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).

The result of the discussion was Delete after merging any missing information into ((St. Louis Rams)). (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Los Angeles Rams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates template Template:St. Louis Rams. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Query for @WilliamJE: Is there also a Cleveland Rams navbox? Can you provide a brief analysis of where the Los Angeles Rams navbox is being used, distinct from the present-day St. Louis Rams navbox? Do these separate navboxes serve any real purpose? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: It is not an exact duplicate of the St. Louis football club's navbox and is linked on every page related to the Los Angeles Rams, there are articles that have absolutely no relation to St. Louis and the LA navbox is used there. The Los Angeles Rams franchise existed for nearly 50 years and to relegate that history as an afterthought on a St. Louis page/navbox does a disservice to Los Angeles, the people who supported the team, those that wish to see the team return, and those wishing to learn more about the franchise. Also, with the possible (likely?) move of the Rams franchise back to Los Angeles, there will probably be new articles relating to the Rams in Los Angeles making this template necessary. --CASportsFan (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CASportsFan, any appropriate article that pertains to the Los Angeles Rams and is missing from Template:St. Louis Rams should be added. Template:St. Louis Rams should proportionately represent the 50 years the franchise was in LA. If the Rams move back to LA, then the template should be renamed and edited accordingly. Navboxes on Wikipedia do not exist to pay homage to entities or their fans. They exist to provide navigation across a set of related articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This navbox is, in principal, redundant to Template:St. Louis Rams. This is one franchise, and the collection of articles relevant to this one franchise, across its history in all three of its home cities, can be covered by one navbox. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after migrating all non-duplicate links to Template:St. Louis Rams. I could say a lot here, but I will simply refer other discussion participants to Jweiss11's two comments immediately above. I think they cover the situation wall to wall, as well as answering the questions I asked above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer1: there are only two links present in Template:Los Angeles Rams that are missing in St. Louis Rams: City of Champions Stadium and Heaven Can Wait (1978 film). Jweiss11 (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Warren Beatty movie is definitely part of the franchise culture and lore, but I don't see the relevance of the City of Champions revitalization project: the Rams never played there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Dirtlawyer1:; @Jweiss11: I have no opinion on this at this time, but I do have a question: Does what you guys are arguing apply to all franchise relocations, or only to ones that kept a common identity? In both of these cases in question, both of these teams maintained their "Rams" and "Colts" identities, post-move. But what about a team like, say, the Houston Oilers? I was trying to navigate through some Oilers articles a while ago, and I actually found it somewhat difficult to do, primarily because they're all intermingled with Titans articles. Thoughts? Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ejgreen77: I haven't spent a lot of time working with the pro sports franchise history articles, but the typical structure seems to be separate "History of ----" articles for those prior eras before a franchise geographic and/or mascot name change. See, e.g., History of the Houston Oilers (present day Tennessee Titans), History of the Washington Senators (1901–60) (modern day Minnesota Twins), History of the Boston Braves (modern day Atlanta Braves). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ejgreen77, I support the history articles because all sufficiently notable subjects should broken down into reasonably sized and cohesively defined articles. Slicing up the history of a sports franchise by ending one article and starting the next at a major event like a relocation is totally appropriate. But in the service of providing efficient navigation through navboxes without overloading the footers of articles, a given franchise should have only one franchise navbox, not a separate navbox for each of its locations or brand identities. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1:; @Jweiss11: Guys, I'm not talking about the articles - obviously they should exist. I'm talking about the navboxes, with my main point being that if you're looking for information about the Tennessee Titans, Template:Tennessee Titans is a great navbox. However if you're looking for information about the Houston Oilers (1989 Houston Oilers season, The Comeback, Astrodome, etc.), Template:Tennessee Titans is a really lousy navbox; you really kind of have to know what you're looking for in advance in order to be able to decipher it in the midst of all of the Titans-related links. And, with the Oilers and the Titans being basically two very separate entities, with very little correlation between them (unlike the Rams & Colts who maintained their identities after moving), I'm just wondering how useful it really is to the user who is trying to navigate through all of this to have the two of them jammed together. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ejgreen77, the NFL franchise navboxes in general could use some work. They need to be cleaned up and standardized and de-crufted in line with what we've already accomplished for college football and college basketball. That alone would help ameliorate the issue you have brought up. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:27, 10 October 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete after merging any missing information into ((Indianapolis Colts)). (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Baltimore Colts (1953-1983) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is redundant given that Template:Indianapolis Colts covers the entire history of the franchise, including its 31 years in Baltimore. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: That same rationale could be said about Template:Los Angeles Rams, and how it's sort of redundant to Template:St. Louis Rams. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Zzyzx11: Exactly right -- it should be nominated for TfD, too. Speaking as a regular sports editor, we do generate more than our share of cruft and redundancies. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator Jweiss11's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:43, 9 October 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was merge. (non-admin closure) Gparyani (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Spam-warn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Db-spam-notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Spam-warn with Template:Db-spam-notice.
