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 relisted on 2015 March 31. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Periodisation of Indian History (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Periodisation of Hinduism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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) 04:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Games by Apollo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems to fail WP:NENAN with no likelihood of expansion. Izno (talk) 23:34, 22 March 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems to fail WP:NENAN. Izno (talk) 23:33, 22 March 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer Guayaquil Marathon Champions Women (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is not a high level competition which warrants navigation between its champions. The winner is largely decided by who the race organiser provides the greatest financial incentive to participate. SFB 22:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Minor women's marathon race of little international significance. Moreover, the template has only a single working link, or rather four links to the same article, because the winner of four of five iterations of the race was the same athlete. No content to navigate between. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:09, 24 March 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dell monitors table header row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dell monitors table data row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in only one article. Subst and delete.  Gadget850 ^talk 22:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete per nom. Trivial to recreate should that ever be necessary. Alakzi (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They may be used in only one article, but the row template is used very many times there, and simplifies editing/ data entry by de-cluttering the editing window (and would do so even more with one parameter per line). Perhaps these should be made more general for use in lists of monitors from other manufacturers? Note that I have also added hProduct microformat markup to the row template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since it's been modified to provide a useful function; though I don't generally support plain table row templates, this one appears to be generally useful —PC-XT+ 03:06, 29 March 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AtariAge company (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Citation template that is just a hard-coded version of cite web used in two articles. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I created this template (and Template:AtariAge title) to help make links to the AtariAge database more maintainable, and it's served that purpose well. Its purpose is similar to the ((IMDb title)) template, but on a much smaller scale. 28bytes (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking it over, you're right. I'd like to withdraw the nomination now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not used enough to require a template. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:56, 5 March 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 since they links appear to be irreparably dead. I will "substitute" them in the three articles still using the citations, but mark the links as dead. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation London Underground performance exits 2003 to 2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used in only three articles. I'm not completely sure how the template is appearing there but it's really a basic cite web template with a parameter for the numbers. It's first problematic because it hard-codes that it was retrieved on December 26 2012 so any new information will be wrong and without having some web version that requires unique coding, it just seem to make it more complicated than necessary. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be deleted. It is a citation for usage data in the ((Infobox London station)) template. The reason it does not appear on most articles containing that template is that usage data more than four years old is usually commented out so that the info box does not get too long. The data remains hidden in the Infobox London station template's parameters for each article, so the citation for it should stay as well. For the three articles it is visible in these were the last years of the London Underground's operation. The fixed retrieval date on this template does not need to be modified as the data it is citing will not change and the original source has been removed by Transport for London anyway. This template could be renamed to ((Citation London Underground performance exits 2003 to 2006)) as it is not used to cite anything after 2006. Citations for newer station usage currently use a different template, ((Citation LU usage 2007 onwards)) which links to a live source. --DavidCane (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a citation for data that is commented out? How does that make those uses helpful? Isn't it still being used at only three articles? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after replacement as a victim of link rot: about 25 links can be salvaged from [1], and the rest could possibly be replaced by text with ids mapping to names removed in Special:Diff/630121478, but the template will probably no longer be very useful like this —PC-XT+ 05:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC) The references for the articles still using the template are not in the archive for any year. It's probably best to forget about salvaging for now, and simply replace the usage in ((Infobox London station)) with something other than ((cite web)), to avoid the tagging of cite web usage with no url. A comment to that list of archived references could possibly be added somewhere, or links to individual archived pages in the commented part of each article in the archive, if desired. —PC-XT+ 07:17, 29 March 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 keep deprecated, but find a process for orphaning it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iw-ref (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Several previous discussions indicated that this template should no longer be used, yet I've recently seen users adding this to new pages. I think it is time to delete it for good now (or at least disambig/redirect). This would, of course, require a bot to remove these and place the proper tags on the talk pages. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Those previous discussions included Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 8#Interwikipedia-translated-from templates and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 15#Template:Equivalent, also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 17#Category:Interwiki translation templates which wasn't a direct request to delete or merge this, but is of relevance. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The deprecation of this template and this type of interlanguage citation was decided years ago. This template is obsolete and should have been deleted when it was deprecated.  Liam987(talk) 16:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Deprecate but do not delete because it will render the attribution statement provided in older revisions unreadable; these old revisions might not have used the suggested method of attribution given instead of this template. –xeno^talk 20:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as deprecated but replace usage so new users don't copy it —PC-XT+ 07:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• deprecate, make a request to have a bot fix the transclusions (if possible) then reconsider. Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 31 March 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 10:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Sri Lankan Parliament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox legislative session (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Sri Lankan Parliament with Template:Infobox legislative session.
The two infoboxes serve the same purpose. The generalised template is missing the following parameters: (({nomination))}, (({first_meeting))}, (({dissolution))}, and (({duration))}. They should probably be added to it. Alakzi (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as proposed, although (({first_meeting))} and |term_start= may serve the same purpose; likewise (({dissolution))} and |term_end =. (({duration))} is superfluous to the start and end dates. The Sri Lankan template has six transclusions only. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The start of the term usually precedes the first (plenary?) sitting. The parliament may be dissolved before its term ends. I'm not sure what the exact meaning of "nomination" is in Sri Lankan politics. Is it when candidates are chosen? Alakzi (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as proposed As the editor who initially created Template:Infobox Sri Lankan Parliament I support the merger as Template:Infobox legislative session contains most of the same fields. Nomination is the period when candidates can submit their nomination but I don't think this, or the (({duration))} field, are important and can be deleted. (({first_meeting))} and (({dissolution))} can be replaced by |term_start= and |term_end =.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 21:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• All transclusions of ((Infobox Sri Lankan Parliament)) have been replaced. Alakzi (talk) 01:16, 30 March 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 10:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox California legislation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (14 transclusions)

