Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 15#Template:Infobox Palestine municipality

: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 to delete at this point in time. There is some consensus to change it to a wrapper for {{tl|infobox settlement}}, which was done before it was orphaned. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Infobox Palestinian Authority municipality}}

Frontend to {{tl|infobox settlement}} which was orphaned by Nero the second. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep In a series of automated edits today, Nero removed the template from hundreds of articles without any discussion. Give concerned editors an opportunity to review the articles in question to see whether his automated edits have caused any damage (he spent no more than a few seconds on each edit) and whether there are good reasons to maintain this template. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Note See prior deletion discussion here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• It would appear that the migration to {{tl|infobox settlement}} was done without telling anyone. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 31#Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan for a previous case of the same. While in practice this is a Good Thing, it's far better if people are kept informed as to what's happening. Anyway, so long as the conversion is bulletproof then substituting existing transclusions will be fine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete because the previous template appears to have been a mere duplicate of :Template:Infobox Israel municipality with a different colour scheme that evolved separately. It should have never been created in the first place. And in any case, standardisation of templates is a good thing.--LK (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, an obvious choice since I made all those edits.--Nero the second (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the migration to {{tl|infobox settlement}} is the wrong way because data in the infoboxes is getting more and more complex and does need more and more user interaction. Actually we could delete {{tl|infobox settlement}} as well and start to programm each articles infobox from scratch. See and compare a typical U.S. settlement infobox in an article in the English Wikipedia (it has 3000 or more byte) with :de:Vorlage:Infobox Ort in den Vereinigten Staaten, which has basically the same info and is capable to categorize these articles as well, given that the cat exists. Well the German WP's infobox has typically about 700 to 900 characters. {{tl|infobox settlement}} is a monster which should be abandonded. It isn't unser friendly and most of all it's nearly impossible to use it without knowing how a specific country is organized in municipalities, provinces and the like. And the worse the overall data quality in infoboxes gets. Not to mention the bulk of empty parameters which are copied into articles wether they are useful or not. The more {{tl|infobox settlement}} is used the lesser the overall quality of data gets. In Template:Infobox Palestinian Authority municipality you just have to fill in what's there. With {{tl|infobox settlement}} you need to think out which type of subnational entities should used in the infobox, you need to name them and you need to properly link them. For the average Wikipedian, {{tl|infobox settlement}} is just a disaster. Sorry, that template is kind of Wikipedia of 2003. Sorry for the rant. --Matthiasb (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, as a wrapper to {{tl|Infobox settlement}}, which overcomes the issue raised by Matthiasb and at the same time keeps infobox design standardised. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Additinal comment: I was wondering for some time why the English Wikipedia does not use the more clever approach of putting population numbers in dedicated tables, such as this one which allows to update population numbers of a larger area on one single page and prevents that hundreds of articles have to be edited one for one individually but is transcluded directly by the infobox and as well by templates which allow the use of these numbers inline (f.ex. :de:Vorlage:EWZ). Once the metadata page is actualized all referring articles are up to date, no bots no AWB, just sitting and waiting for the queue. ;-) Now I see it clear – with {{tl|Infobox settlement}} such an approach isn't possible. I also fear if that solution with converting all infoboxes into {{tl|Infobox settlement}} continues, many other language versions will have much harder work to translate articles in their respective Wikipedias. For instance, Template:Infobox UK place only needs to be copied into the German Wikipedia, change the title of the template into Ort im Vereinigten Königreich, remove the comma in the population numbers, modify some of the linked entities (due to different naming conventions) and, voilà, that's it. It's not difficult to forecast that once this standardizing is reaching the United Kingdom, transferring articles from the English Wikipedia into the German Wikipedia will slow down, perhaps stop totally. (In fact I am struggling for several months – it's a stupid work, can do just one in a while – to convert the Ort in England infobox into the Gemeinde im Vereinigten Königreich one, since for the remaining articles their counterparts in EN do use {{tl|Infobox settlement}}.) That's another reason why I think that this approch here isn't helpful. --Matthiasb (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• I've replied to another copy of your essay on the talk page for {{tld|Infobox settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - mostly per Matthiasb. Additionally, the argument that this should be deleted because it orphaned ignores that the orphaning was done without any discussion with WikiProject Palestine and ignores the reasons why this infobox was created. nableezy - 16:29, 22 September 2011 (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.

