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) 20:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox New Zealand legislation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is using very similar codes like ((Infobox legislation)) and should be merged. This is a similar case to ((Infobox AU Legislation)) (see TfD). mabdul 21:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• merge. I refactored it as a wrapper to make it clear that the template is redundant, and a merger would be trivial. Frietjes (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested by Frietjes. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (he said begrudgingly) per nom. Note that there are two fields that are specific to the NZ template. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:46, 22 January 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. It is clear that there is no consensus to delete this template, nor will there be. Also, the argument that discussion should not be in articles is flawed, as this is a template and not a discussion. In addition, I think editors should understand that nominating longstanding and widely used maintenance templates for deletion should not be done until after some preliminary discussion on that template's talkpage. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Proposed deletion endorsed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Discussion of an article belongs in Talk or Wikipedia space and not in the article itself. A single prod or specific template (e.g., notability) is sufficient to note concerns and advance discussion without needlessly cluttering the article itself. ElKevbo (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of how this template needlessly clutters articles and promotes discussion within article text that properly belongs in Talk and Wikipedia space. That specific article has now been nominated for deletion where editors who endorse such deletion can do so there. ElKevbo (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - PROD and maintenance templates are completely separate things. Somebody using a long-established template to support a proposed deletion does not "needlessly clutter" articles. GiantSnowman 15:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we discuss deletion of an article in the article itself instead of Talk or an AfD? ElKevbo (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being discussed though. GiantSnowman 15:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone made a statement - "This should be deleted." Other people replied to that statement - "Yes, I agree." I don't know how else to characterize a statement followed by a reply except as a "conversation." Furthermore, I don't understand at all why people even need to use this template because if you agree then you just leave the article alone and it will be deleted anyway unless someone objects by removing the template. We don't use mainspace to vote on whether articles should be deleted; that belongs in Talk or Wikipedia. ElKevbo (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody, who would otherwise have contested the PROD, might agree if 2 people agree; or sometimes the 2nd PRODder will provide a better link to policy/guideline/consensus. GiantSnowman 17:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That all belongs in Talk and not at the top of the article. There is no reason for readers of this encyclopedia to have to wade through that much of our internal discussion to get to an article. ElKevbo (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note There was also a TfD on this template on August 1, 2012, although that discussion was for a proposed merger. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find it's useful for both normal PROD patrolling as well as working through expired PRODs for deletion, especially when the ((prod2)) was left by an editor I trust to be thorough -- it saves me the 5-10 minutes of looking for sources etc. to validate the PROD reason. Moving it to the talk page would be much less helpful, or rather, would result in yet another place I have to look/verify before performing the deletion. Almost all editors who want to "discuss" a PROD are going to remove it, not comment on the talk page. I'd support making it slightly smaller or something so it's less obtrusive, if that would ease the nominator's aesthetic concerns. —Darkwind (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Darkwind's rationales; it's useful, it makes sense, and it saves time. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think you're overlooking the practical applications of the template over the aesthetic appeal in cluttering. I often New Page Patrol and look at items marked for deletion (prod, csd, afd) to check if they've been properly tagged. Lots of newcomers often tag articles incorrectly with out giving WP:BEFORE a good once over. An endorsed prod shows two people have reviewed it and that its more likely to be tagged accurately. It's a checkbox to say another editor has reviewed. Mkdw^talk 04:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Currently, this template, under its alias ((Prod-2)), is mentioned in WP:PROD#Nominating, under the heading "To second a proposed deletion". Since this template is associated with that particular Wikipedia policy, TFD is not really the appropriate venue to discuss this here. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've used this on occasion myself. I will say that there is absolutely some abuse of this tag and that some users have done exactly what was done in the example. However I know that myself and other users have also used the tag to show that we've done a search for sources or some other information and use this as a way to show that deeper research has been done on the subject and nothing was found. I think that this tag is important because sometimes the nominator won't give a detailed reason for PROD and this gives us a chance to back it up with a more detailed reason.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, while just adding "seconded" as in ElKevbo's example is hardly helpful, this template allows easy expansion of weak PROD rationales. It seems counterproductive to hide such additional rationales on the talk page - once the article is de-prodded for whatever reason, we need to go through a full AfD, so we should be able to make the case for PROD as strong as possible where people contemplating removal of the PROD will see it. Huon (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to point out that one abuse of a template, or one non-constructive use of a template, does not render the template itself worthless. Further, this brings up an excellent point - why resort to WP:AFD when you can just WP:PROD? If no one comes to the rescue then it means pulling-out a discussion at AFD, or anywhere, is pointless. As long as a good reason is given for PRODding, discussion will not be necessary, nor would more than one approval template. LazyBastardGuy 01:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I find it's especially useful if another editor actually uses it to provide additional reasoning for having the article deleted. It may provide insight that the original proposer may have overlooked. LazyBastardGuy 00:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perhaps we should make the reason for endorsement field mandatory though, instead of just saying another editor has approved of deletion. Then again, we could also give the original PROD template a mandatory comment field as well - one should always give a reason for wanting an article deleted, so to me it makes no sense to just "propose for deletion", leave it at that, and/or have someone else come along and announce their endorsement of the deletion without providng a reason either. If you can't give a reason, consider giving the speedy deletion criteria a look - maybe they've spelled it out already for you. But I digress. LazyBastardGuy 00:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an improvement. Additionally, if you insist on holding AfD discussions at the top of articles using templates then change the prod template so it has an "endorsed" parameter that other editors can add and increment so it's a tiny "__ editors endorse this prod" to the template's text.

