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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New wave (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

mostly redlinks. Frietjes (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not even what I would have expected to see. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not about new wave -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:56, 7 June 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 Arto Lindsay, and keep the rest. Feel free to renominate any post-AfD of the associated articles. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kill Your Idols (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Arto Lindsay (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lead Belly (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN. The Banner talk 22:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Kill Your Idols (added a missing album) and Lead Belly per List of songs recorded by Lead Belly, delete Arto Lindsay. Frietjes (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ((Arto Lindsay)) (not enough core links).
  Neutral on ((Lead Belly)), which just makes the bare min of 5 links by including a list.
  Delete ((Kill Your Idols)), where the articles are a feast of non-noatbility. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NENAN. Just one item on his own name The Banner talk 22:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, not enough core links for any individual band/project. Frietjes (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Frietjes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 8 June 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 move, which should fix the link count problem. Feel free to renominate if this is not the case. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tim McIlrath (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN. Nothing on his own name The Banner talk 22:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• reformat as Template:Baxter (band) and add missing content. Frietjes (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nothing under his own name, the Baxter band has only 4 links, with no apparent scope for expansion: Baxter (punk band)#Discography lists only 4 recordings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • two band members plus four albums would be six links, plus the title article. Frietjes (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stephen O'Malley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN. Nothing on his own name The Banner talk 22:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, all the major bands/projects have individual navigational boxes. Frietjes (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Frietjes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 7 June 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, or rather history merge with Bonfire. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Claus Lessmann (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN. Nothing on his own name The Banner talk 22:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, not enough core links for any individual band/project. Frietjes (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not needed for an individual member of these bands. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• reformat as Template:Bonfire (band) and add content from Bonfire (band)#Discography, which is enough. Frietjes (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and SSnews. Frietjes suggestion initially appears to have some, merit, becuase Bonfire (band)#Discography lists lots of recordings ... but having just scanned the articles on those albums, I don't see any of them which demonstrate WP:NMUSIC notability. Since Frietjes's proposal effectively amounts to the creation of a new template, I suggest that this is best left as a separate issue. Creating a navbox between a set of apparently non-notable articles seems like a poor TFD action. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 7 June 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) 03:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yenz Leonhardt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN. Nothing on his own name The Banner talk 22:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, not enough core links for any individual band/project. Frietjes (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Frietjes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 8 June 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) 03:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jean-Marc Lederman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN. Nothing on his own name The Banner talk 22:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, not enough core links for any individual band/project. Frietjes (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No core links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 8 June 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) 03:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adam Lehan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN. Nothing on his own name The Banner talk 22:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, not enough core links for any individual band/project. Frietjes (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Frietjes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 8 June 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) 03:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Luna Mortis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems to fail WP:NENAN but has also operated under the name The Ottoman Empire. Perhaps merging the discography of both band into one nav box can save this one. The Banner talk 20:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rose McDowall (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN. Nothing on her own name. The Banner talk 19:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, not enough core links for any individual band/project. Frietjes (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:For All Those Sleeping (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nav box for a band without own article The Banner talk 19:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, we typically delete album/song articles when the band article doesn't exist (((db-album))). Frietjes (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One related article (which I don't think would qualify for speedy deletion under A9) with no article on the band itself. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template used in only one article. Even transcluding it their seems completely useless to me. The Banner talk 18:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, pointless, since the information is in the article. Frietjes (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All information is in the topic article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The info is on the topic article and the template is useless. Corn cheese (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is pointless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:High school team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused in article space and redundant to other templates. Frietjes (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is useless. Corn cheese (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the various university/college sports team templates to create a general Template:Infobox college sports team -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:58, 7 June 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) 03:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 Top 100 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2012 Top 100 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Trivia-based navboxes. Such power rankings don't amount to a notable award/achievement so much as offseason fodder for the NFL Network and NFL.com. They're not much use for navigation either, as nothing really connects these players beyond that anonymous voters think they're the league's most talented based on unknown criteria.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as not notable. Frietjes (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• note The players are not anonymous, if you read the NFL Top 100 article, you will become aware of the fact that current NFL players vote on their peers based on a specific criteria, which has been emphasized in several of the episodes and especially in the Reaction Show which immediately follows up the NFL Top 100 program. Soulbust (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not needed as a template. Listify maybe. Lists, such as NFL: The Top 100 Players of 2012, work better for this type of thing. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:36, 11 June 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) 03:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Sanremo Music Festival (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox concert)) or ((Infobox recurring event)). Only seven transactions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• replace with ((Infobox music festival)) then delete. Frietjes (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep: I created the template because I think none of the listed ones can replace it. ((Infobox music festival)) doesn't have the needed fields: the Sanremo Music Festival is mainly a televised music competition, not a traditional music festival. However, it's not a talent show, therefore ((Infobox reality music competition)) can't be used for this purpose (most of its fields can't be applied to the Sanremo Music Festival), and it's not the national final of the Eurovision Song Contest (in recent years, only once the winner of the Sanremo Music Festival was chosen to represent Italy in the ESC, even if they are somehow linked), therefore ((Infobox Eurovision national final)) would me misleading for readers. If you compare ((Infobox Sanremo Music Festival)) with ((Infobox concert)) or ((Infobox recurring event)), you'll realize they are completely different. Finally, the template should be included in more than 63 articles, but the articles for the remaining annual contests are still to be created (I hope I'll be able to create them soon). --Stee888 (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we generalise it to cover a broader range of competitions? Ideally with a view to finally knocking down the walled garden around our Eurovision content? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I think this could be the right choice. I opened a discussion about it in the WikiProject Eurovision. Maybe it is possible to generalize the existing ((Infobox Eurovision national final)) in order to allow it to be used for the Sanremo Music Festival too. Thank you! --Stee888 (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Just because it is currently used on 7 Sanremo Articles does not make it redundant. The Sanremo Festival is an annual contest, and the current articles only start from the 2007 Contest running through to 2013. There will be future articles created to cover future Sanremo Festivals, for which this template would play a vital part for those articles. Also when editors get chance, articles covering the Contests pre-2007, then this template would be useful for those, one would only need to look at annual articles covered by Italy in the Eurovision Song Contest to find the pre-2007 Sanremo Festival articles. The use of ((Infobox Eurovision national final)) would be incorrect, as that template has been designed specifically for Eurovision Song Contest articles, and holds no relevance to Sanremo. That template generally gets vandalised on annual Eurovision articles, so adding new fields to compliment Sanremo would only open extra opportunities for vandals to cause havoc. Wesley♦Mouse 10:07, 9 June 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) 03:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redundant to ((Infobox musical artist)) or ((Infobox organisation)). Single-use only. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, and I have added "Infobox tymba". these could possibly be merged with the two marching band infoboxes? Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((Infobox tymba)) is about the administrative organisation, rather than one of the bands. ((Infobox organisation)) would be a suitable replacement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now orphaned ((Infobox tymba)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • my comment was concerning ((infobox college marching band)) and ((infobox school marching band)), which it seems would have something in common with a community band (just no marching). Frietjes (talk) 23:41, 5 June 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. It looks like there may be consensus to merge this with ((Infobox concert)), but that template was never tagged, so it would be better to simply restart this discussion as a merger request if that is what is desired. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox halftime show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to (most likely) ((Infobox concert)). Only two transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. That being said, there are only two articles on individual Super Bowl halftime shows, and Infobox concert is terrible with far fewer fields available. I agree that Super Bowl half time shows (closet set, max 50) aren't a suitable candidate for their own infobox (though a wrapper would make sense) but Infobox concert isn't a good target yet. Mackensen (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• merge with ((infobox concert)), although that would need more discussion or tagging of the concert infobox, since it would require adding more fields to that template. Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 12 June 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 migration. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox musical work (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox musical composition)). Only eight transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination after migration. Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 7 June 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/delete, consensus is that it is better to use a generic template here, rather than one that is specialised for a single composer. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Bruckner symphony (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox musical composition)). Only ten transclusions, which is the maximum conceivable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, but please do it manually, replacing all uses with ((Infobox musical composition)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, that's what's usually done when redundant infoboxes are deleted; and is what I'm proposing here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until these boxes can be properly discussed by WP:CLASSICAL. The project should have been notified of this Tfd in the first place. --Kleinzach 22:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no requirement to inform projects (other relevant projects were not notified either; also note that the template is not tagged as being of interest to that, or any other, project). If members of projects wish to discuss the template, they may do so here. Your rationale does not address the supposed usefulness of the template, nor refute the rationale of its redundancy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin I now see that Kleinzach has canvassed one project in a partisan manner, while not notifying any other. I have advised him not to canvass on previous occasions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question for Andy: Somewhere I remember reading the following: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. … An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following: The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion. …" Can you tell me, Andy, (1) where I may have seen this information and, (2) how does it not apply to Kleinzach's action, which you cite above?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You found it either side of the words "However, canvassing — which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate — is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior", which are inexplicably replaced with an ellipsis in your quote. I think that also answers your second question. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Full points for finding the source of the quotation. I didn't think you would recognize it. However, the material in the ellipsis is not relevant to my question or, at least, you have not explained how it might be. Let's try a multiple-choice quiz: Are you saying (1) that these two parts of the Canvassing article are in such direct contradiction that they render the entire guideline useless, or (2) that you prefer to choose the evidence that supports your position, and ignore all the rest?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Jerome, please stop being silly. The different quotations from WP:CANVASS do not contradict each other; they qualify each other, as is the case with any guideline.
