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) 22:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikinews category (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Also included: Template:Wikinews portal Template:Wikinews portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

First off, the links provided by these templates are often highly off-topic compared to the Wikipedia article; I've given my samplings at the bottom. Summary: not one of the examples checked showed a valid usage.

Now, that said, let's get to the more subtle arguments. Wikipedia generally gives a bit more leeway for links to its sister sites than links to anything else. Nonetheless, I must question whether these templates are appropriate. Under the external links policy, these fail under a few points ("Links normally to be avoided"):

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
2. "Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds."
3. "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." (Wikinews is noted for having very few editors. See File:Edits_by_non-bot_users_on_Wikinews_approx_June_7_to_July_7.png.)
4. "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. [etc]" - Since Wikinews is a news site, a lot of the content is going to be rather far off-topic.

These templates are used to link to categories of articles at Wikinews (Portals, unlike here, are pretty much just pages auto-populated from a category), which tend to be either quite broad (all news about a country) or not to have had new content in years. As such, I don't think these templates provide substantially useful external links in the vast majority of cases, and, as such, I think we should delete them.

Examples of usage: I've reviewed the first four usages of each template to show up on "What Links Here".

Template:Wikinews category

1. Al-Qaeda. Of the latest news stories linked, most are only tangentally related to Al-Qaeda, including speculation an attack might be linked to Al-Qaeda based on the poorly-reputed Daily Mail, discussion of a visit by David Cameron to Libya, with a throw-away line that too much interfeence in Islamic countries might lead to a backlash by Al-Qaeda, and similar off-topic articles.
2. Arsenal F.C. Once again, very badly categorised. n:Category:Arsenal_F.C. only lists one article primarily about Arsenal in its recent links section, the others are about British Football in general, with incidental inclusion of Arsenal.
3. Capital punishment: This one's links are somewhat more on topic, though they still include several examples primarily on another subject. Most, however, are far too specific to be of particular use to people who want more information on the general topic of Capital punishment.
4. Don't ask, don't tell - You would think this one would be easy. But of the eight articles in the category, only three are primarily about Don't ask, don't tell.

Template:Wikinews portal

Ignoring non-article-space links, the first four uses are:

1. 2006 Winter Olympics: this links to n:Portal:Olympics, which, is, again, not very on topic, as it's a much, much broader subject.
2. Cleveland, England: Links to n:Portal:Cleveland,_England, which hasn't updated since 2009. Some articles seem rather a tangental link to the geographical area.
3. 2006 Commonwealth Games As with the Olympics one, this links to n:Portal:Commonwealth Games, which cover all Commonwealth games, and, as they prioritise recent stories, buries the useful ones.
4. David Dixon Award Also links to n:Portal:Commonwealth Games!!!! A search on Wikinews shows only a single article even mentions the David Dixon Award.

This, is, of course, not a full sample. But it is a more-or-less random sample, and not one of the usages was any good. These templates

Note: I have chosen only to nominate Template:Wikinews category and Template:Wikinews portal, as they tend to give off-topic results. The templates which link to more specific articles are not included in this TfD, as they are much more likely to be on-topic. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the categories organize new articles from a particular geographic region or topic area together, as do the portals, so they are related enough, as being news for the topic area. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and I'm inclined to say delete the specific template(s) as well. The recent RFC has established that Wikinews is not of sufficent quality to link to from the main page, and this should apply to the rest of the encyclopedia. An optimist on the run!   07:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Category: (a) to avoid favoritism/prejudice among our sister projects, and (b) I think this is a case where the usage of the template needs to be kept in check, rather than the template itself. If all the usages are checked and very few are found to be appropriate/relevant/useful, then I think these have a better case for deletion. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Portal per Adam Cuerden's review of all usages. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Wikinews is a legitimate sister project. The template allows for links to the sister project. If you feel articles on Wikinews are miscategorized, feel free to notify Wikinews and we'll be happy to look into them again (obviously, because of the archiving policy, admins need to go through and remove stuff from categories). If an article has an inappropriate link using one of these templates... remove it from the article or edit it to point to the right place. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It was (no doubt inadvertently) helpful of Adam Cuerden to remind me to get started on the long-standing plan to rewire the standard category-page template so the chronological article list can scroll back in time. --Pi zero (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikinews is a legitimate sister project. Can handle categorisation, just like Commons does. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except, as shown by all usage examples, it doesn't in a manner useful for linking from Wikipedia, whereas Commons does. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It works fine if you use it on a portal, or in a "history of" article/category/section, since what Wikinews documents is history. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A template is merely a tool. If you want to prevent or prohibit such links, TfD isn't the place to do it - raise an RfC. Better still, as others say above, fix the categories on WikiNews. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)q[reply]
• Comments This seems to be a fairly radical solution to the issue that has been identified so whilst it's good to have the discussion, I'm not yet convinced whether this is the right solution and will read what others say with interest. My initial comments:

