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 2020 June 4. Primefac (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Yugoslavian_Government_Cabinets (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 2020 June 4. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Indianapolis_Colts_2020_draft_navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Indianapolis_Colts_2019_draft_navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Baltimore_Colts_1973_draft_navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Baltimore_Colts_1968_draft_navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Indianapolis_Colts_Draft_template_list (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 2020 June 4. Primefac (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_pipe_band (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_marching_band (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 2020 June 4. Primefac (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox_drums_corps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox_marching_band (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 keep. Primefac (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox operas with Template:Sidebar.
WP:INFOCOL. Seems like a redundantly theme-specific, orphan sidebar copy? PPEMES (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is not a copy of Template:Sidebar; it uses Template:Sidebar to make an opera-specific box for a composer, which is fine. But rename to Template:Opera list sidebar or something similar. This is not an infobox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jonesey95. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as argued above. Importantly, it's used in a gross of Operas by composer templates. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per above. it does do two extra things not provided by ((sidebar)) and that is the italic title part and the microformat class (although I am not sure why there isn't a second microformat for the entire box). 15:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Don't see a benefit here.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see the benefit either. scope_creep^Talk 15:38, 3 June 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 do not merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox British Academy video games awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox award (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox British Academy video games awards with Template:Infobox award.
WP:INFOCOL. I was considering proposing a merge to Template:Infobox recurring event, but I discern Template:Infobox award to be more relevant? PPEMES (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• do not merge, there is nothing to merge here (see the code). however, I could see a substitute-delete for the British Academy box. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Don't see a benefit here.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:26, 1 June 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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox folk tale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox short story (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox folk tale with Template:Infobox short story.
WP:INFOCOL. And yes, the merged template could probably rename Template:Infobox story. PPEMES (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. These are only superficially related, and in practice have nearly no common parameters (published in, name, image, that's about it)? Please, don't nominate such mergers with just a link to an essay as if this is self-explanatory, as in many cases it isn't at all. Sometimes, yes (like "novella" and "book"), these make sense at first glance as they are close enough; but in many others, the similarities are superficial and the distinct parameters essential, and you would need good, specific reasons to merge them anyway. Fram (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. As Fram pointed out above, they are different things. Parameters such as "Mythology" and "Country" are necessary for folk tales, but not short stories. Aven13 14:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Folk tales are different than short stories, which are a more modern invention.--Auric talk 18:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The idea of "folktale" is that it spreads in the oral tradition, sometimes taking centuries to be recorded in written form. Some fairy tales *do* originate as short stories, such as in the literary tradition in France (Perrault, d'Aulnoy, etc.). Some literary tales become so entangled with oral tradition that it is nearly impossible to correctly discern their origins. On the other hand, the term "short stories" mostly refer to the works of a singular author, and are usually self-contained in one specific publication. 19:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.218.212.120 (talk)
• Oppose per the IP and Fram. These are very different things with totally different origins and histories. oknazevad (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both as well-scoped, don't see a benefit to merging. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 27 May 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 do not merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox novella (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox book (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox novella with Template:Infobox book.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The novella infobox has only 15 transclusions. That said, please provide a better justification for these nominations than a link to an essay. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If the consensus decision is to keep this infobox, it should be made a wrapper template, passing its parameters to ((infobox book)) to reduce maintenance and make it easy to add book-related parameters that will inevitably be requested. Every parameter in ((infobox novella)) appears to be supported by ((infobox book)) except for |published_in= and |publication_type=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. One template less to maintain, and the book template can be adjusted to support an is-novella tag so that its formatting can be adjusted if needed. Also, one templates less to choose from will benefit editors to select the correct one from the zoo of infobox templates :-) -- Evilninja (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Novellas are not the same as books.--Auric talk 18:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Novellas are like short stories only their titles are italicized instead of enclosed in quotation marks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive 17#Infobox for novellas -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Auric. Merging these will make it difficult for future editors and provide no benefit for readers. So why do it?--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. One book can contain multiple novellas; see Different Seasons for example. BOZ (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the transclusion count is so low because many novellas have been given the book infobox, yet in the subcategories of "novellas by country" there are around 500 articles - a merged infobox with a parameter for novella could work, but so could improving the documentation of the current infoboxes to mention possible alternatives, like including novella in the "see also" section of infobox book, which would help editors select the correct option. whatever the outcome all the novella articles with the book infobox may need changing (either adding the new parameter or switching to infobox novella) EdwardUK (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It could damage pre-existing pages. 