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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox topic terms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Dictionary definitions should be moved to Wiktionary, so this template is pointless. eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. LT910001 (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not so important then. Justicejayant (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge with "Infobox hot spring". Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think it can be merged with ((Infobox body of water)) Magioladitis (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles about springs use Template:Geobox, it could be replaced by either, depending on the number of shared parameters.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge with ((Infobox hot spring)). Frietjes (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK I agree with any solution. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:38, 15 October 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 2014, substitute 2012, and no consensus for 2013, but I will rename it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2013 F1 Constructors Standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2012 F1 Constructors Standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - added at 10:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:2014 F1 Constructors Standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - added at 10:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:2012 F1 Drivers Standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - added at 10:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:2013 F1 Drivers Standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - added at 10:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:2014 F1 Drivers Standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - added at 10:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Single use template. Subst and delete all. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom, tables of this kind should not appear in the template namespace.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst & Delete per nom. LT910001 (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the suggestions below regarding the templates. Rename the 2013 and delete the others. LT910001 (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey on for a minute what about all of the other templates that only get a single use then Matt294069 (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have expanded this nomination to include similar templates, because I think it makes sense to consider them all together. DH85868993 (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete all OR Rename the 2013 templates / Subst and delete all the others I'd be happy to see all these templates substed and deleted, on the basis that they are all transcluded in at most one article, with no likelihood of being transcluded anywhere else. However, having said that, I have noticed that since the 2013 drivers' table has been a template, the amount of vandalism it has suffered has dramatically reduced (presumably the "drive-by IP editors" who do most of such vandalism don't know what to do when faced with a template). So I would also be happy to retain the 2013 (i.e. current season) templates, and susbt-and-delete all the others. If the 2013 templates are retained, I would suggest renaming them to just ((F1 Drivers Standings)) and ((F1 Constructors Standings)) (and update them for subsequent seasons, as occurs for most Formula One templates), as the presence of "2013" templates will almost certainly spawn the creation of templates for other seasons (as has already occurred). DH85868993 (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely agree that templates helped to reduce vandalism, so Rename the 2013 templates / Subst and delete all the others per DH85868993. Cybervoron (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree with the solution proposed by DH85868993, so rename the 2013 templates / subst and delete all the others.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• May ask why we actually need the template in the first place? I think we were just find the way that we used to be (where the standings are in the actual article of the year). Pch172 (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tables don't technically need to be templates (since the information only appears in one article). But as noted above, since the 2013 drivers' table has been in a template, rather than coded directly into the article, it has suffered significantly less vandalism (and incorrectly-executed good faith edits), so that seems (to me) a good enough reason to leave the current season tables as templates. (Previous season tables experience nowhere near the level of vandalism that the current season tables do). DH85868993 (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename the 2013 templates / Subst and delete all the others It does remove vandalism Matt294069 (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support the "Rename the 2013 templates / Subst and delete all the others" option only if the current templates were used on at least one more article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Reference Book (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant to Template:Infobox book. eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. LT910001 (talk) 00:44, 14 October 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) 15:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

two problematic solutions to the problem that the anchor link in most browsers will take you to slightly below the anchored section. unfortunately, both have their problems, and are not widely accepted. the issue with ((HA)) is that it obfuscates the section headings and removes the section edit links. the issue with ((headinganchor)) is that the edit link sends you to the wrong place, and also obfuscates the section headings. The better solution would be to either fix ((anchor)) or fix the backend software to move these anchors above the section heading (in the generated HTML) if they are directly adjacent. Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created the template in June 2011 as an experiment to find a way around anchors appearing too high/low. But using it created problems with clicking on the edit link (starts an edit to the template instead of an edit to the article section), so I put it aside until I could think of a better way. I never did get back to it. I fully support deleting it as a failed experiment. I didn't create ((HA)) but it has the same problems.  Stepho  talk  23:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and above comment. LT910001 (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ((HA)) appears to have a messed up coding format as well, splitting the template code before and after the noinclude section that documents it -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Deleted ((headinganchor)) per CSD G7, in accordance to @Stepho-wrs:'s comment above. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Template:HA is intended to work like ((anchor)) but add some enhancements. Forking templates is only desirable if there is a clear benefit, but any benefit in this case is outweighed by the fact that it obfuscates headings by wrapping them in the template, rather than using the traditional "==". That would cause significant confusion. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose 1) Initiator did not follow the accepted practice for notification. 2) The proposal doesn't have a basis in WP policies or guidelines (see the four reasons for deleting a template). 3) The "not widely accepted" argument is specious for a new template. 4) The nomination fails to state the positive uses for either template (it mentions the anchor link problem, but fails to address the bad edit summaries left behind by anchor). 5) The proposal suggests "fixing" ((anchor)) which is fundamentally impossible, or fixing Wikimedia software, which is unlikely, given that this problem has been known and unaddressed for years. Dovid (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'HA' was a derivative of 'headinganchor' and I was the author of 'headinganchor'. I was trying to find a way around the limitations of Wikimedia software. I thought I was nearly there but clicking on 'edit' and having it edit the template instead of the article was an unacceptable problem that I was never able to find a way around. 'HA' added section levels but didn't fix the 'edit' redirection problem. If I'd found a way to fix the redirection problem then I would have added levels as a refinement. But the redirection problem is totally unacceptable and appears insurmountable. If anyone has a brainstorm that gets around the redirection problem then they can create a new version but the old version was unusable.  Stepho  talk  23:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox TT Regional Corporation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Previously an antiquated population table with 8 transclusions, now rewritten to use Infobox settlement. It can be substituted and deleted outright. eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• replace with Infobox settlement and delete, few params that correspond almost exactly to Infobox settlement's and only 1 extra we'll have to fill in. — Lfdder (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst & Delete per nom. LT910001 (talk) 00:44, 14 October 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) 17:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ROC county (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

14 transclusions. Rewritten to use Template:Infobox settlement and not useful as a wrapper. eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:39, 13 October 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 moved to userspace. Feel free to send it to MfD if you still want it deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article content, should be moved to mainspace, userified or deleted. eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable band biography brought to Wikipedia in template form. Binksternet (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• move to mainspace and speedy tag it. — Lfdder (talk) 13:41, 13 October 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) 15:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox user script styled (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This infobox seems to be a fork of Template:Infobox user script. eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned, previously transcluded on two articles which now use Template:Infobox tribe. eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst & Delete per nom. LT910001 (talk) 00:44, 14 October 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) 01:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ymovies name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I have clicked on about two dozen of these links today and have yet to find any info about the actors whose pages this template is on. Years ago there might have been some info at these links but it looks like Yahoo now uses their pages as a "current events" clearing house. In other words there will only be info there if Yahoo has a current article about the person. IMO that means that this EL is not useful for the readers of our article and I would recommend that it be Deleted. If on the other hand other editors can find a way to make this link useful then I will withdraw this. Please note: This template is edit protected so I have placed a request on the talk page to add the ((subst:Tfd)) to the page. That is why it is not there at this moment MarnetteD | Talk 06:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These links include a basic biography and a filmography i.e. nothing beyond what you would expect to find in a comprehensive Wikipedia article. Clearly doesn't satisfy our external links criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not useful, or even predictable. Binksternet (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above comments. LT910001 (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Already got one, which is IMDB. Justicejayant (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Betty Logan.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:03, 16 October 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.