Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Not to be confused with Wikipedia:List of Discussion Templates.

Do you have questions about this page? Just put a note on your talk page with {{Help me}} (including the curly brackets) above it and someone will assist you.

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page
Search for [[Template:Example]] to find its discussion in the archives.

Shortcuts: WP:TFD WP:TD

Deletion discussions

Deletion today

Speedy deletion (candidates)
Proposed deletion (all, books, BLPs)

On this page, deletion or merging of templates (except as noted below) is discussed.

How to use this page [edit]

What not to propose for discussion here [edit]

The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

Stub templates

Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories.
Userboxes

Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates

If the template clearly satisfies a "general" or "template" criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at Tfd, tag it with {{Db-repost}}. If you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}.
Policy or guideline templates

Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the Csd templates, cannot be listed at Tfd separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
Template redirects

List at Redirects for discussion.

Reasons to delete a template [edit]

Shortcut: WP:TFD#REASONS

The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
The template is redundant to a better-designed template
The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing

Templates should not be nominated if they can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Listing a template [edit]

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).

Tag the template.

Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:

For deletion: {{subst:Tfd}}
For deletion of a sidebar or infobox template: {{subst:Tfd|type=sidebar}}
For deletion of an inline template: {{subst:Tfd|type=inline}}
For merging: {{subst:Tfm|name of other template}}
For merging an inline template: {{subst:Tfm|type=inline|name of other template}}

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 {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators.
For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
Do not mark the edit as minor.
Use an edit summary like
Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
or
Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]

Multiple nominations: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|discussion title}} or {{subst:Tfm|name of other template|discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code). Note that TTObot is available to tag templates en masse if you do not wish to do it manually.

Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the Tfd nomination, add {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the Tfd, this time replacing template name with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}} instead.)

List the template at Tfd.

Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

Add this text at the top, just below the -->:

For deletion:

{{subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
For merging:

{{subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

Use an edit summary such as Adding [[Template:template name]].

Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:

{{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 20 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code after the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale:

{{subst:Catfd2|category name}}

III

Notify users.

It is considered polite to notify the creator and main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then add

For deletion: {{subst:Tfdnotice|template name}} ~~~~
For merging: {{subst:Tfmnotice|template name|other template's name}} ~~~~

to the talk pages of these users, as well as any related WikiProjects (look on the template's talk page), so that they are aware of the discussion. (There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: you should write a personal message in these cases.)

Consider adding any templates you nominate for Tfd to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the Tfd tag is not removed.

Discussion [edit]

Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.

People will sometimes also recommend subst or Subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it before the template page is deleted.

Templates are rarely orphaned (made to not be in use) before the discussion is closed.

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes.
Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Current discussions [edit]

May 20 [edit]

Template:2012–13 2. Fußball-Bundesliga table [edit]

Substitute and delete. Both templates are redundant. No need for the templates anymore. Kingjeff (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Kante4 (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Unanswered [edit]

There is one actual transclusion of this template and it has been sitting there unanswered for four years. I believe this template has been superseded by {{Help me}} and is no longer needed. Technical 13 (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Support deletion, however is it worth actually answering it?--Laun chba ller 14:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep The number of transclusions does not help judge how often this template is used. Someone answering may remove the tag (most likely, I suppose) or convert it to a link.[1] Also, it is primarily intended to be used on article/project talk pages whereas {{Help me}} is for user talk pages. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace. If there is evidence that it is not used and there is a preferable alternative, get rid of it. Otherwise, let sleeping dogs lie. Thincat (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So for future reference, what is the correct template to use for a userspace draft i.e. Give It Up (The Good Men song) (previously located at User:Launchballer/Give It Up)?--Laun chba ller 18:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply I think you did exactly right. However, after it was in mainspace, if you had then asked a question on the talk page, I don't know. Usually you just hope someone answers! If then there is no answer or an unsatisfactory one, I suppose Template:Unanswered is suitable. Thincat (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, I've never seen it used anywhere. What would you think about using that as a 'master' request template and having helpme and other request templates, such as Template:Editprotected, sister off it? Like Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, for example. We could have them all feed into Category:Requests with sister categories "Help requests", "Unanswered requests", "Semi-protected edit requests" and "Edit requests".--Laun chba ller 18:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Not entirely opposed to it if it is structured correctly. {{Help me}}, {{Admin help}}, {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit semiprotected}}, and hopefully {{3O}} would need inclusion at least. Technical 13 (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So where would I go about proposing this? Just a simple post on WP:AN either linking to this or a wholly separate thread?--Laun chba ller 19:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Rolls-Royce Trent series [edit]

Duplicates this template Template:Rolls-Royce plc aeroengines. Do we need both? Doesn't offer anymore detail or information compared to Template:Rolls-Royce plc aeroengines. Thanks JetBlast (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep - As the template creator it was designed to disambiguate and clarify the relationship between all nine articles containing the name Rolls-Royce Trent and to allow the reader to easily move between related articles which is the main purpose of a navbox. I believe the template was approved by other members of the aero engine task force in this discussion from September 2009 concerning the split of a very large (as it was) Rolls-Royce Trent article. Template:Rolls-Royce plc aeroengines does not contain the two Trent engines designed by Rolls-Royce Limited, the Rolls-Royce RB.50 Trent and the Rolls-Royce RB.203 Trent, it does not duplicate that template as stated but compliments it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The other template is clear enough.... --JetBlast (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Both templates are clearly complimentary and aid the reader in understanding the complex nomenclature issues involved in the engine series. Deleting this template would hamper reader comprehension. - Ahunt (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Both templates are in all related articles. This is a navigation box and is not meant to "aid the reader in understanding" - that's what the article is for. Secondarywaltz (talk)
There's no argument against these being redundant. The larger template is not so stuffed full of links as to make it particularly difficult to locate the Trent links. This appears to be a case of using a navbox to taxonomise, which isn't the purpose of navboxes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
delete as redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep The standard of analysis by those suggesting "delete" is very disappointing. The template includes Rolls-Royce RB.50 Trent, for example, which is not (and should not be) included in Template:Rolls-Royce plc aeroengines. It is incorrect to claim both templates are in all related articles, for example see Rolls-Royce RB.50 Trent which does not and should not transclude Template:Rolls-Royce plc aeroengines. It is unreasonable to assert there is "no argument against these being redundant". The larger template does not and should not contain all the links in the smaller one. And "redundant navigation" seems a subjective view maybe by someone unfamiliar with the templates. If people editing the associated articles think these templates help the reader, their views should be respected. Thincat (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

May 19 [edit]

Template:Bad Azz [edit]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 22:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Navbox has five articles that do not all link to one another without the navbox:

Word on tha Streets (Bad Azz album) does not link to Money Run nor Thug Pound

Personal Business (album) does not link to Thug Pound

Money Run does not link to Word on tha Streets nor Thug Pound

Thug Pound does not link to Word on tha Streets , Money Run nor Personal Business

Bad Azz is the only musician article associated with the LBC Crew

There is no good place in the album articles for all of the albums, and this does meet the NENAN rule of five. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment It may pass the rule of five, but there is no need to include the album Blacc Balled in the navbox. Per WP:NAVBOX, which you agreed to follow before creating new templates in you RfC, "the articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent". There is no reference to Bad Azz in the Blac Balled article and no reference to Blac Balled in the article for Bad Azz, nor should there be. You wouldn't include I Am... Sasha Fierce in {{Kelly Rowland}}, and the same applies here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 16:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, I neither agree nor disagree about removing Blacc Balled from the navbox, albeit I only put it under related, and will comply with WP:BRD should someone remove it, just like I complied with WP:BRD regarding Mary Was the Marrying Kind. I never said that my future work was going to be perfect, however, I have added all contemplatable articles to my navboxes and put the navboxes on all pages aside from "Related Articles". --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have kicked it out, as there is no evidence at the mentioned article that Bad Azz was involved. The Banner talk 19:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Request speedy close as keep Now Jax came up with more links (why not before the nomination?) the template barely makes the threshold of five relevant links. The Banner talk 19:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Modern AFV [edit]

Template:Modern AFV (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This template is mostly redundant to Template:Modern IFV and APC. This could be repurposed into a template for armoured cars ~~in the (more attractive) style of the IFV&APC template~~, but it's probably easier to delete this and start afresh if considered necessary. DexDor (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

According to this edit summary, undoing a redirect to that template, there is a distinction here which makes a merge inappropriate. Is that generally considered to be the case? I agree that if this template is kept it should be properly {{navbox}}ed rather than usijng its current hand-hacked-in-2005 look. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep and reformat - It is not redundant to Template:Modern IFV and APC, because IFVs and APCs are primarily troop transports. This template is needed for armoured vehicles that do not carry troops and are not tanks. It is needed precisely to eliminate the confusion about the distinction between the different "classes" of armoured vehicles. It should be reformatted to the usual format for Navboxes. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reformatted Template:Modern AFV to match Template:Modern IFV and APC. Should we keep the two templates with a large overlap (bearing in mind that it wouldn't make sense to have both these templates on an article) or should we repurpose the "Modern AFV" one into "Wheeled armoured vehicles that do not carry troops andare not tanks" - if so isn't that pretty much the definition of an armoured car ? DexDor (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:79th Texas House of Representatives [edit]

Template:79th Texas House of Representatives (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:80th Texas House of Representatives (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:81st Texas House of Representatives (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:82nd Texas House of Representatives (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

current convention is that we only navigate by the list of current representatives, not historic. the list of historic representatives is only needed in one article per senate, hence no need for these templates. Frietjes (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with you in saying that my templates go agianst current convention. However I feel that they still have use in their respective articles. It is obvious to me that there is no one template that is used on every historical House of Representatives and Senate page for every state. In fact some lists fail to even provide links to representatives. My goal in creating these templates was to have a useful and (most importantly) consistent manner of providing each and every legislative article with their respective list of representatives; which I feel they do. The same goes for all other templates listed for deletion below. Cheers - Freebirds 20:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

the content should be in an article, not in a navigation box. what further complicates this approach is the idea that the list of representatives is static for an entire session, which it frequently is not. also, imagine the number of these we would have at the foot of an article about a politician with a long career. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:70th Texas State Senate [edit]

Template:70th Texas State Senate (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:71st Texas State Senate (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:72nd Texas State Senate (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:73rd Texas State Senate (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:74th Texas State Senate (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:78th Texas State Senate (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:79th Texas State Senate (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:80th Texas State Senate (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:81st Texas State Senate (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:82nd Texas State Senate (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

current convention is that we only navigate by the list of current senators, not historic. the list of historic senators is only needed in one article per senate, hence no need for these templates. Frietjes (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with you in saying that my templates go agianst current convention. However I feel that they still have use in their respective articles. It is obvious to me that there is no one template that is used on every historical House of Representatives and Senate page for every state. In fact some lists fail to even provide links to representatives. My goal in creating these templates was to have a useful and (most importantly) consistent manner of providing each and every legislative article with their respective list of representatives; which I feel they do. The same goes for all other templates listed for deletion below. Cheers - Freebirds 20:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:1st Alaska State Senate [edit]

Template:1st Alaska State Senate (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:2nd Alaska State Senate (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

current convention is that we only navigate by the list of current senators, not historic. the list of historic senators is only needed in one article per senate, hence no need for these templates. Frietjes (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with you in saying that my templates go agianst current convention. However I feel that they still have use in their respective articles. It is obvious to me that there is no one template that is used on every historical House of Representatives and Senate page for every state. In fact some lists fail to even provide links to representatives. My goal in creating these templates was to have a useful and (most importantly) consistent manner of providing each and every legislative article with their respective list of representatives; which I feel they do. The same goes for all other templates listed for deletion below. Cheers - Freebirds 20:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Just checked, and it appears that WP:STLEG has seen one revision in the past sixteen months, with WT:STLEG seeing only three revisions during that same timeframe. I think it's safe to call that project inactive. Even so, it was obvious that there was an overall prejudice against anything not pertaining to current legislatures; it wasn't strictly limited to what we're discussing right now. And why the hell not? Politician biographies are the red-headed stepchild of Wikipedia. We shouldn't remind people that there are tons more articles of notable people (some highly notable) still needing to be created. Given the overuse of Google as a means to do "research", it should be obvious why we're content to take such a stance, as Google favors current "product". RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 04:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

bias or no bias, the information should be in an article, not in a navbox. imagine the number of these we would have for a politician with a long career. if someone wants to navigate this way, he/she can use the article about the historic session. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

May 18 [edit]

Template:Music originated in Europe [edit]

