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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Location map Poland-PD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused; articles are using Module:Location map/data/Poland Podlaskie Voivodeship instead Frietjes (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. @Frietjes is there any way as below you could propose a lot of these in bulk (given the reason for deletion would be the same?) --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tom (LT), assuming there are no objections in this first round, I will build a bigger list. anything left in this list has a small number of uses, but should be inspected to see if there is a reason for the lack of use. Frietjes (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2018 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Location map Moldova Cahul local (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Moldova Cantemir local (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Moldova Găgăuzia local (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Western Europe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused; articles are using Module:Location map/data/Moldova Cahul, Module:Location map/data/Moldova Cantemir, Module:Location map/data/Moldova Găgăuzia, and Module:Location map/data/Europe instead Frietjes (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2018 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Location map Colombia Arauca (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Colombia Barranquilla (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Colombia Bogotá central (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Colombia Bucaramanga (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Colombia Cali (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Colombia Cartagena de Indias (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Colombia Chapinero (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Colombia Cúcuta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Colombia Ibagué (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Colombia Manizales (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Colombia Medellín (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Colombia Montería (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Colombia Neiva (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Colombia Pasto (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Colombia Villavicencio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and inferior to an interactive ((mapframe)) