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.
Delete without replacement. From a quick glance, it's obviously not very useful. It doesn't show any information that could not be displayed in an image caption. For an example of this, see this diff where the infobox was completely removed without any loss of information.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Nathan Phillips Square. This template includes a dot map to indicate the location within Toronto. That's useful, no? Alaney2k (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could be improved, but it already looks better than a simple thumbnail and caption. It's not being used much, so I guess it was not a successful addition. Alaney2k (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete, replacing with ((infobox garden)) in the garden article, and simply removing in the other two articles. or, create a ((infobox structure)), which would be like ((infobox building)) but for non-building structures. Frietjes (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I could be persuaded to change my vote since the nominator said there are "more specific templates" available. I just don't have an example I can find. But the argument that it isn't used is not a good enough reason for me to vote to delete. I see that the Pioneer Courthouse Square article has no infobox and could be served by this template. So it would lead me to believe (at least in this case) that the template has been available but gone unused by editors. That seems like the fault of the individual page editors not the template. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I disagree that the settlement template is sufficient in place of the urban feature template. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have worked to improve the template's appearance and am working on the doc. I hope that people will be persuaded as to the value of the template. Alaney2k (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to persuade me and others of the need for this template, please provide examples of articles where no more-suitable infobox is already available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this template is useful for public squares, public stairways and fountains. These all are odd fits for infobox park and infobox street. Those are NOT more suitable, although they can be used. Just because they CAN be used does not make them more suitable. This template has pretty well all of the features of infobox settlement, plus specific items suitable for the mentioned urban features, like surface, area, steps, features, designer, manager and amenities. Alaney2k (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you for "examples of articles where no more-suitable infobox is already available"; you offer none. Squares and stairways (all cases of which are public thoroughfares) can use infobox street (nor infobox park); fountains can use infobox artwork. If either of those templates - which are highly suitable for the cases given - is deficient in some way, it can be improved; we don't need to create new templates in such cases. The template under discussion had been used on four articles after four years; you only began to use it elsewhere when I nominated it for deletion. Neither is the fact that this template is a fork of infobox settlement a reason to keep it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Alaney2k has reverted several of my edits, in the belief that his new template is "better" than those with several thousands of instances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you should wait for the discussion to end. Frietjes (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In other cases, you ask me to do the opposite, and demonstrate redundancy; as I did here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's the way it goes. At least all the articles have infoboxes. Infoboxes are so useful and better than none at all. Alaney2k (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do miss the dot maps. That feature is not available in the other infoboxes. Alaney2k (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not available for a reason. We don't fork templates - much less, well-used templates - in order to add individual new features. If you believe such templates need maps, please raise the issue on their talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then this template serves a purpose - for extra information. I say keep until we add similar features elsewhere Alaney2k (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What extra information? The existing infoboxes already include parameters for coordinates, which link to maps. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep and rename, since steps are not streets. Frietjes (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So? Neither are lanes, groves, drives and other highways not called "Street". Infobox street is perfectly adequate for articles where steps, or squares, form what UK usage terms a public highway. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Squares are not streets. --ELEKHHT 22:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename since we only have infobox street and infobox park, an infobox square would be very useful, and this one is a good start for that. --ELEKHHT 22:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(per your edit summary) Some squares are streets; most if not all are public thoroughfares. Streets and squares are much closer to each other in function and attributes than the disparate hotchpotch of feature for which this infobox was deigned. We use infoboxes according to their features; not their name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, squares are not streets. Infobox street already includes several fields which are not relevant for streets, but relevant for squares, which is confusing. Thus indeed infobox street could be renamed into "infobox urban feature" or better "infobox urban space" and this one deleted. Or, much better, one could improve this template to become a more specific infobox square as per its current usage, and transfer the relevant fields from infobox street (i.e. area) and add other ones as per de:Vorlage:Infobox Platz. --ELEKHHT 23:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, some squares are streets; most if not all are public thoroughfares. We have many infoboxes which have parameters which are relevant for some but not all uses, often mutually exclusive, and no-one has died. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps for a layman, but an encyclopedia should consider urban studiesknowledge. But agree that is not a matter of life or death. --ELEKHHT 01:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be infobox public square, and could automatically add the appropriate cat. Elekhh, what would you propose for public staircases? Alaney2k (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