1. 'Wikinews portal' doesn't seem to be used by any article pages so do these arguments strictly apply? I can't see the objection to using the template, say, on a Wikipedia Portal page.
   • This template was used in a few articles up until yesterday, when they were removed [1] [2]. This is normally bad practice while a TFD is in progress, but in this case I think it is quite justified. I reviewed all the removals and I agree that the template did not belong in each article. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. It appears the relevant guideline is at WP:SISTER (I'm not entirely sure what is the relationship between WP:EL and WP:SISTER but they seem broadly consistent). Personally I think the compromise articulated there is the right one: interlingua links are added "whenever possible" whereas sister project links are added only where they "are likely to be useful to our readers".
3. It could be argued that the 'wikinews category' template are never likely to be useful as they will always contain marginally relevant stories and Wikipedia articles would be better directly linking to the individual stories as and when relevant. I think there is some merit to this argument but given that the template is used in approximately 150 articles, it feels that we should need a more thorough review than looking at a handful of pages before we reach a decision.
4. Finally, there are likely to be many people that are interested in this discussion and I suggest that we shouldn't implement any decision until there is a significant body of people in favour of it. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say that Wikinews categories would be very relevant, since Wikinews can have categories on a specific hurricane with multiple articles, and we'd have a set of articles on a specific hurricane as well. (etc, considering these sorts of topics) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Our portals should link to their portals and vice versa, so the portal template should be usable and useful as well. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andy. If people are linking to irrelevant things, remove those links. Legoktm (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up wn categorization per Andy. A number of the categories are very useful. Not only are links to a category such as wikinews:Category:Real_Madrid useful in the Real Madrid article, this is the sort of category-over-many-years that it is not possible for me to find on almost any other news site. So this is one of the aspects of Wikinews that I find most valuable. – SJ + 20:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Surfer43 (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SISTER. Cheers, --Gryllida 08:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per pigsonthewing. There is a distinct conflict of interest, with the nominator having just penned an opinion piece for The Signpost dismissing the work carried out on Wikinews. This is a campaign against the project, now being carried out via wikilawyering and creative policy interpretation. --Brian McNeil /^talk 23:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is a valid link to a sister project. The timing is such that the nomination occurred after the nominator wrote a misinformed piece about English Wikinews which garnered very little support for his personal opinion and had two previous attempts to shut the project down. Quality and lack of timeliness are not valid reasons for removing things (even if the point were true, and the point is not). If these were, many pages on English Wikipedia would be removed. If the contributor is concerned about quality, they should become a content producer on English Wikipedia and English Wikinews. --LauraHale (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Relevant, related, and they serve an educational purpose. They help provide further informative material for readers and editors alike. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 13:20, 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) 22:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template had four transclusions: one from 2008, three from 2010. That is not a wide use at all. This template isn't even linked from WP:TC. It was redirected to ((plot)) in 2007, and undone in 2010, but the undoing doesn't seem to have worked in this template's favor. The use of the word "précis" is also overly technical and can confuse readers. I see no reason that this template should exist, as its problem is clearly not widespread enough to warrant its own tag. ((Plot)) seems to do the job just fine — or if the book can't be said to have a plot, then another template such as ((Very long)) may be used instead. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into ((plot)) so that a switch will activate the alternate text. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:02, 6 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) 19:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete With templates, usefuleness is something we should evaluate when deciding whether or no to delete. I find that nomination makesa very compalling case that the community does not find this useful and that other templates that are already more widely use are sufficient. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Banhtrung1 (talk) 12:40, 24 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. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Newman Prize for Chinese Literature (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I do not think we need template for every single award (in this case of questionable notability). And also I do not think the template gives any justice to its winners kipping in mind that Mo Yan is a Nobel laureate. The Legend of Zorro 19:21, 6 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) 19:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Award is not notable enough to warrant a special template. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:52, 17 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) 22:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philosophy awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Better suited as a category than a template, if no definite inclusion criteria is there The Legend of Zorro 19:16, 6 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) 19:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is true the template seems to mirror Category:Philosophy awards, but voting keep because the number of entries is small, it's a specialized well defined criteria, and the template serves as a relevant navigation aid without cluttering since it will usually be the only (or most relevant) nav aid in the articles it appears. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Green Cardamom. Banhtrung1 (talk) 12:42, 24 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. --BDD (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:International literary awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I am failing to see what is the inclusion criteria of these template as the pointing awards are vastly different in scope. It seems original research and undefined to me. The Legend of Zorro 19:01, 6 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) 19:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The template is using some of the awards listed in Category:International literary awards. I created that category a while back before learning we don't categorize based on geographic eligibility, only geographic home. (I still need to work on redoing some of those geographic eligibility cats, likely deleting them.) For this template, recommend deleting it since it's too open ended what to include and unclear what the criteria is, per nom. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:49, 17 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 careful replacement. The main arguments for not replacing the template seem to be mainly based on "no collaboration", "the current template is fine", and "parameter x" is missing. I found mention of a specific parameter that is missing from ((Infobox station)), since a distance parameter was recently added. This appears to be an opportune time to change the template since CountryLink no longer exists. If there are colours that need to be changed, then change them. If there are parameters that are still missing from ((Infobox station)), let me know and I will try to add them. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NSW TrainLink Station alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Sydney Trains station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox station)). Sw2nd (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Infobox station needs more work done (customising) to it before it makes NSW TrainLink Station alt and Infobox Sydney Trains station redundant. Also Sw2nd has fail to discuss this with anyone (ie: no collaboration). Bidgee (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you be specific. I have shown an example below. Sw2nd (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Differences are obvious, structure should be station type, no distance from Central and the Services section will look like shit if you have more than two. Bidgee (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • (1) Station (({structure))} and (({stationtype))}, as used here, mean the same. (2) A parameter for (({distance))} from Central can be added if required. I think it is trivial. (3) This is a matter of preference. If you find that (({services))} overloads the infobox, you can use (({line))} instead and detach the succession templates. I used this as an example because it is redundnant to use both, but I have added line info here for demonstation purposes. Sw2nd (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • They are not the same meaning (structure is in fact a broad term in Australia), its either a ground or underground station and not "structure". There is no reason why additions can't be made to support the current wording (including station code). Make the changes needed and I'll likely support it but ATM it's a no. Also "Lines", should be "Line(s) and should only include the lines (not the operator's region). I've been playing around with User:Bidgee/test/Yass Junction railway station. Also I'm using "The Hop" branding colours (top is NSW TrainLink and the bottom is Sydney Trains) User:Bidgee/test/Infobox. Bidgee (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Broad terms are what is needed. There is (({code))}. You choose what to enter under (({line))}, and how petty in choosing to find fault in a label that says "Lines" rather than "Line(s)" - that is where most of your arguments fall apart. Branding is just style not content. Sw2nd (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • WOW! You've turned this TfD into a new low by making this personal. I was happy to work with you and discuss making changes to suit what the current NSW infoboxs currently do, the fact is that Infobox station has been customised for other countries, why not Australia?. Explain why you picked the current colour for the Infobox station? Why not use the current "The Hop" colour scheme (which is far more relevant to the blue and yellow)? If you're not going to address the concerns from the projects contributors and play the "we know what better for you" approach, that isn't constructive nor can it bee seen as collaboration. Bidgee (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry. Let me work with you and I will try to give you direction rather than lecture at you. Let's forget about style and naming for the moment. The one missing parameter that you seem to need is (({distance))}. If that is all that is holding up progress, perhaps an admin will take pity on us and make the changes. Otherwise you will have to apply for it on the infobox talk page. You have correctly proposed to use (({line))} as meaning the section of trackage and (({services))} for the train services that operate over those lines. Many people wrongly interpret them as being the same thing and overload the infobox with duplication. Now to style. The blue and orange are from the Transport for NSW webpages. (The orange is actually sampled from the secondary colour in the NSW TrainLink and Sydney Trains logos). Looking at Fixing the Trains: New approach to customer service, blue and orange seems to have been a reasonable choice. You have already found out that the style template is something that can be easily tweaked and, yes, it should be changed to match the current branding. We should work on some of those style things together in another place and focus here on ensuring that all the necessary data in the infobox will be carried over. I think the retention of any important info should be a priority and that is why I have been impatient with digression. Sw2nd (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • So, you "will give direction". You get to decide the colour scheme. You get to decide what the focus here is. You "have been impatient". What a breathtaking example of ownership. I have no particular interest in NSW railways, I just happened to have the talk page of one of the participants here on my watch-list, but I find the attitude here towards the people that actually use the template in question here to be offensive. This is not your private bailiwick, to do with as your whim takes you. This proposal should be abandoned and maybe in a year or so, if you want to have another try, first seek engagement with those editors that are involved in the pages on which the template is used. Then and only then will you have any moral authority to talk about this subject. You are totally out of order here and now. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm not totally against Infobox station, it's just the fact that its current inputs don't line-up and I'm hoping that some local changes can be made so it doesn't affect other articles that use Infobox station but at the same time give the wording needed for the Australian (and NSW) railway station articles. The current NSW templates would need to be remade from the ground up, as the current format is hard to being into line with the MOS (WP:ACCESS). This doesn't change my oppose to support, as the changes needed would be needed before I can support it. Bidgee (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Example of using Infobox station for NSW and Sydney
((Infobox station))	((NSW TrainLink Station alt))
Queanbeyan General information Location Henderson Street, Queanbeyan New South Wales, Australia Coordinates 35°20′34″S 149°13′39″E / 35.3429°S 149.2276°E / -35.3429; 149.2276 Elevation ? Line(s) NSW TrainLink Southern Platforms 1 side platform Tracks 2 Connections Bus Construction Structure type Ground Accessible Yes Other information Station code NSW Station: QBN Services ((s-rail|title=CountryLink)) ((s-line|system=CountryLink|line=Southern|branch=Canberra Xplorer|previous=Canberra|next=Bungendore))	Queanbeyan CountryLink Southern Station code QBN Town Queanbeyan Street(s) Henderson Street Distance from Central Station 321.460 km Station Altitude (above sea level) ? m Types of stopping trains CountryLink Number of platforms 1 Number of tracks 2 Platform arrangement 1 Side Type of station Ground Transfers available Bus Disabled access Yes

• delete after replacement. the sample conversion does demonstrate the redundancy. Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh no, we better replace and delete ((Infobox London station)) while we are at it! (sarcasm if you didn't get it). Address the issues, which are not minor (as the template is currently doesn't suit). Than again, Wikipedia is becoming Northern Hemisphere centric. Bidgee (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a stupid comment! ((Infobox Austria station)), ((Infobox Ireland station)), ((Infobox Norwegian station)), ((Infobox Slovakia station)), ((Infobox Slovenia station)), ((Infobox Switzerland station)) and other ones are mentioned in TFD. Martin Morin (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after it is replaced because the template is redundant to Template:Infobox station. Martin Morin (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sigh. The great standardisers strike again ... and the modus operandi hasn't changed. Having previously shown zero interest in the articles affected, they wander across a template, determine amongst themselves that it absolutely must be redundunt to their own little template pride'n'joy and nominate it for deletion - ensuring in the process that they go out of their way to actually avoid talking to the editors who have maintained the affected articles for years and certainly making sure their views are dismissed as mere parochialism. Sigh ... -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the past year you have edited four or five Victoria railway stations, all of which use the standard Infobox station placed there by me. I have an extensive history of working, in cooperation with local editors, on hundreds of railway station articles in many parts of Australia. The NSW stations that had the existing infobox replaced were in many cases isolated, with other stations along those section of the line being mere stubs without an infobox or are redirects to the community where the station is located. There actually appears to be a general indifference, rather than a carefully maintained series of articles. The recent restructuring of railways in NSW will require extensive updating of every related article and I am sure that your assistance will be most welcome. Sw2nd (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about myself. I don't as a rule edit articles on railway stations. My point was about the general attitude taken by the "standardisers" where any and all objections by local editors are dismissed as getting in the way of the grand project. I have seen the same attitude at TfD too often to be surprised. Note that I haven't actually opposed the deletion (I am indifferent) - my objection is to the marginalisation of the local editors. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Infobox requires further work before becoming a true replacement for the existing templates (the existing templates arent perfect either, but it shouldnt be deleted at this stage) -- Nbound (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What work? The recent restructuring of railways in NSW will require extensive updating of every related article and I am sure that your assistance will be most welcome. It's never too late to start. Sw2nd (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to User:Bidgee's suggestions above. -- Nbound (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose after comparing the two template I prefer the layout of the current template. What I dont see is any discussion with the users of the template to ensure that the standard template is compatible at this stage a deletion discussion is both premature and presumptive. Gnangarra 02:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is just style. The recent restructuring of railways in NSW will require extensive updating of every related article and I am sure that your assistance will be most welcome. It's never too late to start. Sw2nd (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • given that we are suppose to be discussing the template your being very condescending in your approach. Given the number of hours WP:Freo is consuming at the moment feel free to help there. Like every editor I'm free to express an opinion, In my opinion the templaye is neither redundant, nor have anyone chose to discuss the templates needs beforehand and style is as an important characteristic as any individual fact, making it readable is more so than any other consideration. As someone who is using these type of pages thru mobile technology these lumbering behemoths of one size fits all infoboxes are absolutely ridiculous. They are also create barriers to new editors participating as they have. 1)the complexity means that new editors never understand how to fix information 2) dont understand the terms being used(not every where uses the same term even where english is the primary language) so even if they do work out the box they then need to work out what is meant by them. Gnangarra 11:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This is templates for discussion, so please discuss rather than taking closed minded positions. What needs to be done to accomodate a conversion? Sw2nd (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very difficult to discuss as I see no actual discussion before bringing it here, where the purpose is to delete even if the choice of language doesnt say that. Gnangarra 11:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Suggested replacement template seems to do the job. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per my comment in reply to Sw2ad above. Revisit after at least a year and after consensus has been sought from interested parties. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus is being sought here. I don't like it is not a valid reason. The recent restructuring of railways in NSW will require extensive updating of every related article and I am sure that your assistance will be most welcome. It's never too late to start. Sw2nd (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have expressed no opinion on whether I like the change or not and frankly I don't care about that. What I do care about are people that damage the project by barging in on a community within Wikipedia and simply ignore those that actually work in that area. I oppose this change because you started without prior discussion, without engaging the interested parties. What is the terrible problem that your proposed change will fix - does everyone agree it is currently broken and indeed does your proposed fix actually improve anything? If a whole lot of changes are required because NSW railways have changed things, that is one thing, it does not logically flow from that however that your template change is therefore required at all. No, I am not going to get involved in "fixing" the articles on NSW Railways, as I stated before I have no interest in that part of Wikipedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (no deleting) - Other Australian infoboxes like ((Infobox Australian road)) are created because they are different. NSW Trains infobox should be kept because it has a certain characteristic, that it is unique to New South Wales. Marcnut1996 (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after adding any necessary parameters to the generic infobox. Colleagues are reminded that this is a discussion forum; prior discussion elsewhere is not required; and - as a core Wikipedia policy - anyone is welcome to express a view, and have their comments considered, regardless of whether they have edited the articles concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:22, 10 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) 19:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: On the ((NSW TrainLink Station alt)) example above, the links (whether visited or not) on the darker blue striped rows fail WCAG 2.0 colour-contrast guidelines (and so WP:COLOUR) at level "AAA". Those in ((Infobox station)) do not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete per above demonstration -PC-XT+ 04:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The current template seems fine. No reason to change. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale for deletion is not that the current templates (we're discussing two; you don't specify which you mean) are not "fine", but that they are redundant. In what way, if any, do you believe that the more generic template is not suitable? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Oppose say "I don't like it" or "Australia is different". Tell me the information missing if regular box used? I say replace and delete. Martin Morin (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, New South Wales's railways are utterly distinctive across the world: these could never be merged, as the entire subject matter is utterly different. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC) - Good one. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh no, wait, that's all actually nonsense. Why are we here? Why are people wasting time tarting up their own hometown templates when we've had a perfectly capable standard template for years? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. I don't even know why this was relisted. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Merge/Extend Merge if possible, but only when Bidgee concerns are placated: if color scheme is a problem, convert the template to extend Infobox station (use Infobox station internally, to keep a cohesive and standardized feel) but hard-code colors. Infobox station looks nicer, in addition. Standardization is nice, but it is really not a requirement, so we could keep if there is a reason other than style, because if its style than delete. Also, per discussion above, moral authority is not a requirement for proposals, and this is and "engagement with other editors" as the template editors are not the only concerned parties here, nor do their opinions carry more weight than their informed opinions can bare (IOW their opinion does not carry more weight just because they are the template's editor, but only because they have experience with the template in question and that gives them a clearer voice.) Int21h (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. To be redundant, the replacement template should convey at least the same information in at least as clear a manner as the existing. Based on the comparison above, I don't think that's the case right now. Color overlap, Yellow/Green with lines. There are fields missing that are clearly valuable. Labels are more meaningful to local readers/system users. On the flip side, I can't see any increase in clarity or information conveyed by replacing the template. This should be effectively demonstrated before we call the existing redundant, by collaboration or otherwise. --Inas (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also going to be repetitive. Colour is style and can be changed. What specific parameters are you talking about. Generalities won't get things fixed. Sw2nd (talk) 13:47, 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, redundant navigation. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Placebo singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