Don't see why there is a need for this separate template, as Template:Db-spam-notice also exists for the exact same criterion (generic G11). The latter template is better, as it uses the global Template:Db-notice unlike the former, and the latter is more common, as it is used by Twinkle. Gparyani (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the former per nominator. Spam-warn contains some meaningful text not mentioned inn Db-spam-notice, which would warrant merging, but it can't work because Spam-warn doesn't use the default ((db-notice)) template, while Db-spam-notice does. --TL22 (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, with caveat - I see no reason not to merge these; they are the very definition of the redundancies that Andy's essay speaks to. @Gparyani: That said, has anyone notified the Twinkle users of this pending TfD merge, as a courtesy, and as requested on the Template:Db-spam-notice page? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dirtlawyer1: Twinkle uses Db-spam-notice, not Spam-warn, so that shouldn't be an issue. Note that the heading for this discussion is Spam-warn. Gparyani (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that the current version of the TfD merge instructions requires that creators of both templates to a proposed merge be notified. Because the Twinkle project has requested notice of any XfD that impacts the former template, it would seem reasonable that they may be interested in this TfD. Would you like to do the honors, or shall I? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am currently a little busy right now (IRL). Could you please do it, and link me to the place where you put it? Thanks! Gparyani (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • AIUI, that's advice not a requirement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Andy, notifying both template creators of the templates in a proposed TfD merge is a requirement of the present TfD instructions ("Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger.)"). Notifying affected WikiProjects is a courtesy recommended by the TfD instructions. Here, the Twinkle WikiProject has specifically requested that they be notified of any TfD affecting the template. Notifying them is a small thing, and avoids any potential post-merge conflict and hard feelings. We should do so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have provided the requested notice on the Twinkle project talk page: [1]. Please allow 7 days for them to respond here (not that we're closing TfDs in a hurry these days). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Neither is there a requirement to keep this TfM, which started on 15 September, open for a further seven days. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • What makes you imagine that that is a requirement? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Andy, this has been discussed repeatedly -- with you. The TfD/TfM instructions are not a suggestion: "Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger.)" That is a simple mandative sentence. Your past failure and refusal to provide notice to template creators was the primary reason that the TfD/TfM instructions were changed by RexxS, because failure to provide proper notice to creators of templates involved in TfD discussions was creating unnecessary and easily avoidable drama and controversy. Moreover, as I recall the Twinkle program was modified to provide notice both template creators in TfD/TfM proposed template merges. For a long-time editor such as yourself, it should be self-evident -- both on the levels of common courtesy and informed discussion -- that we should notify template creators, as well as other concerned parties, especially when they have requested it. We are not trying to hide TfD discussions from anyone, but to publicize them and to attract as many informed participants as possible, in order to have a full and proper airing of any concerns about proposed deletions and merges. That is the proper way to proceed. Your cooperation in this regard makes a better functioning, more courteous and less contentious TfD environment possible: that means more admins willing to perform TfD closures, less controversy, and faster outcomes. In this particular case, notifying the Twinkle talk page is not required (as noted above by me), but was specifically requested on the template page, and there is no good reason not to respect that requst. Notifying the Twinkle folks as requested is a simple matter of common courtesy, and will likely pass without further input given the non-controversial nature of this TfM discussion. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. (As a Twinkle user, I appreciate the notice on the Twinkle talk page as I haven't had the time to follow the high volume of nominations at TfD lately.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  00:57, 9 October 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).