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 replace/redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greater Southampton locations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Southampton suburbs map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Greater Southampton locations with Template:Southampton suburbs map.
Superseded by new template using a better map. Technically it's not a like-for-like replacement (the new version only shows locations inside of the Southampton boundary whereas this one shows more, and distinguishes between the two). This version of the template isn't used in the mainspace any more - it was replaced with ((Southampton suburbs map)) some time ago. WaggersTALK 15:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• comment so you are proposing deletion of Template:Greater Southampton locations and not merging anything? not sure why this is a merger proposal. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 9 November 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) 21:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would be good to have clarification from User:Waggers. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the slow response; yes, it's more a delete & redirect than a merger. WaggersTALK 22:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in that case, I say "replace/redirect". Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace and redirect as there is apparently no need to merge —PC-XT+ 06:39, 19 November 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 now that a periods=no option has been added by SMUconlaw. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant fork of ((Ussc)). Only 14 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace and delete per nom. "template:Usr" can be repointed to template:user as the common meaning of "usr" or be left a redlink, since USR means U.S. Robotics corporation. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm nearly certain the intent there was to associate itself with the the pre-sanctioned era of the current U.S. Supreme Court [case] Reporter to the one in use today. Early on in U.S "case history", the rulings, etc. of the Supreme Court were contracted out & published under serials such as U.S. Reports [of the Supreme Court] or the U.S. [court] Reporter. Eventually the current system "federalized" the that previous era's scheme & product. The differences between case citations based in that era compared to modern day case citations may be the only nuance worth noting here - otherwise I don't see the harm of killing off the current 14 uses. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete - the point of this template is that it's different, which the description makes clear. It's for Maroonbook systems of citation (mainly, without the periods, for instance, in 41 US 395 (1926)). It's a subtle difference which the nominator might have missed. So, not a 'fork', or redundant. Wikidea 13:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I didn't miss the difference. It's either too trivial to be needed, and can be done away with, or else can be included in the more common template, by way of a switch. By very definition, it's a fork. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a comparison of the templates:

((ussc|source=f|543|405|2005))

543 U.S. 405 (2005)

((usr|source=f|543|405|2005))

543 US 405 (2005)

We don't need whole new template to change from "U.S." to "US". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:: if all that is needed is a way to turn the full stops (periods) on and off, that can easily be done by way of a parameter within ((ussc)). — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created a version of ((ussc)) at ((ussc/sandbox)) in which the periods can be turned off using |noperiods=on or |noperiods=yes. Testcases are at Template:Ussc/testcases. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, though just one switch should suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, pick the one you prefer. :) — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

|periods=no ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works too. Will update the sandbox later. Also, there seems to be a lot of duplication in the template. It might be possible to remove some of the coding and simplify the template. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented |periods=no and trimmed the code by more than half. AltLaw no longer exists, so I removed it. It seems to be working fine, based on the examples at Template:Ussc/testcases. Let me know if you spot any problems. (By the way, I could also make it possible for the template to display the case name and a link to a Wikipedia article about the case, if one exists. Do you think we should do that?) — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes! That'd be fantastic. As someone who has used ((ussc)) quite a bit, I've found it frustrating that the template accommodates everything except the case name. Thanks, Smuconlaw! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: use |casename= |name= and, optionally, |link= if the Wikipedia article name is different from what is stated in |casename= |name= (if |link= is not stated, the template checks to see if a Wikipedia article with the case name exists, and if so automatically links to it). I also relocated the docket number as most citations I found online seem to place it right after the case name rather than at the end of the citation in parentheses, but let me know if I'm wrong. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• merge/delete using SMUconlaw's version. Frietjes (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge using SMUconlaw's version —PC-XT+ 00:34, 19 November 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 relisted on 2014 November 29. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:31, 29 November 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 relisted on 2014 November 29. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:32, 29 November 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 relisted on 2014 November 29. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:30, 29 November 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 relisted on 2014 November 29. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:29, 29 November 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 relisted on 2014 November 29. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox U.S. legislation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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 as unused test project

