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 -FASTILY 03:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both are unused templates with ambiguous titles, and have been replaced by templates with unambiguous titles. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 17:24, 23 March 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).
Template:History of Middle-earth navbox
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).
All books in this template already appear in at least 2 templates - ((J. R. R. Tolkien)) and ((Middle-earth)). There is no need for a 3rd one. Gonnym (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Different design of navbox, see WP:SIDEBAR. The two you mention are intended to go at the bottom of an article. This one was always intended to be a sidebar navbox, though I admit the effect is spoilt by the infoboxes pushing the sidebar down the page. Might need a redesign or incorporation into the infobox - is there a way to put a link to "other books in a series" in an infobox? Carcharoth (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
((Infobox book)) has |preceded_by= and |followed_by= which seems to be already in use. --Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I have added series across the set to get to the top level. --Izno (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicated between the navigation provided via infobox and topical navboxes. --Izno (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Izno, this falls right between the two stools. We don't need all these overlaps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it just lists Books I-XII in order???? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – excessive duplication; not needed for such a small series.WT79 The Engineer (talk) 12:26, 20 March 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 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per this discussion at WPVG, this infobox seems to largely duplicate Template:Infobox software, and the new parameters it adds are not mission critical information to convey in an infobox format. Furthermore, forking this infobox off from the main software infobox makes it more challenging to maintain consistency between the two. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a solid delete from me as duplicating infobox software. --Izno (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this infobox offers nothing we can't simply add to infobox software. ~ Dissident93(talk) 19:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that this infobox provides extra relevant information regarding game engines, their context, and usage, and for that reason I still think there is much value that would be lost by reverting to the standard software infobox in it's place. However, it seems that despite myself trying to push this and many others extending my work in contributing towards various engine's infobox in this format, that there are few vocal members of this wikiproject that want to see it gone. Orangeisacop (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see a reason for such a template, it's something that can easily be modified from the existing one. 51.37.97.22 (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and only 33 transclusions. Open to being swayed but I don't see the argument or potential for keeping. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 22:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like others have said, much of the information is duplicated from Template:Infobox software. I don't know if the information added in the engine template is necessary enough or, in some cases, practical (the "latest game" entry would be a nightmare to maintain on popular engines). — seadoubleyoujay[talk][contrib][海倍君ジェイ] 15:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure. I think it is an aesthetically valid template and some of the extra parameters offered are interesting. I wouldn't throw it away. On the other hand, however, I also understand that Template:Infobox software does a decent general job and that makes this new one a little redundant and unnecessary. Lone Internaut (talk) 16:23, 22 March 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).
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Europe medical cases
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 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).
Template:TV Tropes
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can think of some special cases where an EL to TV Tropes might be acceptable (on articles ABOUT tropes or where tropes are significantly covered) but in general it's an ELNO and doesn't need a template, which might implicitly encourage its use an EL. Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 08:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nearly no moderated content on the site at all. IAR uses but no need for a template for those. --Masem (t) 17:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but maybe turn it into a Wikimedia category, if it isn't already. ~ Dissident93(talk) 21:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but use the template page to indicate "acceptable" uses "(on articles ABOUT tropes or where tropes are significantly covered)". We can reiterate info about EL. I had used a TV Tropes EL without the template, which doesn't meet the "ABOUT" usage. StrayBolt (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't even using it on articles about tropes, since every aspect of TV Tropes is not moderated. In contrast to Know Your Meme where there is a team of moderators and assigned users to write a meme's history, there's at least some oversight of that, there's nothing like that at TVT. --Masem (t) 14:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until it is shown that there is wider consensus such links should not be used and the temeplate is unused. Article content should not be removed the through the mechanism of TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love TVTropes as a fun time waster, but it is already an ELNO item, and shouldn't be supported by a template. oknazevad (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:WT:VG and WT:TV have been notified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, others above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do we know where it's being used - if it is just on pages about tropes, I think that's a reasonable appropriate use. If it's being used everywhere, deleting it would discourage use. Kingsif (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on StrayBolt's analysis. Kingsif (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: WP:ELNO#12 limits links to wikis "except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". Not exactly sure what this means, but TVTropes perhaps lacks the requisite stability. It is an excellent website though. — Bilorv (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The counts for "links" and "transclusions" are about twice as many than are in usage. Most are duplicated. Those two searches are in the hat template, Tfd links. Is there a way to quantify "substantial" mentioned in the guidelines by Bilorv? Also, it seems most people are/should be in their "Creator" namespace. Perhaps we can restrict that in the template. StrayBolt (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pile-on. For StrayBolt's case (individual tropes where the EL would be appropriate, assuming that's true too), I'm not seeing the argument that these instances are so numerous as to warrant a unique template. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 22:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Keeping would document to others proper limited usage and we could change the template to only use Main space or not to use Creator space. StrayBolt (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's tautological that we'd need to teach editors proper usage if it doesn't have a need to exist. If we're only to use it on a fraction of its current transclusions, we simply don't need a template for that task. czar 00:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's filled with user-submitted material. I hate this site anyway, so I wouldn't care to see it get removed. Namcokid47(Contribs) 16:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While it may be worth a laugh to glance through it as a reader, it's got too much user-submitted speculative material to warrent its reference in Wikipedia, let alone have a related template. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is a high-quality wiki. Please convert to an inline deletion notice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:50, 26 March 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).
