the redundancy of templates, not the notability of articles. Deleting redundant templates does not hinder - indeed, it helps - our mission. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So just to be clear - someone will replace the template all over and at the same time add all the language parameters to the huge template - is this correct? -- Moxy (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant to a better template.--Nero the second (talk) 22:47, 4 August 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) 04:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((Infobox person)), into which the very few different parameters can be merged. Could be a redirect. Fewer than 350 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This issue has been brought up before; there's a discussion on the talk page. Lampman (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nether of which are, of themselves, reasons to keep. There appears to have been no previous listing at TfD, and the talk page discussion dates from August 2010 - virtually three years ago, and not proposing replacement with ((Infobox person)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious merge candidate with ((infobox noble)) (3,788 transclusions). See Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester for an example of the template in use for a non-regnal peer. Mackensen (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging with ((infobox noble)) seems like it might be a good idea. I'm new to the idea of merging templates, though, and couldn't find any helpful WP guidelines on how it works. What would happen to articles that currently use ((Infobox peer)) if it were merged with ((infobox noble))? Would the articles automatically reformat to the new template, or would editors have to manually fix them? Thanks! Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are different options; the template might be made a redirect to the merged version, or someone might replace it in each article manually, or by using a script tool such as WP:AWB. Perhaps we need a FAQ! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the information, Andy! And yes, I think a FAQ might be very helpful on template mergers. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • NOBLES ARE NOT PEERS. Nobles are those who hold a fief consisting of at least one manor, in respect of which their suzerain is allodial. Peers are those called to parliament in their own personal right (that is, by writ of summons, or letters patent), rather than by electoral means (where it is the election that is by writ). The fact that historically certain nobles were made peers, and certain peers were made nobles does not change the fact that they are very different categories, and there remain many peers who are not nobles, and many nobles who are not peers. Especially in Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.245.251 (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please do not shout. Nobody has argued that nobles are peers. The question at hand is whether or not ((Infobox person)) will suffice for use on both types of articles. You offer no evidence that it would not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• merge is there a style difference between peer purple and noble blue? color code rationale? and neither use honorific-suffix 198.24.31.118 (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mackensen, unless Peer has parameters that would be useful in Noble; "peer" and "noble" are precisely the same concept (or close enough that I can't tell the difference) and thus don't need to exist separately. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Having one big infobox with all the options would be silly, separate infoboxes should be kept. The key discussion point is whether noble and peer boxes are sufficiently different to warrant separate infoboxes. Of that I am not so sure. I also think that "noble" and "peer" are not differentiated enough in their names. What we *really* need is infoboxes with dropdown menus! Torqueing (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with infobox noble, per Mackensen.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Lampman. Buchraeumer (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep FlashSheridan (talk) 15:45, 25 August 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) 03:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Safavid shahanshah (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to one of ((Infobox noble)), ((Infobox royalty)), ((Infobox monarch)), ((Infobox officeholder)), or ((Infobox person)). Single-use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Banhtrung1 (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• potental delete Looking at the other rulers at Template:Sassanid Rulers, the rest use ((Infobox monarch)). -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Squidville1 (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • why? Frietjes (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 29 July 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) 03:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Sassanid shahanshah (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to one of ((Infobox noble)), ((Infobox royalty)), ((Infobox monarch)), ((Infobox officeholder)), or ((Infobox person)). Single-use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand why it should be deleted, the Ottoman Empire has this kind of template too. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this template needed? What does it offer, that one or other of the alternatives I suggest do not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that ((Infobox Ottoman sultan)) is currently being deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• potental delete Looking at the other rulers at Template:Sassanid Rulers, the rest use ((Infobox monarch)). -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Banhtrung1 (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 17:17, 29 July 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) 04:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox former monarchy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 89 transclusions

Template:Infobox monarchy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 51 transclusions