((Infobox street)) is already perfectly adequate for public staircases (which, again, are type of thoroughfare). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alaney2k, looking at the ones that currently use this infobox, some are dynamic public spaces that are part of the street network and have similar function as streets (i.e. Selarón), others are more static spaces that are used in similar ways as squares (i.e. Spanish Steps). As there are relatively few articles of this kind, they could stay as currently included in both infobox street and infobox public square or alternatively have a distinct infobox (although I have a sense that some would like to see them all merged into a generic infobox space of flows).--ELEKHHT 23:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to solve naming issue. (I could see moving to this more general name.) —PC-XT+ 15:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since this is not a merge discussion, I have changed to keep/rename. —PC-XT+ 22:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@PC-XT: It's not a merge discussion, because all the necessary parameters (though not the cruft) are already in ((infobox street)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of infobox street when I said merge and redirect. (Not that much really needs to be merged.) I may support only redirect, but think the name of the final template should be more general, and that doesn't really fall into this discussion. I think a merge discussion would be better suited, even if nothing is to be merged. (I know that sounds counter-intuitive. I am close to changing to redirect, as names don't really matter in templates. It could just as well be called Template:IB-CITY7592478 for the same functionality. That would, however, be a rather bad name for most humans to remember.) —PC-XT+ 23:36, 18 March 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.
Template:Infobox IYPT
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.
Single use (on page about International Young Physicists' Tournament 2011). Redundant to more generic event or competition template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes, recurring event would be possible, but that wouldn't support the information being presented. this is somewhat like a sporting competition? Frietjes (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Infobox paranormal place
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.
Only nine transclusions. Labelled as "experimental". Redundant to ((Infobox settlement)), or other geographic infoboxes. Contains no unique parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without replacement. The parameters are not informative, they don't include any information that you would not expect to find in the lede. Some, like 'Owner' or 'Terrain' are just plain pointless, seeing how they are currently used in articles like Boy Scout Lane. Any article with a ((coord)) template and a lead image has no need for this infobox.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
do not replace this with ((infobox settlement)). Frietjes (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I like the look of this template, but I'm at a loss with what to replace them with. Infobox settlement just isn't appropriate for these articles. --Aurictalk 04:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is "Infobox settlement, or other geographic infoboxes". For which article are you unable to find a replacement template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The template is now orphaned. Each instance has been replaced with an alternative infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There really isn't any location that's verifiably a "paranormal" place. There are places with legends and claims attached - but for those we don't need anything other than a regular geographic infobox. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Infobox Upper Hutt suburbs
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 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.
Keep as a shimming template, but replace all instances with Infobox mountain.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a wrapper or shimming template (is there a difference?) and ensure any parameters not in ((Infobox mountain)) are added to the latter. And rename to ((Infobox Berg)) if possible. These types of template are very useful in speeding up translation and transfer of articles from German Wiki. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-English template with non-English parameters. Speedy Delete T3 if possible, since it duplicates an existing English language template. If translation templates are really needed (exactly how many mountain articles are being translated? Or will ever be translated?), it should be a substitution only template. This should not exist as a usable transclusion template as it is not English. If it is substituted, it should result in a normal English infobox mountain -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. You clearly haven't done your homework and checked how many pages still link to this template, but there are several hundred. And there are probably a few thousand still to be translated. As a German-to-English translator, trust me, this template and others like it are extremely useful and save translators significant time because we don't have, time and again, to change every single parameter. Sure, over time, the template can be substituted, but that can be done by anyone without any real language skills. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not check the German Wikipedia to see how many mountain articles are there that are not on English Wikipedia, no. However this should not be used on English Wikipedia It is being transcluded on English Wikipedia articles and this should not happen. It is not using English parameters, therefore is not an English template, meaning unilingual monoglot English users cannot edit these articles. This should immediately be replaced by the English language infobox. This fails using English in a fundamental way, making our coding not English, and therefore our articles not English. As I said, if we need this it should be a substitution template that translates everything into the English infobox on substitution. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant check the links on English, not German, Wikipedia. The fact it's in German is of little consequence because the template comes across complete and needs little modification. Trust me, I do this all the time. There is only an issue if someone wants to modify or add to it but, guess what? There is a socking great table in English in the Infobox documentation that explains precisely what each parameter is. Anyway, calm down, I think we're furiously agreeing that this should be a shimming or substitution template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bermicourt (talk • contribs) 20:10, 20 February 2014
