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) 03:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Listen to Your Heart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Those songs and albums have nothing in common besides the same title. Any utility? Bisbis (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – WP:NENAN. --Bsherr (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The template would direct users to their intended entry instead of the top directed link Listen To Your Heart - Pehxinyi (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I've created a disambig page at Listen to Your Heart (disambiguation) and added a link at the top of Listen to Your Heart. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Navboxes are not for disambiguation. PC78 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2010 (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) 01:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - single-purpose infobox used on a single article which is proposed for deletion. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 23:07, 20 October 2010 (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) 01:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Indian athlete (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in two articles, and replaceable with ((Infobox athlete)). Forks based on nationality are an inherantly bad idea. PC78 (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after replacing existing usages per nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2010 (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) 01:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox paranormal person (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used in just 39 articles, and redundant to ((Infobox person)): "Phd" is equivalent to either "education" or "alma mater", "Djob" and "Pjob" are equivalent to "occupation", and "Affiliates" is equivalent to "organization". PC78 (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after replacing with Infobox person. --Bsherr (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2010 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox performer with Template:Infobox person.
Used in just 68 articles. The only unique parameter here is "genre" which is in part being misused for occupations, but we can easily add this to ((Infobox person)) where it would undoubtably have wider applications. PC78 (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2010 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-number1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Uw-number2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Uw-number3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Uw-unsourced1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Uw-unsourced2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Uw-unsourced3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Uw-number1 with Template:Uw-unsourced1.
Propose merging Template:Uw-number2 with Template:Uw-unsourced2.
Propose merging Template:Uw-number3 with Template:Uw-unsourced3.
With no disrespect for the effort that went into creating this template, I think the very new Uw-number templates are redundant to the Uw-unsourced templates. There are infinite possibilities for expansion along this line (unsourced changes to tables, titles, names, templates, references, equations, quotations,...anything). But the remainder of the template is the same as Uw-unsourced, because there is nothing different in the manner Wikipedia guidelines treat unsourced changes to numbers versus anything else. There are no more specific links to provide, and no more specific guidance to give. While flexibility to be specific can be nice, I'm concerned that many users have abandoned using more specific templates in favor of vandalismX or huggleX templates, I think as a reaction to an increasingly overwhelming choice of uw templates with which to become familiar. I think that being very guarded about potential redundancy is the best way to keep the system simple enough to encourage use but communicate the right information. If there's anything innovative or critical that can be merged or introduced with a parser function, I would encourage it, but otherwise, I propose redirecting. Bsherr (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator.(see below) Number vandalism, especially in infoboxes, is particularly insidious, since it's so easily overlooked, and yet creates specific misinformation that is passed on to our readers. With due respect for Bsherr's arguments, which have merit, nominating these templates hours after they were created seems a bit too soon. I would suggest leaving them in place for a period of time -- perhaps three months might be sufficient -- to see if there are signs of their catching on. If not, they can be re-nominated at that time, but if turns out that they fill a need, they can be kept. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence or absence of number vandalism warning templates does not impact the incidence of vandalism to numbers in articles. Protonk (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agreee it's a problem, but can you explain why the solution is a new uw template? --Bsherr (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. It's been my observation that, as opposed to other kinds of vandalism, number-changing is often not reverted, probably because of a lack of specific knowledge by the editor of whether the change may or may not be correct. I believe that, many times, these small changes are, in fact, insidous vandalism and need to be reverted. The number templates provide a pathway for the unsure editor to revert the edits and template the user, without overtly marking it as vandalism per se, at least on the first instance. Subsequent editors can see the number warning, and realize that there's a probable case for continued number vandalism and mark it as such. If this usage catches on, the profile of number-vandalism gets raised, more editors are aware of it, and more feel empowed to revert and template probable numbers vandalism. Yes, the unsourced templates could be used, but they're too general, covering a wide variety of possible edits, whereas the new templates are tightly focused and should (I hope) increase everyone's awareness of the number-vandalism problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • uw-unsourced 1 doesn't imply that a change is vandalism. Besides, other editors will look first in the edit history of the page, not necessarily the talk page of the editor adding the material. I think the concen here is limiting template proliferation. Protonk (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, I agree that's a concern, but still suggest a trial period before deletion, to see if the template is useful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about using a parser function on uw-unsourced? --Bsherr (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I don't know what that means. Could you explain? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this situation, for example, we could edit uw-unsourced so that when called as ((uw-unsourced|content=figures)), it changes the word content to figures (or numbers, or whatever). --Bsherr (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that could be done, I think it would serve the same purpose -- I'd certainly use it. Since my uw-number templates are all based on the unsourced templates (less so for level 3 than the others), it sounds like it could be fairly easy to do for someone with the right know-how. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It can indeed be done, and relatively easily. If the result here is merge, I'd be pleased to make the change myself, with your guidance. I don't suppose you'd be interested in changing your vote? --Bsherr (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, absolutely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, as creator, per discussion immediately above this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2010 (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 for now pending future use, but if it continues to be unused I would anticipate renomination within a few months. --RL0919 (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PlayStation key press (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Has never been used. — Edokter • Talk • 11:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. It certainly was used on Konami Code at one point (and indeed was written with that purpose in mind). It was intended to be a clearer version of ((keypress)) for use with marking up video game console input rather than computer keyboard input. I would suggest there are other deployments of ((keypress)) where ((pskeypress)) would be more suitable. (Incidentally, I didn't receive any notification of this TfD.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sorry about that, it slipped my mind.) — Edokter • Talk • 13:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with Chris here. Not (currently) used, but definitely not useless. --Waldir ^talk 18:20, 6 October 2010 (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) 04:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as orphaned. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reserve for future use. --Bsherr (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2010 (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 to delete. As an alternative, it might be appropriate to deprectate the template and then re-nominate it in the future when it is orphaned or close to it, but I leave that to the editors who have an interest in the situation. --RL0919 (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-SCGGov (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((PD-SerbiaGov)) and ((PD-MNEGov)). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2010 (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) 03:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. So, in 2006, Serbia and Montenegro made like a banana, and split. Everything tagged with this template, which applies to the former union, should now either be subject to Serbian or Montenegran law, or both. Which applies is not a matter I'm prepared to determine in orphaning this template. Unless there's a competent expert here, I'd suggest instead that the template be kept and allowed to orphan unforced. If there is someone prepared to make these determinations, let that person do it, and when the template is indeed orphaned, then we can consider it again for deletion here or via deprecation. --Bsherr (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2010 (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, the backend has been refactored and nominator is happy with the result. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox German district noregbez (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox district (settlement). Frustratingly the restricted paramters arne't allowing me to add even the basic data and new svg locator map form German wiki which the standard infobox would allow. Give me one solid reason why this template isn't redundant?

