Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 2



Template:CCSA Member Clubs

 * 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC) There is no article on the template's topic and at least one of the linked articles makes no mention of the organization. ...William 22:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * CCSA Member Clubs
 * Delete - Non-notable navbox topic unsupported by stand-alone article or list per WP:NAVBOX criteria. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dirtlaywer. Alakzi (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC) What's a "laywer"? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh didn't you know? That's the original English English spelling before it was corrupted by them bloody Yanks. Alakzi (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although I do find it troubling that the nav box was created without a corresponding article on the organization (and I checked to make sure the article had not been deleted: it hasn't), with one redlinked exception, the listed "members" of the CCSA are, in fact, members of that organization. So the question I ask myself is this: If there are a number of members, at least some of which are apparently notable enough to have their own articles in Wikipedia, is the larger membership organization also notable?  The answer, of course, is that their notability does not confer notability on the organization they each are members of.  So the next question I asked myself is whether the organization itself is notable?  The answer is that it might be.  The organization apparently coordinates a number of swimming meets and related activities.  Although I haven't looked for news coverage of those events, they are the type of event that local news programs like to cover for the "human interest" angle, and the coverage may be out there.  But even a (hypothetical) dab of local coverage isn't enough, by itself, to make the organization notable enough for Wikipedia.  So instead of looking for notability of the parent organization, I asked myself if the template is useful.  This is where it shines.  Any local user who is interested in any of these organizations because of their relationship to swimming would likely be interested in the other organizations in the nav box as well.  This particular nav box appears to be the only way the organizations are linked.  Some of them are country clubs, and are related that way.  Some of them are cricket clubs, and have that connection.  All of them have swimming available for the members, and apparently compete in local swimming meets.  Of course, someone is bound to respond that this is what categories are for, but currently there are individuals who are bent on removing categories from every page they are attached to, if the category isn't a defining characteristic, and there is no review process for this unless an interested editor happens to notice the change.  (Also, in my opinion, nav boxes are more intuitive than categories for new Wikipedia readers.)Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 20:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * NAVBOXCREEP. Listify if a valid, notable topic. Alakzi (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence that CCSA -- the primary subject of the navbox -- is a notable topic. This is really one of the more problematic sports-related navboxes I've seen recently.  Not only is there no supporting article or list per the WP:NAVBOX criteria, not only is there no evidence of the primary topic, it also appears that several, if not all, of the handful of linked country clubs are probably not notable, either.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete—listify or use categories as appropriate, but the navbox is not appropriate per cited guidelines.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * delete, better covered by a list article or category. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2015 (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 Wikipedia campus ambassador

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2015 September 16. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Redundant to infobox user, with Campus Ambassador. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox Wikipedia campus ambassador
 * Tentative Delete This one is used quite a bit on user pages, but based on the random sample of users, it's not clear that they needed the (slight) additional functionality. There is a regional bias in the use, and I suspect that many of the users simply copied what someone else was doing, not understanding that there may have been a better template available.  Also, despite the fact that each use of the template has a notice regarding this discussion, none of the users of the template have (so far) voiced any concerns about the potential deletion. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 19:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge with classes. Alakzi (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2015 (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).

Template:Infobox road small

 * 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 overwhemingly not merged. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Infobox road small with Template:Infobox road.
 * Infobox road small
 * Infobox road

Stylistic fork; compactness should be achieved by omitting unnecessary parameters. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on what you mean by "compactness should be achieved by omitting unnecessary parameters"? I ask because I foresee more complexity added to an already esoteric template just to achieve the small version. –Fredddie™ 21:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose—there's a lot more to each of the templates than the nominator seems to know. Merging them would add unnecessary complexity for no outward benefit. The smaller box is not the same width and doesn't just "omit[] unnecessary parameters": it has a different scheme, by design, for indicating the location of a highway instead of termini/intermediate junctions/countries/states/provinces/counties/cities/villages/etc.... A merged template would require complex coding to render at the desired size and shut off all of the components of the main template that are intentionally excluded from display. That would stymy the current work in progress at converting the main template to Lua. In the future, I would suggest that the proposer should be so kind as to drop a note on template talk pages about his ideas before rushing off to TfD/TfM with a half-cocked idea. I don't foresee much support from those who actually work on maintaining these two templates.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I oppose most template merging because it is better to have more options than less. This is no exception. Small roads should have a different infobox from major highways. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * this isn't for "small roads" vs. "major highways". The one is for use as the main infobox at the top of an article while the other is for use in other sections like on M-553 (Michigan highway), or repeated in lists like Business routes of Interstate 96. The "small" in the name is for a smaller visual footprint and a specifically limited set of parameters to enforce that smaller footprint. (And in at least one case, a different parameter to replace several others to enforce that smaller footprint.) Because the former M-554 is merged into a section of the M-553 article or the various BL/BS I-96s are merged into a single article, they get the smaller box. A different business route, like M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan), has a stand-alone article and uses the full infobox. the TL;DR version: it's not about types of highways, but types of usages.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)\
 * Thank you for the correction. I still oppose though because this template is useful for describing small or non-existent roads for which the full template is not necessary. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Infobox road small has a specific function to be a smaller version of Infobox road that is more suited for RCS lists and for small subsections describing a route in a main article of another route in which the regular Infobox road would be space consuming.  Dough   4872   00:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per User:Dough4872 and User:Imzadi1979. -User:DanTD (talk)  03:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per "wrong place, wrong time." Infobox road small will probably use Infobox road as at least part of its backend at some point as we/I see fit, but that point is not even close yet. Regardless of the backend coding, however, Infobox road small should always be a separate template with separate styling. As noted by Dough and Imzadi, Infobox road small has a distinct role on road articles. -happy5214 05:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment (General reply to all of the above) Properly configured, an instance of would take up no ore room than the current . No=one has advanced any other cogent argument as to why two infoboxes are needed.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, seems to be a duplicate of Infobox street anyway (eg: Park Lane). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But Infobox street doesn't have colours. Colours are important. Alakzi (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose; I've looked at pages that use it well, e.g. the Business Routes section of Interstate 83 and the Special Routes section of M-60 (Michigan highway), and it works much better in these places than the bigger infobox would. I'm also concerned about the use of two infoboxes in the same article with different information.  If the York business route for I-83 is given the normal infobox, the stupidest person reading it will understand that "Location: York PA" and "Existed: 1957-present" applies to the business route, not to the entire interstate.  Computers, however, aren't as smart as stupid people: I fear that having multiple primary infoboxes with different information will make the article less machine-readable.  It's easy to instruct your computer to treat each instance of Infobox road small separately, thereby understanding that the M-60 small infoboxes are for different roads, neither of them the primary topic of the article, but it seems like we'd induce a bit more confusion if your computer is faced with three Infobox roads on M-60 and two on I-83.  Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The name of the infobox is lost when the wikitext is compiled; a machine would have to rely on heuristics to distinguish between the two infoboxes. Regardless, it would make a lot more sense to provide a type parameter, which would benefit both machines and humans. Alakzi (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You can always have the bot look at the MediaWiki source code (something like EF in one basic kind of programming) instead of relying on the rendered text or the HTML or anything like that. Nyttend (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While I do believe these templates could be merged, I do not think that's an optimal outcome. A "proper configuration" is a gross understatement of the amount of shoehorning that would need to be done.  Adding the half-dozen or so (I didn't count, but I'm taking an educated guess) parserfunctions needed to whittle  down to the  footprint would add to page load times.  A page like List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas (1–99) with over 100 instances of  would frustrate some readers.  The small infobox was specifically designed to present the relevant information about a highway without the bloat, for lack of a better word, of the main infobox. –Fredddie™ 23:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Compactness should be achieved by omitting unnecessary merge proposals. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Different applications, different appearances, different parameters; bones being picked again most likely (but I won't touch that with a 30 foot pole). Those above me have also neatly surmised the same opinion as I. -  Floydian  τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  01:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry to say, but proposal should have been sensible, saying that "compactness should be achieved by omitting unnecessary parameters" is not worth. No parameter is unnecessary, if intention of nominator is to "omit" some parameters then I will surely oppose this. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   03:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I will add to my comment, if proposal would have been like this way, "We use same Template:Infobox settlement for both Metrocity and small villages, on same basis if we merge these road templates for universal use for any kind of road without removing any parameter then that will be nice". In this case I would have supported the merge, but I'm against removing of any kind of parameter as said by nominator.-- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   03:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The nominator did not suggest that any of the information contained within these infoboxes should be removed. What Andy meant was that, if one infobox were to provide all of the parameters of both, people could choose which ones to use on a given article. Alakzi (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. After reviewing the examples given where the templates are used together the way they were intended to work, I think that merging them has the potential to create unnecessary complexity.  If someone experienced in template design wants to create an easy-to-use replacement template that would fulfill both purposes, and could demonstrate that the process of migrating the information to the new template would be seamless, I could support such a merge.  As is, there is no real cost to keeping both separate templates for now. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 12px #ceff00, -4px -4px 12px #ceff00;">Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 19:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the oppose vote that wasn't signed; while they *could* be merged I don't think that is the right direction to go. --Rschen7754 23:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Apparently Fredddie's vote.
 * 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 presidential library
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Redundant to Infobox library (or possibly Infobox building). Limited potential for use. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox presidential library
 * What do we do with manager, dedicated and rededicated? Alakzi (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends which template is the eventual replacement, In either case, I'd link to the dedicatee in the title, rather than as a separate parameter; . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox building has got a namesake parameter; I was referring to the dedication and rededication dates. Are they all that important? In John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, which is a GA, the rededication date is only mentioned in the infobox, and the dedication date once in the article. Alakzi (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For dedication, established in the library infobox; inauguration_date for buildings. "rededication" seems crufty. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nuance is lost, but I can live with it. Weak delete. Alakzi (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see the harm of this template. There are 13 presidential libraries operated by NARA, with the 14th in development, and there will be more built in the future.  Spartan7W   &sect;   17:12, 22 August 2015 (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).