Template:InfoBox Crime (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use. Orphaned. Non-functioning. Redundant to ((Infobox event)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I created this new template, my first time ever to create. apologies for any mistakes. I tried to use it in one article but it didnt work. I have no idea why it didnt work. I am still learning how to create infobox that actually work. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdhillon (talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 November 2014‎
  • @Vdhillon: No problem; but in future it's best to experiment in a sandbox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 15 November 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 relisted on 2014 November 29. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:25, 29 November 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 relisted on 2014 November 29. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. There is consensus that Oxford colleges are too different from other colleges and other universities to include them in the same template. There have been many notes along the lines that this goes for Oxford and Cambridge colleges in the same way, and indeed, that merging these two into an oxbridge template could be considered. Discussion on that proposal however hasn't been explored sufficiently to demonstrate consensus either way, and could still be perused Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Oxford college (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox university)) (into which the one or two unique parameters should be merged). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: this infobox contains unique parameters that would be lost. Note that these colleges are not universities in the classic sense: they are constituent and sovereign parts of a larger university. Lincolnite (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination says "into which the one or two unique parameters should be merged", so the claim that they "would be lost" is clearly bogus. Note also that ((Infobox university)) is the target of the ((Infobox college)) redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is better to keep common templates uncluttered by fields which will apply to very few other articles using them. Plus new IOxbridge fields might well be added in he future. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That hypothetical new fields might be added in future is usually not seen as a valid reason to keep a template (and none have been added for well over four years). Likewise, we generally don't fork templates (nor keep redundant equivalents) for just (in this case) 57 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then first have these parameters added there. What happens if this template is deleted and the addition it not done? -DePiep (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The usual process - in which you've often been involved - is discuss-merge-delete; not merge-discuss-delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • This only discusses one template of two involved in a merge. Merges are to be discussed on a talkpage. You can not edit an unnotified template because of an outcome here. -DePiep (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • "You can not edit an unnotified template..." That's utter bullshit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose, perhaps merge with ((infobox residential college)), but that's not what is being proposed. Frietjes (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Can not be deleted when parameters are not served elsewhere. "should be merged [into]" we cannot use when deleting this one. Nom claim for "redundancy" is not correct. Or else, Pigsonthewing, what did you have in mind for the merge process? (This is not the first time we met this). -DePiep (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is indeed not the first time you have made objections based on an apparent, and false, presumption that solutions must be finalised before a TfD can be proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You repeating "false" does not make that statement true. -DePiep (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after adding parameters Seriously? ONE university with its own infobox? Do we have infoboxes for UCLA, Harvard, and so on? How about ((Infobox University of Wyoming))? Where shall it end? Montanabw^(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Because otherwise, what happens with those deleted parameter values? -DePiep (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments of Lincolnite and Johnbod. While some unique fields could be merged, there is at least one unique field which cannot plausibly be merged, which generates the Oxford maps. Beyond this the argument from redundancy is fundamentally bogus: the very same argument could be used to merge ((Infobox university)) into ((Infobox organization)). Indeed the arument would be better in that case, as a university is an organization, while an Oxford College is not a University. (Neither is it really a residential college, though it is a bit closer to that). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's perfectly feasible to add map parameters to ((Infobox university)); and as I have already pointed out above, ((Infobox college)) is redirected to that template. Please avoid slippery slope fallacies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that wikitext is close to being Turing complete, and that the combination of wikitext plus a bunch of editors is obviously Turing complete, then of course things can be done in other ways. Things can always be done in other ways, and the question is, therefore, a practical one of how the advantages and disadvantages of those other ways stack up. There is no need for ((Infobox university)) because all the special parameters could be added to ((Infobox organization)) (indeed there is no need for templates at all); the question is whether having a more specialist template is appropriate. In the case of ((Infobox Oxford college)) there is a well defined group of institutions which are not universities and which have unusual common features, such that having a specialist template, where almost all the parameters are useful in the great majority of cases, makes sense. The template is used by current colleges (including those which are technically "societies"), and current PPHs, all of which have very similar structures and where a common look and feel to the pages makes sense, as well as former colleges where drawing the obvious parallels where available is useful. The college pages are looked after by WP:OXFORD, which helps keep things sensible. Against this you have only given the in principle argument that things could be done differently, providing no evidence whatsoever that this different approach would be in any way better. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I addressed the college vs. university point in the comment to which you reply. Merging redundant templates is better because it reduces the ongoing maintenance overhead. Furthermore, once the templates are merged and swapped over, it's unlikely that a new instance for an Oxford college would ever need to be created. The University infobox also offers a "common look and feel" - indeed, using it would mean greater commonality of looks and feel, across the encyclopedia, rather than an esoteric design applied only to one small subset. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a classic lumpers and splitters debate. No doubt the so-called "maintenance overhead" could be reduced by merging ((infobox university)) and all the other infoboxen with ((infobox)). One infoxbox to rule them all, one infobox to find them, one infobox to bring them all and in the darkness bind them, eh? Most people recognise that there are reasons to have specific infoboxes for specific cases, so you are just arguing about where to draw the line (and in some cases what colour the line should be, and whether it should be dotted or dashed). There is no right answer, but the consensus here seems quite clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.126 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 19 November 2014‎