this is completely unnecessary; content has been moved to Template:Placebo. Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• i think we should keep it because they have quite a few singles that i thought made the template look to big, if you know what I mean. Violetcries (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2013
• delete as redundant. Frietjes (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I appreciate the points of both Violetcries and the nom here. I'm not convinced that this should be deleted. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:45, 11 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) 19:18, 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. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comparison of Apple Inc. logos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary, not used. Rezonansowy (talk) 16:11, 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox online music service (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox website)). Only 53 transclusions. Unnecessary parameters. Rezonansowy (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Not all online music services are technically "websites", and the "unnecessary parameters" are needed in order to adequately compare this type of service; you've failed to give a clear rationale for why they cannot have a separate infobox. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which music services require this template? Which parameters unique to this template are necessary? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the articles "require" this and it's not strictly "necessary"... but neither is any content on any article. The world does not "require" Wikipedia; we're doing this as a convenience to people. Same with this template - it provides convenient features that would not be available otherwise. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete now – it's a redundance. Banhtrung1 (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - offers features (such as pricing, platforms, streaming, and trial) not found in the general template. Allows users to see relevant information about online music services specifically. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:37, 24 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) 23:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:India tehsil (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox settlement)). Only 29 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, I see no reason to keep it.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:31, 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 no consensus. There may be consensus for making it a wrapper, so feel free to continue the discussion on the talk page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Russian district (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox settlement)) Could be a wrapper for that; or a redirect to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the deletion. This is a custom template which is much shorter than the ((Infobox settlement)) monster template and has fields appropriate for Russian districts. Besides, even if it were not, I do not see any reason why all templates should be deleted and replaced by a universal template.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is suggesting that we "deleted and replace all templates by a universal template". If this template is made a wrapper, it will still be much shorter than ((Infobox settlement)) and have fields appropriate for Russian districts. You don't say why that would be a problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure why YOU propose the template for deletion whereas I am the one who is using it and I am advised to come up with a wrapper. Please do it yourself first, then I would be willing to discuss the deletion. The template has 2000 transclusions and I am using it on a daily basis. Additionally, comments about the administrative vs municipal division suggest this is not even possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have not been "advised to come up with a wrapper". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine, but I am still waiting for policy-based arguments why the template should be deleted even if it can be wrapped. So far, you did not present any.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • We neither have nor need a policy for every eventuality. The nominated template is redundant to ((Infobox settlement)); please feel free to refute that if you can; or address my earlier point: You don't say why making this template a wrapper for ((Infobox settlement)) would be a problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Andy, could you please create a wrapper in the infobox sandbox to demonstrate that the template actually is redundant to IS? I know you had to have surgery when I asked you to do this for the PNG template but I assume that won't be a problem this time. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because this is useless activity which does not bring us closer to building a free encyclopaedia. Again, the big picture is like this. We have a number of people working on Russian districts and using a customized dedicated template. This template does not break any policies. It is not broken. Then comes somebody with zero contribution to the field but with his own vision of how templates should be organized and insists that the existing mechanism should be destroyed because it does not conform with his vision. Great, but to me it does not sound like a valid deletion reason.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yet again, you don't say why making this template a wrapper for ((Infobox settlement)) would be a problem. Your comment reads like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Because this is a solution looking for a problem. There is no problem here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • You haven't shown that the template is redundant. As the nominator, the onus is really on you to demonstrate that your claimed reason for deletion is valid. If we're going to pull up WP:IDONTLIKEIT, most of your nominations read that way. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a sample wrapper/replacement using ((infobox settlement)) is needed. The "Municipal structure" business is bothering me. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per Yaroslav above. The municipal structure is also bothering me—I see no way how ((Infobox settlement)) (which is an ugly unwieldy monstrosity as it is) can possibly deal with it efficiently, since the administrative/municipal split is a concept unique to Russia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 15, 2013; 12:08 (UTC)
  • Every country has unique arrangements; ((Infobox settlement)) accommodates them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not an entirely accurate assessment—it might accommodate them, but not necessarily well. While infoboxes for many countries can be served by one generic infobox if they only contain generic data and there is no need for country-specific data, and while it may even make sense to include some country-specific data when they are shared by some (but not all) countries, adding a whole substructure beneficial to one country only seems highly wasteful. Furthermore, the whole concept of a generic template intended to do anything and everything seems like an overkill. Most users, especially casual ones, have an extremely hard time figuring out a plethora of parameters mostly inapplicable to their situation. On the other hand, implementing modules (perhaps in Lua, for better efficiency) which can be used as building blocks for any country-specific infobox seems a more efficient way than continuing to build up the monstrosity we now have. With modules, standardization and unification efforts would not suffer, yet much-needed flexibility would be added at the same time. I see the template has recently been re-written to use ((Infobox)), which is certainly a step in the right direction, but it would be a lot more helpful if it were disassembled altogether into building blocks (such as "names", "symbols", and yes, even "municipal divisions of Russia") which could then be called by any country-specific template in any order that makes most sense for that country. A generic infobox containing a default set of such building blocks could still be retained at ((Infobox settlement)). ((Convert)) is a perfect illustration of how well the end result works and how flexible it is.
      At any rate, I cannot support this until I see what the wrapper's output would look like.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 15, 2013; 16:27 (UTC)
      • Every country has unique arrangements; ((Infobox settlement)) accommodates them well. Why could it not do so in this case? The issue at hand is nothing to do with lua, nor modules. The supposed "plethora of parameters" cannot be an issue, if a wrapper is created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well no, it doesn't accommodate them well. As Template:Infobox Papua New Guinea place/testcases demonstrates, some of the content is beyond IS. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which Papua New Guinea specific attributes are not handled well there? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Have you looked at the testcases? Or read the TfD discussion where this was already discussed? --AussieLegend (✉) 21:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Which Papua New Guinea specific attributes are not handled well there? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • You've already asked that and I've pointed you to a discussion where it was discussed and the testcase page where it is demonstrated. What more do you want? --AussieLegend (✉) 09:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • An answer would be nice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • An answer was given. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • If this kind of stubbornness and unwillingness to listen to actual users is a sign of thing to come during this conversion, I think I'm going to oppose it doubly. What would really be nice is an explanation of what problems this conversions is going to fix and what benefits it will bring. So far I'm seeing neither. This indeed looks like an IDONTLIKEIT nomination and with the absence of an explanation of benefits it seems a waste to spend any more time on considering it. If you want to sell us a conversion, at least make an effort to make a convincing sales pitch!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 17, 2013; 12:04 (UTC)
