Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 July 4



Template:Children's games

 * 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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Children's games

fails WP:OR. Not even the articles children's games, traditional children's games or some combination thereof, exists. No game is strictly a children's game. No game listed at List of traditional children's games can be played only by children.96.52.0.249 (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Baby food can be eaten by adults. Hyacinth (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is why we don't have templates such as adult foods and baby foods.96.52.0.249 (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Again, this is a classic "grab bag" - and we know that articles in a template "should refer to each other to a reasonable extent." This is not the case here. Neutralitytalk 19:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This template is not a list of games. Hyacinth (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is why it should be deleted since list of traditional children's games exists.96.52.0.249 (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep an incomplete navbox doesn't mean it should be deleted, nor does the fact that other things exist (WP:OTHER). Additionally navboxes do not cite references and so I am not sure what "OR" means. I think there is a common place acceptance of what a children's game is. Therefore keep. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no common place acceptance of what a children's game is, otherwise there would be a main article. It fails 4 of WP:NAVBOX: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template."96.52.0.249 (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep; the list of traditional children's games satisfies the proposed requirement that there be an article on the subject. It seems a useful way of navigating among related pages that share a fundamental part of their nature.  Granted, it's incomplete, but that's easily remedied.  Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't though because the requirement is for an actual article not a list.96.52.0.249 (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * keep, I don't see any policy violation here. Frietjes (talk) 14:27, 6 July 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:Anti-Tamil riots in Sri Lanka

 * 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. Recommend follow-up discussion elsewhere of the neutrality of the current contents or desirability of merging with related templates. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Anti-Tamil riots in Sri Lanka

Template is REDUNDANT as the more relevant and comprehensive Template:Sri Lankan Civil War already exists. Also highly non neutral. Blackknight12 (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * delete, the navbox is better, and we don't need both. Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, the navbox is overloaded with a lot of articles pertaining to Sri Lankan civil war. These pogroms and riots deserve more importance, as three of the four events occur long before the Civil war which coincided with the onset of only the fourth incident of the list. The claim for deletion under non-neutrality (and for a designated template) is absurd while the notion of non-neutrality once again, is another creation of the initiator's imagination to delete articles/lists which don't augur well with his ethnic sentiments.-- CuCl2 (chat  spy acquaint) 13:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Tentative  keep , although I should say I don't know much about the subject so it's hard to judge the neutrality issue. But I don't think redundancy is a good enough reason to delete it: it's more tightly focused than the Civil War template, and there's no reason why we can't have both. I'm not so sure about the inclusion of references in the template, though - is that standard practice? I don't think navboxes are supposed to contain references, surely those belong in the articles. Robofish (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The template doesn't do much but link the events (that are also listed in Template:Sri Lankan Civil War) that led to the war. It is not more tightly focused because if it was the template would have been on the 'Origins' of the war or something, this is just a list. Also a regular template would not need to have such references as its legitimacy would not need to be challenged. The Sri Lankan Civil War template remedies all these issues.--Blackknight12 (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Those arguments are convincing. Changed my view to  Delete . Robofish (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to reiterate two key reasons why the initiator's claims don't hold water. First, these events occurred long before the civil war, with the intent of wiping out the members of Tamil ethnic group by a majoritarian state/ethnic group to which the initiator belongs(and hence desperate to rid the list). Two, the navbox he points to immensely overpopulated with several relevant as well as irrelevant wikilinks, and is in need of trimming. These events cannot be seen from the shadow of the civil war, as they take place much earlier, when there was no warring party/or resistance outfit to oppose the state's massacres and pogroms of civilians(not combatants) Tamil ethnic group. -- CuCl2 (chat  spy acquaint) 17:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You know what, I don't know enough about the subject to take a firm position on this one, and should have avoided commenting on it in the first place. Struck both my !votes above. Robofish (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge with Template:Sri Lankan Civil War, not neutral, too small and it can be added as they are connected events.--JudgeJason (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Per CuCl2  Kanatonian (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per CuCl2 's rationale. Although I assume the nominator's good faith, it would not be neutral to include these discriminatory pogroms in the subject of the Civil War that happened much later. Perhaps it could be merged with other Tamil-related or Sri Lankan conflict-related templates, and perhaps it could be expanded upon by interested contributors, but for now I'd say we keep it the way it is. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 17:49, 7 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:Black Lives Matter

 * 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. Questions of neutrality or the specific articles linked in the template can be discussed elsewhere. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Black Lives Matter