            In this case, the principle is that notifications are a good idea, provided that they are not excessive and are designed to tilt the debate in one direction or another. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I object to being called "silly". This is a serious question. You have rephrased my precise point in opposite terms (are you therefore being silly in return?) but the issue remains: is Andy right or wrong to complain that Kleinzach was canvassing when he notified the Classical Music Project about this discussion? The answer of course depends on how you interpret both the guideline and Kleinzach's intentions. There is another Wikipedia guideline that might help in this case: WP:Assume good faith.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • JK, you can object all you like, but it remains deeply silly of you to suggest that the guideline contradicts itself. Naturally, I assume that this silliness was done in good faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kleinzach, espcially in light of comments by JK.--Smerus (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of the people you name has given any reason why the Bruckner infobox is needed, nor why it is not redundant to the more generic and more widely-used infobox. And neither have you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Plainly redundant to the broader template. This knee-jerk "the WikiProject must be informed!!!!" nonsense is a complete non sequitur. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment about the background to this Tfd. This proposal to delete Infobox Bruckner symphony in favour of ((Infobox musical composition)) assumes the latter is an established box. It isn't. Although it dates back to 2008, the box has only been used on a handful of articles. It was re-discovered by two editors earlier this year who greatly expanded it [1] and then added it to about 30 articles (for a list see here). Although this box could be applicable to thousands of musical composition articles, no discussions were started with related editors. IMO this box (44 fields, 31 of them visible) is a monster. Infobox Bruckner symphony, on the other hand, is at least fit for purpose (6 visible fields). --Kleinzach 01:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just tested and all the "visible" fields in Infobox musical composition are optional, so editors can use as little or as much as necessary. That's normal, and I don't see a problem with that. Mackensen (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet again, your comment does not address the supposed usefulness of the template, nor refute the rationale of its redundancy. Further; your claim that the expansion of ((Infobox_musical_composition)) was not discussed is untrue; it was discussed at both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 46#Infoboxes in composition articles and Talk:Sparrow Mass#Infobox; and you were involved in both discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after migration, per usual process here. I've also tagged both templates with the WP:CLASSICAL banner. Mackensen (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merge then delete. Bruckner symphonies have some unique issues regarding multiple versions that are not common to classical compositions as a whole. This infobox addresses those issues. Migrating to a generic classical composition infobox would lose a lot of important information about each symphony. Grover cleveland (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This infobox has only eight parameters. Which of these does Infobox musical composition not support? The latter already has Other_editions and Dedication, which would seem the most obviously useful when dealing with Bruckner. What's missing yet? Mackensen (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case it can be deleted, after moving all existing infoboxes to the new format. Grover cleveland (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((Infobox musical composition)) caters for all properties in the Bruckner box, none of which are unique to Bruckner's work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am in favour of a simplified infobox, which would allow to navigate among the individual pages of the symphonies. The different versions and editions of each symphony (the so-called "Bruckner Problem") should be discussed in the individual pages. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I converted Symphony No. 8 (Bruckner) to use Infobox musical composition by just tweaking a few parameters; I presume its just as simple on the other pages. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So now, no doubt, the infobox can be expanded. . . Were you were unaware of the Tfd when you made the conversion? If not, the article should have been left unchanged until this discussion was over. Kleinzach 00:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• merge/delete as redundant, or I suppose refactor as a frontend for the more generic template, but that seems overkill for a template with under a dozen transclusions. Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• merge/delete - If Bruckner symphonies require parameters that ((Infobox musical composition)) does not cover they should be added there. The template talk is the place for discussing that template that I found, found useful, used and expanded (and now reduced again), not knowing it was not an "established" one - whatever that is supposed to mean, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 13 June 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 moving to Green Carnation. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NENAN. Nothing on his own name The Banner talk 11:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Split to Template:Blood Red Throne and Template:Green Carnation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 5 June 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 some (Young the Giant, Spastic Ink, Professional Murder Music, Human Waste Project, Crosses, Texas in July, Ram Jam, and Dr. Acula), keep some (Johnnie Taylor, Colt Ford), and no consensus for Vienna Teng. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vienna Teng (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Johnnie Taylor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Colt Ford (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Young the Giant (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Spastic Ink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Professional Murder Music (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Human Waste Project (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Texas in July (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ram Jam (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dr. Acula (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Fails WP:NENAN. The Banner talk 11:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. None of them has more than 4 core links (excluding the head article per WP:NENAN). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last four added later and not judged by BHG. The Banner talk 14:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]