Template:Infobox VFA season
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge. Concerns have been addressed with the production of a demo version. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Infobox VFA season with Template:Infobox Australian rules football season.
 * Infobox VFA season
 * Infobox Australian rules football season

As proposed when the VFA template was created. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As ever with this sort of thing, I don't think anyone objects to a merger on theoretical grounds. The problem is how this always plays out in practice. After a month or two at TfD it inevitably gets closed as merge, generally regardless of any genuine concerns. It's then stuck in a holding pattern for months before a quick and dirty fix that no one quite thinks is optimal is rolled out simply to get it out of the TfD holding cell. Then the people who propose such things can pat themselves on the back as job well done, despite the template never actually working as we had been assured it would. How about before closing this as merge someone actually creates a mockup at Template:Infobox Australian rules football season/sandbox or similar, so we can actually see what will happen? I recall when the AFL biography infoboxes were merged it ended up with editors having to fix thousands of articles by hand, despite the assurances that a bot would be able to do it when it was at TfD. Obviously this isn't nearly as big an issue as that because the VFA season infobox is only used on a few articles, but the principle remains the same. Jenks24 (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merged with Special:Diff/674348215 and replaced one transclusion to demonstrate. Alakzi (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose In the same vein as Jenks24, all this will do is remove a template that is working perfectly well, and attempt to code it into some other template which will introduce potential for error, and eliminate the flexibility needed for unique features of the VFA like the multiple divisions, the Centenary Cup in 1977 VFA season, etc. Aspirex (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No flexibility will be reduced, if the templates are merged. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Alakzi. I worry a bit that the more gets merged into the "Infobox Australian rules football season", the harder it is for mere mortals to actually use it, but in this case it works well enough. Weak support. Jenks24 (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2015 (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).