Much as I support the BLM movement, this template fails NPoV. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - nomination fails to explain exactly how the template is NPOV. Every death in this template is referenced in the main article itself. Each death also has a primary and secondary source linking the movement to it. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  13:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Placing this navbox at the bottom of shooting articles appears to be WP:UNDUE and perhaps even WP:PROMO; in any case, it fails WP:NAVBOX criterion #2. Alakzi (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - This can be remedied, although it'll probably be up to me to do it. Give me a few days.... starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  10:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done! All shooting articles updated with connections to Black Lives Matter. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  04:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It didn't meet NAVBOX#2 at the time, but now that it does, it certainly meets all 5 (depending on the exact meaning of #3). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Regarding WP:UNDUE, what fringe opinion is being given undue weight by this template? Todd.st (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What part of WP:UNDUE says it's only applicable to fringe opinion? Alakzi (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE is not that big of a section. Would you mind explaining how this policy is violated by the template?  Todd.st (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. An activist organisation is formed and goes on to protest events that it opposes.  Why is its involvement so profoundly related to the events themselves that we need a navbox to go from one to the next?  This organisation's protests are irrelevant to the events discussed in the linked articles; there's no way that this navbox is helpful.  Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See also . Alakzi (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * delete. yes, a list of all protested deaths in the Black Lives Matter article is appropriate.  but, we don't need to put a navbox for every activist organization at the foot of every event they protest. Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Frietjes, or trim to only list the actual organization and its founders. An organization navbox should not include a bunch of articles with a lose connection to the organization like something they protested against. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. On the previous TFD I argued for deleting this template as redundant to another one, but that one was deleted, so that argument no longer applies. I previously also thought it was stretching to include too many articles, but looking at it again, all the articles linked do have a strong connection to the BLM movement, and are referenced as such. I think a navigational template is justified in this case. Robofish (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep BLM is a significant movement and these incidents are all related, not only in how the movement has responded to them, but also in the nature of how these things happen in the first place. Furthermore, someone who reads the entirety of Shooting of Walter Scott is highly likely to be interested in, say, Death of Freddie Gray or Death of Sandra Bland, making a navbox highly desirable. – Muboshgu (talk)
 * Keep Per everyone else. This is becoming even more significant with every death that occurs, and it's obvious this phrase will never go away completely. There needs to be something that encompasses this term and all related events and phrases. Might as well be this template. DisuseKid (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a discussion about the significance of the BLM movement, but of the navbox's compliance with Wikipedia's template standards. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I've changed "Founders" to "Background" with Rodney King and 1992 Los Angeles riots. The "Founders" section is a violation of WP:SOAP as the articles on the people barely meet WP:GNG and including their names is promotional. I've also added Police brutality in the United States to the "Related" section. If these changes stay then I'm happy for the template to stay. If COI editors with undisclosed financial connections to the "founders" edit war to push the names of the founders in then the whole template should be deleted. -- Callinus (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - This template is a recreation of another template that was already deleted. If that is not reason enough to delete this template it also violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. --Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can get the UNDUE argument, but how does it violate NPOV when all of the included cases are verifiably associated with BLM? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Does not fit a Category due dates can not be displayed in an category. Too less Articles for a category. -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 19:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom —Мандичка YO 😜 22:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Frietjes as well. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – per Starship.paint and Robofish. I'm not seeing a violation of NPOV here.  I think the nomination is incomplete without this rationale (specifically Starship.paint's argument that there isn't an adequately explained rationale for deletion in the nomination)  (maybe I missed it?).  Robofish points out substantial cleanup that has gone in to making this a unique resource.  However, given the chance, I'd like to give a more nuanced !vote based on additional information that I seem incompetent to obtain.  I'd like to know if other protest groups have their issue articles in a Navbox?  If someone can point me to examples of either 1)  Issue groups that don't have Navboxes for their protests that actually have existent WP articles, but more particularly, 2)  Issue groups that do, I'd appreciate it.  Thanks.    &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nom. I also agree with Nyttend's comments above.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * delete, or move to a appropriate name, should one exist, or refactor content a LOT. The people and articles in the template are somewhat related, so maybe there is a good title for a template very much like this one; but I doubt one specific protest movement is the link between them, they don't 'own' the protests over these events, brutality cases are not caused by belonging or supporting or opposing or whatever to BLM. OTOH there may be a template for subjects related to BLM, maybe major actions or key people or successes and failures or ...; but these are not it. So, unless there is a major change, the title does not match the content thus, delete, with nothing against recreation with some other content. - Nabla (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * delete- a nav box for an activist group is essentially an endorsement of their viewpoint. Defintely inconsistant with NPOV.  There must certainly be a less biased way to present the same information. Even a title change to something like "Controversies involving Minorities and Law Enforcement" would probably be acceptable, but a Black Lives Matter template is unencyclopedic. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjphill1977 (talk • contribs)
 * So are these nav boxes an endorsement for their viewpoints: Tea Party movement, Al-Qaeda, ACLU, Communist Party USA?