Template:Music originated in Europe (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Unwieldy navigation template that will be of little help to people who read any article tagged with this template. (Hard to imagine someone will be reading about "Mazurka" and want to go to "Blues rock" just because both originated in Europe). Could be a list instead, better as a category, best as deleted completely. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete I had suggested on the talkpage that this could be sub-divided, but even that probably wont help. It is just too unwieldy. A category would probably be the best alternative.--SabreBD (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete As I said on the talk page, "this is completely ridiculous. It's way too generic and loosly connected to be needed. Category, maybe. Navbox, not a chance.". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I made this template, I see that them seemed too long, to me too, did not know that there were so many genres that have originated in europe .. I'm better will subdivided into two templates, one with "folk genes" and the other "non folk genres" . what do you think?--Vvven (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete In addition to the points already mentioned, this template is not well thought through. There are no evident criteria for what belongs in it, including criteria for what constitutes "European origin" (the many derivative subgenres of American popular-music genres, for example). As Myke pointed out on the talk page, one of the listed "genres" is the Roman de Fauvel. If this is a genre, then so are La Traviata and Fifth Symphony. Then there is the "other items" catchall, which has got several period designators in it just like other period designators listed under "genres". I see no reason why there should not also be a section on, for example, musical instruments, concert halls, or artists' agents. User:Vvven is going to feel I am stabbing him in the back, since I am the editor responsible for adding more items than anyone except him. As I promised on the template talk page, I have added well over a hundred topics, but my aim has been not to save the template, but rather to demonstrate how ill-considered it is. As for dividing it in two, I don't think that will solve anything, and especially not by trying to make a distinction between "folk" and "non-folk" genres (e.g., is Pibroch folk or non-folk? What about Tonality or Medieval?).-Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete As I mentioned on the talk page, the name implies this is about music that originated in Europe. But that is not what is listed; it is actally something more like every genre ever performed in Europe, and that does not seem very useful. Lambtron (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete Totally useless and unhelpful to readers. Originating in Europe is not a strong enough element to tie together so many different types of music from different eras. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete as inaccurate, misleading, unwieldy and generally inappropriate.--Smerus (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete as hard to navigate and vague in scope. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete Agree with nom, would be better suited to a category. This is difficult to navigate.LM2000 (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete: Agree with everyone above. The creator also keeps adding it to articles where the sources actually explicitly disagree with the music having originated in Europe. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:2012–13 Fußball-Bundesliga table [edit]

Template:2012–13 Fußball-Bundesliga table (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Substitute and delete – Redundant since the league is over. Kingjeff (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait until the Pokal Final, and then substitute and delete. Stigni (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - why create a new template every season? Why not move it to Template:Fußball-Bundesliga table or Template:Bundesliga table and substitute it before the next season starts each year? Mentoz86 (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what I'm doing for next season. Kingjeff (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:16TeamBracket-2Leg-final-1leg [edit]

Template:16TeamBracket-2Leg-final-1leg (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This template is no longer needed. The Template:16TeamBracket-2legs-except final provides the same function as this template and is more widely used. In addition, no article transcludes or uses this template. MicroX (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Keep local [edit]

Template:Keep local (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This template was considered for deletion on 8 July 2009. The result of the discussion was "keep".

This template was considered for deletion on 20 February 2011. The result of the discussion was "Keep".

This template is useless, it undermines the reason we have commons. This template is abused when someone does not like the outcome of a DR on commons (see examples ex 1 diff ex 1 DR ex 2 ex 2 DR) The high-risk images in this category can be protected from creation, as far as I understand the cascading protection on those images will prevent any non-admin from uploading a file with that name and since it's a high-risk image they can be protected on commons which eliminates the need to retain a local copy. The author of the file should not be able to impose additional restrictions outside of the standard restrictions of our allowed licenses.

Over time images are improved, optimized, updated and it would not be practical to have to update two separate image files which are exactly the same. All files tagged with this aren't free, they're restricted similar to the licenses now under WP:CSD#F3 which are now deprecated. There is no way that an editor should get a free pass to keep a local image without any justification necessary, especially in the cases where they are involved in a deletion request with the same image. Thank you. --Addi hockey 10 04:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Obvious keep - if the template is being misused in any way that can be addressed, but there are in fact numerous reasons why a local copy of an image might be appropriate. Note also that it doesn't prevent images from being copied to Commons, if appropriate. The nomination seems a bit confused and does not appear to present any valid reason for deletion of the template. The two previous deletion nominations both ended with a strong consensus for retention of the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the misuse isn't being addressed and there is no policy for the use of this template. Theoretically I could tag every image with this template and no one could do anything about it as the template has no policy regarding it's usage. I am calling for deletion of this template as it stands now, I'm not saying that any different approach is wrong but we either need to get rid of this template or develop a policy that restricts it's usage to reasonable rationales. --Addi hockey 10 05:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep this should be used on all files where commons have questionable/ambivalent/fluctuating policies on whether they accept those kinds of images or not. And for any for local projects where it might be valid to change the general image, but not where it pertains to a local project usage. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There are uses for having multiple versions of a file (different translations etc) and it'd be preferable if there were one image only on Commons so that when it's updated other wikis can use the most up-to-date file available because it is highly doubtful that the editor updating the image on enwiki will notice that "hey, they image is used on 30 other wikis on commons, maybe I should update that too!" (no, that never happens) so we should have one place for free images, Commons. That way the most up-to-date file will be available to all wikis, because enwiki is no more important than any of the other language wikis out there and the other wikis transfer their images to commons without issue. --Addi hockey 10 16:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. Not this again. Did the proposer even read the two previous debates? If they did, it was highly disingenuous not to link to them at the head of this thread, or even mention them in the proposal. And if they did not it shows a lazy nomination that did not even bother to look on the talk page of the thing they are trying to delete. I can't make head nor tail of the examples of claimed abuse, both debates ended in keep at Commons so I fail to see how this is an attempt to circumvent Commons rules. In any case, our rules are different from Commons and it is not circumventing anything. If the images were not suitable for Commons then {{Do not move to Commons}} would be a more appropriate template in any case. By the way, why does this user's page claim to be retired when they are clearly very active? Spinning Spark 07:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

So I didn't link the previous debates, big whoop, but I agree that {{Do not move to Commons}} is an appropriate template to use in which case the license is disputed and the image is deleted on commons. There's no valid reason to keep files locally when they are allowed on commons, it kind of defeats the purpose, no? For the users that update the images as said in the above comment, there is a very slim chance that they will update both images and let them be available to all of the other wikis in the Wikimedia scope. --Addi hockey 10 16:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If you had bothered to actually read the previous debate (and it should noe be becoming abundantly clear in this one also) many editors do believe there are valid reasons for keeping a local copy. For one thing it makes monitoring articles one is interested in a lot easier. For another, Commons has different needs - for instance, annotation on diagrams on Commons needs to be removed or internationalised in order to make the file as widely useful as possible. However, removing the English annotation on a diagram in the English Wikipedia could detract from the article, or even render it completely unintelligible. Far better to allow Commons to have their own separate copy to do with as they like. Spinning Spark 22:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep and close the nomination on procedural grounds. The nominator did not address any of numerous arguments in favor of this template posted at [[../2011 February 20#Template:KeepLocal]]. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Please mention any arguments I did not address and I will address them. --Addi hockey 10 16:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It is your responsibility, not my. As you started this wasting of our attention, it is you who should decide what to entertain now. I still insist that the nomination shall be speedily closed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A TfD is meant to enforce policy, not to change it. I don't think that a TfD is the correct venue for changing the use of this template. An RfC may be more appropriate.

A request to keep a copy of a file doesn't make the file unfree. In the same way, an article isn't unfree simply because the community decides to keep it in an AfD. A request to keep a file is not a binding requirement to do so. The community is free to ignore any such request, which for example sometimes happens at WP:PUF, if a file with this template is found to be a copyright violation. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Admins don't touch files with {{keeplocal}} because it explicitly says that you cannot delete it per F8 - how are they not binded to comply with that policy? I've requested some of the loosest admins to delete some noncontroversial free files and they refused solely because of that tag, which was placed by an editor who disagreed with the outcome of the DR. --Addi hockey 10 15:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

That is complete bollocks, at least for the examples you have quoted so far. As I already noted above, all your examples were closed keep in the Commons DRs you have linked so cannot possibly be tagged to circumvent a Commons decision. Why do you keep repeating this when it is patently not correct? Spinning Spark 22:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstand one of the key points of this discussion, I never said that they were tagged to influence the DR, I said they were tagged because the editors in question didnt like the outcome. --Addi hockey 10 05:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In that case you need to explain this "key point" a lot more carefully. The outcome in both cases at Commons was "keep". If the editors did not like this outcome then presumably they wanted the files deleted. How on earth is tagging them "Do not move to Commons" on Wikipedia supposed to help achieve that? Also, I do not believe that I actually said, or even implied, anywhere that you said tagging was intended to influence the DR discussion. Spinning Spark 07:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep Commons is a different project run by different people with different values. There's a lot of bad blood between the projects now and there's serious talk of cutting Commons loose. They do not own the images in question which are freely licensed for all to use as they see fit, per the licensing conditions. If users wish to retain their local copies they are free to do so and the template provides a convenient way of recording this. Warden (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You missed one point, though: the users wishing to keep a local copy do not own the images either. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Lack of ownership means that anyone and everyone is entitled to have a copy - the more the merrier. It is especially worth keeping the original upload because it is usually the primary version from which the other copies are derived. Warden (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

@Colonel Warden. Hello, usually when images are transferred to commons their complete history in also transferred (previous versions, upload log(s)) thus making them available for modification/optimization/updating by any users who choose to do so. I don't see where/how I said/implied that commons owned the images, but if you note the examples in the nomination, a user can tag this image just because they disagree with the DR outcome and be completely within the bounds of policy. If someone wanted to make a WP:POINT they could tag all of the freely licensed images with this tag and then maybe more people will see how utterly stupid this template is. If people have a dispute about the copyright status on a file, this is a such a weak way to prevent the file from being used by enwp on commons, (they are making a WP:POINT themselves) and instead of resorting to this they should participate in a DR regarding the file and the fate of the image can be determined that way, not by some disgrunted user where the DR didn't close in their favour so they use this template as a free pass to keep it on enwp. --Addi hockey 10 15:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You use the abbreviation DR as if I should know what it means. It took me a little while to figure out that it's Deletion Request. That seems to be some Commons bureaucracy that I'm not familiar with. I already have more than enough trouble with the deletionist bureaucracy on this project: AFD, FFD, MFD, &c. I shouldn't have to wrestle with the bureaucracy on other projects too and this template helps me avoid that aggravation. The template that should be deleted instead is {{db-nowcommons}}. Hmmm... Warden (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Why yes I do use the term because since you're participating in a deletion discussion I'd expect that you would've read the nom, which links to two different DR's and is part of the key reason why this template should be deleted or changed to prevent forcing the image to stay local even if there are no issues with the commons file. --Addi hockey 10 20:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I did read and inwardly digest all that. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

An editors wishes doesn't triumph policy, thus if the template is to be kept, the wording "This file does not meet CSD F8, and should not be nominated for deletion as a Commons duplicate without the permission of the tagging editor" must be removed, or changed into something more neutral "If reasonable, keep a local copy of this file on the wiki even though an eventual copy might exists on commons". If this can't be done, then delete the template. _→AzaToth 19:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be a fairly recent addition, but on checking whether or not that really is policy I find that WP:CSD#F8 really does say that. I therefore request an immediate procedural close on the grounds that the closing admin will have no authority to act against policy and will have no option but to close as keep. Spinning Spark 22:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - I have had image uploads attacked at Commons as part of a personal vendetta, this helps assure that legitimate copies of the file will be preserved from this sort of treachery. Commons is a broken, dysfunctional mess, by the way. Carrite (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism will happen anywhere, do you have specific links to these incidents? --Addi hockey 10 20:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This looks as a straw man argument, because such use of {{keep local}} is exactly the reason why ADH10 tries to eliminate it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Many contributors have uploaded content on the express condition that they not have to deal with the awful, dysfunctional, horrible commons. Deleting this template and forcing unwilling editors into the clusterfuck over there is cruel, and violates the conditions upon which a great deal of material was originally submitted. This template is absolutely essential to getting some content, and since it does not prevent a copy from being made, it benefits the ingrates at commons and all the other wikiprojects out there. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep. There are at least two reasons why a copyright-free image should be kept on en.Wikipedia.

It would meet the frequently-used criterion for protection on en.Wikipedia. There is absolutely no reason why en.Wikipedia admins should trust commons admins to protect their site, and the reverse.

The copyright status is disputed on commons, but not on en.Wikipedia. Freedom of panorama and extended copyright in the country of origin not recognized by the US are reasons why the actual copyright rules may be different between en.Wikipedia and commons. In addition, even if the relevant laws are the same, certain types of images have been deleted on Commons even though clearly copyright-free; the guidelines for such deletions may also be different on en.Wikipedia.

- Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 04:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I've always thought of this as a courtesy we extend to uploaders. If they want to keep a local copy for whatever reason (e.g. dislike of Commons, worry that it will get deleted on Commons due to running afoul of non-US copyright law, etc.), then just let them, no big deal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep but ask for explanation why uploader wants to keep local. If someone genuinely doesn't like Commons or wants to store something locally, that's fine... but I think it is perfectly reasonable to want to have an explanation of why. There's a simple reason for this: in some cases, the reason why an image is kept locally rather than on Commons is a reason that may change (copyright laws change, for instance). Knowing why it is that the image is kept locally means that if the uploader goes away, we can move the image over to Commons if the reason to keep it locally is no longer applicable. I'd suggest that we gently prod uploaders into providing a reason as part of the template. -Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Long story and not necessary to explain as this template is obviously going to be kept. Giano 18:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep. It's probably worth mentioning the long story to help others in the future understand the actual value of this template. Sometimes a valued contributor creates an diagram or takes a photo for use in an article that they are leisurely researching, but which doesn't exist yet - or is being worked on in userspace. They upload the images to English Wikipedia, so that they don't have to keep checking a watchlist on another project to keep track of them. Nevertheless, somebot tags those images {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}; they are copied over; the ENWP versions now get CSD F8 deleted from here; later, some zealot deletes the files from Commons as unused on any project. The valued contributor some time later returns to the article only to find that there are no traces of the images he uploaded earlier. Pissing off valued contributors is a pretty poor way of improving our encyclopedia, so this template is incredibly valuable as a simple means of preventing these sort of scenarios. --RexxS (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's true also, but I was thinking more of the turning the specifically taken images for Belton House (a featured article) into what appeared to be 8 distorted pixelated squares illustrating nothing. Giano 19:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tom Morris. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Unsolved [edit]

Template:Unsolved (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Giving this one a nudge again, having been surprised to encounter it while reading about the Beggar-My-Neighbour card game. This template produces a floating grey box containing an unsolvable problem related to the article, phrased as a (sometimes quite lengthy) question and titled with a link to "List of unsolved problems in [field]". The question is either repeating a "this problem is famously unsolved" statement already made in the corresponding section of article text, or making an additional, otherwise-unmentioned point which the article does not address.

This template was TfD'd a year ago for being inappropriately WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, which I don't think it particularly is - the problem is just that this 2005 template looks out of place in modern Wikipedia articles, which generally use either navboxes or sidebars for this kind of navigation, both of which seem more useful than detaching what would otherwise be a line of article prose and giving it a "List of unsolved problems in X" caption.

Comments on the last TfD suggested replacing this with a series of "unsolved problems in [field]" sidebars (providing direct links to other problems in the same field); another approach would be to flesh out the existing {{unsolved problems}} template into ten sections with links in each. Either way, I think this original template has probably had its day. McGeddon (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete. For articles about unsolved problems (like P versus NP problem), a sidebar or navbox would be more appropriate and a lot more useful. For other articles, like Beggar-My-Neighbour, which briefly discuss an unsolved problem related to the topic, the template is redundant, since the problem is already set out in the article. In both cases, this template is really just an unconventional "see also" link, rather than serving any kind of navigational purpose, and links to this one set of articles shouldn't be given such prominence. DoctorKubla (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete, blatant WP:NOTTEXTBOOK violation. Either repeats stuff already in the article, or raises a point not made in it at all. Ten Pound Hammer • 02:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't need another TfD. It needs someone to do the required work, as detailed in the previous TfD, after which there should be minimal objection to the resultant sidebars. What the previous TfD did suggest is that while the presentation is suboptimal there's broad consensus that the topic is appropriate for navigational templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not certain that this template's advocates would wholeheartedly embrace its replacement with a series of sidebars. For one thing, sidebars are a lot more limited in scope; they can only include problems that are the focus of an article, not simply mentioned in passing. I'm willing to put together the sidebars in question (I've made a start at User:DoctorKubla/Unsolved), but I'd like to know beforehand that it won't be a waste of time, so I think this TfD is necessary. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That looks absolutely fine to me. I haven't seen anyone arguing against using sidebars for these, so I don't see any barrier to that work being rolled out. Thanks for stepping up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep: I've always liked this template: it's rather charming in math articles, and I find it draws the attention to interesting and important aspects of articles. I would be very sad to see this information eliminated or obscured. --JBL (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is a non-standard "see also" link. (I don't think it really violates the WP:NOTTEXTBOOK policy, though.) However, it gives useful information to the reader, which should not be lost. Keep. I won't object to replacing the template with something better (as suggested in the previous TfD); however, to nominate the template for deletion without suggesting a replacement is to put the cart before the horse. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggested a couple of replacements and hoped that other ideas and/or a consensus would emerge from the discussion. DoctorKubla's sidebars would work well for articles which are entirely about the problem; for those which aren't, either the text already mentions the problem's noted lack of solution (and this can be given a wikilink or a {{seealso}} to "list of unsolved problems in X") or it doesn't (and the floating question box can be reframed as prose, with maybe some sourcing and context). We can make sure that no such information is lost, should the template be deleted. --McGeddon (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Provides a clear summary of the problem being discussed. I do not see a WP:NOTTEXTBOOK violation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep. This is a very useful tag. Cstanford.math (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep/Replace with special navbox. Even though there are analogous structures such as See also, navboxes and sidebars, they don't have exactly the same function as this: present the question in an easily accessible form. If it was replaced by a navbox, then it should still contain the question itself. --vuo (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Navboxes etc. have a different function: pointing you to different articles. This main function of this is instead to draw attention to what about the current article's subject is unknown. Especially for mathematics articles (where a reasonable fraction of readers are likely to be mathematicians who may be challenged by the open problems) this seems like a valuable and hard-to-replace function. -David Eppstein (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I don't much care for the look of this template either, but that is not a reason for deletion, that is a reason for improvement. And for goodness sake, this is the fifth time this has come to TfD, surely that should be telling you something? (don't waste people's time with a lost cause perhaps?). Spinning Spark 09:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As for whether it belongs in the articles, that is a matter for a case-by-case discussion on the talkpages of the articles concerned. Deciding article content in some backwater template discussion is far from appropriate. Spinning Spark 11:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that I feel the correct "look" for this kind of information is a sidebar, a wikilink or a seealso, "improvement" would effectively be destroying the template. This seemed like the best, most prominent place to raise that possibility (a TfD'd template raises an alert line on the articles its being deleted from), rather than boldly "improving" the articles myself, or questioning them all individually on articles, to mixed response. I thought the other TfDs seemed old and underdiscussed enough to merit another look, particularly with the focus of most of them being the WP:NOTTEXTBOOK tone of the boxes' questions. --McGeddon (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Simple deletion is not an option, User:DoctorKubla/Unsolved is not a replacement, and I do not understand other nominator’s proposals. Until they explained it better, let it be kept as is. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the sidebar, while well-intentioned, misses the point about what makes this template valuable. --JBL (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If it'd help to have a clear proposal from the nominator, it would just be:-

Replace it with a sidebar template like this one on any article whose main subject is an unsolved problem, and which could helpfully be said to be "part of a series on unsolved problems in X". (eg. P versus NP problem, which currently says "List of unsolved problems in computer science: Is P = NP ?" in its floating box.)

Delete it from any article where it's simply repeating already wikified article text. (eg. Turbulence, which says "Still, a complete description of turbulence remains one of the unsolved problems in physics." in prose and opens with "Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman described turbulence as 'the most important unsolved problem of classical physics'." in the lede, followed by a floating "List of unsolved problems in physics: Is it possible to make a theoretical model to describe the behavior of a turbulent flow - in particular, its internal structures?" box later in the article.)

Delete it but add a wikilink/seealso in any article where the box is repeating article text but otherwise not linking to the "list of unsolved problems in X" article. (eg. Beggar-My-Neighbour, where a section opens "A longstanding question in combinatorial game theory asks whether there is a game of Beggar-My-Neighbour that goes on forever." with a template saying "List of unsolved problems in mathematics: Is there a non-terminating game of Beggar-My-Neighbour?" immediately next to it.)

Delete it and add the same question as prose, in any article where the question raised in the box is not explained in the article body. (Although I can't find any obvious examples of this being the case, skimming the template usage.)

That's it. So long as a list of templated articles is noted somewhere, all of these steps could be applied afterwards and piecemeal, were the templates to be removed. --McGeddon (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete We don't need "questions" regarding other articles in one article. Makes the articles look quite childish btw. Garion96 (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep. As others have pointed out, the function of this template is to draw attention to an unsolved problem that is germane to the topic of the article, and link to a list of related problems. The function is different from a navbox, and this seems to be a valuable resource to the reader. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep It seems important to inform readers in a clear manner that it's a major unsolved problem in mathematics. I don't see how WP:NOTTEXTBOOK is relevant. Cliff12345 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep -- I agree with Joel B. Lewis; the template appears as a convenient link to other items of interest at just the right moment and calls attention to the fact that the topic is one of ongoing interest. It thus fulfills the purpose of informing not instructing and doesn't violate NotTextBook (though even that is being overplayed here as saying that WP must be dry and can't be exciting; there's nothing there that says informing can't be fun). I would support a move to "Unsolved Math" or something since similar templates could exist (I'd encourage) in other fields -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Egypt Central [edit]

Template:Egypt Central (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 18:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Just added Devour The Day, a band formed by two former Egypt Central members. The five articles in the navbox do not all link to one another without the navbox (Note: this navbox was created over one year ago, well before the RFC against me)?. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter when it is created, it fails WP:NENAN. Even with the "related" item, of which you know that they don't count towards relevant links (beside that, that other band is completely irrelevant for this band) The Banner talk 03:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - NENAN is an essay, not a policy, so the number 5 is arbitrary, given that the articles do not all link to one another. Additionally, the new band is not 100% irrelevant, as two members of Egypt Central formed DTD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is your standard reply when you have no content-related defence. The Banner talk 14:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete Not enough links to recommend a navbox. The indirect relationship between White Rabbit (Egypt Central song) and Devour the Day doesn't require interlinks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 17:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - While tangential links are not ideal, they are a fact of life in MANY navboxes about musical ensembles. The singles on one album might not be directly related to the singles on another album either. People who want to know more about what happened to Egypt Central may want to know more about DTD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That's perfectly acceptable and there's a link to do just that in the "associated acts" line in both bands' infoboxes. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 14:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - People who know that Egypt Central disbanded may read about "White Rabbit" and decide they want to know more about DTD. Besides, DTD will soon release an album (if they have not done so already). --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That should be solved by adding a "See also" -section in the article. It is no reason for a nav box. The Banner talk 14:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Reply - See Also sections are more difficult to maintain. If this is the solution, then why do we have navboxes at all?
Note to admin - Devour The Day was removed from the navbox in the middle of the discussion, and I did not readd it per WP:BRD. This article should be considered with respect to the number of relevant links in the navbox. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

ow, now you try it this way. In fact, DTD is just moved to the "See also"-section of the article itself. The Banner talk 00:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:SEEALSO, "one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". Tangentially related topics don't need to be in a navbox because you wouldn't necessarily put the navbox in those articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 04:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Whether you call DTD a new band, or a new lineup of Egypt Central, at the end of the day, it is all semantics, as Spider One is the only original member of PM5K and DTD has two of the four members of EC, so IMHO, the link between DTD and EC is not so tangential (one member only might be more tangential). Also, DTD is not shown in the See Also section of "White Rabbit". --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete - No naxbox needed for these links. Garion96 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Why exactly is "No naxbox needed for these links"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

May 17 [edit]

Template:Dasol [edit]

Template:Dasol (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

merged with Dasol, Pangasinan. Frietjes (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:The U-Men [edit]

Template:The U-Men (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 22:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Navbox has four albums that do not link to one another without it.

U-Men (album) does not link to Step on a Bug nor Solid Action

Stop Spinning does not link to Solid Action

Step on a Bug does not link to U-Men (album)

Solid Action does not link to U-Men (album) nor Solid Action

--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, just use normal wikilinking The Banner talk 20:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC) gosh, I hope it won't take long before you get your topic ban and are kicked off templates.