We're agreeing that if this is kept it should be a shimming template (substitution template). But your lodged opinion says it should also be usable as a wrapper? (Wrapper templates are not substituted); (ie. ((infobox person)) is a wrapper for ((infobox)) ) Any uses currently on English Wikipedia should be changed to the English-language template. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the proposal which says it "should be made a wrapper... and always 'subst:'". I'm assuming we mean each parameter gets substituted so the data is retained. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a shimming template. This is a useful template for translators. - tucoxn\talk 21:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a subst-only shim/wrap/template —PC-XT+ 11:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Infobox Tin Pan Alley
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.
I made this template because I was looking for a template which allowed publishing info to be used with audio or video recording embedded in the info box. At the time I didn't think that ((Infobox song))/ ((Infobox single)) quite had the right criteria. Looking at it now, I think that ((infobox musical composition)) may be a better fit. If it makes Wikipedians happier to remove this, then OK. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with infobox musical composition.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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.
Template:Infobox New Wave
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.
Single use. Redundant to more generic (news) event, concert or competition template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about replacing it with this one: Template:Infobox reality talent competition.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Infobox binational animation
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, adding any useful parameters to the main template. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 02:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with animanga, which should not be specific to any one country.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge as suggested. I started a thread at Template_talk:Infobox_animanga#Two_languages to discuss the best way to get a second language into the template. I used a hack to get it in for the time being (see Blade of the Phantom Master), but we won't need the hack once there is support for more than one language. Frietjes (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:List of lymantriid genera
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.
Delete per nom —PC-XT+ 06:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I feel sure this has been discussed before. I support the merging of the more specific (Infobox monarch) into the more general (Infobox royalty.) DBD 22:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. per nom. Repeated info is not needed. MarnetteD | Talk 03:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This infobox was discussed here before, and the discussion was closed as merge. Why are we discussing it again?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once all relevant unique fields will be incorporated into the new merger I Support merge.
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.
Three links, all appear on the person's main article. Gloss • talk 20:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete, better served by a see also section, or regular in-article links. Frietjes (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not necessary, a see also section is sufficient and does not require inclusion of a template. Hekerui (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think it looks nice and it helps users with navigation instead of having to go down to the bottom for 'see also', it could take the place of see also LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lady Lotus: Hey, just out of curiosity. You voted keep here and delete here when that sidebar is the same as all of these. Do you only believe that sidebars with more than two links should be kept? Your rationale here doesn't really match up with the rationale there, so I'm just looking for some clarification, if you don't mind! :) Gloss • talk 19:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only voted against that one because it only has two links, I didn't mean to be wishy-washy, I still like the templates, but for only 2 links doesn't seem totally necessary. If her filmography was on another page and could be added to the template, then I wouldn't vote against it. It just looks bare. That's all. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the eloquent Lotus. The format is much more compact than the see-also section. Kudos to the person that created the new look. We need more experimentation like this. I think the wikicommons and wikiquote links should be here too. The current version at the bottom tends to crowd the reference section. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Frietjes. Tiny that templates that serves no real function. Nymf (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like the sidebars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.178.147 (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think they're a neat (literally, not "neat" as in American slang) way of linking users to these pages. If I'm honest I don't feel strongly either way, I just want this closed soon because each of the articles currently look ridiculous with a "this template is under discussion for deletion" statement slap bang at the top. See Philip Seymour Hoffman for instance: it's been like this for a few days now and looks horrible. Please can we get rid of it ASAP. --Loeba(talk) 22:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They make the articles look more formal and organize sub articles in a way where they're easier to access. Rusted AutoParts 05:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't make navigation any easier than presenting just links. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These links should already exist clearly in the articles, either as {main} section links or see also. There is no need at all for sidebars, which should be used for linking a wide array of related articles not necessarily already in the article. Reywas92Talk 05:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete the useless 'filmography' and 'awards' sections that these articles usually have, which don't actually have any information but only have the links to the filmography/awards articles. The pages will look more ordered and are easier to navigate this way. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Delete per Reywas92. Well said. --Artoasis (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TrueHeartSusie3, they're helpful, unlike the tacked on filmography and awards sections at the end of articles. I like it tells me De Niro's age without having to do maths, too! BillyBatty (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sidebar tells you De Niro's age? Are you sure you are not referring to the infobox? Nymf (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The navigation is easier. AugustinMa (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The navigation is easier. But I have always felt that the font is too small for people to notice, a slightly bigger font would make this template much useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amateurmoghli (talk • contribs) 04:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Chunk5Darth (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful template, and support the increase in font. --KRIMUK90✉ 06:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too small and insignificant to improve page clarity and navigation. Only reason I even saw it was because of the 'this template is up for deletion'-notice that broke the layout on the Philip Seymour Hofmann article. Anyone interested in either filmography or awards will be coveniently linked there through the reference in the correspondig paragraph. JulianFT (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think there's some merit to the idea of consolidating the links in that area, but there's already an "awards" section of Template:Infobox person that can be adapted for that use, and it'd be similarly easy to add a filmography toggle that could be used if necessary. --fuzzy510 (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am adding Template:Christian Bale sidebar to the list, as the discussion links here, but the template itself is not linked. --fuzzy510 (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unneccessary if the links already exist in the article. Wrong use for a sidebar. - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not seem to aid navigation in the fashion of a standard sidebar. --Izno (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – These links can be summed up in the "see also" section. The template only has three usable links anyway. And also for those of you who claim that "navigation is easier", are you all too lazy to scroll down to the bottom of the page? Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Superfluous to "See also"; decoration-cruft. OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially agree with Ohnoitsjamie, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:42, 8 March 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.
Template:Infobox Indian state government
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.
Keep:Numbers alone not adequate justification, particularly because it appears that India has twenty-eight states and seven union territories, so the majority of state governments appear to be transcluding this box. I like that it has headings customized to that nation. I compared it to infobox legislature parameters and as it is used at Montana legislature and California State Legislature. My sense is that infobox legislature, in an attempt to have a worldwide focus, is neither user friendly or easily customizable, though it can be done. The India infobox is simpler to use and appears to be transcluded to most relevant articles. I'm put in mind of ((infobox person)), which sometimes is the best that can be used, and IS highly customizable if you know what you are doing, but I'm one of the people who finds the xyntax and markup to be a bit mind-boggling, and so is sometimes more helpful to the non-technically-inclined (such as myself) when a simpler one is used, such as ((Infobox horseracing personality)), for example. JMO Montanabw(talk) 20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep, pending a demonstration of redundancy (e.g., sample conversion, sandbox with testcases, etc.) Frietjes (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)keep, the sample conversion demonstrates that the template is not redundant, as the use of too many generic fields is "harmful for data granularity". Frietjes (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The pointed claim that this is "harmful for data granularity" (quoting me from another debate) is, in this case, both unfounded and unsubstantiated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I made a sample conversion. In order to do this properly, we need (if we wish to include them) to add a seventh set of "leader" parameters; a parameter for the number of seats in the second chamber, and parameters for the judiciary, to the legislature template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a relevant infobox template, simplifying presentation into "Executive", "Legislature" and "Judiciary" blocks, as is the case in Indian central and state governments. "Only 44 transclusions" may not be a valid enough reason to delete the template. There are only 29 states in India. We should see whether it helps in simplifying or improving presentation, is more specific to a certain important class of articles (more than 20 in number, maybe?), etc. Delete if the same presentation can be achieved by Template:Infobox legislature. But I think it is not so. --Sarthak Sharma (talk) 17:08, 10 March 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 rewrite as a wrapper template. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 03:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, if infobox sportsperson has parameters to incorporate Olympic medalists or if such parameters can be added. Must note that we have infoboxes for other Olympic atheletes, such as ((infobox figure skater)), though, admittedly that one has a lot of transclusions. Montanabw(talk) 20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
convert to a wrapper template. Frietjes (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a wrapper of Infobox sportsperson.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to wrapper —PC-XT+ 07:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge to gridiron football person per nom. Given the low transclusion count, it's likely that most biographies of Arena Football players already use the gridiron infobox.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge to American football per nom; looks like parameters are almost identical and any differences can be fixed so all relevant info is included. Montanabw(talk) 20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge with gridiron person. Frietjes (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom —PC-XT+ 07:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been updating the Arena Football League player and team pages as much as I can, and when I see this infobox, I just replace it with the NFL player infobox. DMC511 17:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
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.
