Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 19



Template:Dearne and Dove Canal Elsecar branch map

 * 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC) Unused, and duplicates a segment of Template:Dearne and Dove Canal map. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Dearne and Dove Canal Elsecar branch map
 * Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (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:WikiProject Musicians

 * 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 2020 July 27. Izno (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WikiProject_Musicians
 * 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:Steven Spielberg video 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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Steven Spielberg. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Steven Spielberg video games with Template:Steven Spielberg.
 * Steven Spielberg video games
 * Steven Spielberg

A navbox for video games where Steven Spielberg was involved with. A total of seven entries. Nothing that can't be easily be part of. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. -  DoubleCross  ( ‡ ) 16:35, 22 July 2020 (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:Teesside White Water Course map

 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC) Unused; duplicates Template:Tees Barrage White Water Course map with some details missing. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Bin it. Stuffed Cat (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC) [Template creator]
 * Teesside White Water Course map
 * Delete this template. It no longer represents the current course and has been superseded by Template:Tees Barrage White Water Course map
 * Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (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 Australian place

 * 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. There could be more consensus for a merge if a demonstration of the merged template were created first. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Propose merging Template:Infobox Australian place with Template:Infobox settlement (with protected places going to Template:Infobox protected area).
 * Infobox Australian place
 * Infobox settlement

This should be merged into Infobox settlement, per WP:INFOCOL, just like was done for the US. The Australian system is not so different to every other country, where we use that template for places. This template is out of sync with changes in Infobox settlement. Large amount of parameter and purpose overlap, can't see a reason for this to stay separate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note for TPEs, I can't tag either of the templates with TfD notices, so would appreciate it if someone could do that for me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you tag the talk page instead? AlgaeGraphix (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 17:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , please could you noinclude it? It seems to be adding a notice to every transclusion (eg New York City). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Showing the notice on transclusions is exactly how TfD is supposed to work. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , should at least be smaller and over the infobox itself then imo, rather than spanning the full width of the page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was an error, but I fixed it a few hours ago when I made my first comment. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

