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. Primefac (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox quality tool (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

9 transclusions. Documentation says "Infobox for quality tools (e.g., the Seven Basic Tools of Quality)." In reality, it seems designed solely for the Seven Basic Tools of Quality. Delete.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, unless Mr. Guye can provide examples of proposed replacements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reason cited for deletion is not among those listed in WP:TFD#REASONS -- DanielPenfield (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That non-exhaustive list of reasons is followed by "Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you want to delete the template because WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT as opposed to a reason based on some fairhanded principle. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Don't see strong reason for deletion. Orientls (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I do not any issue for this template and reasons provided by nominator is not a good reason to delete Hhkohh (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2018 (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 on 2018 November 23. Primefac (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 on 2018 November 23. Primefac (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Futsal Division 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost a decade out of date and of no navigational use - only one team isn't a red link. Jellyman (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2018 (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 baseball biography. Primefac (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox MLB umpire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 93 transclusions
• Template:Infobox baseball biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 23604 transclusions

Propose merging Template:Infobox MLB umpire with Template:Infobox baseball biography.

This would involve adding five parameters to the 'biography template:

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge but oppose adding adding the "crew#" and "crewchief" parameters as we don't list a baseball player's teammates in their infobox (should also probably change "Umpirecrew" to "umpire_crew"). Additionally, these fields don't even cover more than one crew rooster as Umpire (baseball)#Current MLB umpiring crews states that umpires change crews. If |Umpirecrew= is kept, it should probably be changed to "Crew # (year)" to add context to it. Also, just to point out - Al Barlick already uses ((Infobox baseball biography)) while Al Clark (umpire) uses ((Infobox person)) - both work without those parameters. --Gonnym (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It seems likely that many umpires come from college or pro backgrounds anyway. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:40, 18 November 2018 (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 on 2018 November 26. Primefac (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_video_game_character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 after replacing with ((Singles)) Primefac (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Digital singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in seven pages; redundant to ((Singles)). It doesn't seem to be appropriate to have a separate template for digital singles; most singles nowadays are only released digitally anyway. Jc86035 (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (after replacement) as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. No brainer. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No need of a specific template in this category. Orientls (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2018 (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. Primefac (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox coffee producer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use - can be replaced with a simple table in the article body. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Category:Coffee production by country shows many eligible articles for its use. Substitution is a poor choice for an infobox, as infoboxes are intended for use across multiple articles to provide brief information in standardized form. --Bsherr (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template was created over five and a half years ago and seems never to have been used in any other article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could be possible to generalize the template for country-specific agricultural production articles, such as Corn production in the United States, Sugar production in Uganda, Wheat production in the United States, Rice production in Thailand, etc.; I don't think keeping it as a coffee-specific template is very useful though.-Ich (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without replacement, the information found in the single use is better expressed through prose.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• subst then delete or delete directly per above Hhkohh (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Underlying lk. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:39, 18 November 2018 (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. Primefac (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox mobile suit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused: I have replaced the only two transclusions with another infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2018 (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. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Minnesota Shopping Malls (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused; probably because most (if not all) the links are in Template:Twin Cities shopping malls Frietjes (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per above Hhkohh (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The listed malls in St. Cloud, Rochester, Duluth (Miller Hill Mall), and Mankato are not in the Twin Cities, and there are others (apparently without articles) in Duluth (Stoneridge Shoppping Center), Medford and Moorhead. I question the utility of these templates, but if we are keeping the one for Twin Cities shopping centers, there is no reason to delete one which also covers malls elsewhere in the state. Kablammo (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have added it to several articles, so it's not unused now. --Bsherr (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep though I think it could have been organized better. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Different links and different subjects concerns these two templates. Generally I agree with the nominations by the nominator but this one needs no deletion. Orientls (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep no longer unused Hhkohh (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2018 (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 on 2018 November 23. Primefac (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 on 2018 November 23. Primefac (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Blpse3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Blpse4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BLP_Spec_Sanction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BLP_Spec_Article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BLP_Spec_Warn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:BLP_Spec_Sanction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:United States Academic Decathlon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Entirely unnecessary for the 3 articles related to this topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Now that's a useless template, and I say that as a former Decathlete. There don't seem to be many appropriate articles to add, either. Raymie (t • c) 07:37, 20 November 2018 (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).