Template:Infobox NHL Stadium Series (4 games)
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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; deleted as G7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  17:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Unused. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox NHL Stadium Series (4 games)
 * Comment - Given that it is unused I am inclined to support the nominator's deletion rationale, but I am curious to hear from the creator, User:SecretName101, what the intended purpose of this template was/is. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Even though the standard notice was sent during the nomination process, I've explicitly asked the template creator to comment here. It looks like a lot of work went into this template, but it's not clear when/if anyone was planning to use it. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 12px #ceff00, -4px -4px 12px #ceff00;">Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 18:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as unused. Alakzi (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. See User talk:SecretName101 where template creator stated it is not needed and can be deleted. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 12px #ceff00, -4px -4px 12px #ceff00;">Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 05:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:G7. See user talk page link in Etmani's comment above.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2015 (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 NBL Canada team season
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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; deleted as G7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  15:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Single use. Redundant to Infobox basketball club season. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox NBL Canada team season


 * Delete: I wasn't aware the older template existed when I created TempleM (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:G7: template creator TempleM requests deletion immediately above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion usually works better when the template isn't used. Alakzi (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * under the circumstances, I think a substitution/replacement would be entirely appropriate, followed by a speedy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 12px #ceff00, -4px -4px 12px #ceff00;">Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 18:41, 10 August 2015 (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 Neighborhood Louisville KY
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Unnecessary wrapper of Infobox settlement. with only five uses. Should be Subst:, then deleted. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox Neighborhood Louisville KY
 * Delete per nom. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 15:22, 3 August 2015 (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 Synod of Bishops
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Unused. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox Synod of Bishops
 * Delete - unused and unattributed fork of Infobox Ecumenical council. Alakzi (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2015 (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 weather type
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Single use. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox weather type
 * Could it be used with any of these? Alakzi (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It would need some work, but that would be a better outcome. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep; it looks like the nominator has changed his mind, and anyway, using it with "these" would definitely be a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like it could be used on many more articles, even if nobody has done so yet. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 12px #ceff00, -4px -4px 12px #ceff00;">Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 18:37, 10 August 2015 (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 Ukrainian legislative office
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 as proposed. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Infobox Ukrainian legislative office with Template:Infobox officeholder.
 * Infobox Ukrainian legislative office
 * Infobox officeholder

The Ukrainian template just adds extra rows for offices held, to Infobox officeholder. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Alakzi (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. --Philip Stevens (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and add extra parameters to officeholder template. --Hazhk (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Officeholder" already has parameters for multiple offices. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If merge, add extra parameters per argument by User:Hazhk. -Mardus (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and add parameters to infobox officeholder to accommodate Ukrainian legislative offices. Tyrol5   [Talk]  21:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and add parameters to infobox officeholder (the original) to accommodate Ukrainian legislative offices. Harvey the rabbit (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge but add parameters that allow users to be able to insert whether the person is the 1st person or 80th to hold that particular office when information is available as well as other offices held. This can be a issue for politicians in other countries as well. Many U.S. politicians have held numerous offices in their careers as well. Rhatsa26X (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, everything you ask for already exists in Infobox officeholder — an "order =" parameter is already present, and multiple offices can already be added by numbering them as office1, office2, office3, etc. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge, per norm's reasoning stated above. Kierzek (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2015 (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:Vancite doi
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Now unused. It can be deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Vancite doi
 * 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 bank
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 if feasible. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Redundant to Infobox company, from which it was forked, and used on only one article. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox bank
 * The author says that it was created to accommodate banking-specific Wikidata properties. Perhaps a switch could be added to Infobox company for this purpose? Alakzi (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As indicated it incorporates several wikidata items + a couple of bank specific statements (credit ratings and Basel III capital ratio, which I've asked be made into WD statements). Considering that Infobox company cannot be modified, and until those changes are included, there is no redundancy (and the "present in one article only" argument is irrelevant considering that the template is three weeks old: ask again in a couple of months). Leo Fischer (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * " cannot be modified" - that statement is false. And better to get rid of a redundant template now, than after it's been used more widely. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * " cannot be modified" by me (I'm not an admin, and the template is protected, eh). But if you're willing to do the edits I have no reason to oppose (also: I'm not sure what's the argument against forking if it solves a particular issue). Leo Fischer (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Use Editprotected. The argument against forking is explained in Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * rewrite as a module or wrapper, since this isn't a merger proposal. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop with this fallacy that a template can't be modified if its not nominated for merging WP:BOLD still applies. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 27 August 2015 (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 Kenya constituency
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC) An unnecessary wrapper of Infobox constituency. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox Kenya constituency
 * Speedy delete per WP:G2 - not a functioning infobox. Alakzi (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2015 (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 American championship car race report 2
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge Infobox American championship car race report 2 into the other one. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Infobox American championship car race report 2 with Template:Infobox American championship car race report.
 * Infobox American championship car race report 2
 * Infobox American championship car race report