Reply - Show me how. If this is the solution, then why do we have ANY navboxes AT ALL? Maybe there should be a ban against The Banner nominating anything for XfD? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You know the basics of wikilinking well enough to create dodgy templates, so why would you not know how to create wikilinks in articles? Nice filibuster, Jax. Won't save you. The Banner talk 22:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - According to the filibuster article on Wikipedia, "A filibuster is a type of parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal". What PROOF is there that I am filibustering??? What I am doing cannot possibly delay a vote on this proposal, and is simply asking legitimate questions regarding the XfD. These questions are being blatantly ignored a great deal of the time instead of being answered with either a legitimate answer, or being told that it is none of my business. If wikilinking is the solution, then The Banner (not I) has the burden of proof that this is the case. IMHO, there is not a good place to inject wikilinks to all of the albums, and "See Also" sections are more difficult to maintain. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox university campus [edit]

Template:Infobox university campus (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

from the current transclusions, it is redundant to either {{infobox building}}, or {{infobox statue}}, or {{infobox residential college}}, or {{infobox university}}. Frietjes (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete as redundant, after replacing each of the only 67 transclusions with one or other of the above, as appropriate. . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Dx [edit]

Template:Dx (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

redundant to {{stack}} and {{multiple image}} (note, I replaced it in about a dozen articles). Frietjes (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team - World Cup 2014 qualifying [edit]

Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team - World Cup 2014 qualifying (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Not conventional to maintain templates for qualifying phases of major tournaments. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. Not conventional and the squad varies to much for it to make sense to maintain templates like this. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately this template really appears to be "not conventional", although it serves it's purpose. Also, templates for all non-senior squads, regardless of their official competition registration, will probably suffer same faith --Santasa99 (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Stigni (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete - If we had navboxes for every squad ever put together, we would be drowning in templates, so we have to draw the line somewhere. This navbox falls below that line. – Pee Jay 11:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete - pure overkill. Giant Snowman 12:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Chess pos2 [edit]

Template:Chess pos2 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

unused fork of {{Chess position}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Chess position uncheckered [edit]

Template:Chess position uncheckered (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

unused fork of {{Chess position}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Chess position t [edit]

Template:Chess position t (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

unused fork of {{Chess position}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Reversi [edit]

Template:Reversi (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

unused fork of {{chess diagram}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete Redundant to {{Reversi diagram small}}. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Japan Squad 2007 U-20 World Cup [edit]

Template:Japan Squad 2007 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Japan Squad 2005 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Japan Squad 2003 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Japan Squad 2001 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Japan Squad 1999 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Japan Squad 1997 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Japan Squad 1995 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Japan Squad 1979 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Japan Squad 1993 U-17 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Japan Squad 1995 U-17 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Japan Squad 2001 U-17 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Japan Squad 2007 U-17 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Japan Squad 2009 U-17 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete template and similar for the same nation (13 navboxes total) per this deletion discussion, which established that these types of navboxes fail WP:NAVBOX 2-4 C 679 11:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 11:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete all We should not have navigation templates for any non-senior squads, as the players are not necessarily notable. Number 5 7 13:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete all. Even for senior or championship squads, these roster lists represent only a single moment in time for any individual that is really no more notable than any other single moment in time. Consequently, they are just clutter. Reso lute 17:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete all - per previous consensus, youth templates are not considered notable. Giant Snowman 12:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete all There not notable, only senior tournaments should have templates (World Cup, Confederations Cup, Olympics and Continental tournaments), there are other youth template that exist and should also be deleted. Countries like USA, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Spain, Germany and many others have youth tournament templates, like youth World Cup and continental youth tournaments. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 22:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:South Korea Squad 2011 U-20 World Cup [edit]

Template:South Korea Squad 2011 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:South Korea Squad 2009 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:South Korea Squad 2007 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:South Korea Squad 2005 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:South Korea Squad 2003 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:South Korea Squad 1999 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:South Korea Squad 1997 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:South Korea Squad 1993 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Korea Squad 1991 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:South Korea Squad 1983 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:South Korea Squad 1981 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:South Korea Squad 1979 U-20 World Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete template and similar for the same nation (12 navboxes total) per this deletion discussion, which established that these types of navboxes fail WP:NAVBOX 2-4 C 679 10:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete all We should not have navigation templates for any non-senior squads, as the players are not necessarily notable. Number 5 7 10:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 11:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete all. Even for senior or championship squads, these roster lists represent only a single moment in time for any individual that is really no more notable than any other single moment in time. Consequently, they are just clutter. Reso lute 17:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete all - per previous consensus, youth templates are not considered notable. Giant Snowman 12:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete all Per my reason of the Japan templates. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 22:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Inc1 [edit]

Template:Inc1 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Inc2 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Inc3 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Inc4 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Inc5 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Inc6 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Plain text would be much simpler, and more intuitive in the edit window. Imzadi 1979 → 05:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete all. I can understand wanting to save a few keystrokes, but this is not the way to do it. –Fredddie ™ 05:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

All templates were closed as keep. QM400032 (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That is for an admin to decide, not for you to decide. --Rs chen 7754 06:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the minor gain in consistency that these add is worth the additional complexity. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

delete, names are not intuitive, and does not save much in terms of keystrokes. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Ou Est Le Swimming Pool [edit]

Template:Ou Est Le Swimming Pool (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Only two unique, directly related links. Even the "related articles" are a bit questionable here, as the only relationship is that the acts played at the same festival. WP:NENAN. On a side note, is it necessary to create a redirect for every song from their sole album and categorize it? (See Category:Ou Est Le Swimming Pool songs) --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 04:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

May 16 [edit]

Template:Garridosinfo [edit]

Template:Garridosinfo (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This template is article content, transcluded into only one article, Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard. There's no good reason to put this content into the template space, which makes the article less maintainable. I propose substing and then deleting.

I raised this at Talk:Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard#Template:Garridosinfo, with no responses. TJRC (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge template into article and delete I cannot see any reason for the split. Mangoe (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to have a separate template simply for the infoboxes (which need converted into proper {{infobox criminal}} instances as well). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:RTD 2010 [edit]

Template:RTD 2010 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This is station map template for the light rail system as it existed in 2010 (though someone has come along and added stations that opened this year). I don't think there is any benefit to having this. The current station map that will be updated as stations come online is here: Template:RTD station map, and as the proposed map is largely the same, but stuck in time, I think it should be deleted. Killian441 (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

delete I'm not clear on why the current diagram is being transcluded since it appears in only one article. The 2010 map isn't used at all and I see no reason to keep it around. Mangoe (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Jerry Jeff Walker [edit]

Template:Jerry Jeff Walker (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

WP:NENAN. Not enough relevant links to warrant a nav box The Banner talk 19:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom, "related articles" don't count towards WP:NENAN's rule of 5. Ten Pound Hammer • 21:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep - The album and the three song articles do not all link to one another without the navbox. Walker is the only notable member of Circus Maximus (American band), and Django Walker is Walker's son, who has few to no articles related to him, and it is reasonable to assume that people may want to navigate to Django's article. Walker also has four Top 20 albums. Stoneback collaborated with Walker. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As I have said that many times before: you can solve that with normal wikilinking in the articles. The Banner talk 09:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - As I have stated many times before, some of the articles listed in the navbox are so long that a navbox assists with navigation. If "Circus Maximus" and "Django Walker" count (which I believe they do), then this navbox meets the rule of five. Just because you say that "you can solve that with normal wikilinking in the articles" does not make it so, and you still (as far as I know) haven't shown me how to wikilink the articles. Besides, this navbox meets the 5 tenets of WP:NAVBOX. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A long article is not an excuse for proper wikilinking. The Banner talk 22:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Reply - What a long article does, is makes it more difficult to find links within it (especially if there is no navbox within the article). A navbox makes the links much more conspicuous. If wikilinking is the solution, then why do we have navboxes at all? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:IPFW [edit]

Template:IPFW (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

No relevant links The Banner talk 19:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Navbox has four links that say "IPFW", two links that say "Mastadon" and nine links total related to IPFW. Exactly how does this navbox have "No relevant links"? Perhaps an RFC should be filed against The Banner for dodgy XfD nominations (as Template:IPFW, Template:Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Template:University of Northern Iowa and Template:Vincennes University have plenty of relevant links)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please start with using the correct template (university instead of musical artist). In that case you can assign the links to a proper place and not put everything under "related", what means that it is not directly linked to the subject. The Banner talk 22:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - OK, I added an athletics category to the navbox, and removed all references to the navbox being for a music group. This is the first time I am creating university navboxes, and I know people don't want me to make mistakes, but it is going to happen. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

keep, but remove the current basketball season link. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Until IPFW men's basketball has enough articles (unlike University of Northern Iowa men's basketball), I respectfully disagree with removing the current season link. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology [edit]

Template:Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

No relevant links The Banner talk 19:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep -

Chauncey Rose contributed enough to build and endow the Rose Polytechnic Institute

Cryptologia was published at RHIT for close to two decades

Oakley Observatory is located at RHIT

PRISM is hosted at RHIT

Rose-Hulman Human Powered Vehicle Team is located at RHIT

WMHD-FM is owned by RHIT --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

keep, perfectly reasonable navbox for a university. Frietjes (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to your work, Frietjes. The original of mr. Jax was another example of his sloppy work. The Banner talk 22:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - This is not the forum to discuss the quality of my work, this is the forum to discuss "Template:Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology". My template had six links from the start, so per WP:POORLY, there is no reason that this should have gone to TfD in the first place, especially based on the statement "No relevant links". Perhaps an RfC should be filed against The Banner for nominating navboxes to TfD that should not be there at all, especially since there is only one vote for delete and two votes for keep so far? I also ask again, exactly how does Template:IPFW have "No relevant links"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It is the right place, because you sloppy work has to be corrected by others. And what about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jax 0677, where you was asked to up the quality of your work. Are these university-templates the culmination of your better work? Gosh, time to panic! The Banner talk 23:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - This is the first time I am creating university navboxes, and I know people don't want me to make mistakes, but it is going to happen. And your inflammatory comments are in violation of WP:CIVIL. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Your filibustering is also contrary to civil behaviour. The Banner talk 22:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Reply - According to the filibuster article on Wikipedia, "A filibuster is a type of parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal". What PROOF is there that I am filibustering??? What I am doing cannot possibly delay a vote on this proposal, and is simply asking legitimate questions regarding the XfD. These questions are being blatantly ignored a great deal of the time instead of being answered with either a legitimate answer, or being told that it is none of my business. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:University of Northern Iowa [edit]

Template:University of Northern Iowa (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template with completely different content than the title of the template suggests. Or the content has to be improved (and widened in scope) or the title needs to be changed. The Banner talk 19:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's not what I expected when I clicked the link. I would move this template and then kill the redirect by creating a more appropriate navbox for UNI. –Fredddie ™ 05:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Navbox has 9 links that say the words "Northern Iowa" in it, plus other related articles.

How does the template have "completely different content than the title of the template suggests" or "content [that] has to be improved (and widened in scope)"?

Why must the title be changed if all of the articles are related to Northern Iowa?

How is this navbox not "appropriate"?

--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The Banner talk 22:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I am not "kidding". What I am saying is evident in the navbox itself. Please be more specific in the questions that you ask, as I am not going to try to predict exactly what you are getting at. I am now going to repeat the ignored questions that I have already asked.

How does the template have "completely different content than the title of the template suggests" or "content [that] has to be improved (and widened in scope)"?

Why must the title be changed if all of the articles are related to Northern Iowa?

How is this navbox not "appropriate"?

Exactly how does Template:IPFW have "No relevant links"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You are just filibustering here or you are completely st.... The Banner talk 20:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC) gosh, I hope it won't take long before you get your topic ban and are kicked off templates.

Reply - A filibuster involves me crowding out other people and taking time to prevent other people from speaking, which a written forum does not permit. I am responding to the concerns addressed, which is a lot more than The Banner is able to do. Maybe The Banner should try answering the questions directly, instead of ignoring them and making personal attacks and discussing off topic matters. Was The Banner about to say "completely stupid"? Because this amounts to a personal attack. It is also useful to note that many of the May 8th templates such as Template:Londonbeat that The Banner nominated were kept. I will repeat the ignored questions again:

How does the template have "completely different content than the title of the template suggests" or "content [that] has to be improved (and widened in scope)"?

Why must the title be changed if all of the articles are related to Northern Iowa?

How is this navbox not "appropriate"?

Exactly how does Template:IPFW have "No relevant links"?

Lastly, on what grounds will a topic ban be issued if I have fully complied with the RfC against me? I am well within my right to voice my opinion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain first why you think the University of Northern Iowa is a musical group? The Banner talk 23:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: My biggest problem with the template is that it gives undue weight to the men's basketball team. If you strip out the seasons and move the link to the men's BB team to the related links, the whole thing falls flat on its face. Compare to {{Iowa State University}}. –Fredddie ™ 02:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - This is the first time I have worked on university navboxes, and although people do not want me to make mistakes, it is going to happen. I have just removed all references to the navbox being for a music group, which I never thought was the case in the first place. The revised table is not perfect, but like its predecessor, is still a good navigational tool. Before people make uncivilized comments like the ones already made, they should read WP:BITE. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

keep, but remove the section on the Men's basketball team, which should have its own template. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Vincennes University [edit]

Template:Vincennes University (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

no relevant links in the template The Banner talk 18:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep -

Delta Gamma Iota was founded in 1965 at Vincennes University

Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana - "In 1999, Ivy Tech entered into a partnership with Vincennes University to form the Community College of Indiana. The partnership ended in 2005 and Ivy Tech was rechartered as a system of community colleges, and renamed Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana."

O'Neal Airport was a public use airport owned by Vincennes University

W06BD is owned by North Gibson School Corporation in partnership with Vincennes University

WVUB operates out of Davis Hall on the Vincennes University Main Campus

WVUT operates on digital channel 22 and is located at Vincennes University

--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

First start with using a university template for a university instead of a template for a musical artist. And secondly: in a template about a university you would expect articles about colleges and famous profs. Not some random sideshows as a radio station and an airfield. The Banner talk 20:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC) gosh, I hope it won't take long before you get your topic ban and are kicked off templates.