: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) 16:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Chicago Tribune Silver Football navbox}}

Big, clunky navbox better served as a succession box. Way too many redlinks, too. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates says: "For very long chronological series, it is preferable to use succession boxes, which only show the elements of the series immediately preceding and succeeding the article." Powers ^T 19:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:Keep These templates are considered valuable to the WP:CFB, like the similar templates below are preferred to succession boxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

::Keep per TonyThe Tiger. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:::Keep - The full text partially quoted above could actually be interpreted as arguing that the template is the most appropriate way to represent this. The subject of the navbox is notable and policies do not prohibit this being a navbox vs. a succession box. Rikster2 (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:*Keep. The hockey players are by far the worst examples to use when discussing the validity of succession boxes over navboxes, since they clearly go against >95% of the Wikipedia sports community when it comes to such decisions. These types of navboxes are incredibly useful and link to an article with further information on the subject. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Given the dearth of references on the award article, it doesn't seem obvious that this is an important enough award that readers would find this navbox useful. The keeps above are unconvincing to say the least. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

::The article indeed needs more references, but there's plenty out there for this award. I get over 60,000 Google hits for it. It gets mentioned in media guides and releases related to Big Ten Conference football all the time. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

::: Were this an article, where deletion might actually lose content, this would carry more weight. However, when it comes to a navbox template which simply duplicates the primary content of an award article, I consider it imperative that the award article in question fully establish why casual readers of biographies of winners might want to immediately jump to random winners before navboxes are deployed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

::::What you say above above is just as applicable to the navboxes supporting any award, e.g. List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry or Academy Award for Best Actor. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::Yep. I didn't mean to give the impression that I'm only against navbox overproliferation when it comes to sports articles. The number of boxes on Al Pacino, for instance, is absolutely insane. Powers ^T 23:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:*How convincing is the TfD itself in that it quotes half a guideline (when the whole of the guideline might actually contradict the claim) and where there are literally hundreds of examples of navboxes being used in similar ways in politics, entertainment and literature? The Big Ten gets huge media coverage in North America - heck, I have the Big Ten network as part of my cable package and the majority of its coverage 365 days a year is on men's basketball and football. These awards would only be seen as minor by those who don't understand the context of college sports in the US. Certainly these aren't less important (or at least they generate more interest) than :Template:Golden Globe Award Best Supporting Actress Motion Picture or :Template:Congressional Space Medal of Honor or :Template:USSenSD. There is literally no precedence or merit to this template being deleted. Getting a community wide effort to make the final call on the use of navboxes vs. succession boxes would be the best solution - but would be a massive effort given all the disciplines involved. Rikster2 (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

:**So what am I supposed to do? Try to herd cats to get a site-wide consensus, or work piecemeal to build a local consensus and work out from there and be accused of cherry-picking? Powers ^T 10:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

:***If you want to get a policy in place that clearly says that Succession Boxes should be used instead of navboxes in these types of situations then yes, you will need to "herd cats." Because right now you have neither policy nor precedence to support deleting these templates in favor of sucession boxes. If you want to craft such a thing you need to put in the work to build consensus to place it - because there are multiple POVs on the issue. I'd be happy to engage in such a discussion in good faith, provided the attempt is made to involve the boradest possible Wikipedia community since the implications of such a thing are wide-reaching. Rikster2 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

:****I'm still not convinced the issue is as clear-cut as you think it is. WP:NAV says "For a series of articles whose only shared characteristic is that they hold the same position or title, such as peerage or world champion sporting titles, consider using {{tl|Succession box}}." While it doesn't say it's required to use a succession box, I think it reflects the general idea that succession boxes are preferred. Powers ^T 02:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

::That little nugget of advice from WP:NAV is about a timely as the Flat-Earth theory. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

:::Ah, so "A rule we've been ignoring" is "outdated", but it is I who has to start a community-wide discussion to get consensus to continue following it? Way to shift the burden. Powers ^T 12:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

