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) 01:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MH370 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This isn't a navigation aid between related articles, it's an assorted collection of topics vaguely having to do with MH370, all already linked and discussed on the main article, but unrelated to the others. Only the main article and the absurd conspiracy theory article are directly about the disappearance, while the rest are as generic as bodies of water and the U.S. NTSB. This does not meet the criteria of WP:NAVBOX, as they are not specifically related to the disaster, though the disaster may have (barely) involved them; very few of the articles linked mention MH370; almost none of the articles refer to each other at all; and these wouldn't be linked in a see also section, they're just mentioned in MH370 article body and for some reason duplicated here. Reywas92^Talk 00:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom, with no prejudice against recreation if a real navbox is needed later. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per nominator. United States Man (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Flight 370 is not a defining aspect of any but one or two of the articles in question. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator Ollieinc (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – The infobox mainly just lists several vaguely related topics to MH370, and most relevant links may be found in the prose anyway. Dustin (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, since I am assuming all the relevant links are in articles, already —PC-XT+ 20:44, 29 July 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) 03:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nina Sky songs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Nina Sky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Nina Sky songs with Template:Nina Sky.
Filing this on behalf of a user who incorrectly placed a PROD on this template and suggested that the template could be merged with Template:Nina Sky. At the moment, I personally have no position as to whether to keep, merge or delete. I will notify that person so he can make a comment here if he wishes. Safiel (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge "Template:Nina Sky songs" into "Template:Nina Sky" - Templates consisting almost entirely of songs are almost always reserved for artists with large navigation boxes consisting of a multitude of songs. I have included all of the Nina Sky articles in the navigation box that I can contemplate, therefore, anything else can go under related. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Ollieinc (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Jax 0677 —PC-XT+ 20:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge – per others. United States Man (talk) 02:04, 30 July 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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MediEvil series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NENAN with just three relevant links (the links to related articles and the link to the parent article are usually not counted as "relevant link") The Banner talk 10:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: series could easily expand in near future. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any indication that more parts are on the cards? The Banner talk 21:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NENAN is not a policy and does not enjoy the support of the community. This is the only navbox linking many of these articles and clearly the editors who work on these articles thought they were relevant. Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be easily solved with normal wikilinking. The Banner talk 21:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep appears to connect at least 4 articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I count 5 articles that I consider relevant, (including the title article,) plus the developer's page, which isn't included in the navbox. —PC-XT+ 20:45, 29 July 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 and wrong venue since redirects are discussed at RFD. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Not sure if TfD is the best forum for this; please feel free to suggest alternatives]

This template is currently a short redirect for ((smiley)):

I propose to re-purpose if for Wikidata properties, as a primary usage (that's also how it's used on Wikidata). My plan of action would be:

1. have a bot subst: all instances.
2. move it without a redirect, to another suitable short name, for future use
3. Recreate the Wikidata equivalent, on this wiki