Reply - OK, now we're getting somewhere. I will try to start "with using a university template for a university instead of a template for a musical artist" from now on. I was not advised of this until now . These topics all relate to Vincennes University, and to the best of my knowledge, there is no policy against this. Also, if I have complied with the RfC, on what grounds can a topic ban be issued against me? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense, Jax. You have NOT complied to the RFC/U as your work is just as sloppy as before. Your clear refusal to enhance the quality of your work is reason enough to file for a topic ban. The Banner talk 23:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

And when you start something new: RTFM. The Banner talk 23:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I absolutely disagree with my work being "just as sloppy as before", taking into account that these are the first university navboxes that I have created. And what evidence is there that I am "refusing" to "enhance the quality of [my] work"? I have separated the topics, so reading WP:BITE before making inflammatory comments will be helpful. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

keep now that it has been revised. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Uncollapse [edit]

Template:Uncollapse (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Very unhelpful template. The message fits better on the talkpage than maximal ugly in the article itself. The Banner talk 18:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment it's a section template, it can't be used on the talk page as is, you'd need to convert it to an article template. It's also like any other cleanup template, so why would it be on the talk page? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's actually more effort to add this tag than it would be simply to uncollapse the content oneself. There comes a point where the correct response is to JFDI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Now that the template has been reformatted, it should remain. Too many sections of Wikipedia are collapsed in violation of MOS:COLLAPSE, and prevent a wide variety of people from viewing the pages, especially when converted to PDF format. JFDI??? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:JFDI. The changing of this template to use small size doesn't make it any less useless, just less noticeable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:The Amenta [edit]

Template:The Amenta (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

WP:NENAN. Not enough relevant links to warrant a nav box The Banner talk 18:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete Two directly related links. Just because a band member played in other bands, doesn't mean each band needs to link to one another. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 04:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep - The five articles in the navbox do not all link to one another without the navbox. Per the article, Dave Haley was in fact a former of The Amenta. Need I explain in detail which articles do not link to one another? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Standard reply: use normal wikilinking in the articles to solve that. The Banner talk 22:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - There is no logical place in some of the passages to wikilink some of the articles involved. In this case, The Banner (not I) has the burden of proof. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Analog Rebellion [edit]

Template:Analog Rebellion (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

WP:NENAN. Not enough relevant links to warrant a nav box The Banner talk 18:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Navbox has four links that do not all link to one another, and Cavanaugh, Something (Pre-Sides and Varieties) was redirected without sufficient discussion. There are several Analog Rebellion albums that can be made into articles.

The Frequency E.P. does not link to Ancient Electrons nor Besides, Nothing (B-Sides and Rarities, 2003–2009)

Texas (album) does not link to Besides, Nothing (B-Sides and Rarities, 2003–2009)

Ancient Electrons does not link to The Frequency E.P.

Besides, Nothing (B-Sides and Rarities, 2003–2009) does not link to The Frequency E.P. nor Texas --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Standard reply: use normal wikilinking in the articles. The Banner talk 23:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - If this is the solution, then why do we have ANY navboxes AT ALL? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read the manual if you don't know when to use nav boxes. The Banner talk 22:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - There is no logical place in some of the passages to wikilink some of the articles involved. In this case, The Banner (not I) has the burden of proof, so The Banner needs to show which navbox policy is relevant.

All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.

The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.

The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.

There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.

You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Anata [edit]

Template:Anata (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

WP:NENAN. Not enough relevant links to warrant a nav box The Banner talk 18:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Navbox has four articles that do not all link to one another,

The Infernal Depths of Hatred does not link to Under a Stone With No Inscription nor The Conductor's Departure

Dreams of Death and Dismay does not link to The Conductor's Departure

Under a Stone With No Inscription does not link to The Infernal Depths of Hatred

The Conductor's Departure does not link to The Infernal Depths of Hatred nor Dreams of Death and Dismay

--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Standard reply: use normal wikilinking in the articles to solve that. The Banner talk 22:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - There is no logical place in some of the passages to wikilink some of the articles involved. In this case, The Banner (not I) has the burden of proof. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:China Marine Surveillance [edit]

Template:China Marine Surveillance (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Used only in main article China Marine Surveillance; since it's all in Chinese characters it's useless to the English Wikipedia to begin with, but my sense is that the template links would be to sub units unlikely to meet our notability standards. Mangoe (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Not a usable template on the English Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Oda Mari (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cristian Nemescu [edit]

Template:Cristian Nemescu (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

WP:NENAN this only navigates between 3 articles, the rest of redlinks 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox drama [edit]

Template:Infobox drama (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Redundant to {{Infobox play}}. Only 2 transclusions. Probably best left as a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep: I made multiple requests at Help Desk, Template request zone to create this template and finally Theo went ahead and created this template. Template:Infobox play has nothing to do with Infobox Drama. Infobox Play tells about the literary piece and Template Infobox drama deals with it when it is staged. Check the parameters. These are entirely two different mediums. Infobox play dopes not have the basic parameters of a drama like "Director", "Thetre group/production house", "Actors"! --Tito Dutta (contact) 09:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC) And it has few uses becuase 1) it is a new template 2) works have not been done to replace Infobox Play with Infobox drama in appropriate articles. I have at least 5 articles in hand where the work is pending! --Tito Dutta (contact) 09:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

When would it ever be appropriate to have a separate article for a given performance of a play, as opposed to the play itself? Neither of the current transclusions fall under that category. It's not obvious why any of the extra attributes could not be added to the existing infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment On reading the two articles on which this template is used; both need to be rewritten to be about the play, with a section on major performances, rather than being about performances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing to write about those plays. Those were never published as books and were made for staging only! --Tito Dutta (contact) 14:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be confused as to what {{infobox play}} covers, if not what the general concept of a play is. The point is that even if a play is only performed one single time, the subject of an article on said play is the play as a work of art and not the individual performance on the night. The vast majority of uses of {{infobox play}} "were never published as books", but may have been performed multiple times (or sometimes not). The existing infobox is correctly applied to all plays. If you wish for additional fields to be added to it, propose them on the template talk page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have started adding this Infobox drama in other articles too! --Tito Dutta (contact) 14:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cubesats2012 [edit]

Template:Cubesats2012 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Small subset of Template:Orbital launches in 2012; completely redundant to the larger template. W. D. Graham 18:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Expand to become {{Cubesats}} for general cubesat template -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be too large a field to be feasibly represented by a navbox. --W. D. Graham 23:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

How so? Nav templates are not supposed to present every single article, only the major ones, otherwise they replicate list articles/indexes/categories. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

And which ones are the "major ones"? --W. D. Graham 07:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be an editorial decision to be decided on the talk page. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

In other words, subjectively. I still think a list (which we already have) would be more useful than a navbox. --W. D. Graham 09:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

delete as redundant. Frietjes (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Convert, maybe use it as basis for a kibo module template. Fotaun (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there really enough content to justify that? --W. D. Graham 13:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment, if people are unsure about deleting it, a possible compromise could be turning it into a navbox for spacecraft deployed from the ISS --W. D. Graham 17:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to brainstorm what to transform this into. Not everything needs a navbox, and the material already exists in other formats elsewhere on the encyclopedia. The existing lists suffice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree, I was just looking for grounds for a compromise with the people who wanted to see it kept in some form or another. --W. D. Graham 16:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

May 15 [edit]

Template:Israeli Figure Skating Championships [edit]

Template:Israeli Figure Skating Championships (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

navigates nothing. Frietjes (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete - I'd say userfy if there is going to be articles for the individual years to be created, but they don't seem to be much a national championship when there aren't even competitors in the major categories. -- Whpq (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not useful. Creation of articles seems doubtful. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 14:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Con artists [edit]

Template:Con artists (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Totally unnecessary template, uniting haphazardly chosen persons, ranging from mafia bosses (Mogilevitch) to garden variety white-collar criminals (Ken Lay) to traditional con men (Ponzi) and everything in between. This template provides no encyclopedic value. Please delete. -- Y not? 16:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete - The articles are not strongly related. If desired, one could simply add List of con artists as an entry in a "see also" section. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:The Legend of Zelda chronology [edit]

Template:The Legend of Zelda chronology (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Obvious issues with WP:GAMECRUFT. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete after transclusion in The Legend of Zelda, assuming that there are any sources to back up this "chronology". It isn't useful for navigation as we already have a Zelda navigation template. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no need since the Hyrule Historia image already does everything we need with this information in a better way. Also regarding your other point, this is backed up from sources since the timeline came from an official collector's book from the series creators' Nintendo. This said this template in not needed since we already have a navigation template and the timeline info is also covered separately.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Redundant to the out-of-universe template which lists them in terms of their real-world release dates, which is preferrable to this in-universe, WP:GAMECRUFT-based one. (The fanbase loves to research and speculate about the fictional timeline, but it is far from one of the main aspects of the series.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete: Seems superfluous, and rather in-universe, as per Sergecross73. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete its use as a bottom-of-the-page navbox is redundant to the main navbox. It's too big and complicated to make into a sidebox like other vg chronology templates. Thus, delete. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Doctor Who RG [edit]

Template:Doctor Who RG (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This is a template for linking to reviews on a website. Said website does not constitute a reliable source, ergo there is no need to link to it. Bondegezou (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete - If there are any interesting reviews they can be done manually, but it's not that high profile it needs a template. Rankersbo (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep - WP:ELMAYBE: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.". I believe this falls under same, and should be retained. WCityMike (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Well, that's only a 'maybe'. WP:ELNO (the next section on that page) says not to include "most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" That would not appear to apply in this case. Bondegezou (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep: Actually the pages linked to by this template do not contain reviews, but rather much more detailed episode by episode plot descriptions than on the corresponding Wikipedia articles. I have been watching the Dr. Who TV shows since the beginning for the past several months, and have found this site to be actually much more reliable in it's plot descriptions than the necessarily condensed summaries in WIkipedia which make a noble but flawed attempt to summarize stories which span from 2 to 12 episodes which is almost impossible to do while following the Wikipedia guidelines for brevity. Quoting the Links to Avoid Section:

"Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."

Since the referenced pages do indeed provide much more detailed summaries which are in fact more reliable than the heavily edited WP versions, they IMHO meat the critera of providing a unique resource beyond what a featured article on WP would provide. Rick (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I entirely agree that it's a useful website and, you're right, this one provides synopses and notes, not reviews. My apologies. However, WP:ELNO is very clear not to include "most fansites ..."; and I don't see how this site passes WP:RS criteria either. It appears to me very suitable for a Dr Who-specific wiki, but I can't personally see how it's appropriate under Wikipedia policies. Bondegezou (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

delete the site linked fails WP:ELNO and so we should not give it a facade of acceptance that actually having a template denotes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:OG review [edit]

Template:OG review (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This is a template for linking to reviews on a website. Said website does not constitute a reliable source, ergo there is no need to link to it. Bondegezou (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep - WP:ELMAYBE: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.". I believe this falls under same, and should be retained. WCityMike (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: This is a slightly different case to the Doctor Who RG template I've also nominated for deletion. I would still note that WP:ELMAYBE is still only a 'maybe'. WP:ELNO says not to include "most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" Now, Outpost Gallifrey as a website does have its own Wikipedia article and meets notability criteria. However, this template links to reviews archived at Outpost Gallifrey written by a variety of fans who are not, individually, "recognized authorities [...] [who] meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people." (Actually, the template links to the WaybackMachine's archive of Outpost Gallifrey as the site no longer exists.) I also note that WP:ELMAYBE specifically excludes linking to professional reviews in the external links section, so I can't see how it can be used to support linking to fan reviews. Bondegezou (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If this site is typically considered to be a valuable resource for its subject matter it's appropriate to templateise links to it for consistency. The appropriateness of the site in question should really be discussed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard rather than at TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: My apologies, I should have been clearer in my initial nomination about this. This template is specifically used in External Links sections and its use there is (as far as I can see) always inappropriate, for the reasons I give in my previous comment above. That is a somewhat different issue to whether it is a reliable source or not. So I feel this TfD should continue, but I have now also started a discussion at RS/N on this and two other templates: see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Various_Dr_Who_fan_sites_.26_associated_templates.