Propose merging Template:Infobox former monarchy with Template:Infobox monarchy.
Merge into ((Infobox monarchy)). No need for two templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There is infobox for former countries versus current countries, so this should be kept.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of other templates is not a reason to keep both of these. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, possibly using the framework of former monarchy, as monarchy has a few styling issues (very small text and poor colour constrast). — This, that and the other (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, as per nom. Agrees with above rationale of styling issues (purple banner?).--Zoupan 00:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The style of the monarchy infobox is deliberate; the colour coding and fonts, etc., match and/or work with Template:Infobox vice-regal and Template:Infobox minister office. In deciding what changes to made to the monarchy one, if any (I see no need for such), similar alterations to the others will have to be considered. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per The Emperor's New Spy's comment above. I remain unpersuaded that if a user box is utilized for former countries that one for former monarchies lacks utility. Some countries not only had numerous legally distinct monarchies (e.g. "Kingdom of England", "Kingdom of Great Britain", "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", "Commonwealth Realms"), but some also had dynastic regimes of competing and contradictory natures (e.g. "Kingdom of France and Navarre" {Bourbons}, "Kingdom of the French" {Orleans} and "French Empire" {Bonaparte}), none of which exist any longer but cannot be conflated. Jacobites maintain that the Royal House of the historical Kingdom of England is extant (they acknowledge allegiance to Franz, Duke of Bavaria, genealogical heir to the House of Stuart), but they claim that is not the same Royal House which today rules the United Kingdom. This infobox better accommodates monarchical paradoxes which history has left. FactStraight (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear from your comment why you believe that a separate infobox is required. In what way does this template "better accommodates monarchical paradoxes"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of parameters
Infobox monarchy	Infobox former monarchy
royal_title	royal_title
realm	realm
native_name
border	border
coatofarms	coatofarms
	coatofarmssize
type
coatofarms_article	coatofarmscaption
his/her
	style
image	image
	caption
incumbent
incumbentsince
other
image2
incumbent2
incumbent2since
other2
heir_apparent
heiress_apparent
heir_presumptive
heiress_presumptive
first_monarch	first_monarch
	last_monarch
date
residence	residence
	appointer
	began
	ended
	pretender
website

• merge, no need for two infoboxes. any stylistic issues can be addressed after the merger. Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: FactStraight gives plenty of good reasons why a merger should not be done. RicJac (talk) 09:42, 20 August 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 Withdrawn by nominator to allow nomination for the suggested merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox royal house (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 289 transclusions

Redundant to ((Infobox noble house)), into which any necessary parameters should be merged. A redirect can be kept if the name distinction is important. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Banhtrung1 (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I saw we get rid of noble house, royal house is the better version of the two and more commonly used. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either way works for me; 'Noble house' has 27 transclusions, and is not, unlike the royal house box, based on ((Infobox)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would prefer to keep ((infobox royal house)) and delete ((infobox noble house)), which has fewer transclusions and a much shorter edit history. Andy Mabbett, you would have to end this discussion (you may be able to do a non-admin closure by withdrawing your nomination) and open another discussion. To assuage the valid concerns of FactStraight, the new discussion should probably be a merger, proposing merging ((infobox noble house)) into ((infobox royal house)) (keeping it) and adding a tag to distinguish between a reigning family and a noble family. Let me know... I would support this. - tucoxn\^talk 01:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. See the new nomination Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but I'm open to the possibility of merging the templates, as long as all parameters are retained and nothing is broken, and as long as the new template gets a name that fits both noble and royal families (as in "noble and royal families"). The two groups have slightly different needs. Vanasan (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although you've said keep, you appear to be in agreement, from everything else you say, with the proposal, apart form the name. In the latter case, common practise is to use one and have the other as a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right, I'm striking out the keep part of my comment. Preferably the template that is retained should in that case be called infobox noble family or something like that, as all princely/royal families are noble, while very few noble families are royal and it would seem pretentious to use a template called infobox royal house in them. Vanasan (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The distinction between a reigning family and a noble family is profound, although apparently little understood, and an encyclopaedia should acknowledge and distinguish rather than blur lines based on factual difference. Norway has a royal family, but has no nobility. The UK has a monarch, who cannot also be a noble (which is why when a British peerage is inherited by the monarch, it is said to instantaneously "merge in the Crown", ceasing to exist. Because nobility and sovereigns often share certain titles (e.g., prince, duke, dowager) it is assumed their status and titulature are the same; Wikipedia should maintain formats which help clarify that confusion. FactStraight (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This encyclopaedia certainly should should acknowledge and distinguish as you say; but it's not clear why you believe it needs two separate templates to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dubrovnik Noble House (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox noble house)). Only ten transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom.--Zoupan 00:29, 19 July 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) 00:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox member of the Knesset (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox officeholder)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep It's not redundant - it's a completely different template. Israeli politics is different to that of many countries in that politicians frequently change parties and ministerial portfolios. The reason a separate template was created was to keep them of a manageable size, and to display the information more clearly. If you look at Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, you can see that it provides a way of clearly representing the five different parties he has represented in the Knesset and the eight ministerial portfolios he has held (and many Israeli politicians have held 8+ portfolios or been members of more parties - Tzipi Livni, Haim-Moshe Shapira and Akiva Nof to name but a few off the top of my head. Infobox officeholder is not able to do this as efficiently, particularly with regards to political parties. We have already had a TfD discussion for ((Infobox Israeli Election)) that resulted in a unanimous keep vote (6–0) because it is accepted that Israeli politics has some features which standard infoboxes cannot cope with. Number 57 12:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—not redundant to the given template. It has many unique facets which would be impossible to reproduce with the current officeholder template, and it would be quite difficult (and unnecessary) to change the officeholder template for MKs. IMO this is a great example of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are these "unique facets", and why are the officeholder template's parameters not adequate to cover them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The template is tailored specifically for MKs, so it is able to display certain characteristics in a concise manner, showing only the details relevant to the MK in the most informative but at the same time concise way possible. For example, it lists all the parliaments in which a certain MK was in in one line, the parties they represented in subsequent lines with all the respective years, and the same goes for ministerial positions. This is really all the relevant information that is needed. Compare for example this infobox with this one—both about foreign ministers. They both have approximately the same amount of useful information (I would argue the former has more, for example it's much easier to see when Lieberman was an MK), only Lieberman's infobox is tiny compared to Hague's, despite the fact that Lieberman held more ministerial positions. On the other hand, you can't apply the same formatting to other officeholders because in certain countries (e.g. presidential systems) it might work differently, and in some countries parliaments are designated differently from others. It's funny that this should come up now, because there was a recent op-ed in the Signpost about this very issue. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Andy, if you can show how the officeholder template can incorporate the special issues of the Knesset one, then this infobox would be redundant. Until then, keep. --Shuki (talk) 22:17, 13 July 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 merge all into Template:Infobox royalty.