(with protected places going to Template:Infobox protected area) - This part of the nomination was added after significant discussion had already taken place so I see no reason not to include my objection to this part in my original response. Quite simply, this is easier said than done. Way back in 2013 I found that Template:Infobox protected area of Australia was a mess. It had limited functionality and almost every article that used it had hacks in the infobox to make it work properly. For that reason I posted this to Template talk:Infobox protected area suggesting we use Infobox protected area but nobody was interested. Nearly 7 years later I haven't had a single response. For that reason I rewrote the infobox and then realised it was so similar to Infobox Australian place that I would merge the two and it has worked quite well. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose As has been explained in previous discussions, and as prominantly displayed in the documentation, Infobox Australian place is not limited to populated places such as cities, towns and suburbs, but may be used on any place including regions, local government areas, cadastral units, protected areas and even some areas that do not fall into any of the preceding descriptions and for which no other infobox is appropriate. It includes a lot of automation unique to Australia and even categorises articles automatically. It also provides easy navigation between adjacent localities. The automation is not something that the vast majority of settlement articles require and any merge would necessitate recreation of infoboxes that have previously been merged into this one. The nominator claims that there is Large amount of parameter and purpose overlap but there are also many differences. The nominator should be aware that WP:INFOCOL is only an essay, it is not a guideline and it is certainly not policy. I would suggest that anyone considering voting for a merge examine the code and try some conversions at the various articles using this infobox. Infobox settlement didn't work on articles that we tried to convert in the past so it is something that has to be carefully considered. Merging will require that a lot of information that is now automatically generated is going to have to be manually added to the 14,600 articles that currently use this infobox and EVERY article will have to be manually checked for errors
 * Australia is not so different to every single country in the world that it requires its own template for settlements. This template is a redundant duplicate, with an inconsistent layout and lacks various functionality of Infobox settlement. Merging provides more options for usage, provides a more familiar template for other editors across the wiki, and makes maintenance easier.
 * It's also structurally problematic and inconsistent with other settlements, eg it chooses to highlight the first column (see Melbourne or testcases), something no settlement template does. There aren't really any params in that template, as far as settlements go, that aren't already in the far more comprehensive Infobox settlement, and it already has support for subdivisions. The few extra params used can easily be added, if need be, to the generic template. That it automatically adds categories isn't a valid reason to prevent merge. If it were, we should probably split Infobox settlement up into per-country options, so we can have automatic categories for every country. For "protected areas", we have things like Infobox protected area. These shouldn't be all using the same template anyway, it's awful practice.
 * The nominator should be aware that WP:INFOCOL is only an essay, it is not a guideline and it is certainly not policy. Consolidation of duplicate code is a standard good practice in all types of coding. But there are also many differences Feel free to detail the specific parameters which are used by this template and cannot be provided by Infobox settlement, for settlements.ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Make wrapper which will allow the standardisation of shared code (or code which should be shared), and formatting, while allowing for the retention of Au-specific processing. Remove the categorisation, which by convention, is not done by infoboxes. And disregard alarmist FUD like "every article will have to be manually checked for errors".  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the point of making a wrapper if you're going to keep the template anyway? Then you have to edit two infoboxes to make changes to the code. And what shared code are you talking about? Currently the infobox isn't missing anything. What I wrote is not FUD. In the past we have tried to convert articles and found errors in some articles so it's not just a case of randomly checking articles. As for removing categorisation, we've discussed that in the past and found it to be overly complex. I've asked you in the past for some examples and you've always refused, so I know you haven't tried it, while I have. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As for removing categorisation, we've discussed that in the past and found it to be overly complex. You'd be surprised what the folks over at WP:TFD/H can do. Moving out categories, which indeed is not something the infobox should be doing anyway, is a very simple bot task. As for errors, you'll have to be more specific. What exactly does this template do which is technically impossible to achieve by the other templates, even if generic params are added (if even required)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "What's the point of making a wrapper if..." Fair point. Changed to "Merge". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * On reflection, Merge per ProcrastinatingReader. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Moving out categories, which indeed is not something the infobox should be doing anyway - It's not done in a lot of infoboxes but it's not prohibited. There are certainly good reasons for doing it in some cases, especially for people, but here it's an aid to editors. Infoboxes, by their very nature, automate processes to ensure consistency and minimise errors. Automating categorisation is another process that ensures consistency and minimises errors. The question is not why IAP is doing it it's why IS is not. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Demonstrate first that this template, with all of its nuance and customization, could be made into a wrapper. The sandbox is unprotected, and anyone can edit it. Given the complexity of this potential merge, I suggest that the nominator edit the sandbox to make it a wrapper of Infobox settlement, then show in the test cases that the proposed code works. Only then does it make sense to propose a merge. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, if people who are using the tamplate give rational argumwents why it should not be merged then it should not be merged. We had already a similar disaster recently with Russian templates, when they were converted into wrappers, then I discuovered that the result violates the five pillars, and nobody was interested in correcting the error.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there are rational arguments, but none have been presented as of yet. Arguments so far are “it automatically adds categories” and a vague “error checking would be broken”. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Plenty of rational arguments have been given. The fact that you don't see them as rational does not mean that they aren't. I note that you're not a template editor and you haven't done a lot of work with infoboxes. Maybe it's simply that you don't understand. Have you been through the infobox code? It looks like you haven't because questions that you've asked should be answered by reviewing the code. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is exactly the type of the argument what I was getting in the discussions about Russian templates. Uniformilty is not a policy, and by using this template for longer than a decade they found the pitfalls which nobody would be able to find with a wrapper for two weeks testing. For Russia, the template was showing incorrect data for two years, the maps were broken, people who proposed and argued for deletion did not care, and I am wondering who should be blocked for introducing this long-term disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That Russia template (if you mean Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality) has minimal obvious overlap with settlement, compared to this one which has almost full overlap in params, but is a subset of those provided by Infobox settlement. I don't know what happened with the template you're referring to, but this template isn't that, and this should be judged on its own merits for merging. This isn't about uniformity more than it is retaining a constant theme for the same stuff (which is also the reason why we have a MOS) and aiding maintainability, see my comments above. If we can do that with no collateral, shouldn't we? And while I get no template editor wants their work merged, it would seemingly be a pro for users of both templates to combine the maintenance efforts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Several years ago we had a similar issue when someone nominated Infobox Australian Hut for deletion in lieu of Infobox building. The outcome of the TfD was "was merge or replace with where feasible", only this was impossible because the two infoboxes were completely dissimilar. In the end I had to write a completely new infobox replacing both. Until the TfD, both infoboxes worked fine for their purposes. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

