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) 03:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles about Indian actors can just use Template:Infobox person. eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fairly recent discussion on WP:ACTOR said the keep awards out of the main infobox, listing them as a separate section. That was the only reason for this template so it should be replaced with the infobox person template. Ravensfire (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as this template do not violate nor badly represented R★S★S (Your Precious Reply) 03:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- - sms- talk    22:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This template wouldn't be deleted in very respective way. Used in several pages so i oppose ! 42.104.2.52 (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not whether it is used, but whether it is redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Andy Mabbett. ChanderForYou 06:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - 42.104.2.52 (talk · contribs) replaced this comment supporting deleting the template with their own comment in support of the template. A few hours later, Andy's original comment was deleted by the same user (probably) on a different IP. These IP's are probably RajanSinghSidhu who several days ago deleted this entry entirely. RSS is probably a sock of the blocked creator of this template, SPI has been opened here, just waiting on the backlog. Ravensfire (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as violating the wikipedia policies. 70.39.186.52 (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've restored .52's this comment, after it was deleted by 42.104.1.81 (talk · contribs). The closer should please check for other deletions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 7 May 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) 03:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

We already have Template:Infobox surname. eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Aside from the duplication, the template has an unnecessary cross-wiki link to Chinese Wikipedia that is potentially confusing. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 05:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it looks like it's a supplemental box to infobox surname, not a replacement of it. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@70.24.250.235: Which doesn't alter the fact that it's surplus to requirements. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 07:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is being used as a replacement, see Liang (surname).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:34, 8 April 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 merged (NAC) Frietjes (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox European football (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox African football (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox European football with Template:Infobox African football.
Rather than creating a new infobox for each continent, it would be better to add the extra fields to the existing template, and rename it Template:Infobox international football awards or something like that. eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merging to target Template:Infobox continental football. Both templates fulfil a similar use. C679 07:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I should add that I oppose the wording "football awards" as it is used on pages where no awards have been won, merely detailing basic details of teams having competed in continental competition. C679 19:56, 3 May 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) 04:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Con Safos Jalapeño (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

the image is used a bit, but this template seems to be unused. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, assuming someone has checked all the uses of the image, and none are substituted versions of the template. Frietjes (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unused. --LT910001 (talk) 04:55, 3 May 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Memphis Redbirds roster navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Minor league rosters change too often for this to be of any use and it has not been updated with anything close to regularity so the information is often out of date or inaccurate. Spanneraol (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and focus on keeping Memphis Redbirds#Roster up to date. Frietjes (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Something being out of date is not a reason to delete. That's why we have ((Update)). I just updated this navbox (took me all of a couple minutes), so this deletion rationale is invalid. If you're against navboxes for AAA teams, it'd be best to discuss it inside the project. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've never been a fan of templates for Triple-A teams.--Yankees10 18:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't an acceptable rationale for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to that page there is no acceptable rationale.--Yankees10 01:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rosters changing frequently isn't a viable reason to remove templates, in my opinion. There's really not THAT many more transactions in the Triple-A leagues on a daily basis than in MLB. Alex (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Most players have articles of their own. The template serves well for navigation within them, and it's easy enough to maintain. Seems useful enough to me. --CrunchySkies (talk) 22:51, 28 April 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:El Paso Chihuahuas roster navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Minor league rosters change way too often for this to be of any real use and it does not seem to be updated regularly so the information is not accurate or useful in any way. Spanneraol (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and focus on keeping El Paso Chihuahuas#Roster up to date. Frietjes (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Something being out of date is not a reason to delete. That's why we have ((Update)). I just updated the Memphis navbox and will now turn my attention to this one, so this deletion rationale is invalid. If you're against navboxes for AAA teams, it'd be best to discuss it inside the project. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've never been a fan of templates for Triple-A teams.--Yankees10 18:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't an acceptable rationale for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did open a discussion on these on the project page.Spanneraol (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Rosters changing frequently isn't a viable reason to remove templates, in my opinion. There's really not THAT many more transactions in the Triple-A leagues on a daily basis than in MLB. Alex (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Most players have articles of their own. The template serves well for navigation within them, and it's easy enough to maintain. Seems useful enough to me. --CrunchySkies (talk) 22:51, 28 April 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 do not merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox valley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (142 transclusions)

Template:Infobox landform (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (47 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox valley with Template:Infobox landform.
A valley is a type of landform. ((Infobox landform)) already looks like a subset of the valley template; merge at the former name but keep 'valley as a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: oppose either merging or deleting. I think merging these infoboxes would cause the same problems that Geobox causes. Specialized infoboxes force editors to use only those parameters that are sensible. Merging to make a more general infobox will allow inexperienced editors to make a mess (similar to Geobox). As long as all of the infobox varieties call ((infobox)), then stylistic consistency is maintained. —hike395 (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think geobox is a good analogy, since one type of geobox is generally not a subset of another. Which parameters in the current 'valley' infobox are not applicable to at least one other kind of landform? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the other way around: ((Infobox landform)) has parameters that are inappropriate for valleys (e.g., |water=, |operator=, |designation=). This is just asking for misuse through unfamiliarity. To me, the whole purpose of specialized infoboxes is that they only allow sensible parameters for the type of entity. This lack of error checking is precisely why I think Geobox is a terrible idea. If anything, we should go through the transclusions of ((Infobox landform)) and see if it is truly required! —hike395 (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can think of valleys which have, individually, each of those features. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, provide the right kind of guidance and the newbies won't cause any disasters; to that end having a well-written documentation and multiple usage examples (as in Template:Infobox officeholder) is essential, having two different templates is not.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep separate per hike395, and clean up uses of ((infobox landform)). Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• After looking through the uses and discussion about ((Infobox valley)), I propose Keep ((Infobox valley)) and Delete ((Infobox landform)). The landform Infobox was designed by User:Droll to be an underlying template not used directly by editors. Many of the transclusions of ((Infobox landform)) were misuses (I.e., stubby mountain or mountain range articles). I fixed a number of those. Some transclusions seem to be geological formations. The remainder seem to be a result of merging ((Infobox cape)). I think that ((Infobox landform)) is simply an incomplete and failed experiment, and should not be used. —hike395 (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please strike one of your two !votes. All valleys are landforms; but not all landforms are valleys, so if we only have one template, the more generic name is appropriate (the other can be a redirect). Why would we not merge parameters when achieving this? what would we do on articles about capes, in your scenario? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I explained my rationale against merging, above (with !vote now struck out). Looking at the misuse of ((infobox landform)), I'm now convinced that a user-facing landform infobox is really not a good idea. I would propose resurrecting ((Infobox cape)), and ((infobox geologic feature)). —hike395 (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ((Infobox valley)) is well designed for a specific purpose. A generalised infobox will not serve the purpose. It is also used for gorges, as for example Chatra Gorge in Nepal. - Chandan Guha (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would a merged template not serve the purpose? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/No Merge A general purpose infobox just leads to parameter clutter and misuse by inexperienced editors. Keeping them separate also allows a list of all valleys to be easily generated for maintenance purposes. RedWolf (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have categories for that purpose; it's not a reason to keep templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there are always some landforms that resist easy categorization. Presently infobox landform does not appear to be misused. Abductive (reasoning) 05:22, 30 April 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 Keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