::::Yes, the issue is that clear cut. The first guideline you posted actually encourages navboxes when the whole thing is quoted (as opposed to part, as you tried to do). This second piece you quote: A) is clearly an essay and goes out of its way to state that it is NOT a policy, and, B) refers to world champion sporting titles which I would take to be things like "WBC heavyweight champ" not an award. "Peerage" refers to British nobility, not sports. I am correct that there is no policy or precedence that would justify what is a fairly extreme measure - deleting a useful navbox on the grounds that a succession box is most appropriate. So, yes - it is YOUR responsibility to start the conversation if you want a firm guideline in place that would justify this and clearly state that succession boxes are required in situations like these. If you just go around tagging stuff the TfDs just aren't going to go through becuase there is nothing to substantiate it at present. Rikster2 (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::First of all, your assertion that the initial part of the text contradicts what I wrote is in no way true. It says nav boxes are "often most appropriate" for chronological data, but the text I quoted clarified that for long sequences of such data, they are not. Second of all, the examples listed are just that -- examples; it's disingenuous to claim that because a specific usage is not mentioned, that it must be okay. Third, the fact that an essay is not policy in no way means that it doesn't have weight of consensus behind it. Powers ^T 16:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::So how long is a "long sequence?" And what would stop that from just changing the navbox format to one that breaks time into smaller chunks as the Academy Award navboxes do? That text in no way substantiates deleting a valid, in-use template and you know it. As for the essay - I'm sure it reflected some level of consensus when it was written - which was at least 4 years ago - I stoppped looking back at the history at some point after realizing how old that section was and how much WP has changed both in form and in community membership since then. At any rate, it is an essay - not even a guideline - and again, would surely not substantiate deleting these templates. You are just trying to short-cut the Wikipedia consensus process and impose your view of the matter. Like I said, I will engage in any good faith effort to create a clear policy/guideline so long as all attempts are made to get all interested parties to the table to do so. Rikster2 (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Powers, succession boxes are widely despised among the Wikipedia community. When I posted a note on the WP:NFL talk page early this year about rolling out the WP:CFB/CBB program of "enhanced" navboxes to the NFL, one editor commented, "I'm in complete support of deleting every single succession box on Wikipedia." See here. It is not I who have shifted the burden. It is you who is trying to do so by invoking a retrograde reading of consensus that has been kept alive in the cloisters of WP:Hockey. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

:As I said, I had no idea this was a "Hockey" thing. Again, I sense a significant undercurrent of "those hockey folks just won't conform", and it puzzles me greatly. This doesn't all go back to the infobox thing, does it? Powers ^T 13:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

::I'm not up to speed on the "infobox thing" you mention, but these TfDs are indeed a product of a hockey vs. the rest of the sports world contention. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

:::How many times do I have to repeat that I had no idea opposition to navboxes that could be replaced by succession boxes was limited to members of WP:HOCKEY? I realize that a) I agree with them, and b) I'm nominally a member of the project, but I'm not super-active. And why does everyone else seem to get so upset when members of WP:HOCKEY disagree on these sorts of topics? Powers ^T 13:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

::::Okay, I hear you on that point. Now you know that your position is one that largely aligns with that of WP:HOCKEY and doesn't find much support elsewhere, at least among other sports projects. At any rate, I think it's time to close these TfDs. Perhaps you could speed things along by withdrawing the nominations? If you want to open up a general discussion about award navboxs at a venue of your choosing, I'll be happy to participate. Jweiss11 (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::I will not withdraw the request, as I find the main argument ("we like it and there are more of us than you") to be unpersuasive. Please see WP:VPP#Using navboxes where succession boxes would suffice for discussion. Powers ^T 12:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::You are misrepresenting the argument. The argument for navboxes over succession boxes is about 1) dynamic over static content for more efficient maintenance, 2) reduced vertical clutter, 3) standardization of content, and 4) enhanced context. Thanks for opening the discussion at WP:VPP. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Well, when the author of one of the templates says "Maybe the hockey people don't want to see these, but most other sports use these types of navboxes," that sounds like an argument-from-sheer-majority to me. Powers ^T 15:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::::How about my arguments just above? That a majority has embraced them doesn't mean they are valid because of that majority. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I stopped commenting on these three TfDs because, frankly, nothing new is being argued here anymore. I will just repeat what I have said - there is ZERO backing in Wikipedia policy or precedence to delete the three templates, and I can't see how any Wikipedia administrator/editor could delete them with a clear conscience. Powers, thanks for starting the conversation on this topic at the Village Pump. I think that's the appropriate place to start a discussion on the use of navboxes vs. succession boxes. Rikster2 (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Like|username=Jweiss11}} Jweiss11 (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2011 (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.

: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) 16:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Big Ten Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year navbox}}

Chronological navbox better served as a succession box. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates says: "For very long chronological series, it is preferable to use succession boxes, which only show the elements of the series immediately preceding and succeeding the article." Powers ^T 19:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:* Keep. This is a thinly-veiled attempt at retribution based on the nominator not liking the comments on his first TfD deletion of the Big Ten Athlete of the Year. Does not quote an actual policy as reason for TfD. You better get busy Powers, your next logical stops HAVE to be :Template:US Presidents, :Template:USChiefJustices, and :Template:Nobel Prize in Literature. You have a lot of tagging to do! Rikster2 (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:::{{like|username=Jweiss11}}

:**This is not retribution; Tony pointed out a couple of similar templates and I agreed they had similar arguments against them. However, for obvious reasons, I'm not about to start tagging every chronological succession box. Apparently the problem is bigger than I realized. Powers ^T 20:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:***Because the "problem" is obviously not a problem to many - I'd wager there are Wikipedians who fall on both sides of the issue. The full text that you partially quote in your rationale is this: "For presenting a series of articles in a chronological order, templates are often most appropriate. Example: Template:Princess Royal (there are two Marys and two Annes in that list, which makes the chronological way of presenting these princesses an asset to a merely alphabetically ordered presentation of these same names). For very long chronological series, it is preferable to use succession boxes, which only show the elements of the series immediately preceding and succeeding the article." So how long is "very long?" Surely not the <25 years the Big Ten player of the year has been awarded. Rikster2 (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:***Not retribution? WP:DUCK says it certainly is. Also, I back Rikster's comment - you really had better get busy with thousands of these. Before arbitrarily nitpicking this one and that one from a bottomless well of award navboxes, how about you take the issue to a Wikipedia-wide community discussion on the validity of such navboxes? The way you're going about it is attempting to tear down the Great Wall of China by hand-removing one stone at a time. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:Keep These templates are considered valuable to the WP:WPCBB, like the similar templates on this page are preferred to succession boxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

::Keep per TonyThe Tiger and Rikster2. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:*Strong keep. Men's basketball players of the year at the conference level, especially in Division I conferences, is the highest individual honor a player can get. These awards receive tons of press, are considered major college awards and are all prominently featured on {{tl|College Basketball Awards}}. Furthermore, each of the navboxes link to an existing list article which provides great depth on the players, their classes, their positions, their schools, and other such statistical pieces of information. This nomination is absurd. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• As with the athlete template, there's yet to be a convincing argument made that this is a prominent enough award that a reader of a given biography would be interested in a random other winner of it independently of going to the main award article. The keeps are unconvincing at face value and, given precedent of TfDs for college sports awards, more indicative of insularity in active editors in that realm than of project-wide consensus. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

::This is actually a response to an even greater insularity, that coming from WP:Hockey. The WP:CFB/WP:CBB interests represented here have maintained a posture of higher-order integration; check out the footer navboxes on Al Pacino, for example. I also do not see how the relative importance of an award modulates how interconnected a recipient is from another person who received it over wide space of time. In the case of sports awards, team affiliation and shared position may trump temporal proximity in terms of relatedness. None of this is "random". Jweiss11 (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

::: Believe me when I say that I'm one of the most strident opponents of the hockey project's insularity: however, the arguments made in favour of it are cogent. The point is that too many footer templates result in readers being unable to find the links they want; ideally succession boxes, where present, should not be duplicated in navboxes. I'm going to ask Powers to propose some standardisation on this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

::::WP:CFB/WP:CBB has already standardized this business. We've already established more standardization on this topic and than you and I have on how to spell standardi(z/s)ation. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep For major awards such as this one, a navbox to me is a preferable compact way to list other people of similar notable titles that a reader may be interested in without having to navigate away from the current page. Since the award has a standalone article, it is presumed consensus is that it is notable. This is opposed to other titles that are not talked about as a group and is mainly trivia. For editors, it provides a reusable method to show succession and not have to worry about introducing errors into a series of articles. Do it right once, and reuse. I agree that article should not duplicate succession boxes and navboxes. However, the succession boxes can be removed from those articles that have the corresponding navbox. I understand that there are existing guidelines, but consensus can change and there are no firm rules except to improve Wikipedia. I think this is an improvement.—Bagumba (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per Bagumba. I concur that succession box are much harder to maintain and it's really difficult to maintain consistency. For example, see the succession boxes in Larry Brown article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Brown_%28basketball%29&oldid=359487153#External_links before] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Brown_%28basketball%29&oldid=366798100#External_links after] I fixed the errors and inconsistencies (capitalization, dashes, links, wording, etc). Before, it looks untidy and also difficult to navigate (some don't have the links to corresponding articles/lists). It took me a lot of edits to standardize NBA head coaches and it would probably took hundreds more edits to fix college basketball succession boxes. However since those succession boxes are removed when they have the corresponding navboxes, there is no consistencies problem anymore. Therefore, for both readers and editors, I believe it's better to use navboxes. Also, if in the future this templates became too long, we can always break them down to several templates, such as :Category:Academy Award for Best Actor templates, or we can divide them by decades, such as :Template:Nobel Prize in Literature. — MT (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - for all the reasons stated above. Remember (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2011 (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.