I have reviewed the discussion, and I find that there is a consensus in favor of merging these templates.

This merger was proposed by Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) and supported by Constantine, M.O.X, Nyttend, Thatpopularguy123, Aua, Opera hat, Justlettersandnumbers, Enok, Zoupan, Renata, Rursus, OwenBlacker, Moxy, CapitalR, Schaea, Scott Martin, Newjerseyliz, Dr. Blofeld, Cold Season, and Dralwik; a total of 21 editors.

Timmyshin's comment also appears to be supportive of the proposed merge. Pseudonymous Rex supported at least a partial merge, and expressed no opposition to the proposed full merge. Srnec proposed to "Delete 'em all", which I did not count as a vote on the merge proposition at all, but is certainly not an endorsement of the status quo.

This proposal was opposed by NewFranco, MichiganCharms (who only supported merging the Chinese Emperors into the monarch infobox), The Emperor's New Spy (provisionally opposed), xensyria, Blurpeace, Nford24, Animefreak234, BabbaQ, Lecen, Knowledgekid87, KAVEBEAR, Imladros, Tim Alderson, Tucoxn, a total of 14 registered editors, and five anonymous IPs, 142.134.147.211, 174.91.69.179, 174.95.191.139, 174.95.188.8, 90.218.212.117. While IP's are allowed to present their opinions, their votes are typically given less weight because they are less likely to be familiar with the policies and procedures of this project. In this case, the IP voters tended to offer at best abbreviated objections, or objections that did not address the merge as proposed.

I leave it to the proposing and supporting editors to actually carry out the merger and cleanup of these templates. bd2412 T 17:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox monarch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 2618 transclusions

Template:Infobox Chinese emperor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 75 transclusions

Template:Chinese Emperor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 105 transclusions

Template:Infobox royalty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 7591 transclusions

Propose merging the above.