    • I have just checked the last 4, and the same problem applies to all of them. So I support deleting all 11 templates listed here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Vienna Teng, Johnnie Taylor, Colt Ford (record label counts in this case, since he is the founder), Texas in July, Ram Jam, and Dr. Acula, as the band/artist pages indicate there is more notable material. delete Young the Giant, Spastic Ink, Professional Murder Music, Human Waste Project, and Crosses, as the band/artist pages indicate that there is no potential for a sufficient number of core links. Frietjes (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. On what basis do you assert that "there is more notable material"? I looked for example at Vienna Teng, and see no sign of more notable material beyond the 4 albums already in the navbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand by my assessment of Vienna Tag, Johnnie Taylor, and Colt Ford, but I would understand the deletion of Texas in July and Ram Jam. Dr. Acula is also borderline. Frietjes (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll ask again. On what basis do you assert that "there is more notable material" on Vienna Teng? I'm happy to consider any evidence, but all you offer is an unsubstantiated assertion. I see 4 albums of VT's. What else do you see? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess that Frietjes declares the non-charted hidden track cover-version Green Island Serenade and the self-produced non-charted (?) live album The Moment Always Vanishing WP:GNG-failing and AfD-ed Frietjes-written article relevant. The Banner talk 10:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • no, just that I consider five links to be enough, which is why I left that one commented out in the navbox. but I understand that others count differently. given the use of band member links in band articles, there are probably more links that could be added (e.g., artists who appeared on Dreaming Through the Noise and Inland Territory, but I can also see how these are already well connected through the individual album articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 12 June 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) 12:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:11TeamBracket-Libertadores-1988 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I created this template for the article 1988 Copa Libertadores. However, a more universal template that can perform the same function in addition to several other possibilities has been created: Template:4RoundBracket-Byes-NoSeeds-2Legs. I request the template be deleted as there is no further use for it. MicroX (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused and redundant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. GiantSnowman 08:55, 7 June 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) 12:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and uneeded template for a Collaboration that never really took off and isn't active anymore. Kumioko (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one that created it and I haven't used it in years. So, I have no objection. Morphh ^(talk) 12:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused and redundant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 5 June 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) 12:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uneeded template. Was used for the USCOTM but the collab went defunct and this template is no longer used. Kumioko (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused and redundant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 5 June 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) 12:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template. A talkpage message points out it was unused as far back as 2007. Seems redundant to MediaWiki:Noarticletext. Possibly a draft? –Quiddity (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused and redundant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 5 June 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) 12:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Defunct collaboration hasn't had activity since 2005 Kumioko (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused and redundant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 5 June 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) 12:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Defunct collaboration hasn't been touched since 2005 Kumioko (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused and redundant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William 16:40, 8 June 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) 12:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template not needed. This collaboration never really took off and the project itself is marked as defunct. Kumioko (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused and redundant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William 16:40, 8 June 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) 12:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current AMCOTW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template hasn't been used in years. the AMCOTW has long since been defunct and the page was marked as historical. Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused and redundant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William 16:40, 8 June 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) 12:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template hasn't been used in about 8 years. Its no longer needed Kumioko (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused and redundant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William 16:40, 8 June 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.