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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:JRE color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:JRE lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:JRE stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unused and not important. AlfaRocket (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sad as I poured lots of love into them but tempus fuigit :) Cosnahang (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2017 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Istanbul Labelled Map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and the File:Istanbul_location_districts.svg map is doing a great job showing the various districts. Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unused, not important. AlfaRocket (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2017 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unused and not important. AlfaRocket (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused and not needed now. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unused, and doesn't work properly, as IPNI doesn't actually have any abbreviations for teams of botanists. Plantdrew (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It was fun trying to make a template, at least. But sorry it wasn't useful. Hamamelis (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2017 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Big East Conference marching band navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, probably because the conference is defunct Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unused, not important! I agree with user Frietjes!. AlfaRocket (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2017 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Best Chinese Language Film from the Two Coasts HKFA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and duplicates Template:Hong Kong Film Award for Best Film from Mainland and Taiwan Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not importan, unused. AlfaRocket (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2017 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Beys of Tunis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not important. AlfaRocket (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:12, 29 August 2017 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bhutanese Title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete,not important. AlfaRocket (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2017 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Beijing Renhe F.C. Squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and out-of-date Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not important out of date!. AlfaRocket (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2017 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Al-Masry Squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and way out-of-date Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not useful. AlfaRocket (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Frietjes and AlfaRocket. Also, there is nowhere good to merge it into. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:57, 3 September 2017 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Algeria squad – 2013 FIBA Africa Championship for Women (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, non-notable squad, all red links Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not relevant. AlfaRocket (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not help navigation.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:58, 3 September 2017 (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 merge to Template:Infobox surname. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox family name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox surname (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox family name with Template:Infobox surname.
"They're for the same thing." Infobox family name is "mostly a copy-paste of the infobox for given names, including numerous parameters that don't make sense for surnames", "the name 'surname' is better than 'family name', because it's consistent with the articles (which all use '(Surname)' to disambiguate)". Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please note that this is a formal reintroduction of a discussion already initiatied so far in favor of the proposal at Template_talk:Infobox_family_name#Proposed_merger_of_Template:Infobox_family_name_with_Template:Infobox_surname by Mclay1 (talk · contribs), whose quites are included in this above formal proposal. Prisencolin (talk · contribs) and I have already voiced support for it. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A correction to what I've been quoted as saying in the proposal: I said on the talk page that Infobox surname is mostly a copy-paste of Infobox given name, as I said below. M.Clay1 (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per the reasons I've been quoted as saying. I'd forgotten all about this. I can't see any reason why there should be more than one template for the same thing. IIRC, Infobox family name is the better template and talk page, but Infobox surname is the better name. The latter should be deleted and the former moved. Regardless of any arguments of whether "surname" or "family name" is more appropriate or inclusive, family name currently redirects to surname, so these templates should conform to that. Any arguments over which name is better should be taken there, and I imagine there have been countless arguments there already. M.Clay1 (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the article realm analogy. Good point. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. AlfaRocket (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The surname template is the superior of the two. So as long as the parameters from both are retained there should be no problems.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The surname template is not the superior. It has more parameters but a number of the them are unnecessary and have been copied from the given name template (e.g. gender). Some foreign surnames are written differently depending on the gender of the person, but we wouldn't have a separate page or infobox for the different gendered versions of the same name. Not all the the parameters need to be kept. M.Clay1 (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed that you're the one who made the surname template. Not that it matters now, but you should have edited the existing family name template rather than making a new one. Regardless, the family name one has far more edits and transclusions. M.Clay1 (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds lika good reason to keep Family name as default history after merge, but rename that template to Surname (since all family names tend to be surnames, but not all surnames are family names). Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge They serve the same purpose. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:04, 1 September 2017 (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 merge to Template:Infobox family. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox noble house (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox family (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox noble house into Template:Infobox family.
