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 Template:Infobox legislative session Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use. Redundant to ((Infobox legislature)) (Transclusion count: 1,267) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment:. I'm the creator of this template. Right now it is used only at 17th Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico but it is intended to be used by all the different articles hosting the different past, present, and future sessions (1st, 2nd, 3rd, ..., 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, etc). The template also features several custom made arguments, such as the date it started, ended, and all the different internal sessions held by all particular assemblies (which always happen to be eight ordinary sessions by law). —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If so, and as noted above, then the necessary parameters should be added to the generic template, to facilitate use for specific instances. Failing that, this and similar low-use templates for specific legislature instances should be merged; we don't need separate templates for every legislature in the world. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just remembered why I split this template into its own rather than using ((infobox legislature)). ((infobox Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico)) splits the house leaders into different headers, each named after the pertinent house. For example, while the current legislature is the #17th, the Senate is the #25th while the House is the #29th. ((infobox legislature)) does not allow for such distinctions. I don't see any problems in deleting the template and using ((infobox legislature)) instead; the custom made arguments/parameters provided by ((Infobox Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico)) don't seem necessary. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This infobox is used for legislative terms, not legislative bodies, so IB legislature (which has a rather ambiguous name) would not be a good replacement. Something like the underused Template:Infobox Legislative Session would be better.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahhh.. I knew there was a reason why I split this into its own template. Yeah, like you said, we do use ((infobox legislature)) on the body's article at Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Because if I am not mistaken THIS shows there are 7 articles using it. Seems appropriate to me. However, if the creator has found an effective work-around, then I am OK with that too. Mercy11 (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, [1] shows only a single use in article space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 18 March 2014 (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) 20:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace with Template:Infobox legislative session, if any essential fields are missing they can be added to this template.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• merge with Template:Infobox legislative session, since a proper conversion will require adding more fields to the generic template. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Totally useless and redundant template which should definitely be deleted. Jaqeli (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with Jaqeli. This template gives information about other articles regarding Kherkheulidze Family. Nodar Kherkheulidze ^Talk 07:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see a information there? Just three also not very well shaped articles put into it? Kherkheulidze family category methinks should be deleted as well. Family has low notability to have its own template and category which is totally useless and redundant. Jaqeli (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you speak about low notability of the family, it only means that you do not know history at all. Kherkheulidze Family was one of the famous and exemplary noble families in Georgia. It is described in several historical documents (you can see articles in ka.wiki, of course if you know Georgian). The stories about self-sacrifice and fidelity of the representatives of this family are taught in every school and university in Georgia. Kherkheulidze Family was the sixth in the list of Georgian Noble Families in Velvet Book and the fifth in the list of Georgian Noble Families, which was written and approved in Saint Petersburg, in 1850. The fact that articles about Kherkheulidze Family are not translated in English, doesn't mean that it has low notability. If you speak about deletion of the category, "Category:House of Jaqeli" should also be deleted according to your criteria. You had to learn more before posting this comment. Nodar Kherkheulidze ^Talk 10:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks you're not aware of the differences between a petty tavadi nobility origins of which is not even known and a ruling dynasty like mtavari. English Wikipedia cannot accommodate all the petty noble Georgian families Georgia has produced during its history and redundant family templates and categories which suits that very criteria of low notability to the English language should be deleted. Jaqeli (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of titles. I have already expressed my position – Kherkheulidze Family was large noble family (Knyaz), not petty noblemen, as you say (you have to learn history). They have played big part in the history of Georgia (once more, you have to learn history). Just the story of Nine Brothers Kherkheulidze is enough for high notability. You are not correct person to mention Kherkheulidze as non-notable Family, also you are not authorized to decide, whether the story is or not sufficient for English Wikipedia (I kindly advise you to get known with Wikimedia's Principles and look after your activities in it's projects). It would be better if you were not occupied with mediocrity, but really do positive for your country and it's history. The person who is responsible for deletion the template has compete picture to render the decision. Nodar Kherkheulidze ^Talk 12:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the user above fully understands the meaning of this discussion. I've suggested this template to be deleted because of being totally useless and redundant and the user above is lecturing me on history. Well, no further comments. Jaqeli (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --g. balaxaZe✰ 13:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Minor League Baseball (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Defunct Minor League Baseball (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Minor League Baseball with Template:Infobox Defunct Minor League Baseball.
No need for separate template for defunct teams; no need to make editors replace a template if a team folds. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, definitely. Having to switch templates every time a team founders is a waste of time.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and Underlying lk|eh bien mon prince —PC-XT+ 06:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The two templates do have different parameters, so if this is merged you need to make sure that all the parameters are kept. Spanneraol (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I concur. Please, please, please don't merge these without taking care of the parameter issue. Brian Reading (talk) 06:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support careful merge. --LT910001 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support careful merge. Please do it sooner rather than later, though, so this template can display properly, as normal. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox baseball team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (269 transclusions)

Template:Infobox independent baseball team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (238 transclusions)

Template:Infobox NPB team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (12 transclusions)

Propose merging into Template:Infobox baseball team.