To save us talking hypothetical disasters and FUD, I've compiled a list of differences. I don't see these 'big differences' described above. Just a look at the doc says as much. There are no Australia-specific params or functionality here, except "automatically adding categories", and the map which can be turned into a submodule.

Here are all params with differences to Infobox settlement, and a proposed solution:

Key:
 * Green: Available as the same or more specific params, in Infobox settlement
 * Blue: Can be safely added, pretty generic and/or reusable
 * Yellow: Clarification needed, not sure what this param does exactly
 * Pink: Shouldn't be in infobox?

Other arguments made:
 * "Automatically adds categories": Probably shouldn't be in infobox. Existing ones can be easily converted with bot.
 * "Errors and checks needed": ?

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Or retain template for cadastrals only - This is an interesting comment in your table. What's the point of getting rid of one template and recreating another. At the moment, we use one infobox. You want us to use three instead. I don't see the logic there. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not just a matter of looking at parameters that may or may not be compatible and your statements are partially based on idealistic expectations that I've mentioned above. Others, like lga(1-5) should not be relegated to using generic fields. These are used in thousands of articles so there should be specific fields. You also need to look at how some of the fields are handled in IAP because IS probably doesn't handle them the same way.

and the dozens of extra params that would be available to editors by using Settlement - That we're not using them now is a pretty good indication that they aren't required for Australian articles but I'll bite. What are some examples? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per AussieLegend. In my mind practical concerns that mergers will make life harder for editors or readers outweigh the ideological reasons for this merge. Even though it is not consistent with other templates I just don't see how this will improve the editing or reading experience for anyone. Additionally, I do not support creating super templates with heaps of parameters to make all the subtemplates fit. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not support creating super templates with heaps of parameters to make all the subtemplates fit Do you not think non-Australian settlements can benefit from params like rainfall, tourism numbers and abolished dates? None of these params to add are Australia specific. And I'm yet to see an argument for how this is worse for readers or editors. If anything, it's the opposite, due to weird style inconsistencies like highlighted columns (see Melbourne), and stuff like this, and the dozens of extra params that would be available to editors by using Settlement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If anything, it's the opposite, due to weird style inconsistencies like highlighted columns - The highlighted columns are actually coloured to reflect the type of place that the article is about (city, suburb etc). Some variations do not use colouring, which is a carry over from before I rewrote the infobox many years ago. The colour is used in the same way that the colouring in your table above is used.
 * Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom. – User 45  65  41  22:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support It is extremely and increasingly difficult to justify a carve-out for Australian places. Ideally, I would like to see T:IAP retained, calling on T:IS as a base template. Use of T:IS will allow for additional functionality, future development and better integration with Wikidata now and into the future. I have a lot of respect for the work done by those that have maintained T:IAP and its developers deserve our gratitude. The template has been a solid workhorse for the Australia project for many, many years. However it is now time for Australian populated places to re-join the rest of the encylopedia. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per Aussielegend. Deus et lex (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ymblanter. No mention of the distance parameters, yet, either. These serve a summary purpose for interior locations well beyond the "orbit" of the state capitals, e.g. Alice Springs, as a static location map like that for the Northern Territory won't give many non-Australians an idea of geographic scale. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , those params are already in the table. imo shouldn't be in infobox at all, but it can just use the already-existing blank sections if it's really wanted, or a submodule. It's simply plain text values, nothing fancy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Blank sections would be highly inappropriate for 14,000+ articles. We use specifically named fields for a reason. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's of course the option of using an embedded module for that section, as well. Those params ("255 miles north of X", "210 miles south east of Y", [...]) aren't Australia specific, so they could be added into Infobox settlement, but I consider them bloat and I imagine many others would too, in which case embedding makes more sense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't use "miles" so the infobox is automatically set to do kilometres. Given that we're talking about 14,000+ articles, the fields should be part of the infobox, not done using embedding. I do agree that it is bloat but a merge is exactly that - merge everything, not merge some stuff and delete other stuff. If you want a mega infobox that does everything you have to accept some bloat. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 23:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per AussieLegend. In particular, this proposal apparently will lose our local goverment areas, our federal and state electorates, and our distances. We have two of the world largest states Western Australia (#2) and Queensland (#6). We need both the finer granularity of our local government areas and distances matter enormously here in Australia. Having specific fields gives us a semantic, re-using "blank fields" does not. If "blank fields" are such as great solution, why do we bother with any infoboxes at all? We could just replace every infobox with a giant list of randomly named fields and values. It is precisely the standardisation of those field names that gives meaning to the value provided. I don't disagree with Mattinbgn that there might be a way for use T:IS as a base template with that would depend on whether T:IS but we want to retain T:IAP for the precise meanings of our fields. Kerry (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is no reason to replace an infobox that does all that is required for Australian locations with something that is clearly inferior.--Grahame (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose, per AussieLegend. 2001:8003:9008:1301:581D:97A:EFAE:363B (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose, but in principle Support. T:IS does not have any representation of higher levels of government, such as division or seats of parliament, in its tags.  Until we have such tags in T:IS, I think we should not merge any infobox with any higher level of government information into T:IS. Techie3 (talk) 07:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's tantamount to saying "We should not merge the division or seats of parliament parameters into the settlement infobox until they are already there". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't IS have it? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone(you) should add the params before I will support a merge of this. Those tags should have been added a long time ago. Techie3 (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be fascinated to know on what basis you think you have the authority to issue such instructions Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being too direct with you. However if tag are not added by someone sometime soon or promised to added in the merger of the templates, I will Oppose such a merge.  Techie3 (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, there was a proposal in 2012 about adding these tags. I will Support the merge above, if you add these tags. Techie3 (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's tantamount to saying "I will support adding the tags if they are already added". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it part of the merge, to implement the higher level of government tags for IS? If not, I still Oppose. Techie3 (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Eight years? Is that how long it takes to get changes to that infobox? This is worse than trying to get changes to Infobox protected area and it doesn't bode well for a merge. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It has, of course, no bearing on the merge. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose (for now at least). The table above shows a lot of"superseded" parameters in Infobox Australian Place. Does this mean they already exist in Infobox Settlement, with the same name and meaning? If the proposal is to merge, the table should also have a column for the Infobox Settlement (and Infobox Protected Area) parameters, to show the Australian editors what we are missing. It seems odd to say that the dir/dist/location combo should not be in an infobox. I can only assume the author of that remark can instantly tell on a state-scale infobox which side of somewhere they already know about a place they are looking at located. The table shows "near (coordinates)" which I think refers to the cardinal directions (not coordinates) of the adjacent places. Does the infobox of Washington, Kansas (a city of 1131 people) show me as much useful location information as the infobox of Kinglake West, Victoria (a town of 1166 people). Perhaps we need to see the full parameter comparison table and worked examples of infoboxes showing the places in each other and the proposed merged infobox to see that the merge is an improvement. The biggest arguments to merge that I have seen are stylistic, which can be fixed just as easily by proposing changes to the separate infoboxes to bring their styles into line. --Scott Davis Talk 12:04, 28 July 2020 (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:PHL sports sked header

