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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. There is no consensus for deletion or merging of this template. The proposal to re-write as a wrapper received no objections (but there is no quorum either, and this close shouldn't be used as club to bludgeon opposition over whether conversion to a wrapper is a good idea. This can be done through the normal editing process by any editor (with reasonable precautions obviously, like developing in a sandbox). If that is implemented, this template could be re-nominated Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox New Testament manuscript (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox manuscript)). Every param seems to be similar. Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 23:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• merge/delete Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The sign, text type and category are parameters unique to New Testament manuscripts. Additionally, there are the navigational elements at the top that link to the 4 NT manuscript lists. Furthermore, the "form" and "number" parameters join together to make a heading of the official catalog listing (i.e. Uncial 012 or P13), items unique to NT manuscripts. "hand" and "Now at" are parameters not ont he Infobox manuscript template currently, but could apply to non-NT manuscripts. On the basis of "every param seems to be similar", I have to strongly argue against that point. Without significant modification of the Infobox manuscript template, these unique attributes of the NT template would be lost. If someone has a plan to recode the Infobox manuscript template, and a bot to implement all the changes on the 1777 articles containing the template, and insure that the NT specific content is preserved, then by all means go ahead with the merge. But that seems like a lot of unnecessary work that no one is volunteering to do. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree Because there's a (({type))} inside ((Infobox manuscript)) which can be used the same way. The (({category))} parameter is redundant to (({type))}, which defines these categories, according to the template doc. Could you tell what does the (({sign))} mean? Should we merge it with ((Infobox manuscript))? --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 18:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scroll down to the chart of manuscripts in this document: http://www.viceregency.com/TextCritCharts.pdf and you will see not all A text types are in Category I. Not all Western texts are IV, etc. The terms are not synonymous. I do not favor merging because it seems like a lot of work, and adding a lot of specific attributes that only apply to this class of manuscripts. The New Testament has the most manuscripts out of any historical/literary work. Over 5000 manuscripts. New Testament textual criticism is it's own type of scholarship, and it taught at almost every religious studies program/seminary. It is a huge field of study with it's own specific terms de art and categories/classifications. I feel like the existing template is specific enough and important enough to warrant it's own template. I also feel like it would be a lot of work to merge it and update all transcluded templates (1777) and would require programming a bot at the very least, and making the more general template much more confusing and possibly ripe for misuse. With that said, I do believe, from a logistical standpoint, a merger is theoretically possible. We'd need to add attributes specific to NT manuscripts only, with a disclaimer explaining their use, then we'd need to program a bot to make the changes. And would we still be able to keep the navigation links at the top that only apply to NT list pages, and wouldn't be needed on any of the other non-biblical manuscript pages? What are the pros for merger? How does it benefit the community doing all that work? I feel like it would just make the parent template more confusing and harder to use.-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sign mostly is used for the earliest studied uncial manuscripts. It was an old form of abbreviation. They started with Latin letters, then Greek, then Hebrew, then eventually started over and numbered the manuscripts. So each manuscript might have a number of designations. Uncial 0 number, a letter, and a text name, and then library category designations. It appears it is also being used in the papyri articles as well for the P designation, though not in the lectionaries l designation. So it's use is a little inconsistent, to be completely honest. Though retaining the original alphabetical designation for the uncials seems important to me. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The (({category))} parameter is redundant to (({type))}, which defines these categories, according to the template doc." Nominator clearly do not understand subject. Older manuscripts of the same category usually have higher category. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe convert to wrapper, and later discuss merge or substitute? —PC-XT+ 05:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very good idea. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 17:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This template was written especially for Greek New Testament manuscript, too many specific parameters (form, number, sign, type, cat) and we can add even more specific New Testament parameters. Template:Infobox manuscript is even useless. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC) There is also a parameter "hand", Wbat about biblical majuscule? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC) I am just thinking about adding a new parameter - Claremont Profile Method. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. -Andrew c's reasoning is persuasive. The number of New Testament manuscripts and their status as an independent subject of study seems sufficient justification for the effort required. EastTN (talk) 19:53, 14 November 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 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox short story (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox book)). Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 23:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: this is for short stories found within books rather than the books themselves, and so requires different formatting to follow MOS (e.g. quotation marks rather than italics) and different fields (for example the book/magazine/whatnot that the story was first published in). ‑‑xensyria^T 23:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: requires different fields to the book infobox template, as noted by xensyria. sheridan (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per xensyria and sheridan. Eric Corbett 17:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep template: various genre differences between books and short stories, per MOS:T distinctions between major and minor works.— HipLibrarianship ^talk 20:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Deletion - This is a short story, so it requires different formatting. In addition, the specialized parameters makes formatting/plunking in the data much more easier. By the way, why is everyone so obsessed with deleting these days? Quite frankly, it's getting very annoying. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per xensyria and sheridan. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Short story is not book. ~ Michael Chidester ^(Contact) 22:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all of the above. NE Ent 10:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This template fills an obvious an unique need. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Concur with opposition to deletion Group29 (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Xensyria said it all. It is most definitely not redundant to the book infobox. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 17:21, 15 November 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; deleted as G7 by CactusWriter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sexual reproduction in animalia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I created this template as there did not appear to be any organisation of 'sexual reproduction'-related articles in animals, however it appears I am wrong ((Animal sexual behavior)), and there is no sense duplicating that navbox, so I am proposing deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - for the reasons spelt out here --Epipelagic (talk) 19:21, 9 November 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) 03:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Doctor Who book (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox book)). Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 20:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• merge/delete Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as redundant —PC-XT+ 05:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Template contains the entry "Release Number", which is of some interest to Whovians, and which is not present in ((Infobox book)). Ξxtreme Unction 23:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that parameter could either be added to Infobox book, or another way could be found to provide this information through that template, before deletion. —PC-XT+ 06:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• merge/delete The release number appears to be part of the title at the Bigfinish site. Group29 (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• merge the "Release Number" parameter into Infobox book as "Number in series" under the "Series" paramter in ((Infobox book)). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:12, 17 November 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) 22:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Torchwood book (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant to ((Infobox book)). Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 19:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• merge/delete Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete. Parameter |read by= considered useful in ((infobox book)); see talk there. -DePiep (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

