The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jonathan Glazer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

3 films in 14 years. I hardly find that enough to have it's own template. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnecessary navbox. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:12, 9 June 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) 23:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian road routes table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Australian road routes table extended (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose deleting. Cluttered and poorly organised templates, which create list articles with excessively large images and spacing between routes, and with text formatting in contradiction to MOS:TEXT (regarding bold, italics, and font size). No longer used in mainspace, as articles such as the former List of road routes in Perth, Western Australia have been merged and/or reformatted into articles such as List of road routes in Western Australia. All Australian states/territories have now had articles created/merged/reformatted with similar formatting to the WA list, so these templates are unlikely to be used in the future. They were also previously used as pseudo-navboxes (such as at the bottom of this old version of Mitchell Freeway), but all such uses have been replaced by navboxes ((WA road routes)) or ((SA road routes)) (and similar navboxes could be created for other states if needed/desired). The only remaining uses are the example on the talk page of Template:Australian road routes table extended, and on the user subpage User:MagpieShooter/Roads in Brisbane (these instances could be substituted prior to deletion). - Evad37 [talk] 09:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 10:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Marcnut1996 (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Templates serve no useful purpose any more. MagpieShooter hasn't edited his page since 2007 and left Wikipedia in 2011. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. I hated it, and the new design (which you can see at List of road routes in Western Australia) is 100 times better. Orderinchaos 11:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Frietjes (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and concur with orderinchaos re the new design satusuro 14:27, 9 June 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) 23:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cir.Cuz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, too few links for a box. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Are the unlinked things notable? If so, just redlink them and the navbox is viable. --NYKevin 23:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @NYKevin: Probably not; the other two singles didn't chart, and uncharted singles are rarely notable. Also, they have two albums now, but I couldn't find anything on either one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No, only blue links count towards WP:NENAN and its threshold of five relevant links. The Banner talk 20:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• NENAN is an essay. I find it unpersuasive that four blue links plus several red links are insufficient to make something at least marginally more useful than a see also section. --NYKevin 19:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral: There are a total of five actual links in this navbox (including the primary), which is borderline. While each unlinked item individually seems unlikely to be notable, the sheer number of them gives me pause. I think there is a small chance that at least one is notable, in which case we'd have six links and a pretty solid keep. But on the other hand, in its current condition, the navbox is not particularly useful. So I'm really not sure what to do with it. --NYKevin 02:16, 21 May 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) 02:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• keep for now, there is more content to add, it will just take some effort to write another article. with the gap between the single articles, the articles are not well-connected. Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 9 June 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) 22:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox protected area with Template:Infobox park.
Largely overlapping; can be used interchangeably in many cases. Per its documentation, the park infobox "can be used in any article about a park, nature reserve, garden, or National Natural Landmark" (my emphasis). Need to keep the special IUCN logic of IPA Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not familiar enough with these sorts of things to render a verdict....but perhaps leave notes at WikiProject Protected areas and with some template regulars like User:Droll--MONGO 23:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notified now the WikiProject since from my experience the nominator tends not to invite expert editor opinion when proposing such mergers. --ELEKHH^T 09:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nasty and false ad hominem there; there are notifications on both affected templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is fact that there are less watchers of template pages than WikiProject pages. It is fact that this is the key infobox template for the WikiProject. It is fact that in the past you made similar nominations without notifying related WikiProjects. It is fact that you have been kindly asked to notify WikiProjects. It is fact that I only noticed this TfD by chance, since it did not appear on my watchlist. --ELEKHH^T 13:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • This TfM has been advertised, for the last two weeks, on over 8,800 articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which is great for making readers aware of it, even if many are not interested or do not understand what it is about. However it doesn't show up on the watchlists of editors that are or have been active within the relevant WikiProject, and who are interested to contribute to the discussion. --ELEKHH^T 23:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Urban parks and gardens are quite different from protected areas. The scope of infobox park needs to be better defined to not overlap with infobox protected areas, but merging would be confusing and detrimental. --ELEKHH^T 09:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a red herring; parks and protected areas may be different, but as noted in the nomination, they're on continuum, which includes a range of types currently covered by both templates. As noted below, the two templates also share a large number of parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeh, right. Grand Canyon National Park is on a continuum with J. C. Jacobsen Garden. --ELEKHH^T 13:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Elekhh, I think you're making an abstract argument. Perhaps it would be more fruitful to consider actual usability and maintenance concerns? What usability scenarios are you concerned about? —hike395 (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I provided two concrete examples, two articles within the core scope of each infobox, that illustrate the need for different infobox fields (IUCN category vs Type, established vs created, governance vs ownership, etc). I see nothing abstract about that. Only the claim that articles that can bee imagined as being on a 'continuum' need to have their infoboxes merged was abstract - but that was not my claim. In terms of usability, infobox building is a good example. Since many specialised templates for particular building types have been