          • Please avoid reductio ad absurdum/ slippery slope & straw-man fallacies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You appear to have a conflict of interest, as your user page states that you are "Professor Jonathan A. Jones, University Lecturer in physics at the University of Oxford". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a bit of a stretch to say that WP:COI, which by its terms applies to article content, extends to discussions on proposed template deletions. But regardless, given that any potential conflict has been disclosed on his user page, and he has provided reasoned arguments, I don't see his potential COI as causing any particular problem here. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this nomination, but may support alternatives suggested above —PC-XT+ 06:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Oxford and Cambridge colleges are very different to ordinary universities (indeed, they are not even universities). It is appropriate to have designated templates for these unique articles. There is no evidence to suggest there are any problems with the current arrangement. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are indeed colleges and not universities. And, as noted above more than once, ((Infobox university)) is also for colleges; that's why ((Infobox college)) redirects to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, they are incomparable to ordinary colleges: really, Oxford and Cambridge colleges are unique. 19:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. The 'house style' used in Oxford college templates is not found in the general university template. This includes the Oxford banner at the top of the template. Losing the specialised parts of the template in favour of a general 'university' template seems like an unfavourable change for the reader. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not here to promulgate an individual (group of) institution's "house style". Moving towards Wikipedia's own house style would be an improvement, and a benefit; to our readers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, the 'house style' I referred to is the one Wikipedia uses on Oxford college articles, not anything done by Oxford itself. With the current setup, all Oxford college articles are clearly labelled as such and have a consistent feel. This might well be lost, along with, possibly, useful information, for a change with no real benefit for the reader. Sorry, but I cannot support it. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Johnbod... Farradane 20:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: This template should be kept. An Oxford(/bridge) college, as many have said, is unique. They are not universities, but nor are they what we would usually call colleges. The particular fields, and special style which has become emplaced, would be lost with this deletion. In any case, the current set-up is working fine; what's the point of changing it? BethNaught (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep per the Oxford discussion Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Cambridge college (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox university)) (into which the one or two unique parameters should be merged). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, as Oxford. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See refutation of the "Oxford" objection, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose, perhaps merge with ((infobox residential college)), but that's not what is being proposed. Frietjes (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First have the parameters added before TfD. A TfD on template A can not decide on changing template B. See also above, Oxford. -DePiep (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your assertions are false, as past precedent has demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a contribution to a discussion. -DePiep (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Delete: per Oxford, above. Montanabw^(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Oxford above.Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this nomination, as some alternatives suggested above seem better —PC-XT+ 06:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Oxford and Cambridge colleges are very different to ordinary universities (indeed, they are not even universities). It is appropriate to have designated templates for these unique articles. There is no evidence to suggest there are any problems with the current arrangement. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The 'house style' used in Cambridge college templates is not found in the general university template. This includes the Cambridge banner at the top of the template. Losing the specialised parts of the template in favour of a general 'university' template seems like an unfavourable change for the reader. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my replies under the Oxford template above; and note that 131.111.185.66 resolves to the University of Cambridge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have replied to these above. The IP address is not relevant at all. It is the quality of arguments that determines consensus (not who makes them) and consensus both here and at the Oxford discussion above are clearly moving against removing the current templates. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andy, just because an IP address resolves to the University of Cambridge does not mean that there's a COI like you insinuate, and even if there is, WP:COI clearly states "COI allegations should not be used as a 'trump card' in disputes". If you're not going to respond to the substance of another editor's remarks and instead simply accuse them of having a COI, you're inappropriately attempting to use a COI allegation as a trump card. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since I have responded to the substance the other editor's remarks, you appear to be attempting a straw-man argument. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let's try and stop this now: it is not productive. We know that the 'COI' is not relevant here and I hope Andy recognises that it might be best to avoid similar comments in the future. We have given our opinions about the suggested deletion: we can all move on elsewhere and let everyone else have a say. Nothing is to be gained by getting ourselves involved in a heated debate. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: per my arguments at Oxford above. BethNaught (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Oxbridge colleges are distinct from universities - why not just merge the Template:Infobox Cambridge college and Template:Infobox Oxford college into Template:Infobox Oxbridge college? Cantab12 (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For the reasons given by both Jonathan A Jones and 131.111.185.66. Nyctimene (talk) 22:57, 27 November 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 relisted on 2014 November 29. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:24, 29 November 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 relisted on 2014 November 29. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:23, 29 November 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 to delete, but feel free to debate other alternatives elsewhere. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox law school (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox university)) (into which the one or two unique parameters should be merged). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – has 3 unique parameters which are particularly useful; a university is an entirely different type of entity; given the nominations for so many other school templates with unique parameters the university template would become even more unwieldy. – S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per S. Rich. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The unique parameters are |bar pass rate, |aba profile= and |ranking=. The latter is equally applicable to universities in general, to colleges, and to other types of faculty. There is no point in having a separate template just for the other two (nor indeed all three) parameters. A "university" may be a different type of entity, but the template ((Infobox university)) is already used for universities, colleges and other types of higher and further education institutions. Redirects to it include ((Infobox college)) and ((Infobox university school)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• split the law school specific information into a "module template". Frietjes (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or split Per Frietjes; Law schools are unique, particularly the bar pass rate. Also, as many are contained within a larger University, the infobox could be confusing; if someone wants to search just for law schools, this is one useful way to do it. Montanabw^(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As S. Rich has pointed out, there are important differences between the law school infobox and that used for colleges/universities. SMP0328. (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or split per S. Rich, Frietjes, and Montanabw —PC-XT+ 06:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - PC-XT, S. Rich is opposed to this proposal, so why are you citing him for keeping or splitting this template? SMP0328. (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because I agree in that I think the template should either be kept (in opposition to the nomination) or split into a module (keeping S. Rich's points in mind.) —PC-XT+ 09:42, 22 November 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) 19:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox tribhuvan university (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox tribhuvan university)) ((Infobox university)). Only two transclusions Orphaned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not surprising it is redundant to itself. so do nothing? Frietjes (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep. WP:BURDEN. Needs a parameter mapping first; redundancy proof to be given by the nom. -DePiep (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BURDEN is about the use of citations in articles, and has no relevance here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. So this time you did find time to understand the use of "burden", but the other times I mentioned it today you did not even bother. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't questioning the meaning of the word "burden" (which you didn't use); I was highlighting your wholly-inappropriate use of WP:BURDEN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did use it, you choose to not read it. -DePiep (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• SUpport: Who GAF about this "parameter mapping" statement? I presume any parameters to be added would be discussed. We seriously do NOT need separate infoboxes for every nation or every college. Montanabw^(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean? -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Montanabw What do you mean? -DePiep (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Give it a rest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? re, Montanabw, I think your wording is obfuscating your own view (or, in your own language: don't look at the world through your own piss). -DePiep (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, replaced in Florida International Boarding Higher Secondary School and Pashchimanchal Campus with no issues. Frietjes (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused, now that it has been orphaned —PC-XT+ 06:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep/don't merge. A Large Merge Proposal for all NCAA sports team templates is on the table, and a concrete proposal seems to be gestating, but isn't here yet. No prejudice to re-nomination when a more complete proposal (which templates to be merged where, and at least roughly how) is ready. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox college swim team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox swim team)). Only 14 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oppose for now. a better idea would be to merge all NCAA sports team templates. Frietjes (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now per Frietjes —PC-XT+ 06:28, 19 November 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 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Delta Sigma Theta Founders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary vertical navbox; mostly red links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite as a ((navbox)). Frietjes (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. >> redlinks, ((Infobox Fraternity)) should serve the instances. (There are uses, so nom could have suggested a solution). -DePiep (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Infobox Fraternity perfectly adequate. Montanabw^(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though I didn't see a founding members list in the infobox in my first glance, I presume it has everything that is needed —PC-XT+ 06:23, 19 November 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) 00:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FA current month Calendar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only used once. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep delete'. Nothing is disproved by the nom. -DePiep (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Single-use is an argument. -DePiep (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unnecessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete as single-use template —PC-XT+ 06:26, 19 November 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) 00:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Years in Indian states (2000-2013) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only generates redlinks since there is only one YYYY in state articles for 2000-2013, which is 2011 in Kerala and is already linked in the see also section in 2011 in India. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Delete': SOund reasoning. Montanabw^(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as basically useless at this point —PC-XT+ 06:30, 19 November 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) 00:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iran year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and duplicates existing navigation. Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Delete': Per other TfD similarly situated. Montanabw^(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused —PC-XT+ 06:34, 19 November 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) 00:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Years in Zambia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:South Vietnam year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Djibouti year nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. -DePiep (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Delete': Per other TfD similarly situated. Montanabw^(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused —PC-XT+ 06:34, 19 November 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) 00:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Insufficient navbox that doesn't improve navigation over the primary article, Sinergia. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete'. Only three links, too thin for a navbox. -DePiep (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Delete': Per other TfD similarly situated. Montanabw^(talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, it looks bare. Delete it. —PC-XT+ 06:37, 19 November 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.