The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox monument (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently similar, and possibly redundant, to ((Infobox historic site)); also in some cases redundant to ((Infobox building)). 286 Transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems to apply to memorial-type monuments, such as Grant's Tomb and the Washington Monument and many smaller ones. Many of which are not buildings. Many of which are not historic sites. Or for which the "Monument" aspect is more paramount than the "Historic site" aspect. FYI, the infobox for historic sites is applied for places which are listed on a local or national or international register of historic sites. In the U.S., the main historic registry is the National Register of Historic Places, which generally does NOT include memorial monuments (though there are many exceptions, where the monument itself is deemed historic). This monument template works for the other cases, where a local Iraq War veterans monument or whatever other modern, non-historic-site, non-building, monument meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. --doncram 19:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grant's Tomb and the Washington Monument are not historic sites? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those ones are both monuments and historic sites. Many monuments are not themselves historic. E.g. a new Iraq War veterans monument put up in a city. And, like I said, the monument nature may be more paramount than the historic site nature of many ones that are both. --doncram 20:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Memorials like the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, which was built in the 1990s, would qualify neither as historic sites nor buildings. --PiMaster3 ^talk 15:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not whether a memorial is a historic site or a building, but whether there are parameters in the infobox under discussion which are not and should not be in one or other of the infoboxes suggested as an alternative. Have you identified any? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is that Infobox monument is the only template that applies. Monuments like the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial or the Victims of Communism Memorial or similar monuments do not meet the criteria for Infobox historic site or Infobox building or Infobox protected area. I can't think of another infobox that those articles would fit in other than Infobox monument. --PiMaster3 ^talk 23:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think "dedicated to" alone renders this sufficiently different in semantics to either of the suggested redirects. ((Infobox building)) should focus on habitable structures (for which dedication is at best a footnote in most cases, rather than the purpose), while ((infobox historic site)) is, in my mind, more for holes in the ground than for the monuments placed to remember them. It's not obvious that modifying the purpose of either of those templates would be an improvement, nor the replacement of this template with either of those on many of its current transclusions. Better that their differences be clearly documented and this template deployed further on the many notable articles on which it's currently missing (Nelson's Column springs to mind). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Chris Cunningham has it right. The template does serve a useful purpose which is sufficiently different from the alternative templates to make it worth keeping. Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Type" (obelisk, megalithic, tomb, mausoleum, tumulus, victory column, triumphal arch) and "Dedicated_to" make this template sufficiently different to the Building and Historic site infoboxes to make it worth keeping. These two fields would not belong in either the Building nor Historic site infoboxes as they would be rendered incompatible with the intended meaning and logical use of the Building and Historic site infoboxes. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Comment. For example, the following two monuments, dedicated -- respectively -- to the Puerto Rican Jibaro and to the Abolition of slavery in Puerto Rico, are neither buildings nor historic sites:
    (1) Monumento al Jíbaro Puertorriqueño.
    (2) Monumento a la abolición de la exclavitud.
    These are just two examples.
    My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:David Bischoff (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There's only 1 article on a novel by this writer. No need for this navbox. INeverCry 18:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Elizabeth Berg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There's only one article on a work by this writer. No need for a navbox. INeverCry 18:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one song with an article, and even if more articles are created, the ((30 Seconds to Mars)) provides all the navigation needed. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but for a completely different reason to the nominator. I completely disagree with his reasoning, but I still believe this template should be deleted because there is only one track in the album that has an article. It completely contradicts what these infobox templates were created for, I mean, ONE track? Why do you need an Infobox tracklist for that? RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 17:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Frietjes (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Chaotic character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only used in one article, and could be replaced by ((infobox character)). Frietjes (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recipients of Philippine Honors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Idea with good intentions, but bad result. There are hundreds (or thousands) of recipients of these honors, and many people are not especially notable for receiving this honor and have little connection to other winners. The template at the moment is far, far from complete (e.g. the National Artist section lists two people, while the article National Artist of the Philippines lists some 50 people; there is no indication how many people have e.g. received the Philippine Legion of Honor). A template that helps navigation from e.g. Felipe, Prince of Asturias to Nancy Pelosi and will.i.am is hardly a usueful navigational aid either. Having a few smaller templates, e.g. one for the Quezon Service Cross, seems much more useful. Fram (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I oppose deletion but changing it to something more like ((US navy department decorations)) is appropriate. Kumioko (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Extremely unwieldy, and linking people with nothing in common. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 04:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I get what you mean Fram. Thanks. I'll do what you suggested-- I'll make separate templates for each type of honor. Just let me make a copy... done! You can delete it now... without waiting for the 7 days.Qzxpqbp (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the links are extremely lumped together in one template. Bordering on being "creepy". It can probably be broken down into several templates to make it look less cluttered. Xeltran (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and create smaller templates. Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus, it appears there was some confusion through the coarse of the discussion about exactly what is in the template, and where it is being used. Feel free to renominate it, or split/rename it, or continue the discussion elsewhere. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ethnic groups in Europe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in only one mainspace article, and contains content that belongs in mainspace, not template space. I suggest the content of this template should be transferred to Demographics of Europe, or to one of its sub-articles (possibly a new list article). NSH001 (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a deletion request, then, but a move request. It is in template space just because it can be potentially used in more than one article. I see nothing wrong with that even if it is currently only transcluded in one page. So, oppose, but if you must you can just move it manually, and retain the current page for edit history. --dab (𒁳) 19:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

