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. — Earwig ^talk 02:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Neighborhoods (Blink-182 album) tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Bookends tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Blink-182 (album) tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cheshire Cat (Blink-182 album) tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per previous precedent (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 19#Template:Heretic Pride tracks, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 11#Template:The Sunset Tree tracks, and probably others), pseudonavigational templates for track listings is not an aid to editing.96.52.0.249 (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per precedent. redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Frietjes and precedents. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Any benefit is redundant to the navigation already provided by ((Blink-182 singles)) and ((Simon & Garfunkel singles)). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:24, 24 July 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. No further input after three weeks. There is consensus for the fact that the existing templates have technical deficiencies but not for whether they should be repaired or removed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox station/Header CTA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox station/Header OASA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox station/Header Shiraz Metro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox station/Header SMS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox station/Header Korail (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overkill; we don't need custom headers per service. The parameters are redundant to ((Infobox station))'s |name=, |native_name=, |code= and |lines=. Alakzi (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. That raises a broader question: Infobox station supports a style parameter, which enables similar functionality without a separate template (see e.g. Smithtown (LIRR station) and Poughkeepsie (Metro-North station). The headers were needed for more complicated use cases, and at least in the case of the CTA were originally implemented in 2006-2007 or so when the manual templates were converted to Infoboxes. If styling is going, then it all needs to go. If not, then these templates should be kept. Strictly speaking we don't need anything, but absent any other rationale I sort of like them. Mackensen (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• For the case of Korail and SMS, this is a nice way of showing the concept of station numbers. No other way can do that in my opinion. The name shields and their uniqueness is also comparable to road number shields and rectangular boxes. It's one of the features distinguishing different systems from each other. Nima Farid (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Athenian name plates are as unique as road numbers. Without them there would be no distinction to which transit system it belongs, since there is also a Victoria station in many other countries. --Marianian^(talk) 20:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• There are several issues with these, including the loss of the name metadata, tables for layout, which is a big accessibility no-no, WP:COLOR violations, the utterly unappealing design - with the exception of CTA - and the maintenance burden they incur on template editors. I'm not going to fix any of these issues, and it is probably safe to assume that you don't know how. If it can't be done with |style=, then it probably shouldn't be done at all. Alakzi (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...you don't know how". The arrogance. What right do you have to speak of other editors in that way? Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking reply; thank you. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Alakzi's reasoning. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• As someone who deals with the CTA pages, I have to say keep, unless some kind of an alternative can be devised which produces the same result without adding a tome's worth of style information to each infobox. Lost on  Belmont ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you !voting to keep all of them or just CTA? Alakzi (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Picking and choosing individuals would work against the move toward simplicity and uniformity, both of which I support. My vote is to keep all unless (or until) some kind of an alternative can be devised which produces the same result without adding a tome's worth of style information to each infobox. Lost on  Belmont ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lost on Belmont: This is a proposal to remove these headers entirely; no "tome's worth of style information" would be added to any article. It's all good if you wanna !vote keep because you like the way they look, but do start with addressing any number of the issues I raised above. Alakzi (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having overly decorative sub-templates like these works against simplicity and uniformity, not toward it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alakzi, your proposal states that you're looking to remove the templates that produce this result, not the result itself. I've already addressed your issues. You specify that the templates are redundant to certain parameters. Okay, fine. I'll agree that the headers are effectively decoration for the name parameter. My vote was clearly keep unless/until this can be reproduced using |name=, |style=, etc. Lost on  Belmont ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will agree with keep for now and verify if the templates can be reproduced directly, before allowing for renomination. I think this nomination was a bit too short-sighted, but I agree something should be done about it to reduce the number of templates that articles depend on. What do oyu think? --Marianian^(talk) 16:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. There isn't really a need to show line information or station number in the header; those can be displayed more clearly (and in less of a decorative manner) in the rest of the infobox. If the templates are all kept, then change the display of all of them to use <div>s and correct name metadata (and move all usages in |name= to |custom_header=). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 08:30, 18 July 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. — Earwig ^talk 00:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Current members of the Australian House of Representatives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Liberal Party (Australia) MPs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:LNPQND MPs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:National Party of Australia MPs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Country Liberal Party MPs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Labor Party (Australia) MPs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Australian Greens MPs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Katter's Australian Party MPs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Palmer United Party MPs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Independent (Australia) MPs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redudant to long standing state based navboxes: ((Current New South Wales Representatives)) ((Current Victoria Representatives)) ((Current Queensland Representatives)) ((Current Western Australia Representatives)) ((Current South Australia Representatives)) ((Current Tasmania Representatives)) ((Current Australian Capital and Northern Territory Representatives)). Refer to discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Navboxes. Ianblair23 (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per comments on WikiProject talk. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:29, 16 July 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.