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 port. I find a consensus to merge these templates, but concerns were raised about the merged templates name. I do not find a consensus for a rename here and would suggest opening an WP:RM to address the matter properly. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox intermodal freight transport (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox port (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox intermodal freight transport with Template:Infobox port.
((Infobox intermodal freight transport)) is used on 14 articles, 6 of which are ports. Looking at Port of Los Angeles and Port of Singapore, I have no idea why one uses the port infobox, while the other uses the intermodal one, or why Haldia Multi-Modal Terminal uses the port one (it's located in Category:Intermodal transport). Gonnym (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ... I think. I think there is room for both templates. An intermodal facility is not necessarily at a port. It could be inland, at what is sometimes termed a dry port. A port is a place where cargo is transferred to and from ships, and might contain multtiple intermodal facilities. Ships are not a requirement for an intermodal facility. There may well be an issue with current usage. Not sure if the intermodal template can be used as a child or parent template. I'm pretty sure that the port template can be used as both a child and can use suitable child templates. I'd be inclined to look at each usage and see if it can be improved. But I think they describe different things and for that reason would oppose the merge. Fob.schools (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cikarang Dry Port also uses ((Infobox port)). --Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously wrongly allocated. Fob.schools (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merger per Gonnym. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I think the opposition just needs to move past the name. The fields are largely similar and a merger would promote efficiency. We just would need to document that Infobox port is for both maritime and surface transport facilities. --Bsherr (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So long as the merged template not called Infobox port, I guess it can't do any harm. Fob.schools (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2020 (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. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Db doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used to be used for all ((db-xx)) templates but was changed to use normal doc pages in 2012 to make documentation updates easier. The template is now hopelessly out of date misinforming anyone who tries to use it for documentation. --Trialpears (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: It was I who removed the use of this template from ((db-x2)). --Trialpears (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No need to keep these things around years after they've stopped being useful. --Gonnym (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2020 (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 deleted as an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Db-t2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Db-policy-notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Db-policy-deleted (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Hangon preload T2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as templates that blatantly misrepresent policy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates associated by recently repealed speedy deletion criteria T2 (discussion). I'm impartial whether these should be tagged as historical like ((db-x1)) or if they should be deleted like ((db-t1)) and ((db-u4)), but I'm sure that there are others who have strong opinions on the matter hence I'm taking it here. --Trialpears (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the template is retained as historical the categorisation should also be removed and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as templates that blatantly misrepresent policy should be deleted per G8/templatecat. --Trialpears (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As usual, I'm in the "red link lets you know there's a problem" camp. I am adding the tracking category, upon which I have placed the banner. --Bsherr (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the user who originally nominated ((db-x1)) for deletion * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not needed anymore. Not needed anymore and there is no real reason to keep these around (templates get deleted all the time, these are not special). --Gonnym (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but mark as historical. I can surround the entire template in "noinclude" and have every template call say "T2 is deprecated. Use TfD instead". But I see little point in deleting a template for a criteria that was used for several years. Aasim 17:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a template that blatantly misrepresents policy (obviously, it didn't when it was created, but it does now). --NYKevin 22:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I love the irony here. This sort of deletion is exactly the sort of thing that would previously have been handled by CSD T2, but now it's been repealed, we have to go via TfD. (Of course, the main reason to repeal CSD T2 in the first place was simply that such deletions don't happen often enough to be worth a speedy criterion, and the extra load on TfD is minimal.) --ais523 22:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

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. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Swedish entrepreneurs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NAVBOX. Störm (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree. The topic isn't small or well defined. The articles are unlikely to refer to each other. Etc. --Bsherr (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2020 (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. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Western Canadian Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is only used on one page, and all the links redirect to the same page. The template doesn't add anything to Wikipedia, and is misleading in that it suggests that there is more information available than is actually there. Honestly, most of the pages related to the Canadian GAA are of such low quality that they should be merged down into a single page or simply deleted, but this template is really terrible. TimeEngineer (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These former articles in the navigation box were all redirected to the main page, so the template is now not needed. --Bsherr (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Bsherr. Somewhat pointless navbox. In that all its members/links all target the same article. Guliolopez (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2020 (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).