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/delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is used (transcluded) in only one article. By definition, templates should be used when there is a need to transclude the same content in several articles. I propose to WP:substitute this template in the Serbia article and than do delete it. This is similar to the Template:WW2InfoBox which was used only in the World War II article, and was deleted so. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, substitute into appropriate article(s).--Zoupan 22:25, 28 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) 01:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gamebryo games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The topic of this template is the video game engine Gamebryo, listing the video games that use it. That's already mentioned here and has its own category.

Now, WP:NAVBOX says: "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent" and WP:NAV says: "The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics?"

Gamebryo is used in very different games, from strategy games to action-adventure games, from role-playing games tower defense games. They were developed by several studios. Besides having the same engine, they do not have anything in common. And because it's already listed in the main article and has its own category, it seems unnecessary to have this navbox around. Soetermans. T / C 10:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, would be better as a category. Additionally, it would be very unwieldy to have a navbox for every video game engine's video games. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 10:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Interesting and notable enough, doesn't take up much space at all, overall beneficial.--Sιgε |д･) 18:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not everyone has the patience to deal with returning to a category page over and over when reading series of articles. The benefits of reduction of space by not having to list dozens of "see also" references and ease of navigation seem to me to outweigh any benefit I can perceive of deleting it. Is it strictly necessary? Perhaps not. But it looks good, serves a useful purpose, and it already exists, so why go through the process of deleting? —Dromioofephesus (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per User:Dromioofephesus. Its usefulness is outweighed by what deletion would accomplish. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Upon consideration I have modified my !vote above from "keep" to "weak keep". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The rationale behind the cancellation request is valid for any other template in the Category:Video game engine templates. --Enok (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There's little to no relation between games using a general-purpose engine, making such a template not very useful for navigational purposes. There's a reason we don't have Template:Unity engine games (anymore). It also adds another set of links to maintain in addition to the category and the table in the main article. And Dromioofephesus, maybe you should use a tabbed browser if that's much of a problem for you. Don Cuan (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, the category and list article are covering this just fine. we don't need a navigation template as well. Frietjes (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is nothing in common between these articles. Using the same engine does not mean that these titles are related to each other. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overbroad for the purposes of a navbox. Alakzi (talk) 00:33, 13 July 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. Seems to be very rarely used, and not used anytime recently (as far as I can tell). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Icon-issues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article notices should be used for serious issues that actually require effort to remedy. Alakzi (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are certainly articles that need such notices. If BRIC was include flags, it would be excessively politicized and such a template would be warranted.96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either WP:FIXIT or leave a note on the talk page. Not everything needs to be banner-tagged, and the fact that this template has got all of three transclusions is testament to that. Alakzi (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with this: This could be argued for ((linkfarm)) and ((quotefarm)), as just a few examples. And these ones could be easily fixed by deleting the link or quote entries. But we don't delete these warning templates because the purpose these templates serve is for when tagger does not know which quotes or links to remove and to allow the tagger to highlight the issue with the page.96.52.0.249 (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, better to either fix it, or raise the issue on the talk page. Frietjes (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is utility to this template: on the talk page: "it's very likely he lacks the confidence to know what the right action is (or the right way to go about it), but what he can do is mark the article for another editor to review".96.52.0.249 (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oh, I see, it's for men who are unable to fix things, so it doesn't apply to me. Frietjes (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the editor meant both females and males. Almost all articles can be improved. The template is of critical value to the template and editing message system, just like ((unreferenced)) or ((improve references)). I otherwise see no meritable or useful reason to delete this template.96.52.0.249 (talk) 16:16, 30 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 no consensus to merge. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Propose merging Template:Scite with Template:Ussc.
The functions of ((Scite)) are served by ((Ussc)), which is a more detailed template. There is a discussion at "Template talk:Scite" stating that ((Scite)) differs from ((Ussc)) as the former does not create an external link. If this is a desired feature, an appropriate parameter can be added to ((Ussc)). — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SMUconlaw. I see that you've already articulated the reason for having two templates. Why would an extra parameter be needed? Is there something wrong with having two templates? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unnecessary to have a separate template just so that an external link is not created. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The external-link thing is, IMO, a significant issue. True, WP:EL says external links "should not normally" appear in an article body — but it also says (see note 2 on the page) that "exceptions are rare" and lists only a few likely exceptions. If we simply redirect ((Scite)) into ((Ussc)), without first reaching a consensus to amend WP:EL to relax the "normal" avoidance of external links in an article body, the template change runs a real risk of being doggedly and forcefully reverted by people insisting that the WP:EL violation is unacceptable.

