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 --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brett Kirk Medal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm not familiar with Aussie rules football, but this navbox appears to be a list of man of the match winners for a local derby whose article was deleted. Fails WP:NENAN's rule of five, and probably a good example of how not everything needs a navbox anyway. BDD (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So in 6 weeks time when the fifth medal is awarded, it will qualify? Dare I say your nomination is TOOSOON? The-Pope (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I should clarify that I brought up NENAN more as a technical matter. Not everything with fewer than five links should automatically be deleted, of course. Perhaps more importantly, there isn't an actual article on this medal, and given that the match itself doesn't even have one anymore, such an article seems extremely unlikely. Again, I'm not familiar with Aussie football, but I was imagining, say, a navbox of Manchester derby man of the match winners, and it didn't seem likely we'd keep such a thing either. --BDD (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2014 (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) 00:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2014 (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 merge with ((Infobox official post)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ministerial office (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

90 transclusions, redundant to Template:Infobox official post which is often used for the same purpose. See test cases for a few examples. eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge with another in a way that incorporates the office-related colour coding. A proposal to delete this template was already put forward 5 and a half months ago. The reasons for keeping it were outlined in the associated discussion. There was, at the same time, a similar discussion about the deletion of Template:Infobox vice-regal. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the colour-coding have any relation to the content of the infobox (and the article)? To the average reader, it looks merely decorative.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it does indeed. Among the three templates--Template:Infobox Monarchy, Template:Infobox vice-regal, and Template:Infobox ministerial office--the colours indicate a monarchy, a viceregal office, and a ministerial office and then, for when a federated country is involved, whether each of those posts is federal or provincial (Canada)/state (Australia). Each colour is labeled in the infobox as to what it represents. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The title and jurisdiction parameters already serve that purpose, just without the coloured backgrounds. It's also impossible to know what these colours stand for without asking you, since their meaning is not explained in the documentation.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we have labels, why do we need colours? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A governor isn't automatically a viceroy; so, the title parameter doesn't always announce a viceregal office. Nor is a monarch always titled king or queen. The jurisdiction parameter doesn't at all say whether the jurisdiction is federal or state/provincial. The colour coding seems pretty self-explanatory. But, still, putting a coloured block behind the "Monarchy", "Ministry", "Federal", etc. text differentiates that general information text from the text that expresses the more specific information about the particular office. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's all pointless now, anyway. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• merge with Template:Infobox official post. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My argument for deletion since the previous discussion on this topic has not changed. There is absolutely no value in having this template. Nations United (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be fine with a merger that does not include the useless colour-coding 'Ministry" "Federal" labelling. I suppose that is what will happen anyway with the merger of Template:Infobox vice-regal and Template:Infobox official post. It appears this discussion will soon be closed; the result I am assuming is a merger of the two templates discussed, right?

Regardless, I'm just happy to see this ridiculous template go. Nations United (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what you thought the use was in being so pejorative. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mies, it honestly was not my intention to come off as pejorative. I was simply stating the facts and my long-held opinion on the matter. I'm sure you remember my staunch opposition to this template from our previous discussions. Now that the template will most likely be deleted/merged, I'm just expressing my satisfaction to see it go. In no way were my remarks directed toward you. If it came off that way, I do apologise. Nations United (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2014 (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) 02:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox sailing regatta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

New creation with one transclusion, redundant to Template:Infobox boat race. eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 24 February 2014 (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.