Support, this seems entirely sensible given the two templates mentioned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- and I rarely support anything, so you know it's an eminently supportable position when I do. Jpbrenna (talk) 14:23, 18 March 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 German template uses German-language parameter names; we normally allow this only for "shim" templates that must be substituted.
It also caters (mostly) for locomotives and (a few) rolling stock vehicles. The latter cases should be manually switched to ((Infobox train)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless the template is properly 'shimmed' so that it can be imported from German Wikipedia and automatically substituted as has been successfully done with other templates. In which case I'd be happy to support.Bermicourt (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shimming could of course be done, is commonly done, and is not preclued by this proposal, so your empboldened "oppose" seems rather misplaced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Bermicourt. This looks like a lot of pointless rote work for no advantage at all, other than the regular foolish consistency. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not "foolish consistency". A regular user who opens the editing page to see an infobox full of German parameter names is going to close it immediately and not fix whatever they were going to fix. This is baseline accessibility. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bermicourt, on the understanding that it would be shimmed. No obvious reason to maintain a separate template for German locomotives only, and it's confusing for editors. Contra Andy Dingley, there are plenty of editors who enjoy pointless rote work; without it, I doubt the project would continue to exist. Mackensen(talk) 16:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we've been here before: the result of the discussion five years ago was no consensus. Do you suppose that we can never discuss the matter again, nor reach a consensus? As for the intention, the 320 current transclusons belie that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, in principle provided that all existing parameters of the subject templates are preserved in the merged template. Would this not work, Redrose64? Doug MehusT·C 22:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Redrose64. This template started life as a translation-fork of the Infobox used by de.wiki, but it has not been kept up-to-date with changes to de:Vorlage:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug. I realised this when I tried to sprinkle some TLC on this template by starting to add TemplateData. Yes, this template does have issues - the Monthly Error Report that is now available via TemplateData seems to marking any parameter with an umlaut in its name as invalid even if it isn't; if you do a translation via the translation tool, you will have to put in the infobox afterwards as a cut-and-paste, as the de.wiki infobox is linked on Wikidata to Template:Infobox train. Having said all that, if the proposer is prepared to put in the hard graft and manually migrate the 320 instances, I won't revert his changes; but since the original concept of this template is as a aid to translation, I would oppose the merger even if there was only a handful of transculsions. — Iain Bell (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"it has not been kept up-to-date with changes to :de:Vorlage:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug" then that is even less reason to keep it; it's not even useful as a shim. This is the English-language Wikipedia; we have a long-standing practice of replacing templates that don't work in English. "if the proposer is prepared to put in the hard graft" such conditionals are irrelevant. We have a number of volunteers who work on template mergers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Pigsonthewing. This is English Wikipedia, we should not use German Wikipedia templates especially when they are out-of-date and not linked to the German template, so not even usefull for translating. WT79 The Engineer (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support In the previous discussion, I supported the merge with some comments there about translation and fitting content into other infoboxes as appropriate. The German template was then, and I'm guessing is still now, used for more than just locomotives. We have other infobox templates for rail vehicles that are not locomotives, so as long as the correct English-language infobox template is used, I still support this. Slambo(Speak) 03:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No reason to have a German language infobox here. The fact that we have over 300 transclusions of this means whatever intent this template had of being temporary, has failed. Whoever translates a page from the German wiki can take a few more minutes to also find the correct infobox. We also have a /Holding cell to take care of this process if anyone feels that a straight 1:1 conversion can't take place. --Gonnym (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Looking for a few more opinions on if it should be (re?)converted into a translation fork/shim or if it's better to just do away with it and start over.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Gonnym. This should have been temporary. Maintaining a German language template on English Wikipedia presents a pressing accessibility issue for English language users. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the argument of accessibility for English editors. --Izno (talk) 17:40, 18 March 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).