No need for more than one template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• merge, seems like most of the work has already been done here. Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom --LT910001 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Miley Cyrus sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template in place of ((Miley Cyrus)) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per precedent (e.g., Gary Oldman sidebar). Frietjes (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ((Miley Cyrus)) is a navbox, while this is an infobox. From what I can see, ((Gary Oldman sidebar)) and others were about actor credits, not discographies. These are different things, since this simply summarises the numbers of releases. Since I can't see what the other templates looked like, I'm uncomfortable voting to delete at this point. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actor or not or singer or whatever the person might be, it is redundant and this is a sidebar, not an infobox. You are confused it seems. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • ((Miley Cyrus sidebar)) is a sidebar but this is more an infobox than a sidebar. It's also not redundant since the two are displaying different data. One is a list of works providing navigation to existing articles, the other is summarising numbers and the data in each is different. For example, this template says there are 13 singles, while ((Miley Cyrus)) doesn't list any. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. What's the difference? Which template is that '13 singles' thing ? All items on ((Miley Cyrus sidebar)) (Discography, Videography, Songs, Awards) all have been included on ((Miley Cyrus)), that's 'the' redundancy. Bluesatellite (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant- don't need it for when we have ((Miley Cyrus)). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Compeletely unnecessary, per Robert De Niro, Beyoncé, Katy Perry, etc sidebars. — Bluesatellite (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The following templates have the similar case and I propose the deletion as well. Let's settle it once for all. Bluesatellite (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((Christina Aguilera sidebar))
  • ((Jennifer Lopez sidebar))
  • ((A. R. Rahman sidebar))
  • ((One Direction sidebar))
  • ((Ashley Tisdale sidebar))
  • ((Marika Gombitová sidebar))
  • ((Nora Aunor sidebar))
  • ((Jared Leto sidebar))
• Delete. Redundant template, compeletely unnecessary. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox mixed use development (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use. Created in, and not developed since, 2007. Redundant to a more generic template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Template:Infobox urban development project, Template:Infobox property development and possibly Template:Infobox housing project under the name of Infobox property development.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom - template is used once and other templates can represent this --LT910001 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge ((Infobox former Orthodox Diocese)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Orthodox Diocese (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (Transclusion count: 26)

Template:Infobox former Orthodox Diocese (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (Transclusion count: 3)

Template:Infobox Medieval Scottish Diocese (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (Transclusion count: 6)

Redundant to ((Infobox diocese)) (Transclusion count: 2,753), to which any necessary parameters should be added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge IB Orthodox Diocese and former Orthodox Diocese to Infobox diocese; not sure about Medieval Scottish Diocese since it has a large number of very specific parameters which would be useless for all other articles about dioceses.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My suspicion is that while the Orthodox infoboxes can be easily combined, it would be difficult to adapt the western diocesan infobox for most eastern uses. I'm not that familiar with the infobox system, but I'd take the form of the ((Infobox diocese)) and use that to improve the appearance of the Orthodox one. But as I say, I suspect it would be more work to try to shoehorn Orthodox and Catholic dioceses into the same infobox than benefit. The ((Infobox Medieval Scottish Diocese)) looks like it's its own thing, and couldn't be readily put into the Western infobox easily. Gabrielthursday (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the two Orthodox tempaltes, but Keep the Scottish diocese template. I looked at the diocese Infobox, but the particularly historical circumstances of Scotland (where all the medieval dioceses are defunct and replaced by episcopal or new Catholic ones) make this very hard to use another model. I am not against a technically tidy solution if one can be found.--SabreBD (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was replace where appropriate. Let me know if there are any that cannot be suitably replaced. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK property (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 94 transclusions. Redundant to a variety of more specific infoboxes such as ((Infobox building)), ((Infobox park)), ((Infobox museum)), ((Infobox laboratory)), ((Infobox castle)) and so on (I plan to switch some instances shortly). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Update Now reduced to only 52 transclusions. I believe that all of those remaining are suitable for replacement by ((Infobox building)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it matter? Urselius (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • How? Please enlighten. Urselius (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • See User:RL0919/Templates of Redundancy Templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace with ((Infobox building)) where appropriate. We should not have more templates than is necessary.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just came across this whilst looking for an appropriate template for a farm that has multiple uses (is an amusement park at some points during the year, also functions as a working farm, also functions as a shop, and also functions on other misc. criteria. This is the only one I can find that adequately covers this. Does anyone have any suggestions if this goes? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 10:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox writers awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two transclusions. Could perhaps be merged into/ made a module of ((Infobox writer)), if needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• module is a possibility, but it should not be merged with ((infobox writer)). Frietjes (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Wiccan tradition (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two transclusions. Unused. Undeveloped since 2009. Redundant to ((Infobox religious group)) or ((Infobox organisation)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• replacing this with either of those two templates would remove the data granularity. if this is a merger proposal, then one of those two templates should be formally joined to the discussion so that the addition of more parameters can be discussed. Frietjes (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain what data granularity would be lost by using the more generic templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Further to my unanswered question, above, I contend that no data granularity would be lost by replacing instances of this template and deleting it, per the above nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. I don't see how this is going to be replaced with ((Infobox religious group)) without either (a) adding parameters to ((Infobox religious group)) or (b) deleting massive amounts of information. Since this is not a merger proposal, we should keep it. Frietjes (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: replaced on Universal Eclectic Wicca, using ((Infobox organisation)). No data was lost (the redundancy that it operates "in the USA and internationally" was changed to "international"). Likewise replaced on Inclusive Wicca Tradition without loss of data. The template is now orphaned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • some loss of data granularity with the use of the remarks section, but seems tolerable. Frietjes (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ABL team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox ABL team with Template:Infobox ABL.
Both templates are for Australian Baseball League teams. The longer name is preferable (but ((Infobox Australian Baseball League team)) would be better). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Clear duplication --LT910001 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Triple-A championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use. Redundant to a more generic template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• merge with ((Infobox baseball game)). Frietjes (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom --LT910001 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merged (NAC) Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ABL season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox IBLA season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox ABL season with Template:Infobox IBLA season.
Near-identical templates for Australian baseball. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, we don't need two of these.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Duplication --LT910001 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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