Redundant to each other. "Infobox royal person" would be a better name; with redirects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, what? A 'Monarch' is necessarily 'Royalty', but not all 'Royalty' (i.e. members of a royal family) are 'Monarchs'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Andy Mabbett has now modified his proposal. I can however see no advantage in having the merged template named 'royal person' rather than 'royalty' - the latter is normal usage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merging Infobox monarch into Infobox royalty. I've never seen the purpose of having these two templates distinct from each other, and people often use the Infobox royalty for kings either way (e.g. Henry VIII of England) with no apparent difference. --Constantine ✍ 20:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: while we are at it can we also merge with these 2 altogether as well: Template:Infobox Chinese emperor and Template:Chinese Emperor? I don't have the time to tally counts, but I think "Infobox royalty" has been the most popular choice for Chinese emperors over the centuries and there is no need for these templates. Timmyshin (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged and added, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no opinion one way or another, but just need to note that names for Chinese Emperor are much more complicated than Western ones (temple names, posthumous name, era names, personal names, etc.) and the convention as to how they are named changes through history, which is why they have a separate infobox because they are not options available in other monarch infoboxes. Hzh (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Infobox royalty" already has the parameters for "temple name", "posthumous name" and "era dates". Timmyshin (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, Vietnamese and Korean monarchs also have temple/posthumous names and era names and I am not aware of distinct Korean/Vietnamese emperor infoboxes. Timmyshin (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as long as the relevant fields specific to Chinese monarchs are included in the amalgamated infobox. Otherwise, I see no reason for these to be separate templates. James ^{(T • C)} • 12:00pm • 02:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all. It would be absurd to keep the Chinese infoboxes separate. As far as Infobox monarch, I don't see any strong reasons for keeping them separate, since monarchs by definition are royalty; we just need to be careful migrating them, since there are so many transclusions. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly support all Infobox royalty is also used on monarchs. Infobox monarchs are rarely used on modern monarchs' articles. But how about Japanese emperors and Monegasque princes? They are not royal but rather they are imperial and princely respectively. Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest we deal with the above proposal, and then nominate other such templates to be merged in to the new template, individually or in small batches, so as not to over-complicate the task. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What about Template:Infobox royalty?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant what about Template:Infobox nobility?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see my above comment about incremental merges. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -but please do it quickly. The discussion notice is butchering the layout of many pages, especially stubs. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 06:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it really is. Support - if Infobox:royalty has all the parameters of Infobox:monarch the latter is redundant. Opera hat (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it will cause problems regrading the types of monarchs. Why would you wanna merge those templates? 174.91.69.179 (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What problems? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose all It will cause confusion NewFranco (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all per NewFranco Squidville1 (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a vote; please give your reasons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merging royalty and monarch, because it'd take forever. Support merging the Chinese Emperors into monarch, however. ---MichiganCharms (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The time taken to carry out such a merge is not a reason to keep duplicate templates. It is also not "forever". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, to reduce the present confusion. The example at ((Infobox royalty)) is in fact a monarch. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly support all. I don't see any practical reasons for keeping them separate. --Enok (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as it is logically better for us to have one and the same template for all royalty.--Zoupan 04:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I was always confused which one to apply. Would also merge in the Template:Infobox nobility. Renata (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, now go for it! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose unless.... I want to note that all the article infobox monarchs would be screwed up because of this merge since some of them are "royal house" or "dynasty" instead of "house" so it won't show up and also infobox royalty uses spouse but infobox monarchs use wives, consorts, spouse 1, spouse 2. For Philip V of Macedon it would look likes this after the change. Also there are Places for: investiture, birth_name, native_lang1, native_lang1_name1, native_lang2, native_lang2_name1,othertitles, heir, consortreign, consortto, royal house, dynasty, royal anthem, royal motto. All which would be hidden once the merge occurs. Unless someone is willing to go through every single article with infobox monarchs and manually edit and transfer over to infobox royalty or else we can add all those spots on infobox royalty until the point comes that someone is willing to do so.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose monarch/royalty. I noticed this a week ago, and assumed it would have been blown out of the water. As mentioned above, the fields for reigning monarchs and other members of royal families etc. are different, and I see absolutely no benefit to having them merged. There are a lot of duplicate/redundant templates out there, but neither of these is one of them. The two Chinese Emperor templates are another issue, and should be joined together. Fields unique to Chinese Emperors like Dynasty/Era name, Clan and posthumous name only add to the complexity rather than simplify (as I suppose this proposal intends), and if they are currently part of infobox monarch, they should be unmerged if this part of the proposal isn't follow through on, as they only exist because someone duplicated the functionality of an existing legitimately distinct subject's template (surely otherwise we could just add every field to a single generic infobox). --xensyria^T 18:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Many of the above "supports" talk about confusion at the current situation; perhaps a better solution would be to improve the documentation and make clear which template is to be used on which group of articles (including on project/MOS pages). If this doesn't go ahead I'd be happy to try and help with this. --xensyria^T 18:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, in