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) 22:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ice hockey player embedded (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I have replaced it with ((infobox ice hockey player)) using |embed=yes. Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

notified User:Smartskaft Frietjes (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Template:LaTeX2e (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is only one legitimate use of each of these templates, a "styled as [stylization here]" statement in the article pertaining to each of these (a total of two articles, as LaTeX2e is covered at LaTeX), and these are uses in which the templates can simply be substituted. One of them, ((LaTeX)), wasn't even being used for that, only ((TeX)) and ((LaTeX)) were (I fixed that, in the lead of LaTeX). The various other uses of these templates, inline in running prose in other articles like Donald Knuth and Ellipsis, are clearly proscribed by MOS:TM: We do not use CSS tricks to try to mimic the typography of logos, as in "In the TeX typesetting system, the following types of ellipsis are available...", which presently appears in Ellipsis. So, substitute this template in these 3 legit cases [update: and in userspace/userboxes], and replace it with plain text where ever else it is transcluded . PS: At least the LaTeX2e one isn't even a good approximation anyway, except on Linux, so what's the point to begin with? Neither of the other two are exact, either. This has the effect of (poorly) evading MOS:ICONS by trying to do with CSS tricks what we never do with inline logo images. MOS:ICONS also says 'For purposes of this guideline, the term "icons" encompasses both small image files and typographic dingbats.' PPS: They also appear to be "attractive nuisances", inspiring enough vandalism that one of them's been semi-protected.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove from mainspace use; there's absolutely no need to stylise (La)TeX in articles. They adorn a couple of user boxes, so keep the first two for that purpose, I guess. Delete ((LaTeX2e)). Alakzi (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• They'll just end up back in articles. They can be subst'd in userboxes, and no one will even notice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, fair point. Let's do that then. Alakzi (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see no good reason to delete this template. "Doesn't need to be a template because it could be subst:ed instead" is a very poor rationale that could be applied to almost any of our templates. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not the [main] rationale. Violates two guidelines is the rationale. That said, "barely used and can be substituted harmelssly in the tiny handful of places it's legitimately used" is, in fact, a common TfD rationale anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, my callow youth. At the time that these were created, the alternative that was being used was an image of the words. Yikes. Suffice to say we're grown-up enough now that we can just use the letters. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2015 (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) 19:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LoC catalog record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:LoC catalog record with Template:LCCN.
After fixing 1000s of broken ISBNs, I am now making order with templates encountered during the process. Keep LCCN. Merge LoC catalog record into LCCN. Reasons:
1. Each template is simplistic
2. Each template requires the same main parameter: Library of Congress Control Number
3. The templates differ only in format of the output
4. Minimal number of affected users: LoC catalog record has only 21 transclusions.
Add a new parameter to LCCN to control output format. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I'm all for consolidation of redundant templates. The shorter output should be the default.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as the creating editor of ((LoC catalog record)). The template I created is almost entirely redundant to the preexisting ((LCCN)), which seems to lack only the support for the title parameter. I must have been unaware of ((LCCN)) when I created ((LoC catalog record)), else I would have worked on adding the title parameter rather than produce a new template. I do think the title parameter is worth having in the merged template, however. The template may be used to point to an LCCN for a work that is not the exact subject of the article, so identifying the work to which the LCCN correspond is a worthy feature. But, subject to that concern, I support the merge. TJRC (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2015 (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. Seems do-able, so I will merge them. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Baseball linescore table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Linescore with Template:Baseball linescore table.
Both can be included in one template page. –Aidan721 (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Aidan721, can you provide an example of a merged template? they are used for two different things. one is used within infoboxes, and the other is used outside of infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in theory, since the compact output can be done simply with a |infobox=y parameter, but agree with Aidan721 that I'd want to see it actually working.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, I hope Aidan721 wants to see it actually working. Frietjes (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Funny, I wasn't aware that ((Baseball linescore table)) existed; I always use ((Linescore)). They're used somewhat differently, though, so this would depend on making the syntax work. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• If someone can make the syntax work, sure. Otherwise, I would oppose, since as Frietjes notes, they're used for different purposes. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 03:16, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Telenovelas broadcast by Venevisión in 2010s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only original programming should be included in navboxes, not every program that is broadcast by a channel. Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Original programming is dealt with at ((Venevisión telenovelas)). Rob Sinden (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If wikipedia is not a program guide because there are these templates: AMC Shows and Univision 2013 telenovelas and many more.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

((AMC Shows)) only includes original programming, like ((Venevisión telenovelas)) mentioned in my nomination. ((Telenovelas broadcast by Venevisión in 2010s)) includes programming by other studios, from other countries. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions anyway. PS: The ((Univision 2013 telenovelas)) template also lists all-original programming, but that of Televisa; as Univision is just the broadcaster (though a fiscally-related company), I've proposed moving that template, at Template talk:Univision 2013 telenovelas.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If we had a separate template for every channel that broadcast a channel, we'd end up with lots of navigation templates on some shows, so many that they'd functionally be useless. Much better to restrict templates to a channel's original shows. Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Happened to have been broadcast at some point on so-and-so station" isn't a defining characteristic of anything.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:46, 25 June 2015 (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.