                        • I've put a very simple question to you. Why won't you answer it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                          • What part of "You've already asked that and I've pointed you to a discussion where it was discussed and the testcase page where it is demonstrated. What more do you want?" do you not understand? I assume you must have seen that because you deleted most of it in your last edit. Andy, you have to stop ignoring what people are saying to you. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree, hypothetically speaking, it could be a wrapper. But then again, it could not be. Who knows, anything is possible I guess! But are we talking about hypothetical here, or concrete proposals? If we are talking about concrete proposals, sandbox links should be provided. It may, or may not be, redundant; that is what sandboxes and test cases are for. Hint hint. Remember an old adage: "the devil is in the details." Int21h (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, see ((Infobox tractor)), ((Infobox garden)), ((Infobox Papua New Guinea place)) and sometimes it works the other way, as at ((Infobox Schutzhütte)). --AussieLegend (✉) 05:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support for conversion to a wrapper, if such a conversion is shown to be possible in the sandbox, and if no important functions are lost in the process.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No need to use a general template when we have a specific one (i.e. one that's "localized" to the specifics of the situation). One template does not fit all. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:40, 24 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 keep. --BDD (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox disputed islands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox islands)). Only 50 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, don't merge. Doesn't seem redundant to me. The "country X" sections in the disputed infobox are fundamentally different from those in the islands infobox. I think these two should be kept separate to avoid cluttering the islands infobox. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There wouldn't be "clutter". We shouldn't have to replace an entire infobox when in future, a dispute is resolved or a new one arises. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, well-defined subset of articles with special requirements. Island box doesn't support the crucial "claimed by" fields. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the relevant parameter(s) should be added to the more widely-used template; we don't need a fork for a subset, however well-defined, of only 50 members. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's more than just adding a few extra parameters (see for instance the "administered by" heading, which would mean there'd be a need for at least another conditional clause cluttering the code of the standard island template). I don't see the efficiency advantage of the main template having to carry all this extra ballast of more than a dozen extra parameters and conditionals, for a class of cases that occurs only in this small set of articles. And the argument that it would be onerous to replace the boxes "when in future, a dispute is resolved or a new one arises" seems utterly spurious to me: such cases happen, how often, like once every other decade? It's not as if countries change their minds over these kinds of sovereignty claims on a daily basis, and I don't think any such case has fundamentally changed during all the years Wikipedia has existed so far (latest one to emerge was Imia/Kardak in 1996, latest one to be solved was probably Kasikili in 1999). And even when it happens, exchanging the box would be a single, very simple local edit, among the most trivial ones that would have to be done to the article in such a case anyway? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is absolutely not redundant. Before I decided to create this template, I tried to come up with a good way to incorporate it into the regular islands infobox template, but I could come up with a way to do so due to the reasons already mentioned above. I spent a lot of time researching how to do this and trying to figure out the best way to do it. There's really no efficient way to merge these templates (unless someone can figure out a way to do all this with that new scripting thing (I forget the name of it) which is being used in so e templates (mostly the citation templates, I believe). I don't know how to do that, however. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That they are islands is secondary (and superfluous IMO) to their status as disputed territory. Int21h (talk) 18:01, 18 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) 22:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox outlying territory (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox settlement)). Only four transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, already replaced it in Caribbean Netherlands with no difficulties. Frietjes (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note you didn't replace it with ((Infobox settlement)) though. ((Infobox municipality)) was a better template there and might be at the other articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • ((Infobox municipality)) redirects to ((Infobox settlement)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, it's just a pointless derivation of infobox country. It would be useless even as a wrapper.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete speedy per nom because it has only 3 transclusions. ((Infobox settlement)) is very sufficient. No need to create too specific templates. Banhtrung1 (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I created this template because I wanted to have an infobox that was similar to ((Infobox country)), but with the settlement_type option of ((Infobox settlement)). One of the reasons is that ((Infobox country)) has languages options, which ((Infobox settlement)) doesn't have, but which are appropriate to use at Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba. If this template is being deleted, how should I solve it then?  thayts t  08:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen what Frietjes did at Caribbean Netherlands, perhaps that would be the way to go, although I like the ((Infobox country)) layout better.  thayts t  08:27, 24 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/redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((Infobox park)), to which it is very similar. Only 93 91 transclusions. Suggest keeping as a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See discussion from last year. Frietjes (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now See below Despite the outcome of the previous TfD, which was "You'd do better to discuss these on the templates' talk pages and have a plan for merging the dissimilar templates", the nominator has apparently made no attempt to discuss this on either template's talk page. The nom needs to take notice of, and abide by, TfD outcomes instead of just waiting a while and re-nominating in the hope that somebody else will not notice. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous TfD was closed as "no consensus". The comment to which you refer was advisory, not mandatory, and this is a discussion about how to merge the templates, which are clearly not dissimilar. You are invited to make a constructive contribution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you should start taking advice Andy. When you're advised that a better option to TfD is to discuss it, there's a reason for that advice. Wikipedia is collaborative, and nominating templates for deletion without attempting to collaborate is not constructive as you've been told many times before. If you had gone to the template talk pages, a merge might have been possible months ago, with no need to come here at all. Haven't all those blocks and ArbCom visits taught you anything? There may be a reason to merge these templates but the best option is to propose the merge at the template's talk page, not to immediately head off to TfD, especially a second time. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your pointy and ad hominem comment, lamentably deficient in the WP:AGF stakes, offers nothing constructive, and no rationale for this keeping redundant, low-use template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• [ec] Note Although there are some differences in parameter names, the only parameters unique to the garden template were |budget=, |plants=, |species=, and |collections=. These have now been added to the park template (it may be worth using tracking to see how widely, if at all, they're used in the garden template). Note also that the latter's documentation says (my emphasis): "This Infobox template can be used in any article about a park, nature reserve or garden". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've just added those parameters yourself (without any discussion I might add).[3] Why couldn't you have done that before the last TfD? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note And here is an example conversion; and another. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And here's a third conversion, showing how the World heritage Site infobox can now be embedded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, come on. We're talking about a template with only minor differences that has one twentieth of the transclusions. A merge can't be hard here. This should just have been done, instead of bringing it to TfD at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed you are correct. A discussion would have identified the actual differences, which aren't as obvious as the nominator has made them out to be. For example, owner doesn't work in Infobox park as it does in Infobox garden. Template:Infobox_garden/testcases namesake, free label 1 and free label 2 don't exist at all in Infobox park. These need to be addressed. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • |namesake= is synonymous to |etymology=. The 'freelabel' parameters are not in the blank in the documentation. Where, other then the example given there, are they used in articles? They're not used on the article to which that example relates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Botanical gardens are not just parks, they include collections of preserved plants (dried, pickled, frozen, etc.) and usually have a staff of botanists who do research, as well as the horticulturists who maintain the living plant collection. Botanical gardens are not yet well served, and keeping the template separate would allow expansion to give them proper coverage. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your definition of a garden is not disputed. However, you do not say why a template, which is defined as being for "a park, nature reserve or garden", and which has all the named parameters of the nominated template, is not a suitable replacement for it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect At the beginning of this TfD, this template was not redundant to ((Infobox park)) but that template has now been modified extensively and this template now is redundant. All articles, except two covered by copyvio notices, have been successfully converted to use Infobox park, which seems a better template. The two articles with the copyvio notices have replacement infoboxes on their talk pages. For these reasons, I have change my !vote from "Keep for now" to "Redirect". --AussieLegend (✉)