 * Keep - The template is useful for navigating related articles. Kiwifist (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename  - The content is useful navigation, but we need to find a different name for the template. and after reading more about the movement, it should be kept. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete NPOV, see User:Nyttend comment above. Next we'll be seeing Template:PETA Animals with cats, dogs and horses. Articles are not related except the protesters 'think' they are important. If they 'think' a death is important, it's their opinion. What next, Template:White Americans killed by Black people? What about Template:KKK Movement that lists all black criminals? None of the Keep's have explained how the articles are connected, except that 'some people protested it!'--JudgeJason (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - First, on its own merits, I find this template very useful for navigating related articles. However, in regard to NPOV, it's not just that BLM has protested these deaths, but rather that the movement was built around and in response to these deaths by the families and friends of the victims (as well as by others, of course). -- Irn (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - This simple navigational aid allows readers to readily find related content within an organized structure. The Black Lives Matter movement has increased in notability because of the attention that the media, and especially social media, has given to the individual deaths linked in the nav box. There is an obvious, and even profound, relationship between the deaths and the movement. The NPOV concerns fall short, and especially the slippery slope and WP:UNDUE arguments which are wholly lacking in actual evidence. This navigational template meets all five criteria of WP:NAVBOX.- MrX 19:45, 5 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 comrade

 * 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 ⚡  11:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Newly created, yet redundant to Infobox person (which it replaced, , for instance) or Infobox officeholder. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox comrade
 * No : As the creator of the template, I oppose the deletion of the above template. I agree that some of the stuffs are from Infobox person and Infobox officeholder are placed in this template at this moment, but it can cover most of the details of a communist leader (like even if it is not from politically active party, but still quite popular). This template can be treated as a part of Infobox person, just like others are there... like Infobox dancer, Infobox fashion designer, Infobox chef and so on. This template has a scope of improvement in the future, that I am likely to improve. This is not totally redundant template, but quite a useful one. Logical1004 (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What parameters are unique to communist leaders? Alakzi (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, the template is using some parameters of Infobox officeholder, that can be edited and introduced as a part of module in the current template. In this way it will reduce the current template size and redundancy. Second, the current template can be treated as a sub-part of Infobox person as other similar templates, as I have said earlier too. Third, regarding uniqueness to communist leaders, there is a large info of communist movements/ideologies/line of thought and that can be accommodated in an infobox, as the idea of the whole infobox is to present the summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and sometimes to improve navigation to other interrelated articles. So keeping a separate template for that purpose will help. Logical1004 (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * strong delete, no need to fork template:infobox officeholder without attribution. next time, why not try starting a discussion at template talk:infobox officeholder rather than simply forking it, then going on a mass edit spree to replace template:infobox officeholder? From the comparison above, it looks like the only "missing feature" is affiliations which is party in the standard infobox. Frietjes (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment All the changes regarding the replacements of the infobox have been undone, till this discussion is closed. Logical1004 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as crass stupidity. Wikipedia does not label individuals as 'comrades'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A comrade is no different from any other person except that they hold office Delete96.52.0.249 (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Frietjes. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 05:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks to whoever switched them back, now if we can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilhelm_Reich&type=revision&diff=670141429&oldid=670139442 stop this madness] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilhelm_Reich&type=revision&diff=670412966&oldid=670409715]. Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's rationale. Wikipedia should not have infoboxes for persons which are tailored to particular ideologies, especially when they include elements of propaganda -- and that includes labeling them as "Comrades".  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:14, 16 July 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:Indian Toppers

 * 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. North America1000 13:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC) A navigation template with 11 links of which 10 are redlinks is not particularly useful. The template was created almost four months ago, but no attempt has been made to create any of the redlinked articles (the existing article was created several years ago). All the redlinked articles are lists, and I don't know whether they are all sufficiently notable to have an article. Some of them probably are, but again, the articles don't exist yet so linking to them in a template is pretty premature. Note that "topper" is a word that is used in Indian English to refer to a student who ranks first in their class or school - its use is well attested and it's not slang, merely a regional term. bonadea contributions talk 10:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indian Toppers
 * Delete. A list of special class railway apprentice toppers and entrance exam toppers?  I strongly doubt that most of these will warrant articles — not on resource-availability or systemic bias grounds, but on encyclopedic grounds.  Let's say the term's in common use in the USA; I still can't imagine articles for "List of Foreign Service Officer Examination Toppers" or "List of SAT Toppers", for example.  Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 5 July 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:Adler-Convertibles