 * 1) 2 appears to be an unexplained fork; if the differences are necessary, they should be rolled back into the original, to reduce the maintenance overhead and reduce confusion for editors, as explained at Infobox consolidation.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Alakzi (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please notify the creator of the second template per the TfD/TfM instructions. Thanks.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This was done to accommodate double-header race events which necessitated a slightly different infobox format (with two sets of pole qualifications, finishes, etc.). There is only one double-header event int he IndyCar series, and I don't know of other races or race series which have them which is why I simply spun-off this dual-race variant. Lestatdelc (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. I think a switch or other code could allow the template to take on either look when needed. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 12px #ceff00, -4px -4px 12px #ceff00;">Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 18:39, 10 August 2015 (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).

Template:Infobox country UK
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Jenks24 (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC) An unnecessary wrapper, used on just four articles. Should be Subst: then deleted. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox country UK
 * Delete per nom. Daicaregos (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment How to "Subst:" work? I only created the template so that editors could easily change a number of fields which were added using child infoboxes. I don't think all that syntax should be present on all four articles. Rob984 (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is no alternative way to include the child infoboxes (which were added per a discussion at the articles) without including excessive syntax on each article, then I think the only option is to keep the wrapper. A template editor could add custom fields to Template:Infobox country, but I doubt that will happen considering most custom fields on that template don't work correctly already. Rob984 (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to the agreement at the Wales article alluded to above. I've been through the Talk page archives and couldn't find it. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Daicaregos, we discussed it here. The child infoboxes are required to include the separate "British Government" section. Rob984 (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Using the wrapper, the syntax is simple:
 * |monarch = Elizabeth II
 * |first_minister = Carwyn Jones AM
 * |prime_minister = David Cameron MP
 * |secretary_of_state = Stephen Crabb MP
 * Without the wrapper:
 * |leader_title1 = Monarch
 * |leader_name1 = Elizabeth II
 * |leader_title2 = First Minister
 * |leader_name2 = Carwyn Jones AM
 * |leader_title3 = Prime Minister
 * |leader_name3 = David Cameron MP
 * |leader_title4 = Secretary of State
 * |leader_name4 = Stephen Crabb MP
 * I don't see the logic in the argument, "this template is unnecessary as it is only used on a small number of articles". If it is stable and removes duplication across those articles, then what is the problem? Most infobox templates aren't "necessary", but are helpful, convenient, help maintain consistency, and therefore reduce maintenance. Im pretty sure I said all this in the last discussion regarding template:Infobox England region. WP:Infobox consolidation refers to reducing maintenance. I don't see how deleting this template would help do that.
 * Rob984 (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing a link. I had read that discussion, but as no editor agreed to, or even suggested, setting up a separate template, it didn't seem relevant - nor is a conversation on 'Template:Infobox England region' relevant to 'Template:Infobox country UK'. Daicaregos (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Creating a wrapper is not "setting up a separate template". The wrapper automatically completes parts of the template (which can still be overridden), and adds the child infoboxes. Nobody objected when the template was added the articles. See WP:SILENCE. You can propose removing the wrapper from the four articles and re-adding the duplicated fields and syntax, on the basis that "the wrapper in unnecessary", if you like. Rob984 (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Creating a wrapper is precisely "setting up a separate template". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Creating a wrapper is precisely "setting up a separate template". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, nomination doesn't appear to be anything more than not liking a template with "only" four uses. UK constitutional position is pretty unusual (countries within a country, as the central government has said itself for a long time). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not a case of "not liking" them; but of reducing the unnecessary maintenance overhead, as described at Infobox consolidation. And constitutional matters are irrelevant; the issue is one of template similarities, no more. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're citing an essay? Seriously? Sheesh, why don't we shut down the whole project, that will get rid of a lot of "unnecessary maintenance overhead". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No I'm not "citing" an essay. HTH. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, if I'm allowed any say as an IP address. I've just read the essay linked above by User:Pigsonthewing, and it makes a good case for consolidating infoboxes into more general, flexible forms. The deletion and substitution proposed here wouldn't consolidate anything, only introduce extra clutter into four articles. 90.218.192.65 (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "wouldn't consolidate anything" Of course it will. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It would delete the single copy of the extra formatting used by these articles that currently exists in the template, and paste it four times over into each article itself. That really isn't consolidation, not unless you expand the generic country infobox to cover this use case. 90.218.192.65 (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ask for a second government heading to be added to Infobox country if there's an actual need for it; don't just hack around templates' limitations. Alakzi (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't someone do that, then propose deletion? I'm not even sure the template editors that edit that template are even competent at adding custom fields. Nobody seems to be interested in fixing the numerous issues with existing custom fields such as the language or capital fields. And I'm pretty sure nobody wants any more fields akin to the French fields, which are only applicable to France. So I would have to demonstrate the additional fields are beneficial for other countries, which considering few administrative divisions actually use that infobox, would be difficult. Rob984 (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Useful wrapper to make UK country infoboxes simpler to understand and therefore edit. Also having a wrapper promotes standardisation between these four articles: some people might be tempted to fiddle with any substituted instances, for nationalistic reasons, for example. BethNaught (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Ditto to what BethNaught and Jmorrison230582 said. 86.145.159.240 (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2015 (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).