I would also point out that whether "this site is typically considered to be a valuable resource for its subject matter" is not enough justification if what is "typically" done is in contradiction to policy (as per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). Bondegezou (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Addendum I've also started a discussion at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Two_templates_for_ELs_to_Dr_Who_fan_sites as EL/N seemed more appropriate than RS/N. Probably should have begun there! Bondegezou (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

delete - the site linked to does not meet WP:EL guidelines and should not be given the veneer of "approved link" that having a template confers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Jetix Animation Concepts [edit]

Template:Jetix Animation Concepts (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Unused template of unsourced content. jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 06:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

May 14 [edit]

Template:Interwiki-all [edit]

Template:Interwiki-all (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Redundant as a result of Wikidata's collection of interwiki links. Frigid Ninja 20:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

delete, it appears this is no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Mark historical for the history of Wikipedia, indicating the existing sister languages at the time Wikidata took over -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't an archeological dig site. We don't need to preserve broken old templates as if they're Norse arrowheads. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It makes it harder for latter-day digital archaeologists and historians to do things if we do not keep in mind the historic character of Wikipedia. We ourselves (as wikipedians) already complain when our online sources die, so we should bear in mind such things about the character of Wikipedia itself as it concerns to academics studying the history of the internet. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Latter-day archaelogists would still be perfectly able to access this in the database dump, which is the original manuscript as far as we're concerned. We needn't keep it around here undeleted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:WMC years [edit]

Template:WMC years (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Red-linked template with no attempt to create articles for the missing years. Standard article wikilinking is sufficient here until articles for individual years are created. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 19:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

delete, not enough working links. Frietjes (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Hollywood Records [edit]

Template:Hollywood Records (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

The lists of former and current artists of the record label should suffice and this template is not needed. Links to other artists that have no distinct relationship to one another beyond sharing a label is no need for a navigational box. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 17:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

delete, a category would do fine here if such a grouping is needed at all. Frietjes (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:A Hope for Home [edit]

Template:A Hope for Home (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

WP:NENAN. Only links to two albums and the band's label. No additional aid in navigation. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 14:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

delete, not enough primary links. Frietjes (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Field hockey at the 2012 Summer Olympics tournament navbox [edit]

Template:Field hockey at the 2012 Summer Olympics tournament navbox (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

The template directs to subsections on the pages Men's tournament and Women's tournament. It's not necessary to keep the template for these two pages, because they're on Template:FieldHockeyAt2012SummerOlympics. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ambivalent: I suppose the intention was to have the various stages of the tournaments in separate, more detailed articles, just like Template:Football at the 2012 Summer Olympics tournament navbox, but I guess it has never materialized.

HandsomeFella (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete Duplicative. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

delete, not enough primary links. Frietjes (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Agree with rationale Rankersbo (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

May 13 [edit]

Template:TB Tvøroyri squad [edit]

Template:TB Tvøroyri squad (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Nav box of doubtful worth. For a club in a non professional league and a minor one at that. Unlikely that very many players who could feature in it would ever be notable enough for their own article so difficult to see how this aids navigation. Fenix down (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

HB Tórshavn has a template and plays in the same football division as TB Tvøroyri, so I thought that it was ok to make a template for TB Tvøroyri as well. Only one of the players and the manager has played on the Faroe Islands national team, and Nicky Deverdics is English and has played in England and Scotland. Faroese players must have played on the national team in order to get an articles on the English Wikipedia. Eight of HB Tórshavn's players have articles on this Wikipedia. This is the first time I have tried to make such a template, it didn't occur to me that it would not be ok, because HB Tórshavn has had a squad-template for six months now. EileenSanda (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, what do you mean by saying: "...and a minor one at that". TB Tvøroyri is the oldest football club of the Faroe Islands, founded in 1892, they have won the Faroese Championship 7 times and the Faroe Islands Cup 5 times, and they currently play in the top division of the Faroes, so how do you define the club as a minor one? EileenSanda (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not that I think that there could never be a use for such a template, but at the moment, you should ask yourself, how it improves navigation. Currently it is of no use on the club article (as no such templates really are) as the squad listing is already there. There are then only three other article where it could be used. Whilst it could be used to navigate between these three articles, the domination of redlinks indicates that it is probably not necessary. The Thorshavn one is also not brilliant (few are in non FPL leagues) but it does have seven live links. Personally that is too few for my liking, but it is more of a borderline case and I thought that others might also think so. I meant minor on a global scale and was referring to the league, not the club and drew that conclusion from their allocation of continental club cup places. Fenix down (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you meant on a global scale.EileenSanda (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Fenix down (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete - not enough links to provide useful navigation. The rule of thumb is five articles, and when most of these red-links are pointing to non-notable footballers, I don't see the value in this navbox. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete - WP:NENAN. Not enough notable articles to navigate between. Giant Snowman 12:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:KAZe [edit]

Template:KAZe (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Lenar (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Blank. Would've been a Template of a non-notable company anyway. EditorE (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

See the histories. These were blanked and deleted from articles by Goslajuavi (talk · contribs) without any apparent discussion. Did you notice that before nominating them? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's discuss it then. Having these templates is deeply unecessary and "dangerous", because if Wikipedia tolerate things like this, then that editor will start "abusing" by "spamming" Wikipedia with more of these utterly useless templates and other things. Well, in fact he already "spammed" Wikipedia with thousands of not-useful and false information but that's other story. What's the point having a template with Lenar games? Is it useful? I say no. But it's just my opinion. In fact, I think Lenar page should be deleted, because the page is useless. The company never published a single game. Normally these video game companies have a page in the Japanese Wikipedia. However there's no Lenar even in the Japanese Wikipedia... I think Lenar should be nominated for deletion again. Regards. --Goslajuavi (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

how is this different from Category:Video game navigational boxes by company? Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Lenar and KAZe never published a game. I still don't understand what's the point of having these templates. Ok, there are always exceptions of course. If the creator of Lenar wiki page and template wants to improve something about Lenar, then it would be nice improving the article and not creating a template. The template's "info" (list of games to be more precise) is already in the Wiki page. Also, there's already the Lenar category. (...) category, template, what's next? perhaps a category named "List of games developed by Lenar and published by some other random company"? Look at the page, no logo, no info about the foundation, etc, basically nothing. --Goslajuavi (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Both templates were created by the same user. Probably has something to do with their blanking... User who blanked the page seems to mostly remove edits by User:GVnayR. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Old discussions [edit]

May 11 [edit]

Template:United States Military Aerial Refueling Aircraft [edit]

Template:United States Military Aerial Refueling Aircraft (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

A navbox that relates user to types of aircraft is not part of the normal aircraft navbox schemes, it has a potential to lead to tens of such navboxes added to each article with no real encyclopedic gain, so not really needed and is covered by navboxes related to aircraft designations. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete - the standard for this sort of aviation navbox is 'by manufacturer' or 'by designation', and this fits neither. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Convert to list which would better indicate dedicated refuelling aircraft and those that are multifunction which are converted to refuel. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Convert to list, I find this useful, and I think it'd be a waste for it to just be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Canadian Military Aerial Refueling Aircraft [edit]

Template:Canadian Military Aerial Refueling Aircraft (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

A navbox that relates user to types of aircraft is not part of the normal aircraft navbox schemes, it has a potential to lead to tens of such navboxes added to each article with no real encyclopedic gain, so not really needed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete - the standard for this sort of aviation navbox is 'by manufacturer' or 'by designation', and this fits neither. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Convert to list to indicate dedicated refuellers and multifunction craft that have modules that are added when needed. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete Also redundant to {{Canadian Forces aircraft}}. Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

List of second-level domain [edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:List of second-level domain/ac (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/ad (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/ae (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/af (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/ag (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/ai (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/al (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/am (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/an (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/ao (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/aq (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/ar (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/ar/spe (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/arpa (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/as (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/at (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/au (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/au/spe (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/aw (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/ax (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/az (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/az/test (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/ba (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/bb (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/bd (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/be (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/bf (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/bg (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/bh (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/bi (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/tr (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:List of second-level domain/template (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

per this discussion, WP is not a DNS server. luckily this project was never completed. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete all. Michael! (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. Anyway, yes: these do not have utility beyond potential substitution onto one single article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Obsolete location map templates [edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Location map Afghanistan2 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Afghanistan2/doc (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Bangladesh districts (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Bangladesh districts/doc (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Basketball League of Serbia (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Germany2 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Israel fullyeco (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Moğolıstan (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Spain 2 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Switzerland2 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Tigris-Euphrates (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Ukraine norelief (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map USA Wyoming2 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Wales2 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map 270-0-360-90 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Scotland mainland (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map USA3 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map England and Wales (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Europe2 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Northern Ireland2 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Scotland2 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Scotland norelief (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Sri Lanka2 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Ukraine1 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Location map Wyoming2 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Reason to delete these templates: #2. "The template is redundant to a better-designed template"
and: #3. "The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used".
For instance, Template:Location map Afghanistan2 is obsolete, since Template:Location map Afghanistan serves the same purpose but is of better quality. Michael! (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

PS: I could have nominated each of them for CSD T3, which I did with Template:Location map Scotland mainland and Template:Location map USA3 eleven days ago, but this seems to be a faster way. Michael! (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

PPS: The last ~~four~~ eight (England and Wales, Europe2, Northern Ireland2, Scotland2, Scotland norelief, Sri Lanka2, Ukraine1, and Wyoming2) are currently redirects without purpose, but they were obsolete, redundant location maps like the others I've nominated here. Michael! (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

PPPS: Italy 2 and Italy 3 are two examples of precedents, which were deleted for the same reasons. Michael! (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

delete, assuming they are all unused. Frietjes (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Modern AFV [edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 19 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:31, 19 May 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BDOM [edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:BDOM (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This template seems only to exist to promote User:Ossip Groth's website; see discussion at Project:Medicine. See also Template:XBDOM. Qwertyus (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The script does not promote the external website, it tries to integrate its itellectual content. Anybody out there who thinks that such an external site could be developed intrinsically to wp with the required content stability and ability to run monthly updates on 14.000 (exactly 13.997) topics ?

WP does link systematically to external sites e.g. www.google.com, so what is the case against linking with standard wp technology ?

--Ossip Groth (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete the only editor proposing the use of this template (and adding related links to multiple WP articles) is the author (presumably owner, i.e. WP:COI) of the site (this is one difference from links to other external sites, which enjoy broader support). Linking to the BDOM site would not add to WP content, and this template is not needed. -- Scray (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment Template is currently unused, but a text similar to it has been inserted in many Wikipedia pages about medical topics, often linking to Ossip Groth's website with a pretentious section header of its own (e.g. on YWHAZ. Qwertyus (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't use navboxes to link externally, and we frown on accounts with COI inserting links to their own websites into articles. I've no idea what "it tries to integrate its itellectual content" means. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

delete Frietjes (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:San Jose Radio [edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:San Jose Radio (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This template overlaps the San Francisco market. Please delete. --Geoffrey100e (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Strong Delete - I agree. San Fran and San Jose are the same market. --P4403493033940 (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The nominator, Geoffrey100e, is a sockpuppet. The previous !voter, P4403493033940, is also a sockpuppet. This is not a legitimate discussion. Binksternet (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

April 8 [edit]

Template:Reign in Blood tracks [edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Reign in Blood tracks (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Unused. Links to only two tracks. Better navigation served by {{Slayer}}. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 22:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Unused tempalte. Track listing already exists in Reign in Blood and there is no forseeable need to replicte that infromation in any other article -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

delete Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Metaheuristics for real-valued problems [edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Metaheuristics for real-valued problems (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Errors (e.g., local search is usually considered a method for finite/countable metric spaces, not continuous problems) and redundancy (given the template on optimization algorithms, which discusses continous optimization methods and metaheuristics). There have been problems with the metaheuristics article and others, which have raised SPA/COI issues. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Support I agree that this is redundant with the section on metaheuristics in the optimization algorithms template and that many MHs, such as genetic algorithm, are not easily classifiable as applying exclusively to combinatorial or continuous optimization problems. --Mark viking (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Metaheuristics for combinatorial problems [edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Metaheuristics for combinatorial problems (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

SPA (who raised COI self-promotion concerns) created this. It is redundant with the section on metaheuristics in the optimization algorithms template. Many of the methods listed are used for non-combinatorial problems. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Support I agree that this is redundant with the section on metaheuristics in the optimization algorithms template and that many MHs, such as genetic algorithms, are not easily classifiable as applying exclusively to combinatorial or continuous optimization problems. --Mark viking (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Hotels in Ibiza [edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Hotels in Ibiza (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This template covers a large number of non-notable hotels, with the bulk of the links being redlinks. As such, the usefulness of the template is questionable, considering that the bulk of hotel properties listed are not likely to warrant independent articles. So per WP:TFD#REASONS #3 this appears unnecessary and can be deleted. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep There are a lot of notable hotels in Ibiza and which will get traffic on here. The template is fine to link them all together, red links removed for now.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As it would be impossible to make this comprehensive, it's always going to be extremely subjective. This is ill-advised, especially given the potential precedent. A category suffices here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Since when has a nav template merely linking multiple articles on a given topic had a requirement to "comprehensive" and how exactly is it "extremely subjective"? Very strange statement.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Navigation templates should be comprehensive, or else they are misrepresentative of their subjects. This does not cover all hotels in Ibiza; it covers only a very small subset, and it is extremely unlikely that this will change. Where a group is open-ended, a category is a better choice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

keep for now, seems no better or worse than all the rest. Frietjes (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not an especially large group (twenty templates all told); that suggests that this practice is not very commonplace. Given the general scope problems, those should all be deleted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"Not very common place" is hardly a fair outlook. Barely anybody edits hotel articles on wikipedia, it is a vastly underdeveloped subject on wikipedia, that doesn't mean the general consensus is "Thou shalt not create hotel templates".♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:09, 20 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Eva O [edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Eva O (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