merged into it, you get more and more of this kind of stuff, confusing new editors, inviting infobox spam and creating cleanup work. --ELEKHH^T 00:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok. Let me work up a combined template and I will implement those two examples. We can look at the parameters of the combined template and the specific examples and see whether we think the combination is usable, or will lead to a mess. Unfortunately, I cannot work on it right away: it will take me a couple of days. —hike395 (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Hike395: Did you get chance to do that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. To my mind, whether two infoboxes should be distinct or merged depends on the answer to the question: will merging increase or decrease the maintainence effort for WP? Regardless of urban or wild, parks and protected areas seem to share the vast majority of parameters. I think merging will decrease the maintainence effort, because template updates only need to occur in one place, while misuse of the infoboxes will be minimal. Hence my !vote to merge. Now, merging the two infoboxes should be done carefully. If this merge passes, I volunteer to do the merge. —hike395 (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes technical maintenance would be easier, but usability would be reduced, and I think wiki-editing is already hard enough. Broadening our editor base and not opening up new possibilities for infobox spaming should be also considered. Some of the similarly merged infoboxes I find an absolute nightmare to handle. There are significant differences (IUCN category, designer, WHS, etc) and as the infoboxes are improved differentiation would increase. --ELEKHH^T 10:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reason to suppose that usability would be reduced; the matter is simply resolved by offering two or more blank proformas, as already done at ((Infobox park)), for example. The claim of "infobox spamming" is mere FUD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think by "Infobox spamming", Elekhh means Infoboxen filled with inappropriate parameters (right?). I do a fair amount of Infobox maintainence, and I see such Infoboxen: they are not rare. I tend to AGF, and just fix them. I think that maintainence and usability are generally aligned: if a Infobox has too many inappropriate parameters, then they both decrease usage and increase maintainence headache.
      I went through the parameters for both ((Infobox park)) and ((Infobox protected area)), and all of the parameters seem appropriate for either. Indeed, Elekhh is correct that the IUCN category and designer parameters are not defined for all protected areas, but I think that they are still appropriate because they are defined for a large fraction of protected areas. Examples of inappropriate parameters are |lowest_point= for mountain ranges, or |watershed= for islands: those are fields are nonsensical. I've also seen misuses of the free fields.
      Unfortunately, whether to merge or not is a judgement call, so it will be difficult to come to consensus. —hike395 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Question: Which of these templates would survive the merge? I would propose keeping ((Infobox protected area)), because it has more transclusions. —hike395 (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you would merge them you would need to change the name as well, since either would be misleading. In case of merger I suggest "Infobox whatever open space". --ELEKHH^T 10:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case, both current names would be kept (and usable) as redirects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elekhh, was "whatever open space" a serious suggestion? It didn't seem that way to me. You seem pretty angry about this TfD. Would it help to concentrate on specific issues that you have? —hike395 (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry if that sounded cynical. It is frustrating to see the ease of maintenance of two templates being prioritised over the importance of maintaining over eight thousand articles that currently use it. --ELEKHH^T 02:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure what you mean by "maintaining", - I see creation of a redirect, that is one edit, no? Also: how many future articles? How much better not to confuse the writers of those by a choice of several infoboxes where one would do? - I confess that I use ((infobox person)) (a well-maintained general purpose template with many options) for all people (embedding special ones if needed), example Katia Plaschka. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge, could imagine to call it "park", and make the other a redirect. Of course the parks differ, but that is true within protected areas also. Not all parameters of a flexible infobox need to be filled, - less is more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support or ignore as mostly harmless. I added both to Category:Protected_areas_templates. There is a ton of duplication in parks templates and overlap in place-based templates in general. Stuff like Category:Nature park templates should also probably be re-categorized / merged as well. See also Category:Visitor attraction templates, Category:Wikipedia_templates, etc. I recommend keeping ((Infobox_park)), because it is shorter and easily includes "protected area" in its usage. ∴ here…♠ 02:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although a national park or wildlife reserve is rather different from an urban public park, I'm pretty sure infobox protected area could be easily merged into infobox park without too much difficulty and one template could cover all areas designated a park, urban or rural.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support There is a great deal of overlap, and I feel one template could easily support both parks and protected areas. However, I don't think this is especially necessary. That being said, if someone is willing to put the time in, I would not be opposed. Lithium6ion (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The difference between the two is not concrete and difficult to define. Places like the Everglades, and the Grand Canyon cross the line - since both protection and enjoyment are goals of these parks. My suggested title is Infobox Open Space. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant support, with the reservation that we've been doing this a lot lately, and I'm not too thrilled about the idea of eventually merging everything into ((infobox thing)). But that's a slippery slope which we have not (yet) reached. --NYKevin 02:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, for one, welcome our new infobox overlords would oppose a massive merge. We already have that: it's called ((Geobox)) and I think it's difficult to use and impossible to maintain. I'm only supporting this merge because I think it's limited and beneficial. —hike395 (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: These two templates have most parameters in common. The IUCN Category is very important. Merging will serve the purpose of both parks and protected areas with or without IUCN cat. Good for me since iucn_category will be present. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 10:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per User:Elekhh. Sites like the Rocky Point Natural Resources Management Area, are not considered actual parks like Wildwood State Park. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose strongly. While I have moved on to preferring the geobox version, not everyone knows how to use it and many newer editors will use this first, not least because WP:PAREAS suggests it.

  As per Elekh, there are vast differences between a park and a protected area ... basically, if you go there to have a picnic and play softball, it's a park; whereas if you go there to hike or hunt, it's a protected area (I know, I know, there are some that combine both, like Pelham Bay Park; they can usually be dealt with as a park since that's their primary function in the public eye). They require different data points—parks usually have designers and other parameters more strictly related to human construction and use; whereas for a protected area we will want to know what sort of ecosystems there are, what species it is meant to protect (if any) and what its IUCN level is.

  Granted, we could have space in one infobox for all this, but that will just make things even more confusing and intimidating for first-time users. Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge to Infobox Protected Area, good generic name. Clear that parks and protected areas infoboxen seem to share the vast majority of parameters. As I come to understand infoboxes better, the main thing is to explain at the infobox template that not all parameters need to be used. Montanabw^(talk) 16:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose weakly although I can see that the two infoboxes are much alike, the main general difference between the parks and the protected areas, in my view, is that parks tend to be urban areas of greenness that should not be considered a part of nature inasmuch as that they are a part of any urban conglommeration, whilst (most) protected areas, i.e. national and state parks, national and state forests, wildlife reserves etc. are rural areas focussed on wildlife and nature protection rather than urban recreation. For aspects of comprehensibility of allegedly unnecessarily different infoboxes I can see why this one could be merged, however, my view is that a park and a protected area are inherently too different from each other to be considered the same - even in terms of infoboxes. AnnaOurLittleAlice (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support weakly - I have done work on many parks, protected areas, nature reserves, etc. There is a tremendous amount of overlap among these categories for uses and features. Many "protected areas" allow for park-like recreational activities like hiking, biking, horseback riding, picnics, boating, camping, etc. Some parks, including some urban parks, also feature undeveloped areas that are nature reserves, and most parks are not actually located in urban areas. Many parks do not have specialized sports areas, like ball fields, but are mostly for picnics and walking. The lands can be owned and operated by municipal, county, state, federal or private organizations, and some are operated by a consortia of organizations.
  • I am not familiar with the IUCN categories, and I don't think most users will be aware of them. The IUCN categories also seem to focus on national parks and protected areas, not local ones.
  • I'm not sure if general Wikipedia editors will understand to use the Protected Areas infobox if they are working on a park or state forest article.Jllm06 (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter issue is easily resolved by the use of redirects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Have used the various templates mentioned here, including Infobox protected area and Infobox park, and both templates are as enjoyable to use as protected areas and parks are to visit. Messing with them leads to the horrors of the Geobox template mentioned above. Besides, if it's working, why try to break it? Editors' time is better spent in taming template overpopulation - and this isn't one of them. Mercy11 (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose I will keep this short and simple. Protected areas are quite different to the parks you play in as kids.Fremantle99 (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It appears that some opposing commenters here have not read the nomination. I repeat:

" Per its documentation, the park infobox "can be used in any article about a park, nature reserve, garden, or National Natural Landmark" (my emphasis)"

Furthermore, the "park" template has at the top of its documentation this notice:

If the park is an IUCN listed protected area, then editors should consider using ((Infobox protected area)).

