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).

The result of the discussion was delete as redundant. This does not apply to ((Embedmap Japan)) as deleting that was only proposed yesterday. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mapplot Japan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Location map)). Alakzi (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Its dependency, ((Embedmap Japan)), can also be deleted, but I don't feel like starting a new TfD. Alakzi (talk) 14:20, 12 September 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete and replace with ((Nodisplay)). ~ Rob^Talk 01:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ssdn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Nodisplay)). Alakzi (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 4 September 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).

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 John Vandenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Span2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in ((Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus)), where it's redundant to the less verbose *<li class="class">. ((Span)) was previously deleted at TfD. Alakzi (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment1 I don´t know anything about templates, except that I use the ((Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus)) all the time, and this discussion has made it nearly unusable. @John Vandenberg: who knows more about templates than I do, Huldra (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment2 Someone spread their magic pixie-dust, (well, that is how it seems to me!)...and now ((Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus)) is nice and "workable" again; whoever that was; Thanks!! Huldra (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ok, User:Alakz; I see what you did there. As one (of only a handful) of editors who works on these villages, I would say this is a definite improvement. Typically, when I had expanded an article earlier, I would have to make an edit like this, now I can just remove the <li class="Blofeld_stub"> in front of the article name. Thanks! Huldra (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted. Thanks. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:00, 6 September 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. ~ Rob^Talk 06:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Separator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant to ((•)). Also, "Separator" is too vague. Alakzi (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:08, 4 September 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. ~ Rob^Talk 06:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Comma separated entries)), and "Series" is too vague. Alakzi (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 4 September 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. ~ Rob^Talk 06:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:News2ColGeneric (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused experiment. Alakzi (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 4 September 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused at time of close, by the way, so it appears the creator decided to remove their one transclusion. ~ Rob^Talk 06:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Profile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox user)); userfy if the creator wants to keep it for personal use. Alakzi (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant (it has only a single, use BTW). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 4 September 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 14#Template:Notcontact. Alakzi (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Notcontact (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 12 transclusions, so no community uptake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment wouldn't this only be used after repeated attempts to contact the person in question, thus not be widely used? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Rationale for deletion is extremely weak, much like the rest of the noms on this page and the last by this user. 'Lack of Community Uptake' is not a reason for deletion. ♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 02:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no grounds for a speedy keep; please read WP:SPEEDYKEEP. And yes, lack of significant use is very much a reason for deletion. I note that you make no case that the template is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after removing from articles. This doesn't warrant substitution. It's an entirely unnecessary template. ~ Rob^Talk 00:05, 3 September 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 14#Template:Citation by contributor. Alakzi (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Citation by contributor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A mere 11 transclusions indicates a lack of community uptake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, and also because this is pretty much redundant to ((COI)) and related. ~ Rob^Talk 06:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @J Milburn, Hroðulf, Crisco 1492, and Imzadi1979: You've used this template - any thoughts? Alakzi (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This isn't redundant to the COI template at all- having written about something does not entail a close connection to it. The template may or may not serve a genuine need, and it may or may not be as widely used as it could be, but it's not redundant. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I find it useful. As Josh says, "having written about something does not entail a close connection to it", and the wording in this template is much more accurate to the situation than in the standard COI template. A lack of uptake doesn't mean the template has no purpose or is redundant; it might not be advertised much, or (in this situation) people might not want to divulge their RL identities. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: serves a distinct purpose from ((COI)). BethNaught (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—as noted above, it is used for a distinct purpose from the other template. Imzadi 1979 → 01:59, 14 September 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_13. ~ Rob^Talk 06:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cite doi/10.2307.2F27543883 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite doi/10.2307.2F27870146 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite doi/10.2307.2F3818653 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite doi/10.2307.2F3831565 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite doi/10.2307.2F3850722 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite doi/10.2307.2F40135909 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite doi/10.2307.2F40137154 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite doi/10.2307.2F40547638 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used, Template:Cite doi depreciated —Bruce1ee^talk 09:45, 4 September 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Keep. While the current use of the template may be problematic, it does not appear to be unsolvable. There is not consensus on a specific method of improving this template, but two possible alternatives would be to make each parameter specific to a date (i.e. |RankingMagazine-2015= instead of just |RankingMagazine=) or to require references to be added within each article instead of within the template, using the template to provide only the general format. ~ Rob^Talk 02:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox India university ranking (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think this is a problematic template for two reasons that stem from the fact that the references can be changed without any control over how they are used in articles. As an example, I'll refer to reference #13, which is a 2012 survey of engineering colleges performed by Outlook India. The first problem is that because that company produces a survey every year, I or anyone else could update the reference to the 2015 survey at any moment. Doing so would mean the articles where the template is used are then likely to show the wrong information (e.g. MIT College of Engineering was ranked 50th in 2012 and 37th in 2015). If the article is not updated with the 2015 ranking then the source and rank will not correlate. The other problem is the opposite scenario; this template still has the 2012 reference, but an editor of the school's article may insert a more recent rank, not realizing the reference in the template points to 2012 and can't be changed within the article.
I can't see any way of overcoming these two problems under the current set up. Whilst the template may be useful as a quick display of numbers, it is going to be filled with a mixture of wrong numbers and incorrect references all the time on the articles. Perhaps I have misunderstood how the template is used, but this is based on my observations of the template's use on engineering college articles. Is there a way to obtain a list of articles that uses a template? That is what would be required to make sure every article is correct. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox India university ranking gives a list of pages linking to the template. It can be filtered to only include transclusions in article space, which shows there are 75. SiBr₄ (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep This is no different from all other templates in Category:University and college rankings templates. These are extremely useful templates representing in many cases years of consensus gathering. The rationale given is misuse of the template. Instead of deleting the template, watch it, and make sure it is properly used. When updated ranking are published, transcluded articles should be updated as well. I did that for several years until I semi-retired. --Muhandes (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The obvious solution here would be to date the parameters. Whenever new rankings are released, phase in new year parameters, update the articles, and then phase the old ones out. If the template's in disarray now, you could blank it while you carry out the updates. Alakzi (talk) 00:30, 13 September 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).