Template:Infobox Oklahoma legislation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (9 transclusions)

Template:Infobox New York legislation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (3 transclusions)

Template:Infobox U.S. legislation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging the above state legislation templates into Template:Infobox U.S. legislation.

The State templates are redundant to the US one. The latter will need some tweaks, such as the ability to override automatic linking. Alternatively, just replace instances of the state templates with ((Infobox legislation)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It should be merged with ((Infobox legislation)). Confusing Oklahoma with the US is like confusing the UK with the EU. They are almost the same, but almost isn't the same. Also, see the other (member) state templates. Int21h (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parameters are almost identical, and that's what matters. Which other templates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (merging into Infobox U.S. legislation) Almost the same is not the same. When you say "almost" I say "not even close". In this case, differences between the federal legal system and the various state legal systems is paramount to an infobox about specifics within such legal systems. Damn near every parameter is going to need to be interpreted differently. For example, the seals are different, state statutes are not published in the United States Statutes at Large, they are not codified in the United States Code, they don't have public law numbers, they are not signed by a president, SCOTUS is not a relevant court, Congress is not a relevant body, and the list goes on and on for damn-near every parameter. Not even the parameter names can be kept. Its not to say both the U.S. and state templates can't use the same underlying template to keep them cohesive, but things will need to be different enough that keeping a separate template is worth it. Int21h (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I've been aware that these state templates were subpar for a number of months now, but the state legal systems and governmental structures have been different enough that a siginificant amount of research was needed to figure out how they worked. For example, there is no real work of codification in New York and California; they are "virtual" codifications, unpublished codifications. Unlike the United States Code, the California Codes and New York Consolidated Laws are not published by the government. This makes linking to the codifications a more troublesome, and possibly messy, affair, compared to the US infobox. We may need like 3 hyperlinks in there to the codifications for the major online sources. The same goes for the session laws. I also have been unable to discern any standard citation scheme, given that they aren't published by the government there are many, which is a huge deal in such a template. (For example, citing the California Statutes can be a mess.) I just haven't had enough time to curate all these state and sub-state articles and get down to the nitty-gritty details needed for these templates. Int21h (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Added California & NY template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Int21h. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Int21h and Prototime: Please clarify that you are opposing the first of two mutually-exclusive options proposed, but supporting the second (i.e. "replace instances of the state templates with ((Infobox legislation))"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support merge (into Infobox legislation) On further thought.. I'm not sure we want different infoboxes for each jurisdiction (think cities too, e.g., New York City passes laws, not "ordinances" and such) because that would get crazy to maintain, and I like the idea of focusing our limited efforts on one template, but I do think we're going to have to address major shortcomings in that one template. I'm thinking the generic infobox; I oppose merging it into the US infobox because its too specific. The same reasons we can't or don't want to use the generic infobox on US articles needs to be addressed, which I think is doable. In any event, these state templates are so bad I'm pretty sure we could create them better from scratch. Int21h (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merger into the US box, i.e. Infobox U.S. legislation should not be used for state legislation. It's for federal legislation, with consequent parameters that are federal-specific, such as enacted-by, cite statutes at large, and citepubliclaw. If we start using this for state legislation, we run the risk of these parameters getting misused by people who don't understand that they're just for federal law. If that starts happening, we'll produce the wrong metadata, e.g. giving a reference to the Oklahoma code in the cite statutes at large, and a bot would interpret that as a reference to the US Code. Maybe these state infoboxes should be merged into Infobox legislation (I'm not familiar with it, so no comment), or if not, into a single infobox for all US state legislation, but merging state and federal boxes would be quite unhelpful. Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merger I see no reason to merge state templates with the federal one. The federal template has different parameters from the state template. There is no reason to unnecessarily merge templates when everything is working smoothly just the way it is. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:23, 7 April 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 speedy deleted by Plastikspork. (non-admin closure) Tavix |  Talk  18:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used. It is a redundant or otherwise useless template.

The templates is a single sentence for one minor meaning for Cavalier (disambiguation) has no sources and if ever it is needed the sentence can be added directly to an article. PBS (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete as a test page. Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 22 March 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 relisted on 2015 April 7. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 10:53, 7 April 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sabinas TV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Nueva Rosita TV. Sabinas and Nueva Rosita are one media market/coverage area. All articles that linked to this one link to the Nueva Rosita one. Raymie (t • c) 07:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, small and redundant. Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 22 March 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Azteca 13 Puebla (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

For Mexican TV stations, many of which repeat national networks, stations do not have pages (unless they are local stations) but are redirects. Both of the stations in this infobox have redirects for their pages. There's no place for this to be effectively transcluded. Raymie (t • c) 07:42, 22 March 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Balleza TV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

XHBAL-TV, the only station in Balleza, Chih., does not have an article. It exists, but it is a noncommercial station licensed to the local municipality. The IFT database has it listed with an asterisk—possibly never built, even though the permit is old enough not to have an expiration date.