The suggestion that the infobox is just for "the parks you play in as kids" is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat what I said above from the very beginning: "The scope of infobox park needs to be better defined to not overlap with infobox protected areas, but merging would be confusing and detrimental." I would have amended it immediately, but I though I leave it until this discussion is underway. In the same time I see you are editing it to impose your view. Your persistent ignorance of what other editors say is as disruptive as always.--ELEKHH^T 12:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More ad hominem, Elekhh? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance ad absurdum? --ELEKHH^T 14:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It would be a simple matter of removing "protected area" and the like from the park template. Keep protected area and park templates, just change their wording so they don't overlap.Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would you deal with the many parks that are protected areas? How would you deal with the hundreds of articles on nature reserves and other protected areas, that already use ((Infobox park))? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word 'park' is used in many ways, from 'car park' to 'national park'. That is no reason however to confuse protected natural areas with non-protected designed green spaces. --ELEKHH^T 14:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonsense, National Parks are the classic case of a protected area that is called a park, and another excellent example might be Central Park or [{Golden Gate Park]], which might be urban-designated green spaces, but nonetheless have protection. Montanabw^(talk) 16:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Infobox protected area is for IUCN designated protected areas. Neither of the parks you mention appear to fall into that category. The articles for both use Infobox park unlike, say, Yellowstone National Park, which is IUCN designated. I think you're misunderstanding what Elekhh is referring to as a protected natural area. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is nothing in the documentation of ((Infobox protected area)) that says it is only for places with IUCN protection. The IUCN related parameters are optional, not mandatory. It's not ((Infobox IUCN protected area)). The Wikiproject which claims the template as part of its remit does not limit itself to IUCN areas, but covers "all protected areas in the world". Not all current instances of the template are for IUCn protected areas. There is no reason to have a separate infobox for protected areas which are designated by a certain individual body. The idea that an existing infobox in an existing article might need to be replaced just because an existing protected area achieves a certain additional type of designation is ridiculous. There are many areas (including various types of park) which enjoy legal protection from bodies other than the IUCN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • IUCN provides a good definition as to what a "protected area" is, and clearly that is at the core of the related WikiProject and infobox, but is not an exclusive criteria as you seem to imply. Most self-contradictory in what you're saying is that on one hand an infobox merger is supposed to be an improvement yet in the same time the infoboxes are supposed to be best as they are. IMO from an encyclopaedic perspective both infoboxes are improvable, both in terms of defining scope, and relevant fields, but merger would do the opposite: mess up both the scope and the fields. All of which might have been clear from what was said above. --ELEKHH^T 11:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also, from what you're saying above (i.e. "legal protection from bodies other than the IUCN"), it seem there is still confusion as to what IUCN means. IUCN classifies protected areas, is not protecting them, which is done mostly by national bodies. In contrast urban parks are usually not under environmental protection. --ELEKHH^T 12:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • "urban parks are usually not under environmental protection": Many are. But since ((Infobox park)) is for "any article about a park, nature reserve, garden, or National Natural Landmark" (all of which might have been clear from what was said above), your unsubstantiated claim is in any case irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • My aim is to improve Wikipedia as a useful encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and am of the view that clarifying the distinct scope of each infobox is the best way to go. You keep ignoring arguments, and repeat ad nauseam that because currently there is an overlap in the stated scope of the two infoboxes they should be merged, so that they become more complicated, ambiguous, difficult to use, easier to misuse and brittle. --ELEKHH^T 13:37, 9 June 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) 02:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Oppose Clearly for two different intended purposes. I agree with Elekhh's reasoning. Orderinchaos 11:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Orderinchaos: Please explain what you think these "two different intended purposes" are, with reference to the existing template documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The argument of a continuum between parks and protected areas makes sense to me; I think a lot of opposers simply find this a little unintuitive, which isn't really a very strong argument. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose Protected area was intended for IUCN categorized areas since the IUCN category is "Strongly recommended." This proposal doesn't seem to consider efforts at Template:Geobox/type such as ((Geobox|Protected area which seems a much more relevant place to unify the protected area template.
  Editor usability is a primary concern; if a template is too complex for an editor to comfortably use, most won't. The |child=yes and |embedded=((Infobox ... options allow the inclusion or addition of other templates without adding every possible field. Examples include archaeological site and forest. The Parks template begs for some simplification coupled with the use of complimentary templates. Construction data from the urban feature template, could be an identifiable subset.
  The use of |module= by Infobox person allows multiple subordinate specializations.
  •  What percentage of Protected area article usage is for non-IUCN areas?