194.35.116.80 (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lots of work, with little return. Novellas are a separate classification. Another push for generics. scope_creep^Talk 10:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge or wrapper – books/novellas are not the same, but their infoboxes use very similar parameters, and look almost identical on the page. No damage would be done to existing articles by a merge and the appearance of the boxes would not change. It would not take much work – a few changes to the parameters and the documentation to make it clear which of the parameters are useful for novellas (in the same way for example as parameters for hotels are listed separately in the documentation of infobox:building) and for the existing uses of the novella infobox to be switched to book. Many novellas already use the book infobox anyway (and some are using infobox:short story) so it would cause more damage changing these to the novella infobox as this would lose information such as illustrator, isbn and wikisource. There are also several technical things missing from the novella infobox such as the tracking categories, and it uses image_size instead of upright. With regards to articles like "Different Seasons" the main page uses book, and the individual novella articles (none of which currently use infobox:novella) would use book with the added novella parameters. EdwardUK (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — As with a Infobox book series, these are different entities, and one can nest in the other. Novellas that are misclassified using Infobox book, such as Morpho Eugenia, induce editors to transfer details about the book rather than the novella itself in the infobox, resulting in this instance in a page count that is about the collection of novellas rather than the novella itself. Agree with EdwardUK that systematic work will be required across novella in either case.--Carwil (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the difficulty of novellas being published in different ways – but with the novella infobox in its current form increasing its usage could prove challenging as editors may be resistant to switching to something which doesn't have these parameters to provide helpful (when not being misused) links and details such as for individually published novellas – either they may prefer to retain the use of the book infobox or they will find other ways of re-adding the info (for example, because there is no parameter for word counts I've sometimes seen them tagged on to the end of the page count). But if the novella infobox isn’t used there is little value in keeping it. Making these parameters available, even though proper usage may still sometimes be ignored, would make it function the same way as the book infobox and as such it would make sense to a least wrapper if not merge it. Also, the tracking categories and "parameter usage reports" which would be added could help spot some misuse of parameters so that members of the relevant wikiprojects could deal with them more easily.

For Morpho Eugenia – I agree and suspect we will find many more articles where this has happened - clearly that infobox in its present form belongs on an article about the book, not the novella, (or maybe the article should be about the book as a whole with sections on each novella, given that the infobox, references, and the (red)link in the works section of the Byatt article all refer to the entire work - but that's a different issue). EdwardUK (talk) 20:41, 3 June 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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox book series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox book (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox book series with Template:Infobox book.
WP:INFOCOL. What is a series and what is a single literary piece of work is sometimes hard to distinguish, sometimes irrelevant to distinguish. Yet, most variables could and should probably apply equally? For starters, consider the Bible. PPEMES (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose without persuasive examples. Please provide more substantive justifications for these nominations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The two infoboxes are very similar in setup and function. The merge would move all parameters into one infobox. Makes sense. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not the same thing, barring some rare exceptions, like the Lord of the Rings trilogy which is technically one book but was published as a trilogy.--Auric talk 18:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As per Jonesey95, would need to see examples, don't immediately see a benefit to merging. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just because books and series are “sometimes hard to distinguish” doesn’t mean that they are always hard to distinguish, or that they are hard to distinguish most of the time. Like Jonesey, I feel you have not provided valid enough arguments for the merger. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 08:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry, I am against this. I think that sometimes there needs to be differentiation, no matter how "redundant" it's found. A singular book and a book series are not the same thing, and it would seem weird to use a merged one for the other (I hope to never use an "Electronics infobox" to talk about a radio show). It's bad enough that some templates aren't available in other-languaged Wikipedias! —MonkeyStolen234 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Book series Infoboxes would differ from book infoboxes, with different parameters. Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The series gives only limited parameters to give an clear and concise overview of several books, and more details can be put into individual infoboxes for each book if required. The articles on Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl (novel) are a good example of the difference in usage. A merged version would tempt some editors to fill the parameters that were intended for individual books when describing a series - making it overly detailed with things like plainlists of isbns and page numbers for every book in a series - even if the documentation advised against it. EdwardUK (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per EdwardUK's helpful explanation how how having all parameters within one template would hinder appropriate usage. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 07:01, 30 May 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 keep. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Egyptian tomb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox ancient site (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Egyptian tomb with Template:Infobox ancient site.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see a lot of similarities between these two infoboxes other than that they are both about something ancient. Do you have more to your rationale than just WP:INFOCOL? --AussieLegend (✉) 12:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that all preexisting variables in Template:Infobox Egyptian tomb seems to fit into Template:Infobox ancient site? PPEMES (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide examples? I'd especially like to see how |theban=, |prev= and |next= work in Infobox ancient site. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the "theban" serves, but couldn't it be merged with destination template? As for the "previous, next" thing, wouldn't this be more conveniently achieved by a general wrapper for this and other templates with similar needs? PPEMES (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of |theban= is explained in the infobox instructions, which I thought you would have read before nominating. It changes linking in the infobox and adds links depending on the setting of |theban=. |prev= and |next= are best included as part of the infobox so as to provide easy navigation between the specific, related tombs in the sites. On that note, the tombs are mostly located in the Valley of the Kings or the Theban Necropolis. The latter actually uses Infobox ancient site because it is a site, while the tombs are generally only points within a site. Essentially, what you are proposing is the same as using "Infobox cemetery" for individual graves within a cemetery. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merging. AussieLegend's cemetery analogy makes the point well. ((Infobox ancient site)) is for archaeological sites. ((Infobox Egyptian tomb)) is for a particular type of structure on a particular type of site. "Egyptian tomb" is pretty niche domain for an infobox, to be sure, and maybe it could be broadened to something like ((Infobox tomb)), but there isn't a great deal of overlap between it and ((Infobox ancient site)). – Joe (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Joe Roe. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - They aren't the same thing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge - Just formalising my !vote after discussion above. The two infoboxes are for two different things and there is no commonality between the two. It appears that this proposal was made without the nominator actually looking into the purposes of the fields. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per a. Dbove. These are completely different, appropriately scoped and merging them will make editing more difficult and probably make the reading experience worse because of this.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Entirely different things. It is a very very big subject to get a generic template. No. scope_creep^Talk 10:14, 3 June 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 keep. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox pirate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox criminal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox pirate with Template:Infobox criminal.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the transclusions, and the big notice on ((infobox criminal)) that is for people who have been convicted of specific crimes, I'm not sure a merge will work here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not all pirates were (I presume we are talking about the likes of Edward Teach here) were convicted criminals. This proposal appears to fail at the first hurdle. Mjroots (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• *Oppose A pirate is not necessarily a criminal, nor is a criminal necessarily a pirate.--Auric talk 18:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both as well-scoped, don't see a benefit to merging. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose one is for convicted criminals, another is for pirates. While many pirates are convicted as criminals, not all pirates are, an most criminals are not pirates. Largely per above !votes. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Sir Francis Drake was labeled as a "pirate" by the Spanish, but was regarded as a hero by the English. This example shows how we can't just associate the word "pirate" with "criminal". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:29, 30 May 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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox comics creator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox artist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox comics creator with Template:Infobox artist.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unless some actual arguments are provided, not some one-size-fits-all essay which supposedly contains some reason to merge these two specifically, even though many parameters from one are missing in the other, and many parameters from the other are not really wanted or needed in the one. What actual benefit does this have ? Please don't tell me "less maintenance", the Template:Infobox comics creator was last modified in 2018, so you can hardly have less maintenance already. Fram (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many times, differentiating a comics creator from a visual artist is arguably quite difficult. May as well merge it? Too much theoretical overlap not to? PPEMES (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Examples? Yes, there are people who are notable as one and the other, just like there are people who are artists and writers, or actors and directors, or... Nothe that the infobox comics creator is used for comics writers as well, so people who aren't visual artists at all. Someone like Jerry Siegel to give a famous example.

• Oh, and in the future, the least you can do when you propose such drastic action on a template, is to provide an actual edit summary stating what you have done. This looks to much like sneaking in this proposal through the back door. The instructions for TfD are 1. "Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:" (not, put it in an existing section meant for something else, at the bottom of the talk page) and "Use an edit summary like[...]" Please make sure to follow these instructions in the future. Fram (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly sorry. The default page was locked. PPEMES (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the Tfd tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the Template:editprotected template to catch the attention of administrators." Fram (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Sorry! PPEMES (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose If there was an infobox for comics artist, this might be logical. As it is, merging these two would serve no good purpose. --Auric talk 17:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The template covers comics writers as well as artists. Dimadick (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Comics writers and artists are already covered. Merge serves no purpose. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both as above, don't see a benefit to merging. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Consider Barry Blitt as an example, who is considered both an artist as well a cartoonist and rightfully so. Rezimmerman (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sometimes Comics Creators are not an Artists. I don't see any reason to merge those. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:05, 28 May 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) 13:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ship event row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ship builder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecate, remove then delete. ((ship event row)) is the most difficult, unintuitive template to use I've ever come across. It is not in widespread use in the various lists of ship launches, and in cases where it is used (e.g. List of ship launches in 1944), it is not even used exclusively, leading to a horrible mish-mash of styles within the list. Discussion at Wikiproject level in February 2020 and currently leads me to believe that there is consensus that this template is not optimal.

Therefore the proposal is firstly to deprecate the use of Ship event row, allowing entries to be changed to the standard, non-template, table format. Once this has been done, both templates can be deleted. I believe Ship builder is not used elsewhere. If this is not the case, then I'm amenable to its retention. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Fully agree with assessment. The thing is and creates a mess. Palmeira (talk) 13:18, 29 May 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) 17:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Tennis events (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Clearly abandoned "test/demo module" * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Template:Infobox recurring event. PPEMES (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, appears to be an abandoned test, and no idea how/why we would merge a lua-module with a template. Frietjes (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Test / demo module; no need to preserve it.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:26, 1 June 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).