line with xensyria, documentation ought to be improved, not a rash merger of multiple templates covering distinct subject areas. Conceptually, Western monarchs and Eastern emperors are entirely different constructs and semantic fields. The two terms refer to persons in two distinct power structures located thousands of miles away from one another. There's no good reason to merge "infobox Chinese emperor" into "infobox royalty," rather than having it the other way around (merging "infobox royalty" into "infobox emperor" and using the latter). I cannot support a merger for what ideally ought to be made more particular, not more general. Blurpeace 02:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, "Infobox royalty" already has the fields unique to Chinese emperors and is used in the majority of pages on Chinese emperors (in fact, I believe for all emperors in the most important Chinese dynasties Han, Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing: try clicking on some of the pages to see if I'm right: Category:Han Dynasty emperors, Category:Tang Dynasty emperors, Category:Song Dynasty emperors, Category:Yuan Dynasty emperors, Category:Ming Dynasty emperors, Category:Qing Dynasty emperors). The so-called "Chinese clan name", which has no link in that infobox, is AFAIK only relevant to the first 3 (2 of which now use "Infobox royalty") of the roughly 700-1000 Chinese emperors. All the other "East Asian" fields like "era name", "posthumous name" and "temple name" have long been included in "Infobox royalty" already. Timmyshin (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, you are addressing issues of fields already present, while I am addressing issues of subject matter. Monarch (thus, royalty) as a term has a specific Western meaning distinct from what signifies an Eastern emperor. They embody entirely different power structures and the terms' meaning would be lost in a merger (and with it, the potential for specification). You have not demonstrated the substantial practical benefit of merging the two; the only substantial effect I can see would be the loss of the meaning of the term "emperor" in the mix of various Western terms which conclude that all power structures are the same. I suspect this is the same old Wikipedian ethos that focuses too greatly on standardization across the board versus allowing things to be a little chaotic so as to preserve their article subjects' worth. Blurpeace 01:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no reason why a general purpose template could not have a general purpose name. — Scott • talk 12:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please illustrate how Western monarchs are "entirely different" from Eastern emperors, and how/where a distinct template can illustrate this difference? Because I have no idea what you are talking about. Respectfully, Timmyshin (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • An infobox should surely present the reader with key information in a way that's logical to the subject; just take a look at the first few fields of the current Infobox monarch to see the emphasis it places on our concept of monarchs: Coronation, Investiture, Full name, Birth name. Even when some of these apply to other countries, the order (which is designed and works well for Western monarchs), especially when lots of fields that don't apply are omitted, can become illogical, and certainly doesn't reflect the importance of these points to other "kings"/"emperors" etc. (and though I don't really know enough about other cultures to propose a more appropriate infobox, I'm sure there are a lot of editors who could, but think that for some reason they just have to use the generic template.) As for fundamental differences between our power structures and others, just start by taking a look at the Japanese Emperors in the Edo period (and their radically different role from the European monarchs of the time), or the Egyptian Pharaohs (in this case the difference is marked enough that we tend to leave their word untranslated), or compare a modern constitutional monarch (which infobox monarch is designed for) with, say, Darius the Great (to whom we also apply the word "king") – the similarities between the two are superficial compared to the differences. It boils down to a question of systemic bias. --xensyria^T 20:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - if anyone here would look you would see why they are different ...just look -.Moxy (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 'em all. Srnec (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well until they are all deleted I assume you won't object to its inclusion in Henry of Castile the Senator with all appropriate fields filled.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It would be too confusing and it should be particular rather than general. 142.134.147.211 (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per everyone. Why would you do that!!!!! I say let's kept them separate! 174.95.191.139 (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please give your reason. Wikipedia is not a democracy (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). Opposing without reason won't help. Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose They are different positios and therefore warrant different onfo box's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nford24 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 23 July 2013
• Support Functionally the same. Merge. --CapitalR (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge at least infobox monarch into infobox royalty and Chinese Emperor into infobox Chinese emperor. It would be easier, when a member of a royal family becomes a monarch, to change a few parameters rather than the whole infobox. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Stongly Oppose - It will be too confusing, the two should be kept separate, why would anyone want to merge them? There's no need and I think that being a monarch and being just a royal person are two different things. What about princesses/princes, dukes/duchesses etc. The two infobox help to distinguish between them. - Animefreak234 11:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the creation of a unified Infobox royal person. These templates all have the same function.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Stongly Oppose - I see no whatever reason to merge these infoboxes. Simple as that.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no reason to support or oppose, you should be in favour of the merger, as maintaining one template is easier than maintaining three, all other things being equal.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you even strongly oppose if you have no reason? Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. --Lecen (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please give your reason. Wikipedia is not a democracy (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). Opposing without reason won't help. Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think we should keep the templates separate merging them all into one will create one large confusing template, why make things more hard for the people who edit? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It just standardizing everything to a European definition of royalty.