Nothing will use this dead end of a template, so it probably is not worth having around. No current transclusions. Raymie (t • c) 07:41, 22 March 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quad Cities Roads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Twin ports roads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Roads of Northwest Arkansas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Roads of Texarkana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The purpose these templates currently serve is better served by categories. Using navboxes adds unneeded clutter. See precedents at WP:USRD/P#Other debates and these four previous discussions about similar navboxen. TCN7JM 03:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as creator of two of these, per precident. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 04:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per precedent. Dough4872 04:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per all my previous voting and discussion. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—per all of the previous discussions. As has been discussed several times already, these are redundant to the "Transportation in X County, State" categories because metropolitan areas in the US are defined at the county level. Each box adds unnecessary visual clutter and pollutes the "What links here" listing for each article, yet the categories take up a minimum amount of space and don't impact the WLH results. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Valdosta precedent. These templates are improper regardless of the number of states involved.  VC  22:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nomination rationale and recent precedents on point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:36, 25 March 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is no longer useful, considering that CapGeek has been shut down. Unfortunately, given the death of its founder (Matthew Wuest), it looks like the closure will be permanent. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 02:03, March 22, 2015 (UTC) 02:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, no longer useful. Frietjes (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The site is gone forever. Resolute 16:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as page creator (not sure if that matters), sad the death of the founder and page. –B2Project^(Talk) 18:24, 26 March 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 with the articles. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inter-parliamentary institutions and international parliaments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mixture of Inter-parliamentary assemblies and International parliaments which are two distinct concepts.
Propose subst'ing and sorting out, unless someone finds time to rightaway pick those belonging to either of the two articles. PanchoS (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why, or how, did you add this to 11 March's TfD? Alakzi (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I second Alakzi's concern: why was this TfD discussion added to the March 11 TfD page on March 13? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and remove entries as required. Alakzi (talk) 04:06, 22 March 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 ((Infobox county fire service)) relisting the other two on 2015 April 11. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK Fire and Rescue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (64 transclusions)

Template:Infobox fire department (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (305 transclusions)

Template:Infobox county fire service (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (0 transclusions - Excluding the transclusion on the documentation page)

Propose merging Template:Infobox UK Fire and Rescue and Template:Infobox county fire service with Template:Infobox fire department.