I don't get why you don't simply change the initial prod if it doesn't provide a rationale but you agree with the proposal. Then again, I don't get why anyone need to second such a proposal anyway since it clearly doesn't need it... ElKevbo (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So here's an example of where I find it useful. Say the PROD has a rationale like "Unable to find sources to establish notability." But maybe I don't know the editor who added it, and so I can't even guess how thorough they were in searching. So if I'm the admin coming along to handle the expired PROD, I'm going to have to take 3, 5, 10 minutes or whatever searching for sources before I feel comfortable deleting the article. However, if another editor I do know has added ((prod2)) and said "I was also unable to find any sources," then I can save myself that time. Putting it on the talk page means I'm much less likely to see it before I've expended the effort. —Darkwind (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo That's a pretty good idea. I like that. I think it's possible that editors and/or readers in general are put-off by big proposed deletion templates at the top that can mean you have to scroll down to even see the article (this is especially a problem with articles that have such things as multiple issues templates already attached). I like the idea of endorsing deletion proposals, but I think there's a better way to present it. And I think you might just have it there. In the meantime I advocate keeping the current template as it is until, perhaps, we've reached consensus as to implementing such a measure in the original PROD template. LazyBastardGuy 06:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (again, since this is not the first time this template is nominated for deletion). I just used it to state that improvements made to an article after the original prod were insufficient to address the original prod. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep PROD is for 'uncontroversial' deletions, but sometimes SNOW is in the eye of the beholder. I, for one, find it useful to see someone else's take on my assessment. When someone removes a PROD, they often leave a note in the edit summary (which is helpful to see where they're coming from), but without this template, there's no good way to see if someone agrees with your reasoning. InShaneee (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that I wouldn't be opposed on principle to replacing the template with an 'endorse' switch in the PROD template itself, but that's neither here nor there, for the purposes of this debate. InShaneee (talk) 04:50, 22 January 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) 20:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shared IP edu test (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per discussion at Template talk:Shared IP edu test:

What is the point of this template? There's only one contributor and 80 transclusions ([1]), it's not in Twinkle, and also not (AFAIK) a standard user warning either. Should it be obsoleted and redirected to the standard Template:Shared IP edu? ⁓ Hello71 15:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I bet what happened was that this was created before all the educational institution IPs became widely known and specified in unique, specific shared IP templates. Since all the big educational institution IPs are pretty well known at this point, this template doesn't seem necessary. I'd recommend archiving or deleting. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