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is this going to happen any time soon so that the merge request template stops butchering articles? Morhange (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Why can't the comment be at the bottom of the infobox? -- Zanimum (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as long as the template-specific fields in the Chinese Emeror templates are also merged; there are some unique fields (e.g. posthumous name, to name but one) in those that don't appear in the Royalty ones. --Schaea (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Posthumous name" has been in "Infobox royalty" for a long time. Timmyshin (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This sounds a hell of a lot like merging for the sake of merging. -- Imladros (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose I really have to agree with Imladros on this. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. — Tim Alderson ^{(talk|contribs|boxes)} 21:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, obviously a merge would involve keeping specific fields. There really is no reason why multiple templates are needed for a job that could be done by one. I am unmoved by the arguments of "confusing", and saying that the status quo is "not broken" is incorrect; redundancy is a form of technical debt imposing an additional maintenance burden. I hope whoever closes this discussion also sets aside the comments that are presented as votes without any attached reasoning. — Scott • talk 12:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The status quo is not right (though I can't see where you're quoting "not broken" from). The wrong templates are being used in articles (compounded by a lack of clear documentation of which ones are to be used where), redundant fields are added to what should be streamlined templates (much easier to maintain a small group of simple templates than one bloated one) and semantic differences are being completely ignored (adding to the sense that all historical rulers can be reduced to the mould of western monarchs; I suppose the final template supported would be "purple"?). The technical burden of the merge itself far outweighs many years of "maintenance burden"; in any case it's the readers and editors who work on the articles who should be put first here, and you're ignoring their concerns that royals and monarchs (which many editors, including the op seemed not to see the distinction between) require a different set of facts to be presented (not to mention those of other countries). If that weren't the case, we should merge all sports star infoboxes into one: never mind the redundancy of fields that will never be used, or a bloated template, eh? --xensyria^T 13:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment People, please do note that Wikipedia is not a democracy (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). Opposing without reason won't help. Please also note that there are so many Wikipedia editors. It will not take forever to change everything, it make take months or years, but that is not a reason to oppose. Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither should supporting without a reason (which votes you seem to have forgotten to comment on), nor those that support in order to remove the request for comment tag on all of these articles, nor meta appeals to the closer such as the last two comments. The arguments put forward by those who oppose have been consistently ignored, not addressed. Also this should really have been three separate requests: one to merge the two Chinese emperor infoboxes (which I doubt few would oppose), another to merge this into the monarch infobox (much more controversial), and a third to merge the royalty and monarch templates (which there seems to be no consensus for) once the outcome of all three was decided then whatever merging was decided could be done and applied to the articles. The way it's been done has muddied the waters. --xensyria^T 13:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is their opinion, they will be confused if they merge. This is highly controversial for users who opposed as the infoboxes merged together like for examples if the Chinese emperors infoboxes gets merge anybody won't learn Chinese history, we don't care about the WP:NOTDEMOCRACY policy. This is serious business. 174.95.191.139 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "for examples if the Chinese emperors infoboxes gets merge anybody won't learn Chinese history" care to explain? Timmyshin (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If they merge together they won't come back 174.95.188.8 (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does that mean? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Merger of Royalty and Monarch. It drives me crazy that "Issue" is aligned to the left instead of indented. Newjerseyliz (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I oppose to mergin Template:Infobox royalty to Template:Infobox monarch instead could we merge Template:Infobox monarch to Template:Infobox royalty please reason being because royal is a better name then monarch because royal as in royal family every king and queen in the world has to have a royal family 90.218.212.117 (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not actually an "oppose"; just a naming quibble. Both names will be retained, one as a redirect to the other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per reasoning similar to that of The Emperor's New Spy. Merging the templates would remove display of too much useful information. See these two diffs of Philip V of Macedon: using proposed merger and with the current setup. - tucoxn\^talk 22:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging the template should not remove the display of any information. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is the case, would you please justify how the information would be retained? When responding, please refer to the comments by The Emperor's New Spy from 21 July 2013, above. - tucoxn\^talk 03:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Another thing...I noticed that Template:Infobox noble is fast becoming a bigger problem than infobox monarch with 3838 transclusion and growing. I noticed a lot of new users are using it for even individuals who are by definition royalty and not of the nobility Charles the Simple for example. I still support a manual change not a bot change with each field changed to the correct field until the infobox monarch and nobles become no more.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has nothing to do with the proposal at hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Merge all into Infobox royalty and ensure that the Chinese parameters are in place.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as long as the Chinese parameters are conserved and clearly indicated as culture-specific when applicable. --Cold Season (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support using Dr. Blofeld's suggestion, although care should be taken that no information should be lost, as Emperor's New Spy points out with Philip V of Macedon. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:09, 15 August 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) 00:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox European political youth organisation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox organisation)). Only nine transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Laketown (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Banhtrung1 (talk) 00:19, 23 July 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) 00:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parliament of Ireland former constituency infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 150 transclusions