Only 79 transclusions. Redundant to ((Infobox park)) (2320 transclusions; already used for nature reserves and similar), to which any necessary parameters should be added. This name should then be kept as a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not all uses of ((Infobox forest)) correspond to human-created forests. For example, Cauca Valley dry forests uses the infobox and is a natural ecoregion. It doesn't fit naturally into ((Infobox park)). Now, perhaps it should use ((Infobox ecoregion)), but I think my reason for "Keep" holds for several other articles, such as Forest of Chaux and Forêt de Bouconne. —hike395 (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not the similarity of forests (whether created or naturally occurring) and parks; but the similarity of the two templates. Every parameter in the infobox in the Cauca Valley article is catered for by the park template, except for |disturbance=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How silly. Since when do we get rid of, say, images because they are similar? or policies because they are similar? or get rid of ideas because they are similar? perhaps we could also get rid of some editors because they similar... How trilling to waste sound editing time dealing with over-obsessed distractions like this one. How silly. Mercy11 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • While we do indeed get rid of 'similar' images (jpeg and png; here and on commons, low and high resolution, etc).,, images are not templates it is your rhetorical question which is silly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my argument above: it's not that ((Infobox park)) cannot represent Cauca Valley dry forests, it's that there are parameters that are junk for natural forests, such as |operator=, |founder=, or |budget=. —hike395 (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are certainly natural forests with operators; and with budgets. Otherwise, we seem to manage with optional parameters in other templates, and for other subjects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and I've now added |disturbance= to ((Infobox park)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as proposed if these are merged, then they should not use the name "park", since forests are not parks, per Hike. If they are merged then there needs to be a different name. ((Infobox amusement park)) is separate from "park" -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above, "this name should then be kept as a redirect". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • On that basis, you might as well suggest placing all the parameters from templates such as singer, writer, politician, architect, scientist, baseball player, etc etc etc in ((Infobox person)) and have all of those other templates redirect to Person. How silly. Mercy11 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • In logic, that's called a slippery-slope fallacy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many potential uses; better to deploy rather than merge/ delete. Not equivalent to ((Infobox park)). Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The potential uses may be there; but lack of them is not the reason for nomination; and neither is "equivalence". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to believe that we'd be better off taking instance of "geobox|forest" and converting them to use this instead, given geobox's well-known scope problems. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is indeed an issue, but the conversion could just as well be made to an expanded ((Infobox park)) template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On checking, I can't find "geobox|forest"; do you perhaps mean "Geobox|Protected area"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh. Truth be told, I've no idea how Geobox sub-templates work: however, Amazon rainforest clearly thinks that "Forest" is a subtype, for example. If that does nothing, it's another reason to consider Geobox too complicated to continue using. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • More likely it's undocumented. Meh. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: ((Infobox park)) is already used on, for example Epping Forest, Jenny Jump State Forest, Thetford Forest, Savernake Forest, Delamere Forest, Tillamook State Forest, Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest, Bedgebury Forest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's clearly a lot of overlap between the sort of managed / cultivated forests in your examples and the things that ((infobox park)) covers. I'm not sure, however, that this extends to larger and less managed areas of woodland, particularly outwith the West. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this means we should convert to unmanaged forests to ((Infobox forest)), if appropriate —hike395 (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Since when are 79 transclusions too few? What policy supports this imaginary number mongering? Of course there are going to be more uses of Parks than Forests, just like there are more uses of Artist than People - but we don't get rid of the Artist template on such fallacious basis, nor do we merge all the Artist fields into the Person template. A ratio of 79:2320 (~1:30) is about right: in real life we probably have 1:30 forest:park ratio. A forest and a park are different things. If there is overlap, that's the case with just about every infobox template in existence. How silly. Mercy11 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does the nomination say that "79 transclusions [are] too few"? In what way are the templates not redundant to each other? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep separate, and clean up uses of ((infobox park)) which are about unmanaged forests as suggested. Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 9 April 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) 04:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox rockclimbing crag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (Three transclusions)

Template:Infobox climbing area (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (Thirteen transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox rockclimbing crag with Template:Infobox climbing area.
Similar subjects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I just converted the last transclusion of ((Infobox rockclimbing crag)) to ((Infobox climbing area)). Thus, ((Infobox rockclimbing crag)) is now unused and redundant —hike395 (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, speaking as nom, boldly redirected; requesting closure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hike395.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:41, 8 April 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 merged (NAC) Frietjes (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox French canal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox canal)), into which any required parameters should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge or redirect --LT910001 (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• merge (the main canal template is now backwards compatible with both). Frietjes (talk) 22:42, 21 May 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 reorganize as suggested by Kjello. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest cities of Norway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Most populous urban areas of Norway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Largest cities of Norway with Template:Most populous urban areas of Norway.
These templates seem to be mostly redundant. Also, the statistics don't seem to match up but I believe editors more familiar with them can help clarify this issue. Waldir ^talk 19:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two templates claim to measure two separate things: urban areas (tettsted) and metropolitan areas (storbyområde). This explains the difference in populations. ((Largest cities of Norway)) is not a navbox, but is intended to be content in the article Norway. ((Most populous urban areas of Norway)) is a navbox, so a merger should be out of the question. On the other hand, the way the navbox is structured is highly problematic. Although it uses figures for metropolitan areas, all the links are to cities proper/municipality articles. This is misleading. I notice that is also a new (per January 2014) navbox. What has traditionally been used is ((42 most populous cities of Norway)), which sticks to urban areas. I propose keeping ((Largest cities of Norway)) and deleting ((Most populous urban areas of Norway)). Arsenikk ^(talk) 07:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another look at this template, it seems to be all false information. For instance, if Oslo's metropolitan population is set to 1.5 million (which it can according to certain definitions), that would include areas such as Drammen, Sandvika and Ski (which have their own entry). Similarly, if Bergen's metropolitan population is set for 400k, it would include Askøy. The same could be said about Stavanger and Sandnes. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. A couple notes:

1. You say "((Largest cities of Norway)) is not a navbox, but is intended to be content in the article Norway". That should probably be documented in the template. Is that the case with the analogous templates for other countries? If so, the category should have that note too, and the master template as well.
2. Both ((Most populous urban areas of Norway)) and ((42 most populous cities of Norway)) use ((Navbox with columns)), which makes it easier to select the list, compared to the largest cities template. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, it would be nice to have the nicer html structure in the "largest cities" template. Possibly it would be worth refactoring ((Largest cities)) itself for this.
3. It's hard to find ((42 most populous cities of Norway)) from it's name (low discoverability) and it's unclear, from the title alone, how it's different from ((Largest cities of Norway)), except in the number of cities. Shouldn't it be renamed?

Waldir ^talk 21:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of thoughts from a Norwegian very interested in population statistics.

((Most populous urban areas of Norway)) is a complete mess. The title claims to list metropolitan regions. But the numbers are a mixture of urban area numbers, and metropolitan region numbers. A metropolitan region one should be created, but then named ((Largest metropolitan regions of Norway)). Actually the whole metropolitan regions article need to be updated. The term byregioner hasn't been used by the government since Storbymeldingen back in 2003. After this the term used has been "bo- og arbeidsmarkedsregioner". Which translates to "common living and working region". The latest update I could find from 2013, divides all of Norways 428 municipalities in 160 different regions. Many of them only including one municipality. These regions are then divided in five categories. A:Big city regions, B:Regions with medium size cities, C:Small town regions, D:District centers regions, E:Regions with small or no centre. Category A and B sums up to 20 regions. While adding category C sums up to 51 regions.

As Arsenikk says, the ((Largest cities of Norway)) is only used in the Norway article as content. However, though it claims to list cities, it actually lists urban areas. The term city is equivalent to by in Norwegian. In Norway you have something called bystatus. Or city status. In the old days the king decided which towns were allowed to trade, and to what degree. Because of this, not all urban areas are cities. For instance is Askøy the 25 largest urban area. But don't have a city status.

Statistics Norway now only release numbers for municipalities, and urban areas. But not cities. Because of this, there is great confusion on what is the population of Norwegian cities. When referring to the population of a Norwegian city, most would use the population of the respective municipality. The problem with this is that some municipalities actually have several cities. The other problem with this, is that this would include vast areas of rural land. Which by most people wouldn't be defined as part of the city. Because of this, others would use the number for the respective urban area when referring to the population of a city. The problem with this then, is that some cities have grown together. For instance the urban area of Porsgrunn/Skien includes five different cities. A third possibility, which in my opinion is the most correct one. Is to use the population number of the urban area, that's within that respective municipality. If we take Oslo as an example. Oslo municipality had 613,285 per January 2012. While Oslo urban area had 925,242 inhabitants per January 2012. Of this 607,690 lived within the municipality of Oslo. Which then would be the population of the city Oslo.

The population of the city Trondheim, would then be listed as 167,598. Which is the same as Trondheim urban area. While the population for the city Stavanger would be listed as 124.960. Which represent the population of the urban area Stavanger/Sandnes, that lives within the municipality borders of Stavanger municipality.

There should in my opinion exist four different templates.

1. One listing the largest municipalities of Norway. ((25 largest municipalities of Norway)) serves this purpose. But the numbers are outdated (2008). And the template is only included in 5 articles. It should be included in all 25.
2. One listing the largest urban areas of Norway. ((42 most populous cities of Norway)) lists all urban areas with a population greater than 10,000. But as Waldir asks, it should be renamed as it currently lists 48. And it have to be added to all the articles it includes. One could also ask whether it need to list all over 10,000. The similar templates for Sweden and Denmark lists only the top 30.
3. One either listing all 102 official cities of Norway. Not including any kind of population number. Listing them either alphabetically or geographically. Or a template listing the largest cities, mainly using urban area numbers. But within the respective municipality should the urban area cross municipality borders as mentioned above.
4. One listing the largest bo- og arbeidsmarkedsregioner. Which can be translated to metropolitan regions.