 * 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 to Module:Sports rbr table/matchup. Izno (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Propose merging Template:PHL sports sked header with Module:Sports rbr table/matchup.
 * PHL sports sked header
 * PHL sports sked row
 * PHL sports sked footer
 * Sports rbr table/matchup

Template is tagged with a deprecation notice and that Module:Sports rbr table/matchup should be used instead. Moving this to WP:TFD/H is the correct procedure in these situations. Wrapped with noinclude so it won't mess up tables. Change if you feel otherwise. Gonnym (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * delete the PHL sports templates after replacement. I have already replaced about a hundred of these using a conversion script without any problems. Frietjes (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2020 (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:NCAA Season 88 juniors' basketball

 * 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. Izno (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC) no longer used after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per prior consensus at WP:TFD and elsewhere Frietjes (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * NCAA Season 88 juniors' basketball
 * NCAA Season 88 men's basketball
 * NCAA Season 89 juniors' basketball
 * NCAA Season 89 men's basketball
 * Revert substitution and oppose. It makes for easier editing instead of editing at every instance where this template is used. (Currently just 2 but potentially it can be used in more than 10 articles.) Howard the Duck (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll also be asking if other similar templates have been deleted before. This is scary and we allow this practice on other sports leagues. Why not this? Howard the Duck (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * see this discussion which was over a year ago, and apparently there have been no problems. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This has been done for over a year if I'm not mistaken. The reasons are clear, having a template in the parent article makes it to edit and watch for vandalism as it's all in one single page, compared to many small (often single-use) templates. --Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * These aren't single use templates; these are used in at least 2, and can be used in at least 10 more in each one. These are in templates so you want have to edit every instance where the info is needed. The tournaments are over though so while edits won't be a lot, it will be laborious is you do have to edit these anew. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also for similar templates, I was referring to the ones found at Category:National Collegiate Athletic Association (Philippines) templates and apparently the UAAP ones were deleted? Howard the Duck (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How will it be "laborious"? You edit the same exact amount. The only difference is that in one style you edit in one place, in the other you edit in each and every template. View the module /doc to see how Frietjes transcludes these on team pages. --Gonnym (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The module/doc is exactly the same as the template, only that the V-T-E buttons are broken. This is done so that these buttons cannot be used? Really? Do you want to allow n00bs to edit articles or make it difficult for them? Howard the Duck (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, once the templates are deleted, it would be doubly hard for n00bs to edit these. All for what? We deleted templates and replaced them with sorta-templates but it's harder for people to edit. Really? Howard the Duck (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * see this discussion which was over a year ago, and apparently there have been no problems. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, one guy supported, aside from you. WP:CCC? "Merging with attribution" makes no sense. Is that a valid reason for deletion? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * there are actually hundreds of these discussions, which I will not enumerate, but you can find some of them [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?cirrusUserTesting=control&sort=relevance&search=merged+with+the+parent+article&prefix=Wikipedia%3ATemplates+for+d&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current={}&ns0=1 with this search]. Frietjes (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2020 (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:GS/ZG notification

 * 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. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Obsolete notification template for defunct community sanctions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * GS/ZG notification
 *  Oppose  – Seems to be transcluded some places, so better to leave it and mark it obsolete. It's important to keep a historical record of these things. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , while there are 4 transclusions listed in what links here I don't think any of them are important to preserve. The noinclude list always transcludes all templates nominated for deletion for technical reasons and will go away when the TfD is closed, one is at the template page itself and one in the documentation. That leaves user:Sam Sailor/Boilerplates/Generalsanctions; a user space list of all general sanction templates which I don't see as an obstacle to deletion. --Trialpears (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, what I thought was an actual notification was just someone sandboxing, I guess. I'll strike my oppose, then. These are always supposed to be subbed anyway... RGloucester  — ☎ 19:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2020 (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:Uw-botuhblock
<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 relisted on 2020 July 28. Izno (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Uw-botuhblock
 * 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).