 * 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. —  Earwig   talk 20:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Template consisting of a hard-coded instance of template:cite book used just at Convertible. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Adler-Convertibles
 * Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I have been on holidays for the past 10 days. Now that I am back and have access to the book, which covers a large number of models of convertibles, I will add the template to other pages. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you actually need the template though? Why not just write out the citation? -- 23:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete This is cite book under a different name and with a few parameters filled out.  cite book is more useful since it allows editors to cite pages, while this template has left those parameters out.96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This template is eligible for WP:T368.148.186.93 (talk) 06:08, 19 July 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:Cite MAG
<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. —  Earwig   talk 00:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Unnecessarily complicated citation template used only at Michael Gerzon which just take cite book templates and make it more complicated to cite the two books there. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Cite MAG
 * Delete single article template, use the more general templates instead -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Cite journal. I thought this was an abbreviation of Cite magazine, which is a redirect to journal.  Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The template uses Cite book because it is citing books. 74.205.216.160 (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is that, if we don't want to retain this title as a working template, it ought to be redirected to Cite journal and treated as an alternate name for Cite magazine. This only applies if the alternative is deletion, so its current operations aren't really relevant.  Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. At Talk:Michael Gerzon it describes how this template is to make future s easier. If deleted, it will need to be recreated when s are added to the article Michael Gerzon. 74.205.216.160 (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's senseless. There are only two subreferences inside this template, that hardly qualifies as enough referencing complexity to justify this, and standard template usage handles this anyways, since this is a single article template and is not used with other topics. Many articles contain multiple different citations to different pages to the same source without resorting to this kludge. They have a list of citations and a list of references. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * delete after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 14:26, 6 July 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:Cite renner
<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 ⚡  15:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Template that is just hard-coded text for a citation in only two articles. However this template doesn't include a page number parameter so the one page that uses it with a page number just manually adds it at the end. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Cite renner
 * Same as below. BTW, you're an admin now, you'd better watch stuff like the scare quotes around "template" you used below.  Smugness and adminning don't go together. BMK (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't meant to be smug, my apologies. I meant citation since it was a citation, just out of the typical format (which is beyond a minor issue to me). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Subst and delete low usage template (or just delete, considering it was blanked) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:53, 4 July 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:Cite 500build
<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 ⚡  15:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Template that is just hard-coded text for a citation. Used in only two articles but because the "template" "citation" doesn't include a page number parameter, both uses (1 and 2) just manually add it afterwards in the reference which looks different from the usage at template:cite book. I think it's preferable to manually insert the text into the articles including moving the page references to the "proper" place. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Cite 500build
 * Correction. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the two transclusions and tagged the template for speedy deletion using db-author. I thought I'd be using cites to this book more often, but it didn't happen. BMK (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I used to create similar templates in my sandbox but I would substitute the text directly into the references. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Subst and delete low usage template (or just delete, considering it was blanked) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:54, 4 July 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:Latin intro
<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. —  Earwig   talk 23:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC) The contents here should be subtituted into each page and the template deleted. The template guidelines suggest that templates should not normally be used to store article text and this is largely article text at the start of each page. Locking it into a template prevents any customizing of the text (which is why it's not used at List of Latin phrases (full)), adds unnecessary difficulty to the page and (ignoring WP:BEANS) given that this template isn't protected, opens up an additional angle for vandalism. This is for discussion following substitution but the box itself may not need to inserted into every page (like it at List of Latin phrases (full)) given that every page also has Template:Latin phrases as a footer. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Latin intro
 * Keep. These pages should have similar intros, because the situation's identical for all of them.  If we identify a problem with any of them, we'll have identified a problem with all of them; it would be a waste of time to have to edit twenty pages when a single template edit could fix everything.  Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Normally I support the deletion of boilerplate text-type templates. But this is different: all articles in the series "List of Latin phrases" appear to require the exact same header and lead, so it makes sense to store that introduction in a template. If there were only two or three articles in the series, I would have said "delete", but with twenty pages, it makes good sense to standardise this boilerplate in the form of a template. — This, that and the other (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no reason to display anything different on the 20 letters. If we want to consistently display the same on 20 articles then a template is well-suited. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:09, 9 July 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.