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) 00:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Duck Down Music Artists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN and WP:NOTDIRECTORY for the list of albums. Doubtful if the list of artists warrants a nav box The Banner talk 20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. At the very least, get rid of the list of albums. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Frietjes (talk) 21:58, 25 February 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 move to subpage/sandbox of the original template, then discuss further on the respective talk page. It seems there is no objection to simply merging them, but a formal discussion on the respective talk page (or elsewhere) should be initiated first. I would close this as merge, but there are WikiLawyers out there who would object since the merge target was not properly tagged. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ISP test (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((ISP)), and since ((Shared IP edu test)) was deleted, this might as well be deleted too, as well as ((Shared IP test)), ((Shared IP address (public) test)), ((Dynamic IP test)), ((Mobile IP test)), ((Shared IP corp test)), ((Shared IP gov test)), ((SingNet test)), ((Static IP test)), and ((Whois test)). PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is not redundant to ((ISP)). I'd say leave this to the call of Maryana. Ryan Vesey 20:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep them, because they are an improvement on the old templates. However, tests like this should be subpages of the main templates. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 18#Template:Shared IP edu test. Personally, I like these ones more than the traditional ones because they assume good faith, but since ((Shared IP edu test)) was deleted, I figured the rest of them should too for the same reason; if these are kept as "improvements" to the others, then the deletion of ((Shared IP edu test)) should be reconsidered because otherwise this is a double standard of epic proportions by certain administrators who want to assume bad faith with certain IPs which they "think" belong to K-12 schools. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I agree, now we know there are lots of them, it is clear they should all be kept. — This, that and the other (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• These all belong under their respective /sandboxes. Somewhat concerning that a WMF employee wouldn't be aware of that convention as little as a year ago, but no matter. These just need moved. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:56, 14 February 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) 05:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• merge with the non-test version, have a bot update all the transclusions, then move these to either userspace or to the sandbox. we don't need to fork these templates, but I agree that the test versions seem more friendly. note that the author agreed with deletion of Shared IP edu test, so I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be the same case. Frietjes (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment note (sic) that the author agreed with deletion of Shared IP edu test This is another big reason why I have proposed deletion. I would actually like to see the templates be merged with the regular templates, not just including ((Shared IP edu test)), but especially ((Shared IP edu test)); I believe most of our sysops mean well, but as a retail and healthcare worker IRL, I will tell you blocks like this one are just silly. There is absolutely no reason for that IP to be blocked for six months (one week maybe); that IP is blocked for six months because a particular sysop decided to block it to get back at me for questioning his block on another IP, and unfortunately other sysops have decided to escalate the blocks after his expired. These shared templates were created as a reminder to assume good faith, not banhammer all schools, government agencies, corporations, etc. No school or any other IP address with upwards of 10,000 children accessing the internet is ever going to be completely vandal free, and from working in the service industry, I will tell you anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool, and as for IPs being reassigned, I've seen childish edits come from the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Communications Commission, and if something formerly belonged to a school, and is tagged as a school, my guess is that it will be blocked like a school, even if it's over one nurse in a hospital making a test edit. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that, based on [[User:Maryana (WMF}]]'s comment on Shared IP edu test's deletion discussion, I believe the author of these templates misunderstood and thought that we were talking about getting rid of ((Shared IP edu)) in general (including her remake), not just her remake. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• RE: I believe the author of these templates misunderstood and thought that we were talking about getting rid of ((Shared IP edu)) in general (including her remake), not just her remake – yes, I got overly excited by the prospect of cutting out the cruft and missed the part where just the test template was being nominated for deletion :) I completely agree with you, PCHS-NJROTC. The level of specificity in our IP identification templates seems really unnecessary, especially given the negative consequence: it is prohibitively difficult to make small style or copy tweaks to all these templates, as I attempted to do with my test, and retain any kind of standardization. As such, they're all rhetorically messy, redundant, and unclear.

Anywho, I'm highly biased and believe the language of my test version is better than the default, so I !vote keep and use it to replace the old guy, ((ISP)). I mean, who is this copy even intended for? This IP address, IP address, is registered to (({1))}, an Internet service provider, through which multiple users may connect to the Internet via proxy. This IP address may be reassigned to a different user when the current user disconnects. Is this supposed to be read by a vandal patroller/admin who doesn't know what an IP is? I guess I can see that being something important to teach Wikipedia users... in 2004. Probably not so much in 2013 :) But my ultimate very strong preference would be for all these various and sundry IP templates (there are dozens of them) to be merged into one master version that is short, sweet, and to the point. Is that a crazy fantasy? Can we just do it? What's stopping us? Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 4 March 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 for now Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:European Inventor Award Laureates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

incomplete template, superfluous to the article it is coming from. That articles can take care of the links, no need for a separate nav box. The Banner talk 05:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The template is incomplete at this moment. But in my opinion, it does not fall in any of the reasons 1-4 above for deletion.

Nav boxes are common for prize and award recipients, see e.g. Copley Medal, Guy Medal or the Wolf Prize in Arts. Ileresolu (talk) 10:06, 13 February 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) 04:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete for now. I see no issue with adding redlinks to European Inventor Award, working on that article, and waiting to see if the articles are created. if critical mass is reached, then a navbox can be recreated. Frietjes (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or partial Merge as above, with support for eventual recreation. PC-XT (talk) 23:50, 22 February 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 merge the additional link, then delete the ((College Democrats of America)) template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:College Democrats of America (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Democratic Party (United States) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:College Democrats of America with Template:Democratic Party (United States).
All articles in ((College Democrats of America)) have been redirected through AFD. No other additions possibleGrapedApe (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• merge as suggested. with no links, adding a link and redirecting College Democrats of America to Democratic Party (United States) seems like a sound suggestion. Frietjes (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all instances should be replaced with Democratic Party (United States) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an empty, meaningless template, and use a bot to replace the transclusions with the main Democratic Party (United States) template. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need a bot because there's only one transclusion anyway. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:58, 2 March 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 merge the additional link, then delete the ((College Republicans)) template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:College Republicans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Republican Party (United States) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:College Republicans with Template:Republican Party (United States).
All but 1 entry in ((College Republicans)) have been redirected though AFD, and the 1 remaining can be merged into the other one.GrapedApe (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• merge as suggested. although there are still some working links in College Republicans, for consistency, I see no problem with merging it, which would add maybe one more parenthetical link. Frietjes (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all instances should be replaced by Republican Party (United States) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the Republican Party (United States) template; since there are some links in the template (unlike the Democrats' template), I would vote to keep it, but since there's only a handful of transclusions, and there's only a handful of links, it would be better just to merge it. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:56, 2 March 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.