Look at my example at Ostvorpommern. See how much better it looks than Demmin (district). Ten times better. I am open to a wrapper and keeping this as long as it looks and has the parameter freedom of the Ostvorpommern example but it is still redundant.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A wrapper is the obvious choice if this is still being used in new articles. Once that dries up, the wrapper can be substituted to bring the transclusion count down to zero. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ((Infobox German district)) uses a database (((Population Germany)), using the field "Kreisschlüssel") for its population figures. This is a functionality that should be maintained. If a wrapper can do that, fine with me, let me know if you need help with the population template. Markussep ^Talk 09:11, 15 October 2010 (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) 03:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a wrapper in my user space, you can see it in action at Nordvorpommern. I'm only using fields here that were in the original template, if you need more fields (e.g. coat of arms, map caption) just let me know. There won't be many new articles using this template, only in the case of local government reforms in Germany (there is one planned for Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, I think next year). Germany has 313 districts, AFAIK all of them use this template. Markussep ^Talk 13:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapper is fine by me. The sooner though the yellow maps are replaced with the quality ones the better!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wrapper is live now. Replacing the maps is a manual task unfortunately, I hope you have time to do it. You can find them in commons:Category:Locator maps of districts in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (yellow scheme) and related categories. I added a field for coats of arms too: "image_coa". Markussep ^Talk 18:49, 22 October 2010 (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 Airplaneman ✈ 19:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Catholic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seldom used template; ((PD-US)) suffices with an explanation that the image is from the Catholic encyclopedia printed before 1923. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, easier to use than writing out an explanation. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2010 (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) 03:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, with only three transclusions, using ((PD-US)) will suffice and is more descriptive of why the image is in the Public Domain. The fact that the image is from the Catholic Encyclopedia is already mentioned in the source information. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:30, 28 October 2010 (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 withdrawn by the nominator. This template apparently has another column, named "Contract", so it is likely a useful template. HeyMid (contributions) 17:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Player7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Player4. Why is this one needed? HeyMid (contributions) 15:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Player7 template allows a player's contracted team to be shown in the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doh286 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Players on each AHL team are signed to different contracts. A player can be signed to a NHL contract, AHL contract or an ECHL contract. Doh286 (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, I see. But that's just the addition of a "Contract" column, I see the differences now, but they are very minor... HeyMid (contributions) 18:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the TfD-note ASAP, it messes up all the parameters in the templates it is used. When it comes to the discussion, I'm okay with the template being used as long as the contract part is verifiable and easy to access. However Template:Player4 could be made into Template:Player7 by the use of a parameter |AHL = y, then (( #if: (({AHL))} | )), and enter in the codes in ((Player7)). But I'm unfortunately not the best code writer in here... lil2mas (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. HeyMid (contributions) 22:06, 10 October 2010 (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) 03:54, 20 October 2010 (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 Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Defender class torpedo boat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 1 transclusion. Contains only one blue-link. Magioladitis (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Useless, doesn't navigate anywhere. PC78 (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is ridiculous - of course it doesn't navigate anywhere yet, since the links are red. The antipodean ship articles are being written at quite a pace, so it will one day be needed, even if it's deleted now. In the meantime, those red links might just encourage someone to start writing the missing articles ... Shem (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of a navbox is navigation between existing articles, not to encourage people to create new articles; see WP:NAVBOX. No prejudice against having this navtemplate once those articles are created, but for now it's simply premature. PC78 (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, give me 4 weeks and I'll turn the red links blue. Shem (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no point in deleting and then having to restore in a few weeks. This isn't an article that must demonstrate notability to avoid being deleted, so we can allow it to stay around temporarily while waiting for it to become useful. Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, this template has been around for nearly two years, there has already been ample time to create these articles and it remains to be seen whether or not they will be created in the next "4 weeks". Since the creator has expressed a desire to keep, it should be userfied until such time as it becomes useful to the encyclopedia. PC78 (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2010 (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) 03:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – It seems now to have five transclusions and five blue links. That's useful. --Bsherr (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - the associated articles are now complete. Thanks, Bsherr. Shem (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ;-) Thank you for your article contributions. Note to admin that Shem's above !vote is a second !vote. --Bsherr (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that articles have been created. PC78 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2010 (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.