The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ryan Leary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unclear/no purpose for this template. Appears to be an attempted article creation in the wrong namespace DB1729 (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -2pou (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a template....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, not a template. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Date of Festival (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unclear/no purpose for this template DB1729 (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a template....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a valid template use. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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 2021 September 13. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Grey_line (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(s) or module(s) 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 don't merge. Clear snow opposition, and given the high number of transclusions of infobox organization, I'm curtailling a little early. (non-admin closure) ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 04:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox criminal organization with Template:Infobox organization.
All criminal organizations are, by definition, organizations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Microsoft is also an organisation as well as a company! That uses "Infobox Company". I feel the definition of the info box is fine I don't really see much point in a merge. Govvy (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Following up from the comments below I also oppose. Govvy (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Correct. Also, MS could engage in corporate crime (examples include price-fixing and consumer fraud) without thereby becoming a "criminal organization". (Black's Law Dictionary, 11th ed.) Most people would understand these to be two different kind of entities. Dervorguilla (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Criminal organizations are separate and distinct from any other organization. I understand the rationale by the nominator to remove the redundancy of having what appears to be two templates for the same purpose, but the separate infoboxes exist for a reason. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Any grouping of people in the world that do something together is an organization. Following the logic of this proposed merger, Template:Infobox sports team, Template:Infobox airline alliance, Template:Infobox central bank, and hundreds of other infoboxes should also be included in this proposal to be merged into one, as they are all organizations! Nay, each one has its own nuances, and I wouldn't say that the nuances of organized crime have anything to do with those of the majority of normal organizations. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: A quick look at the documentation of the criminal organization infobox reveals parameters like |territory=, |ethnicity=, |allies=, and |rivals= that would make no sense in most scrupulous organizations. That is exactly why different infobox templates exist: the need to convey different information, depending on the nature of the topic. – voidxor 03:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per voidxor. A merging would complicate matters. While I understand the argument for it, these templates are different enough and serve different purposes. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 03:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not at all clear anything is broken. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think the merger would create complications. I think the benefits of keeping the status quo outweigh the benefits of merging the two templates, especially as others have noted that the word "organization" is very broad and as such these two separate templates have important distintions. Jananteeni (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Jananteeni[reply]
• Oppose Outside of the really basic parameters like name and image these infoboxes have relatively few parameters in common (I think it's just founded, founder, named_after, founding_location and membership) so I don't think merging these would result in a significant reduction in maintenance work, and most of the criminal organization parameters would make little sense for other types of organisation. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No sign of criminal activity inside the organization --Dannyphx (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The two's templates properties are mutually incompatible. E.g. for |activities= |allies= |rivals= |territory= there is no easy way to replace them by properties of the ((Infobox organization)) template. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above and these two separate templates are clearly distinct.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Criminal and normal organisations have many differences. Firstly, a street gang (e.g. Latin Kings) is extremely different from an ethnic organisation (e.g. Kaszëbskô Jednota) and both subjects should stay separate. Secondly, many of the properties included in both infoboxes are incompatible with each other, as rivals, territory and many other things are not a usual thing for corporation to have. Finally, the people above have made other great arguments surrounding the differences, both technical and in real life, which I would suggest reading. Luxtaythe2nd (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Quite unnecessary to merge the two as seen above, and it's not worth having to fix all criminal organization articles afterwards. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:00, 4 September 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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 song contest. Izno (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox song contest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox Sanremo Music Festival (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox song contest with Template:Infobox Sanremo Music Festival.
Despite the name, "Infobox Sanremo Music Festival" is a song contest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. While both templates have similar uses, the San Remo template has very specific fields that would not be accommodated by a basic merge. I'm for having one template for song contests, but you'll need to figure out how to combine them first. Grk1011 (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is where we discuss how to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Grk1011 and Pigsonthewing: One solution would be to create a module that can accommodate the fields used exclusively by the Sanremo Music Festival template. This is what was done with Template:Infobox television season to accommodate all the various reality shows like Big Brother, Survivor, etc. when their own templates were merged into Template:Infobox television season. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 02:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nomination. — TheThomanski | t | c | 13:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge individual festivals don't need specific templates, so should be merged into main template. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As mentioned by Grk1011, cited templates have many fields that don't match. This is the reason why I originally created the Sanremo Music Festival template. Still, I am fine with merging them, as long as we are able to keep the same fields, but I wouldn't know how to do it without making it too intricate. Stee888 (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nomination; I agree there's no need for a separate infobox for the San Remo festival. Skylar MacDonald (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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 2021 September 13. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2021–22_UEFA_Europa_Conference_League_group_matches (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(s) or module(s) 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 no consensus. Izno (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propose merging Template:Fixcaps with Template:Title case.
These templates both convert text to title case. The main difference appears to be that one is intended to be substituted whereas the other isn't, but ideally we could make something that handles both use cases. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 23:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose different templates with different outputs used in very different ways. Was there a test?Moxy- 19:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

((fixcaps|ORIGINS AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT))

Origins and early development

((Title case|ORIGINS AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT))

Origins and Early Development

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(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Use Australian English/sandbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Does a template need a sandbox? Whiteguru (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello @Whiteguru:, yes, most of the templates contain one. for example: Template:One source. i may be wrong ;) -28july21 (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@28july21: I have not encountered a sandbox on a template before. I might be in error, but its best to be sure. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello @Whiteguru:, thank u for reconsidering... -28july21 (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Was never used nor has any use. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I suggest reading WP:Template sandbox and test cases. Also the documentation on said template says This template is used on approximately 119,000 pages. To avoid major disruption and server load, any changes should be tested in the template's /sandbox or /testcases subpages, or in your own user subpage. --SuperJew (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep what SuperJew said, templates should definitely have sandboxes. The nominator clearly hadn't read the template documentation, as sandboxes are useful, especially for high use and protected templates, so that changes can be tested there with minimal disruption. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 03:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Citation/core3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that was apparently used as a sandbox for the development of citation/core. No obvious reason to keep it since the authorship is preserved on the main template. Izno (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 03:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Citation/core2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that was apparently used as a sandbox for the development of citation/core. No obvious reason to keep it since the authorship is preserved on the main template. Izno (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2021 (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).