|read by= is 'merged into' ((infobox book)) as |audio read by=. Since this {Torchwood book} is not used, there are no articles to 'merge'. All clean for deletion. -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as mostly redundant —PC-XT+ 05:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or, just delete, now that it is merged. —PC-XT+ 06:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' Concur Group29 (talk) 15:01, 15 November 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) 21:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kanal D Networks (Europe) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only 2 blue links, other than the title article and a redirect to said article. For now, redundant to Template:Doğan Holding. NSH002 (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Group29 (talk) 15:02, 15 November 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 merging with the airports article, but feel free to delete it if the information is too old to be of use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Traffic Flows By Airport - Pakistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template that's not included in any articles and contains outdated information. ...William 12:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• comment, it's used in List of airports in Pakistan and Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority. Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 9 November 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) 21:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amazon Store (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template; seems to have been made most likely in error by a new user. It is not currently in use, and is unlikely to be used in the future (the user seems to have attempted to use it on The Ninth Gate, and then reverted their own change once it presumably failed to work as intended). V2Blast (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete DB-test, test edit creating an article in the wrong namespace -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as (test) article content in template space —PC-XT+ 05:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Group29 (talk) 15:02, 15 November 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 speedy deleted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jusitice Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redirect from improbable misspelling. Bamyers99 (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Close transfer to WP:RFD -- wrong process. This is a redirect. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• either speedy delete or take it to RFD. Frietjes (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Transferred to RFD.--Bamyers99 (talk) 15:31, 9 November 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) 21:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rugby league NL1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

appears to duplicate Template:RFL Championship. Frietjes (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Content in both templates is virtually identical. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete concur Group29 (talk) 15:04, 15 November 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) 21:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rugby league NL2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

appears to duplicate Template:Championship 1. Frietjes (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete concur Group29 (talk) 15:04, 15 November 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) 21:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SANFL Season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

appears to be some boilerplate which is undocumented and unused outside of userspace. Frietjes (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete concur Group29 (talk) 15:04, 15 November 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.