"Infobox fire department" is US-centric. Meanwhile pages like Tokyo Fire Department use ((Infobox Organization)). We should merge the three nominated templates into one template suitable for international use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: ((Infobox fire department)) has 305 transclusions and is heavily used. Perhaps renaming it Infobox US fire department but it has been heavily customized with information that is needed for fire department pages. --Zackmann08 (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "305 transclusions and heavily used" a reason to oppose this suggestion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mine was a poorly framed argument. After looking over the two templates, I feel that they are distinct enough that it would not be beneficial to merge them. This is my opinion, if there are others besides Andy Mabbett who have an opinion on this matter, please chime in! Also, just to be clear, Mr. Mabbett, not saying I only care about the opinion of those besides yourself. Just saying you've made your argument, I've made mine. Now I'd like to hear from others. :-) If there are others that support merging the templates, then I will not only bow to WP:Consensus but will help merge the two. --Zackmann08 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment regarding notice - WikiProject Fire Service has been notified of this TfD: [2]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think that we should list all equipment, or all administrative divisions separately. The former should be placed in a table in the body of the article. The latter should be trimmed; a complete breakdown can be found in settlement articles. If we're gonna merge these, I'd prefer to selectively incorporate some fields in ((Infobox UK Fire and Rescue)), which is the tidiest of the three. Officer titles will differ from country to country, so the labels should be customisable; cf. ((Infobox government agency)), for example. Alakzi (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Alakzi I think you make a good point about the location. My rationale for that is that (at least in the United States) fire service is largely based on mutual aid that runs up the chain of locations. So for example, Santa Barbara City, responds with Santa Barbara County which in turn responds with the State of California. I would also argue that the breakdown of equipment is vital to understanding the department. A department on the east coast of the US, in a major city is going to have a vastly different fleet of vehicles than that of one on the west coast in wildfire territory. Just like a department in the heart of London would be vastly different than one out in the countryside. I use this all the time. This information helps those interested in the subject to understand it. Otherwise I think your argument could be applied to almost every Infobox on here. For example ((Infobox automobile)): no need to include the wheelbase, height, weight, etc. in the infobox, it will be listed in the article. You see my point? To be clear (I know tone is so hard to read from plain text) I do not mean to personally attack you in any way! I am simply trying to point out the flip side of your argument. Looking forward to continuing the discussion. --Zackmann08 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete county fire service. I removed one transclusion because it was only being used to provide the service's phone number, and that means that there's only one remaining transclusion: we shouldn't have single-use infoboxes. No vote on the other suggestion. I do agree with Alakzi that we shouldn't go listing all the types of apparatus separately, and for anything except a very local department, listing the various administrative jurisdictions is also a bad idea. Let's just give the place where it's based (for example, my parents live down the village street from the fire station, so give the name of the village, but omit the surrounding townships that the department serves) and a single number for the total number of vehicles of every type of apparatus. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Any other thoughts on this? Would like to reach a consensus... --Zackmann08 (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment As the ((Infobox county fire service)) is no longer in use and is being replaced by one of these two templates, I have nominated it for deletion HERE. --Zackmann08 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 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 relisted on 2015 April 11. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spread of IE-languages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Indo-Aryan migration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Spread of Vedic culture (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indo-European migration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In accordance to my reason for other 3 same templates. A template must not include any maps but only links to other articles. Hajme 00:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the nominator suggests. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a pity... I guess you're right. So, back to collapsible tables. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shouldn't this be combined with the discussion of 3 same templates? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's unlikely there will be a different outcome for this one.  Liam987(talk) 16:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There couldn't be, I don't know if there is any chance to merge this discussion with other. Hajme 05:20, 1 April 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 relisted on 2015 April 11. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:19, 11 April 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islamism in Bangladesh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Misleading title and provocative content carried out by BengaliHindu's propaganda activities as Bangladesh is a Muslim majority country and its state religion is Islam according to constitution. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per rationale above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• What's wrong with it? How's the title misleading? Alakzi (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per nominator. Islam is a major religion of Bangladesh and Islamism in Bangladesh cannot be separated from ((Islam in Bangladesh)). OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The author should attempt to establish that this topic is worthy of inclusion by creating a draft article. If it's not found to violate policy, then the template can be restored. TfD is ill-equipped to make this judgment. Alakzi (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Solid Keep. For Baal's sake, this is one of the most overtly partisan, WP:BADFAITH noms I've yet seen. (Nom has been aggressively AfDing every article BengaliHindu has created or been extensively involved in.) The nom's own AfD rationale is in fact the strongest possible argument in support of keeping and expanding the template. I.e., If Bangladesh is an Islamic state now, then the topic of Islamism in Bangladesh is obviously notable. Pax 23:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And that's why we are following his nomination for deletions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Merge with Template:Islamism in South Asia - I don't see anything wrong with the template. The nominator's rationale is entirely irrelevant for TfD, bordering on POV pushing. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why my rationale is irrelevant?? Muslim in Bangladesh is 89.56%, capital Dhaka is the City of Mosque, its state religion is Islam according to constitution. In what way, Islamization in Bangladesh is possible? Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islamism is a political ideology. I don't see any recognition of that fact in what you write. Even a country that has Islam as a State religion can make varying use of Islam in its governance and politics. The supposed logical flaw that you allude to doesn't exist. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kautilya3, you should present its necessity rather than understanding simple facts. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To even pretend that Islamism is not a looming factor in Bangladesh is willful evasion of reality.[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],etc. Pax 22:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, almost every wikilink is present in ((Islamism in South Asia)) template. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, that is a useful piece of information. It doesn't make sense to put the same organisations in two related templates. You should be making a proposal to merge this one into ((Islam in South Asia)), rather than asking for deletion. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy prohibiting an entity from being listed in more than one template? Pax 22:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no such policy. The point is that one of these is a subtemplate of the other. So, the two templates would go on very much the same pages listing very much the same links. That would be pointless. Since these are navigation aids, we should prefer the larger template to the smaller one. What BengaliHindu needs a real page on Islamism in Bangladesh. But that will involve doing real work, not just gathering together a bunch of links. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It must be kept in one form or another for the sake of the Internal conflict in Bangladesh article.--Catlemur (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Template:Islamism in South Asia. I strongly agree with Pax and Kautilya3, and oppose the nom's rationale, but many of the links are to articles related to either Islam in Bangladesh or Islamism in general.  Liam987(talk) 16:46, 22 March 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.