Delete, Andy's reasoning is sound, having to replace the infoboxes of players once they retire is time-consuming and unlikely to yield benefits commensurate with the effort.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete:per the above. Indeed, if the existing boxes don't have retirement data fields, it will be easy to add them. Montanabw(talk) 20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge with gridiron person. Frietjes (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with any appropriate replacement —PC-XT+ 07:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge to infobox royalty or something similar, be sure that the proper parameters unique to caliphs, if any, are added or existing parameters edited to keep worldwide focus. Montanabw(talk) 20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge with infobox royalty. Frietjes (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I created a version of this template based on IB royalty; see the test cases.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:59, 1 March 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.
Weak support of merge: Again, the "only 40" argument doesn't wash with me, as this is a rather unique office, 40 is a fair number, and its use would have a set limit; looking at its use at Governor-General of Belize, I would agree that the appropriate merge target is an infobox for appointed government officials, such as cabinet ministers, ambassadors, etc... Montanabw(talk) 20:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with another in a way that incorporates the office-related colour coding. As Andy Mabbett knows, a proposal to delete this template was already put forward 5 and a half months ago. The reasons for keeping it were outlined in the associated discussion. There was, at the same time, a similar discussion about the deletion of Template:Infobox ministerial office. --ĦMIESIANIACAL 21:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for deletion and instead using Template:Infobox official post, without adding the silly color coding. There is no good rationale for a separate infobox, other than for the odd insular commonwealth realm monarchist who rejoice in being fanatically loyal subjects of Her Britannic Majesty.RicJac (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I rather think your asinine personal attacks should void your input. --ĦMIESIANIACAL 01:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete, since there appear to be no objections to the fact that it was orphaned. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 02:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the parameters of this module for Infobox person are very specific and underused. Details such as the format and camera most commonly used by the photographer should be integrated into the articles' prose rather than remain in the infobox.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ((Infobox artist)). I noted that articles such as Annie Leibovitz and Ansel Adams use infobox artist. This allows additional parameters unique to artistic professions and if needed, photography-specific parameters could be incorporated into that infobox. I disagree that certain details are all that helpful in article text unless it's something real unique, sometimes the infobox is the only place they need to be. Montanabw(talk) 20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge with ((infobox artist)), but this discussion should be restarted as a merger discussion, with editors of that template invited to comment. also there seems to be some confusion about this particular template, since it is only used as a module with ((infobox person)), not as a stand alone infobox. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no confusion on my part, which is why I nominated it for deletion (not merging) as it is "redundant to the |Known for= parameter of ((infobox person))". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have just examined all instances of this template, and removed those with uncited claims, trivia or dubious assertions ("digital" asserted as the medium for a photographer whose article shows an example of his work, dated 1984), this template is now orphaned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete, Infobox person might be a better fit for those without formal religious titles.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge: Though not all Christian leaders use the title "minister" also, "Minister of Religion" may not be only Christian, but it appears that's the only place it is being used. Montanabw(talk) 20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete and replace with sportsperson, I don't see many parameters specific to the sport.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge, will require adding position, shoots, and career information. Frietjes (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was merge basketball biography and WNBA biography, but no consensus to merge basketball official. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 05:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. If anything, 'Infobox WNBA biography' should be merged to a gender-neutral 'Infobox basketball biography.' Also, 'Infobox basketball official' is a distinctly different kind of infobox and has no reason to be merged. This was a poorly thought out nomination. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be intrigued to know why you think you know what I've been thinking; but your comment "'Infobox WNBA biography' should be merged to a gender-neutral 'Infobox basketball biography" suggests that the deficiency of quality of thought is on your part; that is what you are "strongly opposing". Perhaps you might reconsider? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"If anything" Jrcla2 (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Infobox WNBA biography to Infobox basketball biography (I see no indication that the proposal was for the opposite, though).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I notice football coaches, such as Vince Lombardi seem to be using the player boxes, but I question merging officials, as their duties are very different, and while most no doubt have been players, they aren't now, Montanabw(talk) 20:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC) and[reply]