Essentially the same scope. Variables/parametres - needed ones - match. I discovered this while proposing updates to Template:Infobox family. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chicbyaccident, I have a question. By "merging" Template:Infobox noble house into Template:Infobox family, do you mean the complete elimination of the existing Template:Infobox noble house and its replacement by the current Template:Infobox family ? -- Blairall (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant a merge, with final product Template:Infobox family, including all preexisting variables from Template:Infobox noble house, plus perhaps also an additional "type" variable if necessary for the nobility aspect. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chicbyaccident, thank you very much for your message with that information, which I greatly appreciate receiving. I'm not familiar with how these templates are coded, so I apologize for asking about this, but I would like to understand the practical effect of your proposed merger. From your comment above, I get the impression that you would take all the existing "fields", such as "Parent house", from Template:Infobox noble house and place those into Template:Infobox family, then delete Template:Infobox noble house. Would those fields therefore be visible as fields on the Template:Infobox family documentation page, or would they be 'hidden' fields that work in practice but are not shown on that documentation page? -- Blairall (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visible, is the idea. Chicbyaccident (talk)

Thanks for your reply and for explaining that. I appreciate your efforts and I'm definitely in favour of good organization, but even if all of these variables are transferred now into Template:Infobox family, I have concerns about what will happen to them in the future if Template:Infobox noble house is eliminated. I have great respect for your good intentions and don't want to upset anyone, but unfortunately I don't feel comfortable with those two templates being merged, and I will place my concluding comment on a separate line below. -- Blairall (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merging not important. AlfaRocket (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AlfaRocket: Excuse me, not sure which one you are referring to and why, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above !vote was edited. @AlfaRocket: do you have an actual reason for opposing the merge? "Not important" isn't a reason. M.Clay1 (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AlfaRocket removed his comment. I have restored it and put a strike through it. M.Clay1 (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok Thanks, and sorry for my message. AlfaRocket (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merging - I certainly agree that some templates should be merged, but in this particular case, I would prefer not to merge Template:Infobox noble house into Template:Infobox family. I edit a number of articles that use Template:Infobox noble house, and I find that template to be very useful. After looking at the two templates, I note that Template:Infobox noble house has many fields (parameters) that do not appear in Template:Infobox family, and vice versa. Some examples are: Parent house, Titles, Styles, Founded, Founder, Current head, Motto, Dissolution, and Cadet branches. Most of those fields can be very important for articles about noble families, but they are usually not applicable at all to non-noble families. If the two templates were fully merged, I feel that some editors could get confused when confronted with a large number of fields to choose from. As a result, a future editor of the template might well decide to delete those "noble" fields from Template:Infobox family at some point, because those fields don't generally apply to non-noble families. Because of these concerns, I feel that it would be better to keep Template:Infobox noble house and Template:Infobox family as separate templates, one for use with noble families and the other for non-noble families. That way, each template can serve its specific purpose with the fields that are the most appropriate ones. -- Blairall (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the functionality of the merged templates would be included in the new one, and there's no reason to assume that someone will delete functionality in future. (If that does happen, it's easy to undo.) I don't have any reason to oppose the merge, but I don't know whether to support it either. I think it may be useful to have an editor experienced with these kinds of articles explain if there's an important distinction between a family and a noble house. M.Clay1 (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments, and you asked about the distinction between a family and a noble house. For an article about an important family with hereditary titles of nobility (such as the House of Schwarzenberg or House of FitzJames), I would use Template:Infobox noble house because the fields (parameters) are the most suitable, whereas for a family without such noble titles (such as the Vanderbilt family), I would use Template:Infobox family. As I mentioned above, when I look at these two templates, I see that Template:Infobox noble house has many fields (parameters) that do not appear in Template:Infobox family, and vice versa (such as Parent house, Titles, Styles, Founded, Founder, Current head, Motto, Dissolution, and Cadet branches). My concern is that if the two templates are fully merged, there will be a large number of fields, which can confuse some editors who aren't familiar with which fields are most suitable for noble families. Eventually, some template editor will decide to delete those "noble" fields because they don't apply to all families, and it could be very time-consuming to fight to have them retained at that point. As a result, I think that it would be preferable to keep these two templates as separate templates. -- Blairall (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a very unlikely scenario. An experienced template editor is unlikely to delete a bunch of parameters if they're not familiar with the template. If they did want to do that, it would be very easy to explain why the parameters are useful. Indeed, if the parameters are useful, they will be used in articles, so deleting them would be a bad idea. M.Clay1 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such hypothetical confusion can easily be pre-empted by providing two blank pro-forma templates, as done in, for example, the documentation of ((infobox musical artist)). In any case, any such confusion is surely not as likely as the confusion caused by having two templates, with editors not sure which one to use, or in danger of using the "wrong" one? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blairall: Please note that the idea is, as M.Clay1 (talk · contribs) stated, not only to merge the two templates but also their variables/parametres (since the viarables of both templates in their current form could be applied interchangably). For instance, also a non-noble family could have 'cadet branch'(es), while a noble family could also have a 'place of origin' (none of which are applicable until this point). In other words, no information is intended to be lost, but template application unified and simplified as applicable to both contexts. Please feel free if you have any other concerns regarding your opinion of supporting or dismissing. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicbyaccident: - Thanks for clarifying that. The idea mentioned above about providing two blank pro-forma templates might be very helpful if the articles end up being merged. I'm heading out of town now for a few days to a remote location, so I may not be able to comment anymore for a while. At any rate, I will be happy to go along with what the majority decides. -- Blairall (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blairall: Please note that your current opinion is listed as opposing the merge. Do you wish to change that stance? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I prefer to keep my current opinion as opposing the merge, and we'll see what happens if other people join the discussion. I'm heading out the door now, as mentioned above. -- Blairall (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blairall: Please note that the current situation is 3 against 1(you), if my proposal would count as a vote. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Perhaps Template:Infobox royal house should also be included in this discussion? M.Clay1 (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Template:Infobox royal house has many fields (parameters) that do not appear in Template:Infobox family, and vice versa. So I don't feel that Template:Infobox royal house should be merged with Template:Infobox family, for the same reasons as I mentioned above. -- Blairall (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blairall: Lots of royal families Wikipedia articles employ Template:Infobox royal house for various reasons. Perhaps you are right that it should also be included in the merge proposal. Although it arguably complicates it a little bit more, the overall merge also makes more sense for the aforementioned reasons. If the result becomes a merge, a little bit more work will be done, but a good time investment to save time for future applications. Any special paramters required in infoboxes of royalties may easily be added/adjusted or even employed in a "custom_parameter" fashion. Again, the current situation is a mess when it comes to using noble house infoboxes in royal family articles, etc., so we have good chances of sorting things out here. On a further note, consider also Template:Infobox clan. In the end, at a minimum, at least royalty/noiblity/clan parametres could be employed inside the family template in an embedded module basis fashion, similar to other cases such as Template:Infobox person. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't see that you have provided a clear support comment in favor of the merge proposal that administrators may take into account. As for Template:Infobox royal house, I am inclined to agree, although perhaps such a proposal would be more convenient to make after the above one is finished. What do you think? As for the comment of Blairall (talk · contribs), please see my clarification regarding variables/parametres further above. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – I noted above that I didn't oppose the merge but I didn't support it either, because I don't know why they're separate to begin with. I'd still like to hear from an editor experienced with their use, but I can't think of any reason why a noble house would not be a family, so I don't see an issue with combining them. However, perhaps WP:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility should be alerted to this discussion. M.Clay1 (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft Merge because the tone of the two templates are so different from each other, though in principle I support the merge. Emphrase - 💬 / 📝 14:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with this proposal; provided all "noble house" infoboxes continue to function properly, this has only a positive impact on Wikipedia. Nuke (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I was invited here by Blairall. This is somewhat related to the discussion we are having at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 8#House of. I am interested to know why user:Chicbyaccident proposes that Template:Infobox noble house is merged into Template:Infobox family and not the other way around. -- PBS (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main reasons are two: 1) all noble families are families but not all families are noble, 2) "noble" is a potentially problematic adjective - compare patrician, peers, gentry, lords, jarls, and many other historical (anachronistic), and geographical comparable variants. A general family infobox with suitable parametres would solve that in a more flexible, precise, and convenient manner. Furthermore, noble families tend to be accidently noble but essentially still a family. Keeping the essential scope rather than the accidental also makes the infobox pertain more fully to the scope most often also found in the article text content, including time before an eventual nobility etc. :: Now, the "House of" WP:Consistency question is interesting and relevant, but isn't directly affected by this above merge request - although for the record I agree that it seems that English language typically attribute this to sovereign families, i.e. royal dynasties. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicbyaccident If noble is a problematic adjective is clan? For example ought there to be a different Template:Infobox clan or is that just an extended family? -- PBS (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox clan has been mentioned above in the discussion, although I guess that would be an eventual later question, in order to keep a certain limitation to this merge proposal. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2017 (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 redirect to Template:GFDL. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:GFDL-retouched (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, replaceable by ((GFDL)) FASTILY 06:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not important. AlfaRocket (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Template:GFDL. M.Clay1 (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2017 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2017 Major League Soccer position by round table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

MLS does not support the concept of position by round. The teams do not play a balanced schedule and so this is WP:OR. That has been the case for the last five seasons at least when these tables have been created and deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've always been interested in visualizing the position trends of a team throughout the season. I will look for another way showing this instead of using this template. EnjoyMyEdits (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not important. AlfaRocket (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just rename it to Supporter Shield position by round. The full table is shown for the Supporter Shield standing and winning the Supporter Shield earns a berth in the CONCACAF Champions League, so I would say that it is important. Also it is definitely not original research, you can view the Supporter Shield table on MLS's website and it us updated weekly to show position by round effectively.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's not appropriate to have as its original research. That the positions are updated by week does not equate to being updated by round. Right now, there is one team (Atlanta United FC) with 24 games played but the tables shows 25 "rounds" completed. There are nine teams with 25 games, four with 26, five with 27 and three with 28. How is all of this being kept straight? How are the tie-break rules being kept? The table is made to make it seem as though MLS follows the play of European clubs who all play an equal number of matches each week. That's not the case with MLS so it's also misleading. There's a reason why it doesn't exist in previous seasons. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The lack of a balanced schedule makes the template inaccurate, at least as far as the table is used for other leagues e.g. Bundesliga. Jay eyem (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2017 (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).