⁓ Hello71 13:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a less-useful duplicate of ((Shared IP edu)). However, the template concept is useful, for example when coming across a high school or local school district or some such that hasn't yet been tagged. We have by no means tagged anywhere near the sum of the educational institution IPs that are out there. —Darkwind (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the name already indicates: it is/was a test (I guess). mabdul 23:13, 19 January 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) 20:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Csoc link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless template, I fail to see how ((csoc link|2011|sex=men|team=Maryland Terrapins|school=University of Maryland|title=Maryland)) is any more useful or efficient than simply writing [[Maryland Terrapins men's soccer|Maryland]] (which is what would be produced. GiantSnowman 10:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unnecessary obfuscation and complication of linking. Frietjes (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. It was maybe useful in 2011, but at least now it is only decreasing the server resources. mabdul 23:13, 19 January 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 rename. It appears there may be some consensus for simply renaming the template. If this is not a solution, please feel free to renominate the template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Historical capitals of the Arab Empire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template suffers from a lack of clear scope and probably NPOV & OR problems. At present, it seems to list rather arbitrarily the capital of any major Arab Muslim state. "Arab Empire" is indeed a term used for the early Caliphate under the Rashidun and Umayyads, but it is very questionable whether the heavily Persianized Abbasids can be labelled that, and even more whether the capitals of regional states like the Fatimids, Ayyubids, or al-Andalus can be called "capitals of the Arab Empire"... The template should either be re-focused on the "Capitals of the Caliphate", in which case most cities should go and Istanbul too should be included, or to something along the lines of "Capitals of medieval Arab Muslim realms". Constantine ✍ 09:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and create templates for each Caliphate (e.g. ((Capitals of the Umayyad Caliphate))). This seems more appropriate IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep , i understand Constantine 's perspective, and might need to change the header, but to delete it would not benefit a purpose, as it makes it easier for readers to understand, find, and perceive when, where and what were the capitals of the Empire and its realms ... change into "Capitals of medieval Arab realms" since all medieval Arab realms were Muslim, so no need to include that, as their is no alternative to "Muslim" in any Medieval Arab Dynasty.

--Arab League User (talk) 19:15, 2 January 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) 05:18, 18 January 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) 21:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wind turbines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

absurdly short sidebar which doesn't provide any navigational aid over that of an adequately-linked article on its subject matter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:28, 8 January 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) 04:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, redundant to Template:Wind power. Frietjes (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Frietjes. mabdul 23:13, 19 January 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) 23:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Boston Celtics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, <300 uses. If possible, convert to wrapper or redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:50, 8 January 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) 04:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete after updating all the transclusions. Frietjes (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. mabdul 23:13, 19 January 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) 21:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Texas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WikiProject Austin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, 110 transclusions. If possible, convert to wrapper or redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 8 January 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) 04:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, and I have joined ((WikiProject Austin)) to the discussion, since it is a subproject. Frietjes (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. mabdul 23:13, 19 January 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) 22:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Pennsylvania State University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. If possible, convert to wrapper or redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 8 January 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) 04:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. mabdul 23:13, 19 January 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) 22:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Roller Coasters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. If possible, convert to wrapper or redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:45, 8 January 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) 04:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. mabdul 23:13, 19 January 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 after reducing detail. If you still think it should be deleted, feel free to renominate it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tony Blair Cabinet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and redundant to Blair ministry#May 1997 to June 2001. Frietjes (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Very messy template -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Belongs on Tony Blair and functions identically to both predecessors and successors Gordon Brown Template:Brown_Cabinet, Edward Heath Heath Cabinet, John Major Template:Major Ministry, Margaret Thatcher Template:Thatcher I Cabinet, etc. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment none of those other templates are this large, even if you combine all of them together. How is it that Blair has such a large template and Thatcher doesn't? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Blair's template, unlike the others, specifies each person's position. Nyttend (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fundamentally, this is article content masquerading as a template. All of this information belongs at Blair ministry, but is not a useful navigational aid. Resolute 21:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Cut down and keep. It's quite helpful to have a navbox for Blair's cabinet members, but the massive size makes it unwieldy. Just reduce it to the names-only format of ((Heath Ministry)) and we'll solve this template's problems without losing its advantages. Nyttend (talk) 18:16, 15 January 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) 04:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - how can a navigation template be redundant to an article? GiantSnowman 21:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it's a list article in all but namespace. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:54, 19 January 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.