: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 all. we are not a media service. The category is being relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 23#Category:Desktop backgrounds as non empty. Salix (talk): 06:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Commons wallpaper}}

:{{Tfd links|Non-featured wallpaper}}

:{{Tfd links|Commons non-featured wallpaper}}

:{{Tfdlinks|Desktop backgrounds|catfd=yes}}

Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 9#Template:WideCommonsWallpaper, we shouldn't have these. These three have a combined 16 transclusions. Per The Evil IP address on the other TfD, free images should be on Commons, which already has their own version of these templates, and non-free ones shouldn't be high enough resolution to be used as wallpaper anyway. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

: In a pretty blatant attempt to pre-judge this, jcgoble3 is already de-categorizing articles from :Category:Desktop backgrounds.

: Consensus? Anyone remember that? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:: What I removed were articles that never should have been in an image category in the first place. Removing them was pure housekeeping. I haven't touched any of the images in the category. jcgoble3 (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:Delete per nom Bulwersator (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete all we are not a media serviceCurb Chain (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• File:Pictogram voting delete.svg Delete - Commons has their own template for this. →Στc. 00:07, 18 September 2011 (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.

: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) 14:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Waterloo Road}}

All the character articles linked were unreferenced and/or in-universe (with the possible exception of Max Tyler, which I have nominated for deletion seperately), so I have re-directed them to the characters page. With just three pages on the series remaining, I don't think there's any use for this template. U-Mos (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete seems low in functionality.--Salix (talk): 05:57, 23 September 2011 (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.

: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. Unused. Salix (talk): 06:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Bus termini in Wan Chai District, Hong Kong}}

Unused template since it was created in 2009, with only red links. Other Hong Kong bus termini articles do not appear to be notable per WP:N thus the redlinks are unlikely to result in notable articles.--Michaela den (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2011 (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.

: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 redirect to {{tld|refimprove}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Citations missing}}

Previous TfDs have mostly ended in squabbling over precisely which of the four main citation templates this is redundant to (those being {{tl|unreferenced}}, {{tl|refimprove}}, {{tl|no footnotes}} and {{tl|more footnotes}}) but I think at this point it can hardly be argued that it's not redundant to any of them, and it's the only one of the five which doesn't have a clear usage case (indeed its documentation practically recommends using more specific templates already). Category-wise it's closest to {{tl|refimprove}}, so that's probably where it should be redirected. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:Keep or Merge to {{tl|Refimprove}}. I see no need to delete this template. Allen4names 17:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep or deprecate. This doesn't seem like a rationale for deletion. The complaint seems to be that this template is not as specific as some other templates. I don't see why that means we have to delete it. The very fact that there's no clear redundancy means it's not proper to simply turn every {{tl|citations missing}} into some other template. Unless someone's volunteering to sort every article using this template and re-tag with the appropriate more specific template(s), I don't think we're going to get rid of it. It might be appropriate to deprecate it -- maybe it shouldn't be added to any more articles. I don't think we have a mechanism to enforce that, but we could at least amend the docs to make that clear. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• :Do keep in mind that this is Templates for discussion. A nominator need not desire deletion in order to bring a template here. -- œ^™ 03:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• ::Keep Regardless of this page's name, the {{t1|tfd}} message that brings us here is "The template below (Citations missing) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus." 72.244.204.60 (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• :::Yes but once it's here we discuss the template, with deletion being just one of many results that can be considered. The {{tl|tfd}} message is probably worded as such because delete/keep is the most common reason and outcome, but not every template at TfD is necessarily there to be deleted. -- œ^™ 23:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to Template:Refimprove, which covers the same thing. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with Template:Refimprove. I think it's fine now but seems closest to that. Deleting would be a bad idea. --AW (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• I saw this at the top of J. F. C. Fuller. I think it is closest in meaning to {{tl|more footnotes}}, at least in the context of that article. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• As worded, yes. However, {{tl|more footnotes}} categorises articles differently to this template. It would make sense for it to be redirected to a template which does the same categorisation so as not to throw the categories out of whack: after that, individual instances can be corrected. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Merge to {{tl|Refimprove}}.--LK (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect, personally I'd prefer to {{tl|more footnotes}} but, per nom, lack of consensus on the replacement should not prevent its replacement. -- OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a murky mix of {{tl|more footnotes}} and {{tl|unreferenced}}. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, but first replace all current usage by {{Tl|Unreferenced}} or {{Tl|Refimprove}}, as fit. Debresser (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This template can be very useful, but it suggests an action that is tedious to do sometimes. It should still be definitely kept. pluma Ø 21:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• Merge with {{tl|Refimprove}} Seems a rather unneeded template. Toa Nidhiki05 01:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• Deprecate This is too vague to just keep, or even to merge. It is too [http://toolserver.org/~jarry/templatecount/index.php?lang=en&name=Template%3ACitations+missing widely used] to just delete. That leaves us with deprecation, at least for the time being. I have yet to see any reason for the use of this template. Before you object that there is a use, please consult the nice table I added to the documentation a while back, and tell me what I missed. --NYKevin @267, i.e. 05:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