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) 03:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((Infobox recurring event)). Only seven transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete or redirect, appears to be redundant. Frietjes (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if the consensus is to delete, send me a message and I'll be willing to transfer the infoboxes over to ((Infobox recurring event)). Themeparkgc  Talk  23:19, 15 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. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ukraine under-19 squad 2000 UEFA Champioship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Portugal squad 2007 UEFA Under-19 Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ukraine under-19 squad 2009 UEFA Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a youth competition only. It is not known worldwide. Their navboxes are unnecessary, like here. Banhtrung1 (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - no deletion rationale has been provided. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added its rationale. All previous discussions confirmed to deleted youth competitions' navboxes, such as Euro U-19, Euro U-21, South American Youth Championship as well as the FIFA U-20 World Cup. It's REALLY unnecessary. Banhtrung1 (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and earlier TFDs. Banhtrung1, I moved the deletion rationale below the template links, to reflect usual practice. Hopefully that solves Mentoz86's problem. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a deletion rationale has now been provided, though I disagree with it. These templates provides useful navigation between articles on a related subject, and meets the criteria listed in WP:NAVBOX. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Euro U19 is not notable enough to create navboxes. Banhtrung1 (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is your personal opinion, which I obviously disagree with. Rather than using your gut-feeling, you should use policies like WP:NAVBOX to decide whether these navigation-boxes should be deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per the previous talks below. Sawol (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 4#Template:Germany squad 2002 UEFA Under-19 Championship (the latest)
  • Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 3#Template:Austria squad 2010 UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship
  • Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 6#Template:Ukraine Squad 2009 Euro under-19 Cup
• Delete all - per recent similar TfDs and current consensus.--Oleola (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per prior consensus concerning youth squad templates. Frietjes (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - clear consensus from numerous TFDs. GiantSnowman 11:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:34, 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) 22:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is youth tournament only so their navboxes should be deleted. Sub-article such as 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup squads are enough to lookout information. These navboxes are very excessive! Banhtrung1 (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uruguay squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Germany squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Argentina squad 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cameroon squad 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:New Zealand squad 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Speedy keep - no deletion rationale has been provided. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all except New Zealand - a deletion rationale has now been provided, though I disagree with it. These templates provides useful navigation between articles on a related subject, and meets the criteria listed in WP:NAVBOX. Though I don't think the New Zealand template got enough links to provide useful navigation. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Mentoz86 Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should remember that all previous discussions confirmed to delete them. Banhtrung1 (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per the previous talks below. Sawol (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 6#FIFA U-20 World Cup navboxes (the latest)
  • Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 17#Template:Japan Squad 2007 U-20 World Cup
  • Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 1#Template:United Arab Emirates squad – 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup
  • Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 16#Template:South Korea Squad 1979 World Youth Championship
  • Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 14#Template:Brazil Squad 1991 FIFA World Youth Championship
  • Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 22#Template:Poland U-20 Squad 2007 World Cup
    • I don't see the value in linking to discussion that are between four and six years old. Here is a more recent discussion from October 2011, which had a consensus to keep. Instead of linking to a whole lot of discussions, we should decide whether the navigation-boxes meets WP:NAVBOX, like it was done in this discussion, where a under-21 template was deleted because it failed three of the criteria. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - per recent similar TfDs and current consensus.--Oleola (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per prior consensus concerning youth squad templates. Frietjes (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - clear consensus from numerous TFDs. GiantSnowman 18:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:34, 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) 23:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template. It was originally a wrapper for ((Infobox mountain hut)) that allowed infoboxes to be copied and pasted from the German Wikipedia without need for conversion. When Infobox mountain hut was merged with ((Infobox Australian Hut)) in May 2012 to create ((Infobox hut)) all articles using this template were converted to use the new Infobox hut and in the past 14 months no further use has been made of the template. AussieLegend (✉) 04:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a wrapper that can be substituted ("Subst") please. That converts infoboxes imported from German Wikipedia automatically into ((Infobox hut)), thus saving hours of repetitive work, manually changing the infoboxes. There are hundreds of these hut articles still to be transferred and they are heavily used, especially in the Alps. It is standard Wiki practice to keep these type of infoboxes as wrappers - see ((Infobox Unternehmen)) etc. They are superb time-saving tools. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I've boldly set up automatic substitution, as was done recently for ((Infobox Unternehmen)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - ((Infobox Unternehmen)) was recently nominated for deletion as redundant to ((Infobox company)), which is used in nearly 50,000 articles. By comparison, ((Infobox hut)) is used in 40. Not 40,000, just 40. We don't have so many hut articles that we need assistance when copying articles. Many of the articles being transferred from the German Wikipedia are unreferenced and/or fail to establish notability. See Ackerl Hut, Anton Karg Haus, Bochumer Hut, Bürgl Hut, Franz Senn Hut, Fritz Pflaum Hut, Gaudeamus Hut, Grutten Hut, Hans Berger Haus, Kaindl Hut, Pinzgau Hut, Refuge Torino, and Reintalanger Hut for some examples. Given the number of apparently non-notable huts being transferred, it's really best not to help editors create articles that don't meet our guidelines, even if they apparently meet the German guidelines. Unfortunately this template does exactly that. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well you do seem to have engineered this situation yourself. First you added notability tags to what, as a relatively experienced editor, I believe are perfectly notable Alpine hut articles. So I stopped translating any more in case my efforts were wasted. Then you replaced all the "Schutzhütte" infoboxes with "mountain hut" infoboxes. So of course there are only a few articles so far and no links to this template. However, if we can reach a consensus that such articles are notable (what would that need? I can easily add authoritative references) and keep the template, I am very happy to continue translating the hundreds of articles on Alpine huts because it saves me significant nugatory effort and results in the automatic insertion of the English template. If not, I have plenty of other translations to do... Bermicourt (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added tags to articles that failed to demonstrate notability and for which I could not find online sources that would be sufficient to establish notability. That is entirely appropriate. As I have explained to you on my talk page, topics must meet the requirements of the general notability guideline. That means more than simply being listed in some online guide to huts. As for converting articles, the infobox instructions, which you wrote, say "In due course the infoboxes in the individual articles may be substituted by any editor without requiring any knowledge of the German language",[4] and that is what happened. As a result of this TfD, it became necessary to merge Infobox Australian Hut and Infobox mountain hut because the TfD outcome was not practical, as discussed on the TfD closer's talk page.[5] At that time Infobox mountain hut was only transcluded to a single article. The 22 other Alpine huts all still used this template because nobody had bothered to convert them. With a proper Infobox hut created it was only natural to convert articles as the documentation suggested. That meant that, for the 40 huts we now only need one template, instead of the previous three. As it stands now, this template isn't completely compatible with Infobox hut, as the testcases show. Manual conversion is still necessary; coordinates have to be edited to get the locator map working, country information needs to be moved into the country field, and the website url needs editing. I've edited the documentation accordingly, but it's still not a good template. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wrappers are fine, and is nothing but a specialized redirect. There is a need for redirects (and wrappers), and no need to delete them. Int21h (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom because it don't have any transclusions. Banhtrung1 (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's a wrapper - of course, it won't have any transclusions. It's not supposed to. Bermicourt (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many wrapper templates have transclusions; this (now) has none because it's always "SUBST:". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be more accurate, this now has none because it hasn't been used in the past 14 months. It was unused before the documentation was changed to include "subst". --AussieLegend (✉) 17:04, 27 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) 22:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rob Crosby (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, links only four articles not counting those in "Related articles". No chance of expansion; all of Rob's other albums are unlikely to have articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, there are enough links, and singles from other albums charted, so there is a real chance for expansion. Frietjes (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Four is not enough. None of his other singles made Top 40, so there is close to zero chance of them having articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:55, 17 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 keep. --BDD (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:A.R. Kane (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Textbook WP:NENAN. Links only three articles, no chance for growth. Last TFD closed as no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per previous discussion just 2 months ago that closed as 'no consensus' despite 2 keep !votes and 0 delete !votes. 6 related articles are linked, navbox serves a purpose. GiantSnowman 08:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And three of those are a one-time collaboration. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ...and? The articles are still related and still merit being in the navbox. GiantSnowman 10:12, 5 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) 00:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Links 6 related articles. Yes, I have read WP:NENAN, which is an essay authored by the nom, so there's nothing textbook about it. Navboxes should be discussed on their merits, and this one seems to be useful enough and with enough links (my personal minimum is 5) to justify retention. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, has enough links. Frietjes (talk) 17:48, 20 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) 22:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused fork of ((Infobox school)). Last AFD in March said "Keep for now" pending any further use, but I see no further use. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel the template is useful. Infobox school is tricky to use and some editors may have comfort using this. Is there any way to find out how many times it has been used in the past year? Since it is always subst'ed, I don't know how to get usage. There is a problem, in that this template does need to be maintained, since it can get out of sync with Infobox school easily. I also think that country specific versions of ISCL would be useful as well... --Arg342 (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• it's not a fork of ((infobox school)). it's a blank copy of ((infobox school)) with comments. what has changed since April? Frietjes (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What Frietjes said. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subst-only templates like this just leave a big mess in articles (all the comments, and lots of empty parameters). Better to copy the example from the template documentation and fill that in instead. However if Arg342 wants to continue to use this, they could move it to their userspace for personal use. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:48, 11 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) 00:16, 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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Clarifyref2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused forks of ((clarify)). Last TFD closed as "no consensus". I see no reason to keep these around. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How about merging into ((clarify)) as optional parameters? benzband (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment aren't these substitution templates? How would merging work? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substituting ((clarifyref)) produces: ((Clarify|date=July 2013|reason=<nowiki>This is not a proper reference citation. Use Template:Cite web or similar to provide source details. Use <ref...> inline in the article (see WP:CITE) to source the specific facts provided by this reference.</nowiki>))