WP:NENAN With just three albums there is no need for a nav box (and for Jax: no, not every silly cross reference is useful for a nav box) The Banner talk 11:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Navbox (like Template:Sonny Throckmorton) now has FOUR albums. The four albums do not all link to one another. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Per WP:NENAN, we don't need a navbox for less than five albums. Note that the navbox's creator (User:Jax 0677) has continued his pattern of tendentious editing by creating a permastub article just to increase the link count in the navbox: Past Time was created at 14:40 on 26 March, less than 3 hours after this template was nominated for deletion. Jax should stop this cycle of disruption, or he will face sanctions.
Note that 2 of the albums linked in this navbox are up for deletion: I have PRODded Past Time, and AFDed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damnation (Ride the Madness) (see AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damnation (Ride the Madness)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Note another AFD. The PROD of Past Time was contested by Jax, even tho he made no assertion of notability. So other editors have to waste time with a full AFD (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Past Time on a clearly non-notable album :( Jax should stop this cycle of disruption, or he will face sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Per this discussion, the albums and its details should (at a minimum) be merged LOSSLESSLY into Eva O. Also, WP:BRD. Because Rozz Williams' album articles went to AfD, people are adding more referenced material to some of the articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply. It is a pity that Jax yet again misrepresents Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums. There is no requirement to merge, let alone to merge losslessly. The guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#If_the_subject_is_not_notable remains that info on non-notable topics "may be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met". There is definitely no requirement to splat a musician's article with the tracklist of a non-notable album, let alone several tracklists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply - There is plenty of space in the article for track listings and album details. Therefore, now that it is on Wikipedia and properly sourced, it should not be removed so long as the artist or ensemble is notable. If the article becomes too large, then this falls under a size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply. A size split is not grounds for creating articles on non-notable topics. The creation of Past Time was yet another example of Jax's pattern of disruptive editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I have not created any album articles in the past 24-48 hours. My prime direction has been merging the album to the artist article. Again, if this is true, why do we have award and discography pages? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply. Jax, you have created enough non-notable album articles in the last few weeks to do you a lifetime. And instead of merging the non-notable albums, you have been demanding that they be kept. Enough already.
As to discography articles, you shouldn't have to ask that question. Your long-standing refusal to pay understand the notability guidelines has wasted a lot of the time of other editors. Read WP:N for an overview, and pay particular attention to WP:GNG. Then go read Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Boilerplate for the sake of boilerplate by an editor notorious for the same. Hopefully it won't be too long before there's a formal topic ban in place to stop this from happening again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Though Past Time was redirected, there are still 3 albums and two bands in the navbox without templates which do not link to one another. There is already an RFC against me, with which I have fully complied. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Without comment on the merits of the current articles, this seems a bit overwrought for someone with so few albums, and the "Related" section doesn't seem necessary. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Um, again, Shadow Project and Super Heroines do not have their own navboxes, hence the reason for keeping them in the navbox, as well as keeping the navbox itself. Also, I don't think the second and fourth albums link to one another without the navbox. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

delete, but make sure the existing album articles are linked either through the prev/next links in the infobox, or in the see also section. Frietjes (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

ETS Capital Line [edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, redundant to Template:ETS LRT Stations Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:ETS Capital Line (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:ETS Metro Line (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete can be covered by Template:ETS LRT Stations. 117Avenue (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep even smaller metro systems can have a template for each line, Template:KMRT Orange Line for example. It is clearer for the reader to know which station is on which line. Thankyoubaby (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:CTrain Stations isn't confusing. 117Avenue (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:ETS LRT Stations looks nothing like that. Thankyoubaby (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It will when the second line is opened. 117Avenue (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete - I have changed the overall template to show the lines similar to other Canadian transit systems. The individual templates are now redundant. Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lifeboat Stations in Suffolk [edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus, but feel free to renominate. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Lifeboat Stations in Suffolk (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Strange nav box that does not cover what the title tells you. All lifeboats are still red links, so no use for this template. WP:NENAN The Banner talk 14:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep This template is for use within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Water sports/RNLI task force for future article which will be created for the Lifeboat coverage for Suffolk. It has already been used for two of the Lifeboat station articles in Suffolk, and if The Banner! has not grasped the concept of use of a nav box for such projects I suggest he looks at the way it has been used Here, Lifeboat Stations in Norfolk stavros1  ♣ 15:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess that you did not grasp the meaning of "the title should cover the content" and "a navigation box should contain useful links, not red links". And perhaps it is a good idea to wait with replying until your bad temper has cooled down a bit. The Banner talk 16:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The concern about too few working links looks like a proper one. Wikipedia:Navigation_templates#Navigation_templates_provide_navigation_between_existing_articles discourages templates with "fewer than a handful of links" and says "Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles, and even if they do, editors are encouraged to write the article first." Only the links RNLI, Aldeburgh Lifeboat Station and Southwold Lifeboat Station go to existing articles. I looked at those last two and noticed that the information that's been added so far about the vessels is not so lengthy that the need for a separate article for each vessel, as this template anticipates, is apparent. I also noticed that some the vessels in the template are different from those listed in the articles. For example, the Aldeburgh article mentions the Christine, not listed in the template; the template instead lists the Lucy Lavers (ON 832), not mentioned in the article. The Southwold boats don't entirely match up, either.

I see why the title is confusing, but it could easily be changed to "Norfolk lifeboats and stations" or the like. The problem with the title isn't a valid reason to delete this template. -rybec 20:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If the red links were fixed, and possibly more pages made for the relevant stations in Norfolk, then it could be a keep template, I see that there are only 3 stations with current red links but I am sure the template could be expanded. mtimmins92 (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete - A wikiproject can keep a list of articles it wants to create in its own project space to track the work. Generating a navigation box that fails to provide anything useful to navigate serves the readers in no useful way. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete. There might be a case for this navbox if there were more articles, but there are currently only two. A navbox is not needed for cross-linking two pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep Have added further link to Lowestoft Lifeboat notes in the main Lowestoft article. Template is worth keeping to encourage further improvements on the subject of Lifeboats and rescue in this county.Cheeseladder (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment - A navigation box is meant for navigation and not as an articles for creation tool. -- Whpq (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment I have now created Lowestoft Lifeboat Station page. - Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheeseladder (talk • contribs) 14:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete I think that both the Norfolk and Suffolk templates suffer from "not doing what it says on the tin" and from the number of red links. The lifeboat articles - if they are really justified under notability criteria - deserve their own navigation box.

We have good examples of how to manage lifeboat station navigation. These boxes don't have to be county-level. I would have thought that Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk ought to be combined. This is how the problem has been handled in the South West: {{Lifeboat stations in Somerset and North Devon}}. The whole division has three templates: Dorset and South Devon, and Cornwall being the other two. Note that there are few red links, and the defunct stations link to the article for the respective town where it is unlikely that a lifeboat station article will be justified and created. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep Layout that includes the lifeboats such as the Norfolk template is better, its easier to navigate through. There is not much red Ink, this should not be to much of a problem if the articles are likely to be produced.Dennisbluie (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep Deleting this template would be rather like deciding what to wear before you've even been invited to the party.Along with the three lifeboat stations, there are several red ink pending articles in this template navbox, which, assuming good faith, will be created at some point. All these articles could remain disconnected without the navbox, this template navbox should remain to keep the connection within in this subject. Haydnaston (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sidebar subsection [edit]

Template:Sidebar subsection (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This is a solution to a problem which does not exist, rolled out far too quickly without discussion to satisfy personal aesthetic demands which aren't in line with the general trends in sidebar / template design (i.e. to remove unnecessary stylistic markup in favour of plain and simple content that can easily be edited without expert HTML knowledge). Removing it will involve backing out the changes made to incorporate it into its transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Thumperward. I introduced this navbox a few days ago and have been adding to it since. I have copied this box to create several navboxes for the anthropology pages (Economic and development Anthropology; Medical, Cognitive and Psychological Anthropology; Political and legal anthropology). The original box was created by CsDx for the Economic Anthropology page. I'm not sure what the exact issue is, but if its a problem with this one, its a problem with them all. The rationale for using this was uniformity across the anthropology pages. There were lots of orphan pages that needed to be brought together, shown to be related, and made easily navigable in a standard way. The subsections are meant to make it easier to see how specific case studies are related to specific basic concepts. Is it the content or the subsections that is the issue? What does 'Removing it will involve backing out the changes made to incorporate it into its transclusions.' mean? Its harder to understand than the HTML ;) Schrauwers (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to work on any sidebars which presently use this to give them the desired output once this is backed out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do you use the word "once" here? CsDix (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It's typically considered poor form to orphan templates while they're still at TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I created this template because I saw varying degrees of success in people's attempts to improvise subsections within sidebars. It has two primary parameters, "heading" (or "subheading") and "content" (or "subcontent"), whose primary names (i.e. those unbracketed here) I'd hope would be recognisable and readily understood by anyone who's used templates such as {{Sidebar}}. Having just revisted the template's page, I'd accept that the information there could probably be presented more helpfully, so, if the template survives, I volunteer to try improving its documentation. Better still, though, I imagine, is if someone other than the template's creator did so, or at least visited / amended it after I've tried to do so.

As regards the "to satisfy personal aesthetic demands which aren't in line with the general trends" bit, "methinks thou dost protest too much" – and "You presume a great deal, Mr Bond."

CsDix (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It is potentially the case that we could do with baking subsection support into {{sidebar}} itself, or through a subclassed template along the lines of {{sidebar with collapsible lists}}. I don't think doing it in an ad-hoc manner with a div generator is the right way to go about it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is readily evident from how people have tried to include subsections in sidebars that some sort of support for it would be desirable. I'm intrigued by your description of the template as "ad hoc" on the basis of using <div>, an HTML standard (the HTML standard?). Is that because it isn't "official" (i.e. hasn't originated from or isn't blessed by the likes of someone or some group) in the way e.g. {{Navbox subgroup ...}} might be? CsDix (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

A little bit of both. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be that just having this discussion has affected the template's utility. See List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I for instance. An unintended consequence? JMOprof (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

delete, now with lua, we should be able to add subheadings and subsections directly to {{sidebar}}. Frietjes (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep the layout is better, its easier to navigate through... --TIAYN (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep it seems to simplify formatting and keeps the subheading under the appropriate heading. Also put template for deletion in noinclude tags due it high repeat useage. -CodeHydro 15:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Point of clarification. I see that Frietjes refers to lua, which I assume refers to Wikipedia:Lua. If so, how does lua solve the alleged problem better than what seems like a relatively simple proposal§ that doesn't require specialized programming knowledge? The other alternatives I've seen for a subheading (plain text, bolded text, plain text with colon following) seem either too weak, too strong, or too non-standard for a subheading compared to italics for a sub-heading. Thank you.

§ I could understand it! --Thomasmeeks (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

the lua comment refers to the fact that we can make these templates smarter now. for example, there is no longer a limit on the number of groups/lists for {{navbox}}. similarly it would be easy to make things work more like {{navbox}}, which has the ability to nest {{navbox|subgroup}} or {{navbox|child}}. we could have {{sidebar|subbox}} or {{sidebar|child}} as well. this would reduce the complexity of maintaining a second template, which, does not have nearly the functionality of the main template. Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

another option would be to add functionality to {{sidebar}} to specify subheadings, say as |heading1-1= for the first subheading under |heading1=. this would actually reduce the complexity for the average user, since you would not need to nest a bunch of templates, but use one single template for both the headings and the subheadings. Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, F., for remarks that touch matters large and small as to this section. For ease of reference, I number the following.

1T. Improving the functionality of sidebars, as suggested above, seems very worthwhile, especially if it involves copying or adapting Template:Navbox/doc into Template:Sidebar/doc, does not disrupt current sidebars, and is lucidly written.

2T. Even apart from that, my impression is that WP:SIDEBAR is a subset of WP:NAVBOX (same link for both). So, in principle including any parameters etc. from Template:Navbox/doc is reasonable in a sidebar if it solves some problem (such as suggested above per Template:Sidebar subsection). And that is so whether or not those parameters currently appear in Template:Sidebar/doc.