Redundant to ((Infobox constituency)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:58, 22 July 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) 00:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Bangladesh constituency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox constituency)). Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This could become something like Template:Infobox_UK_constituency - with a map etc. The UK one is definitely useful, and how can we get the constituency templates from other countries up to scratch if they are deleted when in their infant stages? And there are 300 constituencies in Bangladesh, so there is no shortage of scope for the template's use. It's just that constituency pages have only been made for one or two constituencies in Bangladesh. Applesandapples (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't keep templates on the basis that they might be developed for use on articles which may or may not be written in the future; especially when there is already a more generic template which is already suitable for the purpose. And we don't need separate templates for each country. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are there separate templates for UK constituencies, then? And Ghana constituencies too, for example?Applesandapples (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because other stuff exists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only one transclusion. Banhtrung1 (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Andy (Pigsonthewing) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:57, 22 July 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 WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 17. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:02, 17 August 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. Consensus has been reached. Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is youth competition. Its navboxes are unnecessary. We should delete them, like here. Banhtrung1 (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Argentina squad 2013 South American Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Argentina squad 1997 South American Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Argentina squad 1999 South American Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Argentina squad 2009 South American Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bolivia Squad 2009 South American Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Uruguay squad 2003 South American Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Paraguay Squad 1999 South American Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Paraguay Squad 2007 South American Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Paraguay Squad 2011 South American Youth Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Delete all per the previous talks below. Sawol (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_4#Template:Brazil_squad_2011_South_American_Youth_Championship_and_more (the latest)
  • Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 20#Template:Paraguay Squad 2009 South American Youth Championship
• Delete all - per recent similar TfDs and current consensus.--Oleola (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, no need for youth squad templates. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Youth players do not automatically meet our notability criteria, so having navboxes only serves to make inexperienced editors create articles that will likely be deleted. Number 57 16:39, 19 July 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) 00:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

This is regional tournament. So navboxes should be deleted, like here and here.

Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Laos squad 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Laos squad 2012 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Thailand Squad 1996 Tiger Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Thailand squad 2000 Tiger Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Thailand squad 2002 Tiger Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Thailand squad 2008 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Thailand squad 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Thailand squad 2012 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cambodia squad 2008 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Philippines squad 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Philippines squad 2012 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Malaysia squad 2008 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Malaysia squad 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Malaysia squad 2012 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Indonesia squad 2008 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Indonesia squad 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Indonesia squad 2012 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Myanmar squad 2008 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Myanmar squad 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Myanmar squad 2012 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Singapore squad 2008 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Singapore squad 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Singapore squad 2012 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Vietnam squad 2008 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Vietnam squad 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Vietnam squad 2012 AFF Suzuki Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Delete all per the nominator. Sawol (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - per nom.--Oleola (talk) 13:09, 16 July 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.