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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colombian department navigation box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to ((navbox)) (I replaced it in about three different templates). Frietjes (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, now unused. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 05:00, 16 May 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cabinet Office (United Kingdom) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The content of this template is currently outdated, but in my opinion it merely duplicates the information already displayed on Cabinet Office, where it currently appears. Cloudbound (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, also poorly formatted (too much whitespace). Frietjes (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not useful for navigation, poorly formatted. Neutrality^talk 19:54, 24 May 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. (Also deleting the related unused templates.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Toei stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant to ((STN)). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 15:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete along with the related ((Toei color)) and ((Toei lines)) which are also unused. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all 3 - unused. Neutrality^talk 19:54, 24 May 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) 23:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japan adjacent railway stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Looks nice but is unused in mainspace. Should be userfied. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 15:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or userfy) as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - redundant. Neutrality^talk 19:55, 24 May 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 history merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Israeli Election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been forked and superseded by ((Infobox legislative election)). I believe, the best course of action would be to replace all current uses with ((Infobox legislative election)) and histmerge the two. To avoid having their histories overlap, should a histmerge be performed, I have not placed the ((Tfd)) banner on ((Infobox Israeli Election)). Alakzi (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace and histmerge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace and histmerge per nom – unnecessary now. Just a question to Northamerica1000: Why was this relisted when there was no dissenting opinion? Number 57 12:48, 25 May 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) 23:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SingStar song list contents (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Can be replaced by usage of the more standard ((horizontal TOC)) trivially. Has 2 transclusions. Izno (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and replace per nom. Frietjes (talk) 13:40, 10 May 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) 23:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LDS Temple geographic toc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 10 May 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 articles. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Filton railway station services (first) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Flax Bourton railway station services (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lawrence Hill railway station services (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Nailsea and Backwell railway station services (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Redland railway station services (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Shirehampton railway station services (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single use templates which can be merged with the transcluding articles. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several more. I stuck them as templates because the code for several was rather large, so it seemed better to keep them off the page itself. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Substitute then delete. Single-use templates. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 07:31, 10 May 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 June 13. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:18, 13 June 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 template:OP. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Propose merging Template:OP with Template:OotP.
The template ((OP)) is a template for citing material from Harry Potter Order of the Phoenix and appears to be redundant to ((OotP)). Pursuant to a discussion at WP:OTRSN, we are going to be moving to dated ((OTRS pending)) templates and so I was hoping to repurpose the name ((OP)) to be used the same way Commons:template:OP is used - it generates a ((OTRS pending)) tag with today's date. B (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. "OP" is cryptic and should only be used as a redirect. Alakzi (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OP is clearly unclear per OP and not even a likely usage -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this should not be reused for OTRS pending. It's clearly an opaque name, and there are other uses out there per OP. Instead ((subst OTRS pending)) would be the way to go, to explicitly define what that is about; unlike Commons, Wikipedia contains articles, so not everything revolves around files. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While yes, there are other possibilities, using ((subst:OP)) for this makes us consistent with Commons, so there is some utility in that. And if we make it a more complicated template name, nobody is ever going to use it. --B (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being consistent with Commons under this situation is undesirable, since we are not a file-centric website, and we have OP in article-space, while "OP" is highly opaque. OTRS is not so common on EN.Wiki that it should have such an opaque template-name. Indeed, it should be clearly named because it isn't common. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:15, 27 May 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) 22:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:J-routem (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one transclusion (at Itō Station), redundant to ((J-route)). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 10:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 10:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant to simply transcluding ((J-route)) twice. Alakzi (talk) 18:18, 23 May 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) 23:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kedarnath Wild Life Sanctuary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single use template which I merged with the article. Frietjes (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment regarding notice - @Frietjes: Please do not forget to notify the template creator of this pending TfD. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nvvchar: Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Alakzi (talk) 18:20, 23 May 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) 23:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Popstar: A Dream Come True tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Little chance for it to become useful. Many of the links for individual tracks are simply redirects and for others it is unnecessary, unless one thinks there should be templates like this should in song articles for every compilation on which the song has appeared. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant to the tracklisting at Popstar: A Dream Come True and of no value anywhere else. PC78 (talk) 22:52, 15 May 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) 23:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spinnin' Records (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Record label rosters are not suitable for navboxes. Imagine if this was Atalantic or Geffen. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, better covered by a category. Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Beyond the label, just not enough of a connection between acts to warrant such a navbox on each of those pages. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as others have said, a roster shouldn't be included in a navbox but rather a category, which I have already created. PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 13:43, 10 June 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) 04:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Primetime Emmy Award Narrator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one entry. Does not provide useful navigation. WP:TOOSOON. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no point with just 1. Neutrality^talk 19:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Television Academy introduced the category in 2014. It's a new award. Why delete and wait until there's more winners? --charge2charge (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can be recreated when it becomes navigationally functional. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:21, 27 May 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) 04:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Primetime Emmy Award Character Voice-Over (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one entry. Does not provide useful navigation. WP:TOOSOON. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as above. Neutrality^talk 19:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Television Academy introduced the category in 2014. It's a new award. Why delete and wait until there's more winners? --charge2charge (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Serves no navigational purpose at this time, plus award templates such as these are better served as lists or else can fill up articles with too many of these types of navboxes. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:23, 27 May 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 redirect. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Legend3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Colorbox)). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 15:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• replace/redirect Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 11 June 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) 00:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adjectivals and demonyms for fictional regions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in one article. No need for a template as the content can be transcluded there. The Banner talk 11:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, only used in one article. Neutrality^talk 19:53, 24 May 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) 22:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Propose merging Template:Color box with Template:Colorbox and Template:RouteBox.
Minor stylistic variations; two with confusingly similar names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect ((Colorbox)) to ((Color box)) and replace ((RouteBox)) with ((Rail color box)), which places the text outside of the box per WP:ACCESS - avoid colouring text, especially links, at all times. Alakzi (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To anyone here with the relevant permissions (template or admin), the line break after the TfM notice in both ((Color box)) and ((Colorbox)) is causing additional newlines to appear. (I fixed the one in ((RouteBox)) since the template isn't protected.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 13:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Fixed by Redrose64. Thanks! Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 14:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge ((Color box)) and ((Colorbox)) (along with ((Legend3))) and keep ((RouteBox)) but rewrite based on ((Rail color box)), since ((Rail color box)) uses the ((<system> line)) and ((<system> color)) templates and ((RouteBox)) doesn't; and ((RouteBox)) can be used for bus routes as well. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 14:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why keep ((RouteBox)) if it offers no functionality specific to routes? Alakzi (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Alakzi: I suggested to keep it based on your suggestion to replace it with ((Rail color box)). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 15:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: ((Color box)) has text colour but no links, while ((Colorbox)) has links but no text colour. Merging them both would require keeping both the links and the text colour; since links shouldn't be coloured per WP:COLOUR, it would be pointless to perform this merge. (The border colour should, however, be standardized to either black or grey to prevent editors choosing a different one based on the colour be changed to black to provide additional contrast.) ((RouteBox)) (which currently colours all links) should be kept but rewritten based on ((Rail color box)), since while it's used for the same purpose, it doesn't use the sucession template system and it can be used for different transportation modes. Merging it with ((Colorbox)) would have to be done on a case-by-case basis, because some background colours might make it difficult to see links. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 15:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your !vote is inconsistent with your reasoning. If we're colouring links, we should stop doing it; thereby, ((Colorbox)) would become redundant and replaceable by ((Colour box)). The same goes for ((RouteBox)). Alakzi (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Alakzi: I was assuming that links on a coloured background where they are distinguishable from the background would be allowed (the MOS does not say anything about this). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 03:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge all (changing border colour to the text colour #252525 or black #000; removing the bold of ((RouteBox)); and adding tracking categories for text colour which isn't black or white and for combinations of text colour and links (and adding a parameter specially for uses in ((rint)) not to show in the tracking categories)), unless ((RouteBox)) has to be modified for violating WP:CONTRAST, in which case ((RouteBox)) and ((Color box)) stay separate and ((Colorbox)) is replaced with either of them on a case-by-case basis. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 07:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ((Color box)) and ((RouteBox)), replace ((Colorbox)) with ((Color box)) or ((RouteBox)) on a case-by-case basis: Even though ((RouteBox)) does use both text and background colour, in practice, the colour used for the text is virtually always either black or white, and the content of the text itself virtually always makes it completely obvious what the background colour is (see for example its multiple usages on ((MBTA Silver Line))); as the purpose of WP:COLOUR is to make sure that colour-blind users and/or users without a colour printer or colour display screen can still make out the text from the background, the text being virtually always either white or black should eliminate any problems with WP:COLOUR. However, ((Colorbox)) has both grey borders and blue wikilinks, which, when combined with the coloured background, makes it totally incompatible with WP:COLOUR except when the background colour is either very light or very dark; thus, it should be replaced on a case-by-case basis with either ((Color box)) or ((RouteBox)), which have black borders and no borders, respectively, instead of grey borders, and, in practice, usually either black or white instead of blue text, and are therefore far friendlier to colour-blind users than ((Colorbox)) due to their much greater text-against-background contrast. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 22:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:COLOR says, "links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers". Coloured links are no longer identifiable as links; the only cue that remains is the underline on hover. Alakzi (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COLOUR also says, "Some readers of Wikipedia are partially or fully color-blind. Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible". Given that, for colour-blind users, even a default-coloured bluelink may well be identifiable as a link only by the underline on hover, and that the default blue link colour is much harder for colour-blind users to distinguish from the background colour than a white- or black-coloured link is, I'd say that a) WP:COLOUR is internally inconsistent, and b), given that WP:COLOR is internally inconsistent, the great improvement in contrast and thus visibility to colour-blind users gained by having the links in the same white or black colour as the rest of the text far outweighs any decrease in distinguishability versus the rest of the text (and given that we're talking about colour-blind users here, making the links contrast with the rest of the text via blue colour will do little if any good compared to the harm it will do by making the linktext far harder to distinguish from the background). Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 22:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compare (((rint|montreal|metro|1))—image) &  1  (((RouteBox|1|Green Line (Montreal Metro)|#((Montreal Metro color|Green))))—text): I don't see any “clearly … identifiable … link” for either example, but you're not proposing the deletion of ((rail-interchange)) (yet). Useddenim (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, links are also distinguishable by their contrast; they're lighter than regular text. You propose a false dichotomy; I never did suggest to use links against a coloured background. This isn't the place to challenge our accessibility guidelines. (It is the place to explain how they might be inapplicable, but that's not what you've done.) Beyond accessibility, it is also good practice to visually distinguish links for readers without a vision impairment. As for ((Rint)): WP:OTHERSTUFF. Alakzi (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alakzi: ((Rint)) is somewhat relevant to this, since it uses ((Color box)) and ((RouteBox)), and will be affected if either of them are modified. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 03:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all, per Jc86035. ((RouteBox)) is completely different from ((Rail color box)) (and doesn't depend on external system definitions, which is why I wrote it — P.S. thanks for notifying the author of the proposed merge) in both form and function.
  For example,

((RouteBox))	((Rail color box))
1	Line 1

are hardly the same (the former being close to what appears on sytem signage in Shanghai). Furthermore, ((RouteBox)) is used frequently in WP:Route diagram templates. The proposed replacement with ((Rail color box)) would consume an inordinate amount of space. (In the illustration above, it’s a 7× increase.)
And as AlgaeGraphix noted in October 2010 at Template talk:Colorbox, “it's a little confusing that the 4th parameter has a different meaning in two very similar templates.” ((Color box)) and ((Colorbox)) have coexisted just fine for the last eight years (and had no significant changes for nearly as long), so I'm really not convinced of any need to merge them. Useddenim (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Useddenim: I've corrected your example, as the actual ((Rail color box|system=SHM|line=1|inline=yes)) has a piped link. I don't think it actually takes up all that much space (compare and      Gyeongui–Jungang Line), but I have no objections to keeping ((RouteBox)) just the way it is (but optionally with a restriction on the text colour to either black or white). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 03:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also for restricting ((RouteBox))'s font colour options to just black and white. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 16:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment whatever happens RouteBox should not exist as a template (can work as a redirect), since this is template can be generally usable, there is nothing inherent in it that is restricted to routes. A new template that chooses color background or text or outline box, linked or unliked, can be created to unify all functionality. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all ((color box)) and ((colorbox)) are used in thousands of pages and redirecting/merging either would result in breaking historical page versions. By all means, mark one or both as depreciated. ((RouteBox)) could be renamed to a more suitable name. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 12:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nether being "used in thousands of pages" nor "breaking historical page versions" has ever been considered a reason not to merge templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you guys sort this out your making some Australian Football pages look ugly with the see tfm stuff  Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• As usual, I got here from an article that said "see tfm" on it, and I have zero opinion on or interest in the issue at hand. Couldn't we at least not show that for people who aren't logged in? I hate to discriminate against IP editors, but the vast majority of people (especially readers, who mostly don't have accounts) who stumble on an article and see the tfm notice aren't going to care about the discussion and don't even know what a "tfm" is. I'm sure there's a better place to raise this issue, but blah. ekips39 (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I support User:Thejoebloggsblog, this needs to be sorted out quickly, and we need to get rid of this tfm ugliness. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocterYas (talk • contribs) 17:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All Paraphrasing what someone stated above, any change would probably cause more trouble and confusion than whoever proposed the change thought there was to begin with... And, as someone else said, let's get it done quickly... GWFrog (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • An unsubstantiated assertion that "any change would probably cause" unspecified problems is not a reason not to merge templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 27 May 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) 22:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Banqiao Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Luzhou Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Nangang Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Neihu Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Songshan Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tamsui Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tucheng Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wenshan Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Xiaonanmen Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Xinbeitou Branch Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Xindian Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Xinyi Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Xinzhuang Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Zhonghe Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is kind of ridiculous, honestly. There is no need for a ((Colorbox)) plus line link template for each line. Should be substituted or replaced with a ((Rail colorbox)) that functions like ((Rail color box)) but uses ((Colorbox)) (grey border) instead of ((Color box)) (black border). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 10:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst or merge into ((Rail color box)) and delete - no need for a new rail colour box template just for changing the border colour. Alakzi (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst or merge per Alakzi. We should also never distinguish different templates just by the use of spaces in their names. I've accordingly nominated ((Colorbox)) and ((Color box)) for merging, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 23 May 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) 22:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taiwan line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rail-interchange (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rail color box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Taiwan line with Template:Rail-interchange and Template:Rail color box.
As with ((China line)) (now in holding cell; discussion), ((Taiwan line)) can be replaced with ((Rail-interchange)) and ((Rail color box)) (using the ((Example line)) and ((Example color)) set of succession templates). There isn't a need for a separate symbol template for each city/country/system. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 09:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 23 May 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) 00:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Guangzhou Metro/1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Guangzhou Metro/2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Guangzhou Metro/3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Guangzhou Metro/3A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Guangzhou Metro/4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Guangzhou Metro/5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Guangzhou Metro/6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Guangzhou Metro/7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Guangzhou Metro/8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Guangzhou Metro/9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Guangzhou Metro/Airport Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Guangzhou Metro/APM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Guangzhou Metro/GFM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; redundant to the superior ((GZM RDT)) and subtemplates. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 09:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 23 May 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) 00:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Guangzhou Zhujiang New Town APM Systems (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Guangzhou Metro Line 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Guangzhou Metro Line 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Guangzhou Metro Line 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Guangzhou Metro Line 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Guangzhou Metro Line 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Guangzhou Metro Line 6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Guangzhou Metro Line 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused templates, seemingly superseded by ((Guangzhou Metro lines)). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 09:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 23 May 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) 00:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GZM line cell (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on one mainspace page. Substitute before deletion. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 08:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GZM line cell has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 08:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

No objections. Kxx (talk | contribs) 16:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

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 T3 by Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oussama Belhcen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No navigational benefit for a navbox with a link to an article that should probably be redirected or deleted itself. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been converted to a redirect; deleting template. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:23, 30 May 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.