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 to Template:Colorbox. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Color box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Colorbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Color box with Template:Colorbox.
Closely related and confusingly named. (This is a more narrowly-focussed proposal than the previous one, which included other templates). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ((Colorbox)), which offers no extra functionality, besides obfuscating wikilinks, and replace all transclusions with ((Color box)). Alakzi (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: add a |border=colour function to the template (and stop beating dead horses). Useddenim (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Per Useddenim, the only modification necessary is a parameter for the border. Otherwise, there is really no difference. Epic Genius (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Per Useddenim, and because I Hate Redundancy. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Suggesting using a redirect from Colorbox to Color box due to the vast use of both templates to avoid deletion of material. –B2Project^(Talk) 15:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we actually need the border parameter? Can't we agree on the colour to use? Alakzi (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. A perfect example is when illustrating a tooltip: a black border looks completely WRONG. Useddenim (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tooltip in the screenshot in tooltip has got a black border. Where are you illustrating tooltips anyway? Alakzi (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • See ((Parking symbol)). And on my system (TenFourFox on Mac OS X), the tooltip border is grey. Useddenim (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • What does this have to do with the nominated templates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's ((Titlehint)) for tooltips. Alakzi (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Colorbox into Colour box, leaving a redirect from the former to the latter, per Pigsonthewing, Useddenim, Epicgenius, Mandruss, and B2project. Also, can we get this over with sooner rather than later? It's rather annoying to see all those (See tfm) tags whenever either of those templates gets used. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 21:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Per Useddenim and Whoop whoop pull up. Lost on  Belmont ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. The sooner the better. --NSH002 (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge, but please leave the ((colorbox)) with the gray borders. Black borders too obtrusive. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Useddenim. This will save editors time trying to decide which template to use. Zangar (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I guess. Definitely do not delete it.
• Speedy merge if only to get rid of the TfD tags... this would seem non-controversial. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 17:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge tfd tags are messing up prodigious amount of articles.--Chamith (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Useddenim. -sche (talk) 21:51, 3 August 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 merge to Template:FAQ. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:FAQ2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:FAQ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:FAQ2 with Template:FAQ.
Very closely-related templates, the only significant difference being their default 'collapse' behaviour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge I fail to see how anything but good things could come of this.Brustopher (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• support merge -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily merge - ((FAQ)) has a parameter to collapse. Separate template not needed. ((FAQ)) is highly visible and that merge discussion notice is kinda distracting so recommending that this be a speedy merge. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 18:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge as per above explanation. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: Let's not have templates differentiated by something so minor. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: The only thing that ((FAQ2)) has that ((FAQ)) doesn't, is a header. Using FAQ in combination with ((FQ row)) templates provides nearly identically the same experience as FAQ2. I would suggest adding a "header" parameter to FAQ (defaulting to "no" so as to not change how the template looks already on existing pages) which provides the same header as that seen in FAQ2. That way, FAQ provides the exact same functionality as FAQ2, and renders FAQ2 useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaykeBird (talk • contribs) 20:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per EvergreenFir. -sche (talk) 21:49, 3 August 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; deleted as G6 by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-af1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Uw-af2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Uw-af3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Uw-af4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Uw-af4im (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Article Feedback Tool has been removed on March 3, 2014. (((uw-af1))) et al. Eyesnore 03:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (from creator), as with ((uw-af-contact)), ((uw-af-personalinfo)) & ((uw-af-question)). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as housekeeping. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 27 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.