:*Also (note to the closing admin), please don't close this "no consensus" if most people can agree that something should be done. Deprecation is IMHO the minimal action that can be taken, being less drastic than merging and deleting, and I doubt most people would object to it, unless someone can come up with a use-case not covered by the other 4 templates. --NYKevin @274, i.e. 05:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect to {{tl|refimprove}}. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{tl|Refimprove}}. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep useful for its specificity Ronk01 talk 14:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Can you elaborate on what you mean by "specificity"? In my opinion, I feel the biggest problem with this template is its lack of specificity. It seems to be too general and vague to be useful. --Nick2253 (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Redundant to existing templates. Dough4872 01:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. I support keeping it strongly, as it explicitly states what should be done with the lack of references, and not just inform that there are not many of them. The more tools we editors have to call for inserting references in any article the better.--Jetstreamer (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe this closely matches {{tl|no footnotes}} but I appreciate its brevity compared to that template. I find myself using it for its aesthetics, or when I just want a simple, short message. I don't see a problem with having multiple options to choose from when it comes to maintenance templates. -- œ^™ 03:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The primary objection is not that it's redundant to exactly one of the four other templates, it's that it's redundant to at least two of them ("missing citations or needs footnotes"), making it too vague to use. --NYKevin @881, i.e. 20:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• :But it's not too vague.. I disagree that it can't be used because it's not specific enough. It says all that needs to be said: "Please help improve this article by adding inline citations to reliable sources". Short, simple, and plain. Sometimes, with some certain article layouts or mixes of reference styles, I find this template actually works better than any of the others. Like I said, I don't see the problem with having multiple options to choose from. -- œ^™ 23:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with/Redirect to {{tl|refimprove}}. There's no need for us to have so many citations needed templates, and this one is easily replaced by {{tl|refimprove}}. Furthermore, this template fails to match the style of any of the others. {{tl|refimprove}} will keep everything more consistent. --Nick2253 (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, no reason at all why this needs deleting. Lebanese 876 (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{t|refimprove}}. Though as worded it's closer to {{t|more footnotes}}, there are a number of articles tagged as {{t|citations missing}} that really need more sources, so the stronger warning is better. The argument on categories is in my view a secondary one; if articles are miscategorized en masse then there's nothing wrong with recategorizing them en masse. Alternatively, if there's not enough consensus for a redirect, deprecate {{t|citations missing}} and recruit a group of editors (perhaps from this discussion; I'd participate) to go through the articles tagged with {{t|citation missing}} and switch it out for the appropriate other template: {{t|unreferenced}}, {{t|refimprove}}, {{t|more footnotes}}, {{t|no footnotes}}, etc., as the article demands. Give the group a time limit (say two months), after which {{t|citations missing}} will be redirected to {{t|refimprove}}. Lagrange613 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{tlx|refimprove}}; says the same thing as that one. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{tl|refimprove}}. Deleting this template outright would require a bot to replace it on 5,000 articles. Since both templates use the same parameters, a simple redirect should work smoothly. —SW— ^chatter 23:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{tlx|refimprove}}, per observations that it's being used more like that template than the others. User:OlEnglish's observation about brevity could be addressed by modifying refimprove and/or other templates to have a {{para|short}} option. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 16:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{tlx|refimprove}} as it is redundant and says the same message. Rcsprinter (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• There's no reason to delete, so avoid that outcome, because it would mean 4878 edits would have to be done to adjust. Although the text explicitly mentions inline citations, its use case isn't necessarily the same as {{tl|inline citations}} because this may have been placed on articles without any references whatsoever. Redirecting to the more generic {{tl|refimprove}} seems appropriate enough. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Deprecate - The meaning of this particular template is a bit murky. I concur with NYKevin's reasoning and add that given the lack of clarity as to which template is most appropriate as a redirect or merge target, I'd say deprecating it makes sense. The remaining templates really do adequately cover the needs for tagging sourcing issues. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• :I don't get it, what is so "murky" about ""Please help improve this article by adding inline citations to reliable sources"? It's perfectly clear to me, nothing else needs to be said. And if you do need to be more specific then you have plenty of other templates too choose from. There's nothing at all wrong with this template and a slight redundancy is not a strong enough reason to deprecate for me. -- œ^™ 23:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, or, at the very least, Merge to {{tl|Refimprove}}. Thumperward, you're wasting your time and ours listing it here... or are you?--The Master of Mayhem ROAD AHEAD CLOSED 19:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
• : You tell me what would have been more of a waste of my time: boldly merging a fully-protected template and having people running to ANI screaming about admin abuse, or skipping the drama and heading straight to formal resolution. As for wasting your time, I'm sorry for forcing you against your will to lecture me on TfD. ~_^ Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