3T. The examples cited at the bottom of Template:Sidebar subsection (in the relevant sections where italicized subsections appear, such as at Template:History of Western philosophy) I think would convince most people that use of Template:Sidebar subsection solves a genuine problem, and in a way as uncontroversial as smaller subheading fonts following WP:Headings (which solution, however, seems precluded by the already-small font of sidebars). The Template:Sidebar subsection creator might be the first it shut down or adapt it accordingly if an alternative came along that solved the subsection-font problem more simply. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to reiterate: I don't have an issue with discussing the addition of subsection functionality to {{sidebar}} itself, which would be more elegant. It's that this was created and then rapidly rolled out with the intention of cloning the existing style in templates which could frequently have done with a redesign that's problematic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

comment, if we could get the ball rolling per se on making {{sidebar|subsection or whatever working, I think this would close fairly quickly as replace/delete. I had created {{infobox subbox bodystyle}} awhile back, which I would happily have deleted as well if we could add this functionality to both infobox and sidebar directly. Frietjes (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

4T. The constructiveness of the preceding comment IMO suggests that the objective of {{sidebar|subsection}} might be incorporated into Template:Sidebar. If that should happen, even soon, I hope that its creator would receive appropriate recognition through an Edit summary or summaries, not just an archive on this page, to encourage such efforts, which surely evidence a lot of work and careful thought (not to say the last word). Conversely, if its initial reception here is an indication, it's hard to see how the template could have gotten any traction if it had first been presented as a proposal on a presumably appropriate Talk page. The present venue might be the best compromise.

5T. At the same time, if the subheading (a complication) could be avoided with equal or superior navigibility in a given sidebar, I'd go for that too in the interest of simplicity.§ I doubt that the "if" statement is satisfied in a generic sense, however, based on examples in the bottom section of Template:Sidebar subsection. I also doubt the its creator would object to its use as a template/sandbox for testing reworkings & possible substantive incorporation into Template:Sidebar.

§ I tried to make just such an Edit here. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I would comment on your last diff link, but it appears to have a typo? Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, F. The link worked when I put the original WP:Diff link in at the "here" in the footnote above.# The link i.d. number has since changed (a surprise to me), so I replaced above.#

# In case the diff changes again, it's at Template:Anthropology, Revision as of 21:35, 2 April 2013, with one subheading ("Lists:"} becoming a heading and the other ("Categories:") disappearing, so no more subheadings in that template. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

it would be great if anyone interested could comment on the thread at Template talk:Infobox. there is a proposal there to add functionality which would allow for nesting sidebars/infoboxes in the same way that we are able to nest navboxes. in my opinion, this functionality would render this template redundant. Frietjes (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Point of information: It is Frietjes who showed how to dispense simply with Template:Sidebar subsection but get a look very close to it at Template:History of Western philosophy here (my Edit but F's WP:Markup suggestions via discussion at Template talk:History of Western philosophy#Disputed WP:Markup in this template). The advantage of the latter is its simplicity with each subsection heading introduced by a:

| content = line (consecutively-numbered

after the first such line

followed by the subsection heading in italics with a leading colon :(italics).

For example, in that template the first subheading in markup looks like this:

| content2 =

followed on the next line by

:By era

which looks like this (text centered):

By era.

On F's edit above, IMO there's no inconsistency in also saying that Template:Sidebar subsection should not be deleted without first determining whether:

A. The proposed alternative is at least as functional (such as relative to the example cited above), perhaps via a side-by-side sandox comparison).

B. The documentation is as easy to follow as at Template:Sidebar subsection.

Without (B) being satisfied, it's hard to see a net advantage for most users who lack a strong a background in programming. For the record, I hope that others might follow up F.'s invitation above and that (A) and (B) will be satisfied. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Rice residential college [edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge with {{Infobox residential college}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Rice residential college (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Redundant to {{Infobox university}} (which is also used for non-university colleges). May need to merge some parameters to that. Only one transclusion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

merge with other residential college templates to create {{infobox residential college}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

now created. Frietjes (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Yale residential college [edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge with {{Infobox residential college}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Yale residential college (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Redundant to {{Infobox university}} (which is also used for non-university colleges). May need to merge some parameters to that. 14 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: American residential colleges are a unique hybrid of residence halls and the Oxford/Cambridge college system. The Yale infobox is modeled after the infobox for the Oxford colleges (specifically on the featured Oriel College article), with appropriate adaptations to the Yale residential college system. A better option would be to merge other American residential college infoboxes (including the Harvard house infobox) with the Yale template, although each system exhibits unique characteristics. Please keep all the parameters specified in the Yale infobox. Nickknack00 (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

merge with other residential college templates to create {{infobox residential college}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

now created. Frietjes (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Halls of residence [edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge with {{Infobox residential college}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox University of Notre Dame residence hall (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Template:Infobox Harvard house (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Convert to generic "Infobox hall of residence" or merge to {{Infobox building}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

support, although given the statement that these are similar to residential colleges, I would say something like {{infobox residential college}} might be a good name. Frietjes (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Patience! I'm coming to that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Replace and delete; no point in keeping it. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, I think that we would be losing information if we move toward a generic infobox. Having specialized templates allows the halls to have more specific info at a glance. From my understanding, the proposed generic infobox does not have a place for info such as "charities" etc. 66.254.234.193 (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

{{infobox residential college}} has these parameters. Frietjes (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

These are plainly unnecessarily specialised. If the IP wishes to integrate relevant fields into the master template, rather than simply oppose improvement on the grounds that someone could do this, it is welcome to help out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:As Cities Burn [edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:As Cities Burn (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

With five recordings linked, this template just about scrapes through the minimum threshold in WP:NENAN ... but these recordings mostly appear to be non-notable. Four of them are now at AFD (EPs AFD, AFD: Hell or High Water, and AFD: Come Now Sleep) ... and if any of those deleted, the navbox has too few links to be needed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep - I think we are putting the cart before the horse in this case (pending the AfDs). There are still five articles in the navbox, and I believe that if 3 or 4 remain that are disconnected without the navbox, the navbox should remain until they are connected. Also, why isn't Son, I Loved You at Your Darkest at AfD? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Because unlike the others, it has reviews? Ten Pound Hammer • 00:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply - "01:03, 24 March 2013‎ BrownHairedGirl(talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,088 bytes) (+64)‎ . .(Added "notability" and "unreferenced" tags to article" --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply I can't recall why I didn't AFD it. Feel free to to bring it to AFD yourself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

delete, if most of the pending AfDs close as delete or redirect. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply - So it is OK for BHG to pick and choose which articles she would like to AfD or not? I have rarely if ever done AfDs. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't what gives you the idea that an editor is under any obligation to AFD anything. It seems that you are unfamiliar with deletion policy as you are with the notability guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

comment, should be a fairly clear delete now that most of the album articles have been deleted. Frietjes (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Artension [edit]

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Artension (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Navbox for a non-notable band and its 7 non-notable albums. All the articles are at AFD:Artension; this template should be deleted unless 5 of the albums survive AFD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Navbox has at least 5 articles, and if there are at least 3 articles within the navbox that are not linked together without the navbox, then the navbox should be kept. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply. per WP:NENAN, the threshold is 5 albums rather than 3. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply - NENAN is a guideline, not a policy. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply. The threshold of 5 has broad support at TFD.
But more importantly, there is no evidence that any of the albums are notable. What are you playing at by trying to create navboxes for all the fluff that fails Wikipedia's basic inclusion criteria? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I was not notified of the lack of notability until after the fact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply. If you are unaware that wholly unreferenced articles fail Wikipedia's basic inclusion criteria, 5 years after yous started editing here, then we have a serious problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Just because an article is wholly unreferenced doesn't mean that it does not have the potential to be kept (see WP:BEFORE). Bastian Emig was significantly expanded after the fact, as was Derek Jones (musician). - Preceding unsigned comment added by Jax 0677 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 25 March 2013‎

Reply. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bastian Emig. The article was bulked out with unsourced material, misrepresentations of sources, and now consists primarily of material referenced to his band's own website, contrary to WP:Notability (music)#If_the_subject_is_not_notable.
Derek Jones (musician) consists of 109 words of body text. It's a perma-stub, againj contrary to WP:Notability (music)#If_the_subject_is_not_notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

delete, if most of the pending AfDs close as delete or redirect. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

comment, should be a fairly clear delete now that all the album links are redirects. Frietjes (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Completed discussions [edit]

The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell (edit)

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Closing discussions [edit]

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions.

To review [edit]

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

Template:Infobox National Film Awards2013 February 15 – Infobox National Film Awards ( links | talk | doc ) convert transclusions to use {{infobox film awards}} and make any necessary modifications to {{infobox film awards}} to facilitate the conversion.

To merge [edit]

Templates to be merged into another template.

2011 May 20 – Template:Infobox hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) into Template:Infobox building (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - JPG-GR (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have done some research, and started a talk at:Template talk:Infobox hotel . -DePiep (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC). Stalled for good reason. We can not push Hotel parameters into the main building infobox, when dozens of other such templates are in the same queue. Just convince the {{infobox building}} Talk community first. -DePiep (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

2011 June 6 – Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - JPG-GR (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

2012 March 17 – Merge Template:Infobox Alusi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Template:Infobox Andean deity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Template:Infobox Egyptian deity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Template:Infobox Greek deity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Template:Infobox Hindu deity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and Template:Infobox Norse deity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

What are these being 'merged' into? -Sowlos 11:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

2012 May 6 – Merge {{ISO 639 name}}, ~~{{Iso2lang}}~~ and {{Language}}

2012 May 15 – Merge {{Infobox settlement Chile}} with {{Infobox settlement}}

2012 May 28 – Merge {{SCOTUS-recentcase}} with {{SCOTUS-case}}

2012 August 13 – Merge {{Out of date}} with {{Update}} adding a parameter |inaccurate= to provide the stronger language and category used by {{Out of date}}.

Sandbox update begun, further info requested on talk page. - Bility (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

2012 August 15 – Merge {{Nothanks-sd}} into {{db-copyvio-notice}}.

Parameters added to {{db-copyvio-notice}}, major cleanup needed to remove uses of and links to nothanks-sd around the site. - Bility (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

2012 August 22 – Merge {{Infobox bus}} with {{Infobox automobile}}, as indicated in the discussion (retaining redirects and using a common, more generic template name).

2012 October 30 – Merge {{Infobox NFL coach}} into {{Infobox NFL player}} to create {{Infobox NFL biography}} pending outcome of discussion at WT:NFL.

I am contesting this pending merge of Infobox NFL coach and Infobox NFL player because no notice was provided to WP:NFL, nor was a TfD notice placed on Infobox NFL player. I apologize if the form of this notice is irregular, but I want to halt this merge until the TfD process errors have been addressed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

2013 March 29 – Merge {{Infobox Chinese film}}, {{Infobox Japanese film}}, and {{Infobox Korean film}} into {{Infobox film}}

Confirming, from Chinese: Traditional, Simplified, Mandarin, Cantoense, Hokkien. From Japanese: Kanji, Kana, Romaji. From Korean: hangul, hanja, rr, mr, admission. These fields will go into the main Infobox film template, yes? I ask because in a former debate the term "merge" and the term "delete" were used interchangeably and I want to make sure nothing getting dropped :) ₪RicknAsia₪ 06:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

let's continue the discussion here. Frietjes (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 May 6 – Merge {{Infobox ocean}} and {{Infobox bay}} into {{Infobox body of water}}, leaving redirects to {{Infobox body of water}}

To convert [edit]

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories, lists or portals are put here until the conversion is completed.

None currently

To substitute [edit]

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (i.e. the template should be merged with the article) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

None currently

To orphan [edit]

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

None currently

Ready for deletion [edit]

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

Template:MPLinksCA2012 September 28 – MPLinksCA ( redirects | talk )

Template:Expert-subject-multiple2012 June 8 – Expert-subject-multiple ( redirects | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

Archive and Indices [edit]

Popular search requests
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion is an object of interest for many people. For example, the people often search for Wikipedia:Templates for discussion website, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion blog, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion online, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion information, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion photo, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion picture, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion video, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion movie, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion history, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion news, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion facts, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion description, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion detailed info, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion features, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion manual, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion instructions, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion comparison, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion book, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion story, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion article, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion review, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion feedbacks, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion selection, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion data, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion address, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion phone number, download Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion reference, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion wikipedia, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion facebook, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion twitter, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion 2013, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion 2014, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion in the United States, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion USA, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion US, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion in United Kingdom, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion UK, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion in Canada, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion in Australia, etc.

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion is also an object of commercial interest. For example, many people are interested in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion offers, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion buy, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion sell, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion sale, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion discounts, discounted Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion coupon, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion promo code, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion order, to order Wikipedia:Templates for discussion online, to buy Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, how much for Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion price, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion cost, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion price list, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion tariffs, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion rates, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion prices, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion delivery, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion store, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion online store, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion online shop, inexpensive Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, cheap Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion for free, free Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, used Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, and so on.
Information source: wikipedia.org

Do you want to know more? Look at the full version of the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion article.