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. I wrote this template nearly eight years ago and it was then changed into a redirect four years ago. It is an incredibly useful template that is used roughly a kajillion times on talk pages (it's supposed to be subst'd). It is intended to be incredibly short and easy to introduce, because we should be smiling frequently . And when you type it out, it makes a little smiley face at you with the tongue sticking out. Unless I am horribly misunderstanding the proposal, there exists no reason to recreate the Wikidata template at Template:P; it could be recreated with any title, such as ((WDP)). Red Slash 22:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• comment you probably want WP:RFD, since you discussing a redirect. Frietjes (talk) 23:31, 22 July 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) 01:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Estudiantes Tecos squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template should be deleted since the team does not exist anymore. GoPurple'nGold₂₄ 07:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, defunct. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 23 July 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) 03:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox hurricane current (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used to track information only about active storms, and is then replaced once the storm is over. In attempting to resolve a prior TFD merge decision for this template and some similar ones, I instead began incorporating its functions into the main ((Infobox hurricane)), which has an almost identical (but larger) selection of fields, and needed only a few modifications to support "current" storm information. The results can be seen in this testcases section, where you can also see that the "current" template uses a non-typical infobox style, which I've attempted to standardize as part of the merge, while preserving its basic requirements. Since this function can now be fully served by using an existing template (and to settle the issue with some editors that "just don't like it"), I recommend deletion. Netoholic @ 02:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Netoholic did not link to the discussion where significant opposition to his approach has amassed, and which shows that he insists on ramming changes that only he believes are constructive, ignoring the consensus developing against his edits. Instead, he decides to prove a point by trying to delete a template that is used by WP:WPTC for all current storms (such as 2014 Atlantic hurricane season#Tropical Depression Two). He insists on a complex merge of two templates (((infobox hurricane)) and this template) that do not share a common use case, and as a result make no real sense to place together. Netoholic's changes would be welcome to ((infobox hurricane current)), but his insistence on changing existing editorial processes because of WP:ILIKEIT is becoming disruptive to the point where users are considering referring him to AN/I. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not matter of WP:ILIKEIT, this is practical elimination of unnecessary complexity and following the spirit of the original TFD - I am just a worker bee in WP:TFD/HC. There's no complexity, the work has already been done, and testing shows that in practice, the template will work just fine (in fact, better than before, as right now editors maintain both templates in parallel (main one commented out like this). There is no point putting further development work into a template like "hurricane current" when its function can be incorporated into an already standard and widely-used template. -- Netoholic @ 02:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may work, but this "current" template works much better for members of the project to maintain current seasons. That is just how it is, no matter how much work is done. United States Man (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • How were you "following the spirit of the original TFD" by trying to merge this template? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please give evidence to support your claim that "this "current" template works much better". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, you give me evidence that this template works better. This change was just a pain in the ass for everyone. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep – There is more or less a consensus against this at the same discussion Titoxd refers to. Since Netoholic could not win there, they have moved here to try to gain support. This would really hurt WP:WPTC, as this is an essential part of maintaining a current season. The merger is unhelpful to the project, and, as Titoxd said in an edit summary, this is a WP:POINT nomination. United States Man (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per the points raised by Titoxd and United States Man.--12george1 (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It's farcical to have different templates for current and past instances of the same thing, and we've merged several on that basis in recent months. No cogent reason to keep the templates separate have been given. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must've not read User:Titoxd's comment. Just because others have been merged doesn't mean this should be as well. The current template is set up for a specific purpose, to provide complete information on current storms. That is something that ((infobox hurricane)) cannot handle, no matter what changes are made. United States Man (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't presume to speak for me, nor to make assumptions about what I have or have not read. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach is inappropriate; and your closing assertion is hookum. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Netoholic, why are we merging this to infobox hurricane? It was fine to leave it in infobox hurricane current. Supportstorm (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with ((Infobox typhoon current)) to ((Infobox tropical cyclone current)) – The template has served well, and it has a better appearance when used (the template remains at an acceptably narrow width even when changing computers). However, I wouldn't object to merging with ((Infobox typhoon current)) to ((Infobox tropical cyclone current)). That would be the most accurate title in my opinion. Dustin (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Simple template that allows us to easily maintain information on current tropical cyclones rather than having one all-encompassing and cumbersome template that covers both active and inactive ones. I don't see any reason why this needs to be removed as we phase this specific template out when a storm dissipates anyways. It's a preference among editors of tropical cyclones articles to have this. Truthfully I think it's rather silly to try and cram everything together when it works just fine the way it is. This is simply a case of trying to fix something that's not broken. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is working fine now, and has worked fine since 2006. It works easier having them separate, speaking as a member of the tropical cyclone project. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - I can see both sides in this debate.Jason Rees (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - every "keep" voter here so far is a member of the WP:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones (and by their usernames you can tell they are very dedicated to that area). A link to this discussion was posted on their talk page. Hopefully we can re-list this one to get some neutral perspectives outside of this particular walled garden. I do believe any objective look at the functions of these templates would see that a merge not only means simplification, but also consistency, as the "current" template looks nothing like standard infoboxes, and uses fields that are a subset of the same ones used in the main infobox. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  How is this a walled garden? This debate has been advertised on the TFD log and open to discussion for nearly a week. That you might not get your way is hardly reason enough to call for a second discussion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  So having feedback from the people who actually use the template on a regular basis and, thus, are most qualified to say whether or not the template is useful, is a bad thing? DOSGuy (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Why does it matter what wikiproject we edit? If anything, it helps our case. After all, we are the ones using the template and we don't want it gone. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Don't delete something that works just fine. It makes it clear if the storm has dissipated or if it is ongoing. ExtraTropical11 (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now if the project actually relies on the template name to differentiate between editing modes, but merge if the structure of the resulting template can easily make the same differentiation, in both article visibility and wikicode. I don't think it would be hard to style the same template slightly different, if that is even necessary, but the project seems to be arguing that a parameter in the template wikicode would be harder to spot than the template name, making the storm status less clear for editors. Also, WhatLinksHere can be used to keep track of ongoing storms, though a category would more or less do the same thing. I expect this will be overcome, eventually, allowing a merge similar to the other "former" template merges, but for now, consensus seems to be lacking. —PC-XT+ 20:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Alternatively, I would support a merge per User:Dustin V. S.'s proposal, above, though I believe that would require a new discussion. —PC-XT+ 20:43, 28 July 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.