::::--Certainly, paring down multiple templates is not a waste of anyone's time. Efficiency is something to strive for, especially on WP. It would be nice for editors to keep to the matter at hand, and not attack others, or is that too much to ask here? Thanks for hearing me out, and have a nice weekend. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Merge or redirect to {{tl|Refimprove}}. Orderinchaos 16:28, 24 September 2011 (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.

: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) 14:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Wallpaper group list 1}}

Fork of {{tl|wallpaper group list}} which shares that template's problems but isn't used at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:55, 15 September 2011 (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.

: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 after substitution Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Wallpaper group list}}

Used for positioning on a single page. Non-portable, and the required syntax is hardly shorter than the template code itself. Better rolled back into the article and improved directly there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:*Keep But since there are 17 different groups, an improvement is best made on only one template rather than 17 times on the page itself? --99of9 (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• The problem is that the use of the template results in an artificially rigid formatting for the article in question, a formatting which is quite obviously suboptimal from just looking at said article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

:*Delete could easily be substituted. Make the page harder to edit without knowing how the template works. --Salix (talk): 08:18, 21 September 2011 (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.

: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. No consensus to delete. Salix (talk): 06:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Big Ten Conference Athlete of the Year navbox}}

This sort of thing is better handled with a succession box. See Ryan Miller where both the succession box and this template are present, redundantly. Powers ^T 13:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• The same could be said for almost any timeline-style navbox, to be honest. I suppose it depends on how notable the subject is: does an editor really want to know who won the award 15 years ago when looking at an article on the current winner, for instance? I'd argue that in this case the award probably isn't sufficiently notable to warrant transclusion on every biography in question, especially seeing as there's already a succession box with a link to the main award page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• I can't imagine the award is more notable than the Hobey Baker Award, which is also listed in Miller's succession boxes but doesn't have a navbox -- and for good reason. I suppose for an award where there isn't just one recipient each year, a navbox may work better, but that's clearly not the case here. Powers ^T 16:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I believe that this is more notable than sport specific navboxes such as {{tl|Big Ten Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year navbox}} and {{tl|Chicago Tribune Silver Football navbox}}, which exist for both football and basketball for almost every major conference. Maybe the hockey people don't want to see these, but most other sports use these types of navboxes. I don't know why this was singled out from {{tl|ACC Male Athlete of the Year navbox}} and any other such similar awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. If this award is notable enough to have its own article, I don't see why it isn't notable enough to have a dedicated navbox. As for the Ryan Miller article, what should be deleted there is the succession box. Succession boxes are are clunky, static, and develop into massive clutter heaps on biography articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject College football and Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball have united in an effort to purge all of them from those subject areas. Other projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League have at least partially signed off on this. Generally speaking, ice hockey articles tend to be well behind the curve of standardization for North American sports, and should be used as paragons only with a grain of salt. TonyTheTiger, who has commented just above, is something on an expert on that subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - The Hobey Baker Award doesn't have a navbox because the hockey guys hate navboxes and prefer succession boxes. That's all good but most other sports are going the other way. Navboxes are more complete and informative. Succession boxes create a ton of clutter - especially when a person can receive an award more than once. Rikster2 (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry, but the non-"hockey guys" don't get to impose big, multicolored navboxes on articles just because they like them and think hockey is "behind the curve". What's with the hockey hate here, anyway? You don't like them just because WP:HOCKEY disfavors fancy infoboxes and navboxes? Powers ^T 19:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• I don't have a problem with the hockey guys. At the end of the day, WP is a collaborative effort and WikiProjects have some latitude with how they do things. But to flip your point, why should the "hockey way" get imposed around a navbox that spans several sports? To be honest, I don't think this TfD has any real policy reason to support deletion in this case. This debate will just end up another impasse. Rikster2 (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• It seems to me that we have a long-standing convention that succession boxes are preferred for award navigation. I'm sorry I can't quote chapter and verse at you, but I certainly had no conception that this was a thing limited only to hockey. Powers ^T 20:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• It is the other way around in most places outside of WP:HOCKEY.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• WP:NAV says "For a series of articles whose only shared characteristic is that they hold the same position or title, such as peerage or world champion sporting titles, consider using {{tl|Succession box}}." Similar templates have been deleted in the past; for example, :Template:2008 MLB All Star Game, AL Team (deleted here) -- and that's not even a chronological one where a succession box would be appropriate. Powers ^T 20:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Having a navbox for a major league conference's or division's all-star team is absurd, I agree. That's why no major league sports does. That example is a roster for an all-star game of one year... the navboxes in discussion are yearly awards given to the most outstanding player, which is (excuse the pun) not in the same ballpark. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'm afraid I don't see the big difference; at least the people on the All Star roster actually played a game together. Powers ^T 20:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• And the people on the awards navboxes you are unilaterally trying to get rid of were all deemed the #1 best player in their notable conferences per season. At least these players are the cream of the cream of the crop, whereas some jackass can make an MLB All-Star Team based on popular fan voting (and let me spare you the suspense here – D1 conference players of the year are determined by both their conference's coaches and media reporters, making the selections credible). Jrcla2 (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• There is a big difference. See the first sentence of 2008 Major League Baseball All-Star Game, it's an exhibition game. You couldn't compare an exhibition game to an award for best players. Anyone can play in an exhibition game, even [http://www.nba.com/history/allstar/1992-all-star-game-recap/index.html a player who has already retired can still play in an all-star game]. Award winners are much more notable than playing in an all-star game. — MT (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

