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 as unused. If anyone would like this userfied for single-use substitution, feel free to ask me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012OlympicSailingSchedule (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, abandoned template JMHamo (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst into Sailing at the 2012 Summer Olympics at the schedule section, underneath the current table -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - How do we know the information included in this template is accurate before it's used on an article? JMHamo (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is obviously a better graphic presentation of the 2012 Olympic sailing schedule than that currently used in the article per IP user 70.51.200.101's suggestion above. That having been said, JMHamo's query above needs to be answered -- it is disturbingly common for these schedules to be inserted into articles for Olympic events (and other sports tournaments, too) with no sourcing. WP:OLYMPICS (and other sports WikiProjects) need to tighten their sourcing standards for such. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2015 (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. Though opposers allude to a non-consensus, they do explain their reasons. There's no policy or guideline that would perhaps give leverage to either side's arguments, and it seems highly unlikely that there'll be a mutual understanding; not here, and not now. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ameri-Cana Ultralights aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The purpose of templates is that it improves navigation between related article. This template navigates between only one article and its parent article. Normal wikilinking can solve this, no need for a navigation templates that does not help navigating. The Banner talk 13:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this TfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this template falls. - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: as established in the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_discussion/Archive_16#Request_for_Comment:_WP:NENAN and also at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_38#Mass_nomination_of_aircraft_manufacturer_nav_boxes_for_deletion the decision was made to retain all WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes regardless of the number of links, as they form part of a set of standard page layouts that provide a uniform experience for readers. The nominator was part of both those discussions and is well aware of the outcome of those consensus debates. - Ahunt (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there is the locally reached consensus again. But we also have Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates which states: Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia. Mind the phrase "multiple related articles". As far as I know, "one" is not the same as "multiple". The Banner talk 22:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is just "an editing guideline" and in this case has been overruled by two consensus discussions, so does not apply. This is also not a "local consensus" but was reached here at TfD, so is global for WikiProject Aircraft templates. - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That NENAN-discussion is not applicable here as WP:NENAN was not used as an argument at all. The other is a locally reached consensus. The Banner talk 17:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as explained by User:Ahunt part of a series of navboxes as discussed previously. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sorry, guys, but two-link navboxes serve no navigational purpose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As described in the two consensus discussions linked above it does serve in providing a predictable reader experience across all aircraft type articles and does show that the manufacturer in fact built only that model, so it does serve at least two useful purposes. As noted we have two consensus discussions that resulted in the decision to keep these. Trying to nom individual boxes again and get them deleted against consensus is not the correct way to proceed. If you want to revisit the issue then start a new consensus discussion and let's debate it all again from scratch. - Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As said before: a locally reached consensus is not valid wiki-wide. And this is not a WP:NENAN-discussion but one based on the Guidelines. The Banner talk 17:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines do not set a minimum number of links for a nav box so this template does not violate the guidelines, nor does it violate any Wikipedia policy. Your nomination seems to be just based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Deleting it would go against two established consensuses, though. - Ahunt (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Guideline states "multiple", not one. The Banner talk 00:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess it is a good thing that the template has two links and not one, then. - Ahunt (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are so funny... The Banner talk 11:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have a flawed understanding of what WP:CONLIMITED says. What "generally accepted policy or guideline" do you believe is being violated by the WP AVIATION MOS? Mojoworker (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – While it may be counterintuitive to have a navigation box which doesn't do much navigation, WikiProject Aviation's MOS at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Navigation templates proscribes their use as "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." This is consistent with the WP:MILHIST project's use of the Campaignbox template. And just as some military campaigns may have few battles, some aircraft manufacturers may have few planes. The way in which these templates are used by both projects (and, I'm sure, other projects), these are something more than merely navigation templates. Mojoworker (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a difference between "a few" (= more than one) and "one". The Banner talk 20:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a navbox with only a link to the parent and the article is silly. This in no way aides navigation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please read the above arguments, this nav box serves more purposes than just navigation and needs to be assessed in that light. - Ahunt (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your arguments, but didn't find them compelling. I like consistency in styling. Consistency is good. But using a useless navigational template for consistency is not. As for this navbox being the quickest and/or easiest way for the reader to discover this is the only airplane manufactured by this company, well, if that is true, there is something very wrong with the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it is not the only way the reader has of telling how many designs the company produced, it is described in the text. The nav box does provide consistency in the presentation of articles to readers of the series of articles about aircraft types, which now number about 20,000 articles. This is why we have two well-debated consensuses to keep these boxes, regardless of the number of links. - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing two heated discussions, non concluding that all navigational templates for aircraft manufacturers should be kept. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion does establish a consensus to keep these nav boxes as standard for the project articles. I can start a new discussion on WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes to arrive at an even clearer consensus one way or the other if that would be helpful for future reference. Regardless, there is clearly no consensus here to delete this one and a lack of consensus to delete means it should be retained. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that that discussion shows that consensus - many arguments presented say that the navbox is useful to quickly see what other airplanes have been made by the manufacturer. This one doesn't have that function. Navboxes with only a single airplane are neither explicitly nor implicitly discussed by anyone in that discussion.
This discussion is a discussion to find consensus on this template. I don't agree with argument that arguing to delete the template is invalid because there is no consensus for it in the very discussion that looks for consensus for it either. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I noted above there is clearly "no consensus" here to delete this template, so it should remain. As I also noted above, I am perfectly willing to start a discussion about WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes to explicitly consider and create a consensus either way about the number of links acceptable, if that would be helpful in future cases like this. - Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see three people belonging to WikiProject Aircraft making a lot of noise but with dodgy arguments. Unfortunately for you guys, this is no vote but a balancing of arguments. The Banner talk 17:39, 27 February 2015 (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 as obsolete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Link GA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per Magioladitis below, Link GA should now be handled by Wikidata; it has only 80 transclusions left to be replaced. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use ((ping|Jc86035)) to reply to me 08:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after replacement —PC-XT+ 12:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Refer to my remarks at the deletion for Link FA (next section...not duplicated here to keep discussion in one place). AHeneen (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not needed. --Rschen7754 18:00, 22 February 2015 (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 as obsolete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Link FA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Now unused. Link FA/FL/GA is now handled in Wikidata. I nominated this separately from Link FL since Link FA seems to be more popular in other Wikipedias. I think that if the English Wikipedia does the first step to delete this template many more Wikipedias will follow. Many bots already remove Link FA/FL/GA links in all places. Magioladitis (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use ((ping|Jc86035)) to reply to me 03:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Comment Please provide clear evidence that this is handled on Wikidata and that there are no outstanding bugs that may require this template to be included on a WP article until the bug is fixed. Help:Interlanguage links#Featured articles and good articles states that "Wikidata does not currently have a way to represent featured or good articles", but has a note to [1] (bug listed on Phabricator, redirected from Bugzilla) which says the problem is resolved. However, a comment on that page links to meta:Wikidata/Development/Badges. That page also says that the use on Wikidata is in the future: "bugzilla:40810 will allow to power this feature with MediaWiki itself, via Wikidata: see d:Wikidata:Development plan#Badges". Searching Wikidata (Wikidata & Property namespaces), I can't find any information about how badges are implemented (ie. how can I edit a WD item so that the badge will appear on Wikipedia articles?). I have not edited Wikidata and don't know much about it besides the purpose it serves. I found this deletion nom from the notice at the top of Template:Link GA. All documentation regarding the List FA/GA/FL templates must be updated before deletion! For example, Help:Interlanguage links#Featured articles and good articles only mentions Template:Link FA or Template:Link GA to show badges. Browsing through the "What links here" of LinkFA and limiting to the Wikipedia namespace, it is mentioned on several content pages and many discussion/help archives. I don't feel like spending time finding the important pages where the Link FA/GA/FL templates are mentioned. If the templates are deprecated, given the large number of links, can the template pages remain as a soft redirect to a Wikidata page about Badges (and maybe a note that the template is deprecated)? That way, someone who searches for and reads any discussions/help mentioning the templates can reach those pages and understand what has happened to them. I oppose deleting this template until:

1. it is clear that this is handled on Wikidata and there is no need for it on WP (eg. due to bugs),
2. someone goes through "What links here" on the template and finds documentation which should be updated and updates that information
3. the template is no longer used. That doesn't just mean that someone removes the template from every page where it is used. If removed from a page, the badge still needs to work (make sure Wikidata has the information). Don't just remove this template from a page, such that the badge no longer appears as intended.

AHeneen (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AHeneen thanks for your very useful comments. I left a message at wikidata:Wikidata_talk:Development_plan#Link_FA.2FGA.2FFL_templates_now_in_TfD_in_English_Wikipedia. I updated the Help documentation. there is a bot, Dexbot removing Link FA/FL/GA links only when the badge exists in Wikidata. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata can store badges. They are used to display badges next to the links to other language versions in the left sidebar. See for example that there are no badges defined in the source of Berlin. They are coming from d:Q64. You can see them next to the links in the right sidebar there. Hope that clarifies what is possible. If you have more questions please let me know. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dewiki already deleted their templates and no bugs afaik. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not needed. --Rschen7754 17:59, 22 February 2015 (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 as obsolete Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Filming has already begun, and the draft has been deleted. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've marked the editnotice as "expired" and added the TFD notice -- John of Reading (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are a couple of sources at Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales now to confirm that filming has begun. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2015 (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 as obsolete Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paris Metro/transfer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Paris Metro/transfers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Paris Metro/transfers with logo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:RER/transfer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:RER/transfers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:RER/transfers with logo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Paris tramway/transfer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Paris tramway/transfers with logo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Transilien/transfer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Transilien/transfers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Transilien/transfers with logo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Rail-interchange)). Only a couple of transclusions—mostly in the line infoboxes and navboxes—have more than one line symbol. [Edit: All transclusions replaced with ((Rail-interchange)). Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use ((ping|Jc86035)) to reply to me 09:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)][reply]

Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use ((ping|Jc86035)) to reply to me 03:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This RFD appears to have completely broken articles relying on these templates. (for example, Paris Métro Line 14) 67.182.146.5 (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all the infoboxes. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use ((ping|Jc86035)) to reply to me 12:23, 17 February 2015 (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 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World football transfer record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unsourced OR... JMHamo (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Templates don't need to be sourced do they?--Mishae (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fancruft The Banner talk 13:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per The Banner's comment. There is way too much bottom-of-the-page cruft in our sports articles already. We don't need to be inventing more of it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as utter fancruft. GiantSnowman 13:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as cruft but also specifically noting that none of the historic transfers are adjusted for inflation so are not comparable and there is no clear rationale why £ are used as opposed to the transactional currency translated at a spot rate on the date of the transfer. Fenix down (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2015 (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.