When it comes to these two templates. ((Largest cities of Norway)) is used as content in the Norway article. And should mainly stay as it is. It should however either be changed so it specify that it lists urban areas, and not cities. Or actually list population of cities using my definition of population numbers in cities. Even though they're not official in any kind. While ((Most populous urban areas of Norway)) should be moved to ((Largest metropolitan regions of Norway)). And then be cleaned up so it includes the top 20 bo- og arbeidsmarkedsregioner. Read category A and B.

Kjello (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kjello makes some good points and I would support his proposal on how to organize the templates. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:18, 12 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I also support Kjello's proposal. Additionally, any of the two options for the ((Largest cities of Norway)) template seem reasonable, as long as both the template name, its documentation and its contents make it clear what data is being presented; I'll let the editors more versed on Norway topics make that decision. --Waldir ^talk 16:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always cringe when someone tries to quantify Norwegian cities. The lack of a formal definition, or at least one that has any connection to the average person's concept of a city, makes it very difficult to find sources. Some claims of being a city also seem unlawful to me. The names of the four largest cities are probably uncontroversial, but not their populations. Basing something on our own custom definitions might cause a neverending battle with other editors who update the numbers (in good faith, but without reading any guidelines) according their own definitions. List of towns and cities in Norway suffers from this, but I have long since given up on trying to maintain coherence there. Going for metropolitan areas seems like a safer bet to me, but that should be reflected in the name. Ters (talk) 16:52, 5 May 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Continental Baseball League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I just nominated the main article in the template for a prod deletion, teams aren't notable Secret ^account 19:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete if the articles are deleted, but keep if they are kept. Frietjes (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Articles are notable. Spanneraol (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• All teams deleted via prod Secret ^account 17:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  How did that happen? I removed the prods. Something fishy happening here? Spanneraol (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe the admin who deleted the articles had the pages open and didn't refresh before deleting? In any case, only two articles had been deleted, not all of them as Secret said. I restored the two deleted ones. --Waldir ^talk 16:32, 23 April 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox orchestra concert (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Only five transclusions. Redundant to ((Infobox concert)), into which any required parameters should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace with standard.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:44, 20 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) 14:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• merge, since it will require adding more parameters to the concert template. Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – "type" paramater is enough to accomodate this. Bluesatellite (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I didn't actually check the template before. I agree with User:Frietjes, ((Infobox orchestra concert)) should be merge to ((Infobox concert)) by adding some parameters (orchestra, choir, etc). Bluesatellite (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per Bluesatellite's suggestion. And hurry up please since the deletion message is being reflected across all the concert infoboxes. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:37, 25 April 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only eleven transclusions. Redundant to ((Infobox character)) (Transclusion count: 4,708). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace with standard.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• comment since this is a module, and not a stand-alone infobox, is the proposal to delete the additional information? Frietjes (talk) 01:48, 20 March 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) 14:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As Frietjes says, this is a module rather than a full infobox, and is thus not redundant to its parent template. If there's an argument that none of its parameters are required, that's a different story, but that would need to be examined. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I still support deleting this, it's one thing to have parameters like the name of the character's designer and voice actor, and quite another to add in-universe trivia like nationality/affiliation/etc.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I go back and forth on these infobox character modules. They are meant to be used as modules, which means they are standardized for use within a larger template (in this case, Template:Infobox video game character). However, they are usually for fictional information only (whether you see that as desirable or not). Let me go drop a note at WT:VG. --Izno (talk) 17:49, 24 May 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 keep as a substitutable template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was Keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Template:Infobox Fluss1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template coded in German. Redundant to ((Infobox river)), into which any better or additional features should be merged. If kept, that should only be on the basis of it being a Shimming template, which must be "subst:" (probably by bot) whenever it is used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and subst as suggested by nom. Also recommend it is renamed "Template:Infobox Fluss". Please note this is an extremely useful, much-used template that saves considerable time when translating river articles from German Wikipedia. Normally these types of template are converted to shimming templates (as the nom suggests) and I am happy with that. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how many more of these German-parameter templates did you create Bermicourt? This is just like infobox berg 1 -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a shimming template, to be substituted with Infobox river.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sympathetic to the need to shim data across from other WPs, but this needs to emit a valid en-WP infobox rather than an old-style wikitable. That's been done before for similar de-WP shims. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:11, 7 April 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) 04:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only sixteen transclusions. Redundant to ((Infobox character)) (Transclusion count: 4,708). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace with standard.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per preposition. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unnecessary detail. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• comment since this is a module, and not a stand-alone infobox, is the proposal to delete the additional information? Frietjes (talk) 01:47, 20 March 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) 00:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question With four of us calling for deletion, and none opposing, why was this relisted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear the majority of the editors commenting understood that this is a module, and not a stand-alone infobox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but considering that the extra fields are in-universe trivia (likes, dislikes), I still support its deletion.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Likewise; the fact that this is a module was clear to me when I nominated it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, since the premise that it is redundant to ((infobox character)) is false, and the transcluding articles don't use ((infobox character)), so are we replacing ((infobox video game character)) with ((infobox character)) (pending clarification from the other editors who commented)? Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; this is STILL up? Tell me when you do it, though, so I can fix it in all of the character articles. Tezero (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - template imparts very little factual information--encourages WP:CRUFT Mz7 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only ten transclusions. Redundant to ((Infobox character)) (Transclusion count: 4,708). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace with standard.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• comment given the lack of parameters in common, it would be good to reopen this as a merger discussion, with both templates tagged. Frietjes (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Possibly closer to ((Infobox comics character)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 20 March 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) 00:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• do not replace with ((infobox character)), since there are too few parameters in common. we should start a new discussion if we are merging this with ((Infobox comics character)). Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 9 April 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only two transclusions. Redundant to ((Infobox character)) (Transclusion count: 4,708). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace with standard.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided, in my own opinion. I'm not entirely sure if we should delete the template as a whole; it could still be useful for a number of articles, if it wasn't so specific. Maybe move it to Template:Infobox kaiju or Template:Infobox daikaiju? Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• comment given the lack of parameters in common, it would be good to reopen this as a merger discussion, with both templates tagged, or is the proposal to simply remove almost everything in ((Infobox Toho character))? Frietjes (talk) 01:45, 20 March 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) 00:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• rewrite as a wrapper, then reconsider. Frietjes (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I did an attempt of rewriting the template, is this looking better than the original infobox? --Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace with standard.Dwanyewest (talk) 20:05, 20 May 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only four transclusions. Redundant to ((Infobox character)) (Transclusion count: 4,708). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace with standard.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• comment since this is a module, and not a stand-alone infobox, is the proposal to delete the additional information? Frietjes (talk) 01:48, 20 March 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) 00:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for now, since it's a video game character module, and not a fork of ((infobox character)). if you want to simply have it deleted completely, then we should start a new discussion where the desired outcome is clarified. Frietjes (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I go back and forth on these infobox character modules. They are meant to be used as modules, which means they are standardized for use within a larger template (in this case, Template:Infobox video game character). However, they are usually for fictional information only (whether you see that as desirable or not). Let me go drop a note at WT:VG. --Izno (talk) 17:47, 24 May 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Space:1999 character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only eleven transclusions. Redundant to ((Infobox character)) (Transclusion count: 4,708). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace with standard.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• comment it's already a wrapper, and substituting it would add quite a few blank fields/parameters to the transcluding articles. is the proposal to remove the additional non-standard parameters? Frietjes (talk) 01:50, 20 March 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) 00:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Frietjes is right, this is already a wrapper of IB character.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• With only eleven transclusions, and no new programmes being made, we don't need a wrapper. They should be 'subst:', the blank fields deleted, cruft like hair colour deleted, and the wrapper deleted as proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as a wrapper. Frietjes (talk) 19:43, 8 April 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox domestic cricket season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only twelve transclusions. Redundant to ((Infobox cricket season)) (Transclusion count: 31) of ((Infobox cricket club season)) (Transclusion count: 136). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with IB cricket season.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• comment given the lack of parameters in common, it would be good to reopen this as a merger discussion, with both templates tagged. Frietjes (talk) 01:43, 20 March 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) 00:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for now, since the parameters used by the two templates are so different. Frietjes (talk) 19:43, 8 April 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.