::::There is a big difference here. The set of Heisman Trophy winners or American League MVPs are certainly more notable concepts than the set of guys on who played in the 2008 MLB All-Star Game. That the Heisman Trophy winners didn't all play together is not relevant. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The full history of it goes something more like this. For most major North American sports outside of hockey, succession boxes and navboxes have often been used in tandem for awards and titles/positions. For example, Template:AL MVPs has been around for almost four years, while WikiProject Baseball still makes wide use of succession boxes. About a year ago, WikiProject College football and WikiProject College Basketball came together to address widespread redundancy and clutter, and effectively put a moratorium on succession boxes in favor of navboxes, because of their dynamic nature, consistency, and ability to pack more information and provide greater context into less footer space (vertically speaking). We then successfully sold this to the NFL project, but the plan hasn't been fully-implemented there yet. College baseball, something of fledgling ground, is more or less running with this, and we've talked about getting Baseball (MLB) and the NBA on board as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:*Keep. The hockey players are by far the worst examples to use when discussing the validity of succession boxes over navboxes, since they clearly go against >95% of the Wikipedia sports community when it comes to such decisions. These types of navboxes are incredibly useful and link to an article with further information on the subject. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2011 (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.

: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. unused. Salix (talk): 06:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Samsara}}

Unclear purpose. Unused. Old (2004). — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

: Appears to be trivial text-substitution from back before we had a Unicode toolbar. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:57, 15 September 2011 (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.

: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. unused. Salix (talk): 06:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Santa Maria, Bulacan/Population}}

Superseded by table at Santa Maria, Bulacan#Demographics. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2011 (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.

: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. Unused, ill-named copy. Salix (talk): 06:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Info/Time}}

Copy of {{tl|Japan Squad 1995 FIFA Confederations Cup}}. The name is not suitable for a redirect - this should be deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete inproper use of subpageCurb Chain (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2011 (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.

: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. No longer used. Salix (talk): 06:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Convert/LoffAoffDcommaSmidUSre}}

A huge number of "Imp" and "USre" convert subtemplates were deleted. It seems that this one was missed. The similar template Template:Convert/LoffAoffDcommaSmidUSer was deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2011 (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.

: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) 17:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|HD/like}}

The Tool is deployed across en.wp--this is useless now. (If I'm wrong, I'll happily withdraw the nomination.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep — Updated. Useful since readers are encountering the tool and asking questions. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:14, 15 September 2011 (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.