Merge WNBA into basketball players generally, a systemic bias issue to not give women players the same level of professsional respect as men. Montanabw(talk) 20:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
do not merge Template:Infobox basketball biography and Template:Infobox basketball official with Template:Infobox WNBA biography, but do merge Template:Infobox basketball official and Template:Infobox WNBA biography into Template:Infobox basketball biography. Frietjes (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per reason above. The title would be misleading. Support a reverse merge from the NBA (basketball official) and WNBA template to the basketball bio. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to infobox:basketball biography, but there may need to be some changes to basketball biography and there definitely would have to be discussion on how WNBA info should be displayed since the WNBA box handles things differently. Rikster2 (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. Deprecate Template:Infobox WNBA biography and Template:Infobox basketball official I don't understand what is unique about WNBA versus every other basketball league. WNBA bios should use ((Infobox basketball biography)), with no changes to Infobox basketball biography, without specific discussion on any changes deemed necessary. Viewing the 11 transclusions of Template:Infobox basketball official, they use nothing more than what Template:Infobox person already provides; it would be inappropriate to use Infobox basketball biography for officials a.k.a referees, as very few of the parameters apply.—Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that since the WNBA plays in the Summer, it is routine for players to play for 2 teams alternately for years. Would we really want an infobox with 6 Indiana Fever entries and 6 Galatasaray entries? The other fixes we'd need are to create the ability to specify WNBA draft info and create a Womens HOF indicator. Rikster2 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Draft changes seem reasonable. I don't think existing WNBA template has any Hall of Fame parameters. I don't see any HOF parameters at doc for ((Infobox WNBA biography)), nor does Rebecca Lobo have any indicator in her article (she is in women's HOF). At any rate, women are eligible for Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, which is already supported by Infobox basketball biography. I also randomly found that former WNBA player Tammy Jackson already uses Infobox basketball biography, even without any changes; not sure how widespread that is for WNBA players.—Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If college and FIBA basketball HOF exist in basketball biography (and they do), then so should women's HOF if we are going to start putting womens players in basketball biography (which I support, btw). Should be an easy fix, though. Rikster2 (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no problem with women's HOF enhancement.—Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Limited merge of Infobox WNBA biography into Infobox basketball biography. Deprecate Template:Infobox basketball official Revised recommendation per discussion above. Infobox basketball official is more suited for Template:Infobox person.—Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge WNBA and player Keep official separate. -DJSasso (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason to delete in infobox templete. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 12:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@NintendoFan: We're discussing merging three infoboxes; you refer to only one. The reason for merging similar infoboxes is to reduce the workload on those who maintain them; and to make things less confusing for editors who ahev to choose which to use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the infobox contains useful information and should remain. Vincelord (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Vincelord: We're discussing merging three infoboxes; you refer to only one. If two or all three of the infoboxes are merged, all information displayed by instances of them will be retained. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Infobox basketball biography and Infobox WNBA biography, but keep separate Infobox basketball official. WNBA appears superfluous to basketball biography, but official is not. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge per nom. Many of the parameters of the two templates are identical, their appearance is similar, and so is their function.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge biography and player, support separate box for umpire per my comments on the basketball one above. Montanabw(talk) 20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge provided no necessary information (e.g., crew for umpires, etc.) is not lost. GoPhightins! 22:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge bio and player Keep umpire separate. -DJSasso (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge bio and player since we seem to have consensus and to get rid of the merge notice at the top of all 20,000+ pages that have these templates. Keep umpires separate since items like "debut", "bats", "throws", and stat parameters are not appropriate for them. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge bio and player and ASAP per Muboshgu. The merge notice is unsightly. – Connormah (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can some administrator or someone please speedily close this and merge? I agree with the above that the template is highly ugly atop some 18,000 pages. GoPhightins! 02:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge bio and player - Keep umpire separate as per above, since some parameters don't apply to umpires, other's not to players, etc. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 21:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as stands I would support a merging the MLB page into the baseball biography. Contrary to popular belief, several minor league players meet the WP:GNG (example Ollie Carnegie). Even if the parameters are the same the name of the template would be misleading. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose speedy merge under any grounds. The idea that it looks ugly is silly. It's important to build consensus. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were clear this would be a merging of the MLB template into the baseball template since there are numerous notable MiLB, NPB, KBO, etc. players. So I'm not sure what you're opposing here. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as stands. Several countries have baseball players for which the MLB template would not be appropriate. In addition, using MLB template on non MLB players would be a misnomer as the player is not MLB player. The merging of the two would lead to a forced use of the MLB template for non-MLB players. Such use also doesn't keep a "clean" encyclopedia editing environment and has the potential of being confusing - at least to new editors. Likewise the generic baseball player template does not poosses the unique fields of the MLB template. Also, Oppose the proposal for any action on the umpire infobox - nominator hasn't made his case as to why it should be merge/delete; there is no rationale. Mercy11 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merging would not lead to a "forced use of the MLB template for non-MLB players" since we'd be merging MLB into baseball, hence all baseball players would have a baseball infobox template. What fields are unique between the two? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball players in Japanese, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Dominican, etc etc etc, leagues are no players of U.S. MLB. The merging of the two would lead to a forced use of the MLB template for non-MLB players and only a removal of an MLB reference, field names, documentation, etc etc etc, from the product template could ever guarantee that we don't paint ourselves into a corner. What could be proposed, instead, is delete teh MLB template and add MLB-specific fields to the baseball templete, making them optional to use. As a long-time user of these templates, this is the only proposal I would support. Mercy11 (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your latter suggestion is what is proposed. Your former assertion is bunkum. If the templates are merged as proposed, there will be no "MLB template", much less anyone forced to use it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge bio and player – as per nom and above arguments. The merge notice has been up for too long. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge bio and player to "Infobox baseball biography" This template is for the sport in general, not just MLB so the post-merge name should reflect that. SFB 11:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge bio and player to "Infobox baseball biography", but Oppose merging Infobox MLB umpire into the same. Baseball bio and player have generally the same parameters, but umpire is vastly different. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admin close? It's been nine days and we have a consensus here of merging the MLB player template into the baseball biography template, while keeping the umpire template untouched. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Withdrawn as nominator. Links added to get a useful template The Bannertalk 20:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Withdrawn as nominator. Links added to get a useful template. The Bannertalk 03:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Withdrawn as nominator. Links added to get a useful template. The Bannertalk 04:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Withdrawn as nominator. Links added to get a useful template. The Bannertalk 12:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Withdrawn as nominator. Links added to get a useful template. The Bannertalk 20:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination reinstated as article still lacks sufficient relevant links (links to a pope, India and the United Kingdom are not relevant for a template about Texas) The Bannertalk 12:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment, I fixed the false links in the others as well, and it appears many of them could be deleted as well. a better approach would be to have the list of schools in the main TAPPS article, and then only create navboxes where appropriate. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Withdrawn as nominator. Links added to get a useful template The Bannertalk 03:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.