    SBaker43 (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The large majority of parameters are identical (for example, everything in the park documentation's "Most commonly used parameters" column is in protected areas), and the few exceptions can be copied over with the proposed merge. They're different entities, but all are a kind of protected area, and template maintenance will be simplified. Nyttend (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Opposed. The arguments about the functional equivalence of national parks and protected areas seems parochial: National Parks are quite different in Zambia and the UK and Vietnam. The arguments about maintenance seem capable of extension ad absurdum. Why not merge with all place-based boxes?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which "arguments about the functional equivalence of national parks and protected areas"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to disagree with the comments about maintenance. Changes to the template that were proposed back in 2011 and then again in December 2013 have received no response. Unless you can attract the attention of an admin or templateeditor who is willing to make changes without discussion (which really shouldn't be done) nobody seems interested in updating IPA. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I think there is a pedagogical point in having templates with slightly different looks, since (as many already have pointed out) the different in concept between e.g. an urban park and a nature reserve is quite different. I agree that there may be cases when the difference may not be entirely clear between the two, but in general I still think there is a point in trying to separate them. In most cases, a park is designed to accommodate humans, while a protected area is designated to protect it from exaggerated human involvement; thus the purpose of the two are often directly opposed. Yakikaki (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—per the continuum that exists between these two concepts. Not all parameters need to be used in every case, but given the amount of overlap, it just makes sense to merge them. Imzadi 1979 → 18:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Not all parks are protected areas, not all protected areas are parks. pbp 18:16, 27 June 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) 22:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NRL Team Season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 107 transclusions. Redundant to ((Infobox rugby league team season)), Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Infobox rugby league team season is Super League teams, not NRL teams. Infobox NRL Team Season is for NRL teams, not Super League teams.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The documentation for ((Infobox rugby league team season)) says "This is a template designed for season article pages for rugby league clubs. It has been designed to be usable by clubs in all countries, regardless of the year(s) the article is written about. It is therefore adaptable to however many leagues and cups said club participates in throughout the whole season. It is based on a template first developed by Jeff79 (Template:NRL Team Season), but has been adapted for greater flexibility, aesthetics, and inclusion in non-Australian articles." Why can it not be used for NRL artciles? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yeah, you're right. I'm actually Jeff79. I should have read that part at the top. There's no example of the end product displayed and I wrongly assumed it was a very different version. Nevermind :) --Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:11, 23 May 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) 02:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Merge, but... the styling of ((Infobox rugby league team season)) is poor. It's extra wide, and uses incorrect font size, among other things. I would rather see a merge that preserved a similar look to ((Infobox NRL Team Season)). — This, that and the other (talk) 07:35, 1 July 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 since there are no objections, but let me know if there are any difficulties. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox nrl club (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 20 transclusions. Redundant to ((Infobox rugby league club )). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 19 May 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) 02:47, 9 June 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 since there are no objections, but let me know if there are any difficulties. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox rugby club season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox football club season2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox rugby club season with Template:Infobox football club season2.
Two templates for the same purpose. ((Infobox rugby club season)) is the better name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The two templates in question are for different sports. – PeeJay 10:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are both used for Rugby League. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then rugby league needs its own template. As far as I can tell, both of these templates are also used for other sports, so merging them just to suit the purposes of rugby league would impact negatively on the football and rugby union articles that use them. – PeeJay 11:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction: I don't know what the fuck is going on. Because I'm a lazy editor, I only just checked the "What links here" pages for both templates, and as far as I can see, all you need to do is redirect ((Infobox football club season2)) to ((Infobox rugby club season)). Either that or just rename ((Infobox football club season2)); ((Infobox rugby club season)) isn't used by any rugby league clubs, so just keep that one exclusively for rugby union and rename the football one so it's more clear that it's intended for rugby league. – PeeJay 12:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps all the relevant templates should be "Infobox rugby league foo" and "Infobox rugby union foo"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 19 May 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) 02:47, 9 June 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 since there are no objections, but let me know if there are any difficulties. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox rugby league season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox rugby football league season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox rugby league season with Template:Infobox rugby football league season.
Two templates serving the same purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 19 May 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) 02:45, 9 June 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 since there are no objections, but let me know if there are any difficulties. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox squash tournament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Squash WSF Tournament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox squash tournament with Template:Infobox Squash WSF Tournament.
Two templates for squash tournaments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 19 May 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) 02:44, 9 June 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) 22:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox AFL National Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox VFL National Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox AFL National Cup with Template:Infobox VFL National Cup.
Very similar templates. Add a parameter for the type. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 19 May 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) 02:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Support Suggest placing at AFL and merging in VFL. The code on the two templates is very basic (i.e. no issues with team formats etc). Orderinchaos 11:13, 9 June 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) 21:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Arkansas Confederate Artillery Battery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Should be replaced by standard succession boxes at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I non concur. This system is in use for Arkansas Infantry, Artillery and Cavalry civil war units. A simular system is in place for all currently active United States Army Regiments. Please see the following for examples:

1st Arkansas Infantry Regiment

106th Cavalry Regiment

150th Cavalry Regiment

2nd Field Artillery Regiment (United States)

This template provides readers with an easy way to flip through simular articles on related unites to find a particular unit in a series. I recommend leaving it alone! Aleutian06 (talk) 13:01, 20 May 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) 02:42, 9 June 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) 21:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Arkansas Union Regiment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Should be replaced by standard succession boxes at the foot of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I non concur. This system is in use for Arkansas Infantry, Artillery and Cavalry civil war units. A simular system is in place for all currently active United States Army Regiments. Please see the following for examples:

1st Arkansas Infantry Regiment

106th Cavalry Regiment

150th Cavalry Regiment

2nd Field Artillery Regiment (United States)

This template provides readers with an easy way to flip through simular articles on related unites to find a particular unit in a series. I recommend leaving it alone! Aleutian06 (talk) 13:02, 20 May 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) 02:41, 9 June 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) 20:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NFL Cheerleaders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 12 transclusions. Redundant to ((Infobox organization)), in which each parameter has a parallel. Here is a Sample conversion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 19 May 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) 02:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep. I'm still saved from doing the same thing 11 times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.32 (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What "thing"? Who is making you do it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as there is no equivalent to the "nickname" parameter, which seems especially important for a cheerleading team infobox. (The lack of a "uniform" parameter is no big deal, as this type of content belongs in article prose.) — This, that and the other (talk) 07:40, 1 July 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, but feel free to create smaller subtemplates if you think that would be useful. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mountain biking in the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems like a strange mix of things to group together. A template for Mountain biking and Bicycle manufacturers would make much more sense. James^x12345 15:37, 19 May 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) 01:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• delete or split into more targeted subtemplates. Frietjes (talk) 18:31, 29 June 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) 22:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox 1851 Revolution (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This campaign box fails WP:NENAN, as it only point to one battle. The rest are useless links or red links. The Banner talk 09:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support - Campaignboxes like that should never have been created in the first place. Aclany (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The topic is being developed and I have recently created the Combat of Monte de Urra article. So the rationale that "it only point to one battle" does not longer holds. Sietecolores (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each and every link has to go to an existing article. Navigation templates are not for a work in progress, but are supposed to link existing articles. The Banner talk 20:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Navigation templates are not for a work in progress, but are supposed to link existing articles" any Wikipedia policy to back that statement? As I see it the current praxis is that a small amount of red links are acceptable in infoboxes. Sietecolores (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice, not policy as far as I know. And indeed, in bigger templates people leave red links although "black text" (unlinked text) is preferred. The Banner talk 07:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template now points towards 3 Revolution-specific articles. That should be enough to withdraw the TDF nomination. Sietecolores (talk) 23:04, 23 May 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) 01:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• keep for now, seems it is being expanded. Frietjes (talk) 18:30, 29 June 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 are no objections. Let me know if this is a problem. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Source engine games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Gives the same info as Category:Source engine games. Everything else already fits in our other templates such as Template:Valve_games. Nothing else connects the articles. Vaypertrail (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if this is kept, it should be renamed. "Source engine games" doesn't match the main article, and the category also needs renaming, as it is ambiguous. (Source engine vs a blackbox engine) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept - Rename to Template:Source (game engine) games as the article is called Source (game engine); and this is about a particular game engine, not game engines whose sources are available. No opinion on keeping it or deleting it. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not sure if you meant Category:Source (game engine) games instead czar ♔ 02:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13:02, 28 May 2014 Cydebot (talk | contribs) deleted page Category:Source engine games (Robot - Speedily moving category Source engine games to Category:Source (game engine) games per CFDS.) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:13, 5 June 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) 01:24, 9 June 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, no objections. Please let me know if this is a problem. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GoldSrc engine games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same as Category:GoldSrc engine games, which it is more suitable as. Vaypertrail (talk) 19:34, 25 May 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) 01:23, 9 June 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.