  This same result could be achieved say by adding a parameter to ((clarify)) so that when you select that parameter the reason parameter is automatically set to "<nowiki>This is not a proper reference citation. Use Template:Cite web or similar to provide source details. Use <ref...> inline in the article (see WP:CITE) to source the specific facts provided by this reference.</nowiki>". ~ benzband (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per benzband -PC-XT+ 09:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• RTFM  :-): They are not "unused', they're intentionally substituted, per their own documentation. Change the underlying meta-template to ((Specify)), per the last TfD. They don't need to merge into anything. They should not be deleted. They are used, and have been used thousands and thousands of times to rapidly flag incomplete and often unverifiable attempts at providing citations. "I see no reason to keep these around" = WP:IDONTKNOWIT + WP:IDONTLIKEIT, especially when previous TfD, of which nominator is aware, already fully and adequately explained why they exist and how to do them better. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:52, 11 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) 00:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per SMcCandlish. Frietjes (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Yikes, that wasn't even long ago, though it had a different heading. I shouldn't rely on someone else to give a link to the old discussion. I'll rethink voting after I read and understand this, if I have time. It won't necessarily change my !vote, but thanks for telling us about it, SMcCandlish. -PC-XT+ 04:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Frietjes. Banhtrung1 (talk) 06:39, 24 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) 03:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Isle of Man TT course (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to, say, ((Infobox motorsport venue)). Only 12 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Banhtrung1 (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Doesn't fit the motorsport venue infobox well - the articles are for a selection of places on the course, which uses public roads - there are 12 such articles, hence the twelve transclusions. Mauls (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The full list of parameters in IIoMTTc is: |Name=, |Image=, |Caption=, |Latitude=, |Longitude=, |OSgridref=, |Parish=, |Distance=, |Precedes= & |Follows=. Given that Imv has |location=, it appears that the only parameters not catered for are the undocumented |Precedes= & |Follows= which you added after this nomination. What are they for? On Barregarrow, their values are "52 (2009 approx.)" and "(approx.) 0.375km2 (0.14 miles2)", which seem to make no sense. As our article Barregarrow is about the place, not just the track, the infobox should probably be replaced by ((Infobox settlement)) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 26 June 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) 00:23, 5 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) 00:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment, this should be replaced, but it's not exactly clear how it should be replaced. the succession links are covered by ((Mountain Course)), and could be replaced by a succession box. what's left could be generally covered by ((Infobox UK place)) or ((Infobox road)). these is not venues in the traditional sense. Frietjes (talk) 13:45, 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.