actually, it is transcluded in two pages, via the Template:Ethnic Europe redirect, so no, don't move it, it is exactly where it should be. --dab (𒁳) 19:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's only transcluded in one mainspace page, namely Demographics of Europe. It's a quirk (or "feature"?) of the "what links here" software that the same page appears under both the redirect and the main entry. --NSH001 (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake, see under "relisted" below. --NSH001 (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there's not really any other place it could reside, unless you think a separate article on the topic Map of ethnic groups in Europe could be maintained. If you substed it into Demographics of Europe, it'd make that page hard to maintain, with all that coding in the middle of the article. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I leave it up to the editors of Demographics of Europe to decide how to handle this, but it's certainly not true that it can only remain here. In fact the main bulk of this template is the table under the "Data" heading, which is currently only visible to editors viewing/editing the template; this is valuable information, which should be made available to all users to see. One approach would be to move this template to a new page (Peoples of Europe by Demographic Size, say), intended just to hold the reference information. This, at least, has the advantage of preserving the edit history. Then (A) delete all the irrelevant bits in this new page and (B) add the map image in place of the template to Demographics of Europe together with a small number of notes, more or less the same as those appearing at the top the template, one of which will include a link to the new page. Alternatively the data table could be copy-pasted to an appendix in Demographics of Europe (along with adding the map image, etc, as before), but that would lose the edit history. The template should absolutely not be subst-ed. In any case, using a navbox to hold this info is not appropriate, as this is not what navboxes were designed for. --NSH001 (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Move/merge to article Ethnic groups in Europe (actually most of the info is already there). Map is only of very limited practical value and unwieldy, so I oppose adding to many articles. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 04:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Oops, my mistake above. It is, in fact, transcluded in two articles, namely Demographics of Europe and Ethnic groups in Europe. Also, I didn't check the template code, so was unaware that the map was not just a simple image file, but includes a large and complex set of calls of ((Image label)). So, technically, if the map is to be preserved, it will need to remain in a template somewhere, but preferably without all the "data" stuff, and not using the navbox shell (navboxes were not designed for this sort of use). --NSH001 (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As an aside, the source for the "data" section is quite old, so should probably be updated, with consequences for the map, as well as the data. --NSH001 (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USCongressCOTW-Now (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This collaboration template is no longer needed or useful. This collab hasn't been utilized in years. Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Still used and referenced in many places. See below. – SJ + 05:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not used. (see http://sadtrombone.com) —GoldRingChip 12:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USCongressCOTW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is no longer needed or useful. This collaboration has long been defunct. Kumioko (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Used and referenced in many places. Please instead leave a note for WikiProject Congress, which is active; they can clean it up properly. (The right substitute would probably be something like "follow this link to organize a collaboration", not deletion, which would be more work - since the historical page of past collabs will stay up regardless.) – SJ + 05:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not used. (see http://sadtrombone.com) —GoldRingChip 12:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USCOTM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This USCOTM has been defunct for more than a year so this template is no longer needed or useful. If needed it can always be recreated. Kumioko (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up; used and referenced in many places. The template would have to be replaced with some other visual element on many pages. – SJ + 05:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It may confuse people into thinking that the "United States Postal Service" is the collaboration of the month. Should also delete ((Collab-us)). If not deleted, need changing to say that the last collaboration was Dec 2011. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yamazaki Maso (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN Not enough relevant links to warrant a nav box The Banner talk 19:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Navbox has 5 links, Yamazaki has a solo career under the pseudonym Masonna, and was a full fledged member of FT. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-vandalism0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I created this notification in Feb. 2010 as a friendlier alternative to ((uw-vandalism1)), used it a few times and soon forgot about it. Apparently this is still a popular template as you can see from this RFC although uw-vandalism1 has caught up with it in terms of friendliness. I could still see this issued as a Twinkle single-issue notice that "hey, I just wanted to let you know I undid one of your well-intended contributions. Hit me up on my talk page so we can talk about it." In which case it would be renamed Uw-reverted or similar. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and document A non-escalating basic warning is useful, every autoescalating template system should have level-0 warnings. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. I think that the prose for level 1 messages should be less verbose (less "I") and fluffy, that's why I've always argued for a level 0, for those editors who want to warn1, but find the prose just too gooey. --Lexein (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. I agree that ((Uw-vandalism1)) is much improved, but I still think ((Uw-vandalism0)) has a place. PhilKnight (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, please keep. I was one of the editors who commented in favour during the above noted RFC (and elsewhere several times), as I was already using it instead of most of the other vandalism templates. I continue to use it because I am personally allergic to the level one warning in any of its iterations. This level-0 especially works for me because I follow around an 'edit test' and 'accidental mouse clicks' bot (User:28bot), where from its log I pick up most of my reverts and warnings that follow. This is the only vandalism warning that is soft enough for me to place on a user talk page. It is not chiding nor threatening for accidental or experimental edits. Thanks! Fylbecatulous talk 00:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I started using this level 0 message as it was preferable to the revised version of the level 1 message, but unfortunately the level 0 message has now been modified to look too similar to the level 1 message. What I would wish to use is something along the lines of what previously existed here. - David Biddulph (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Per Martin and Biddulph, it should be renamed uw-reverted and have the wordind Biddulph suggested.That will make it more useful for a wide range of purposes, and the title will suggest the appropriate use DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.