Template:Infobox Alternative names
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete after the current uses of it have been replaced by Infobox Chinese. Jenks24 (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Redundant to Infobox Chinese. Alakzi (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox Alternative names
 * Delete as redundant (but perhaps "alternative names" is a better name?). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really; Infobox Chinese is more often used for the primary name. Alakzi (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This template is not 'redundant'. It has nothing to do with the 'Infobox Chinese' template; it can also be used in articles without Chinese-character names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk • contribs) 11:05, 3 August 2015‎
 * Used to do what? All it's got is a header and a data field; you might as well be constructing an infobox manually. Alakzi (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's not, is it? It's only used on five articles; and in each case it is being used to hold a Chinese name, right below an instance of Infobox Chinese. On Zhou Enlai and Liu Shaoqi, it even duplicates information in the other template. And like a lot of instances of the latter template, it is better replaced with one which is subject-specific, . Even then, the vast number of Chinese names and transcriptions are crufty and breach WP:NOT. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because it has only been used in articles about people/things with Chinese-character names doesn't mean it overlaps with the template 'Infobox Chinese'. The fact that it has an empty data field gives flexibility to users, so that they can tailor it according to the articles. The template, as used in the articles 'Zhou Enlai' and 'Liu Shaoqi', doesn't duplicate the information provided by the template 'Infobox Chinese', because the 'Infobox Chinese' template only shows the indications of pronunciations of the characters like a textbook (e. g., 'Zhōu Ēnlái' and 'Chou1 En1-lai2); it doesn't show the alternative 'spellings' (e. g., 'Zhou Enlai' and 'Chou En-lai') – alternative ways of writing out the names as in everyday writing. I agree with Andy that there is no need to use this template if the information provided by this template can also be provided by other pre-existing templates. However, having said that, I'll still argue for keeping this template, since it may also be useful in articles not involving Chinese-character names. Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete there doesn't seem to be much of any defined structure in this template, it is almost a bare infobox; it most certainly is not defined in a manner suitable for only use with alternative names, since there's nothing related to names in any of the coding -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * delete, basically equivalent to using infobox directly. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2015 (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).

Template:Vcite doi
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC) This is now unused. We can delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Vcite doi
 * 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:User WWE WrestleMania 24
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 speedy delete. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC) I would tag this for CSD as the creator, but others have edited it disqualifying it from that criteria. Basically, it has no use any more and needs to be deleted. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 06:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User WWE WrestleMania 24
 * Delete per nom. Nobody is using it and event is in the past.  Etamni &#124;  &#9993;  07:14, 2 August 2015 (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.