If people insist on consolidating these two templates into one, I'm afraid we're going to have lots of confusion. Even if a new parameter is added to the Ussc template to enable or disable the external link, people are unlikely to remember to use it properly. Would it be possible to deal with this situation, either with a bot, or by having the template include the external link by default if and only if it appears within a <ref>...</ref> (can this be done?)? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proposal to change WP:EL here. The proposal is to merge ((scite)) into ((ussc)) as suppression of the external link can be dealt with using a parameter within ((ussc)). That will do away with the need to have two separate templates doing pretty much the same thing.

If the templates are merged following this discussion, a request would be made at "Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks" for existing occurrences of ((scite)) to be replaced by ((ussc)) with the necessary parameter. As for new uses of the template, it would presumably be obvious to the editor that an external link had been created, and that if she wished to suppress this she could visit the ((ussc)) documentation page to find out how. I don't think our current Wikimedia parser functions can test for whether text occurs within <ref> tags. — SMUconlaw (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a merge right now. I think having two templates is fine here and I don't see a compelling reason to merge them. They provide different functionality and both seem to be working fine. ((scite)) is primarily intended to be used in the lead sentence and contains no external links. ((ussc)) is primarily intended to be used in external links and references sections and contains external links. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless the external link can be suppressed by default when the merged template is used outside a <ref> (something which is apparently not technically possible). I'm not convinced the external link will be obvious to editors, and it will be even less obvious in the case of existing ((scite)) templates that were put in place a long time ago. Even if a consensus were to be reached here for the template merge, I'm still worried that other editors (not involved in this discussion here, and becoming aware of the merge only after the fact) may object to the resulting chaos caused by the wholesale — even if intended to be temporary — violation of WP:EL in countless articles on US legal topics. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:30, 30 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 Nabla (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BMW E24 timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template that was only ever used in one article, which it has now been removed from. It is extremely ugly, and is an inferior way of representing data that is already displayed in table form within the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC) It wasn't extremely ugly it was very useful and I put alot of work to it[reply]

You're ugly, if you can make better then do it smartass

• Delete: as per Lukeno94. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:32, 29 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) 01:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1996 St. Louis Cardinals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Cardinals did not win the World Series in 1996 so this template, which portends to represent the 1996 champions is simply wrong and unnceccesary Spanneraol (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've already pruned the obviously bunk information about the Cards winning the World Series (Yankees beat Braves) and Pat Borders being named the WS MVP in 1996 (that was won by John Wetteland). Mindmatrix 14:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Spanneraol's reasoning.--Yankees10 17:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:58, 30 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) 01:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:China color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Now basically a complicated wrapper for 22 other colour succession templates (per system rather than for an entire country's systems). Most transclusions (originally more than 1,600) have already been replaced directly with these other templates due to the merger of ((China line)) with ((Rail-interchange)) and ((Rail color box)).

Should be histmerged with ((BJS color)), ((CCRT color)), ((CDM color)), ((CSM color)), ((DLM color)), ((HBM color)), ((HZM color)), ((KunmingRT color)), ((NJM color)), ((SHM color)), ((SYM color)), ((SZM color)), ((SZRT color)), ((TJM color)), ((WHM color)), possibly ((XA color)),^{[Note 1]} and ((ZZM color)); and then substituted and deleted. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 13:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, per nom. (P.S. Excellent job you've done, Jc86035, in rationalizing all these China templates.) Useddenim (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Useddenim: Thanks! :) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 13:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• How are these going to be histmerged? Alakzi (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • could be history merged with the oldest. Frietjes (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if it needs to be histmerged, really—I suggested it to preserve attribution, but another way would work as well. It might not be necessary because ((China color)) consists entirely of simple RGB colour codes. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 04:18, 1 July 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 Nabla (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maddie & Tae (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN/WP:TOOSOON. Only two singles and an album so far. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, both songs are from the same album, so everything is already well-linked. Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 5 July 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.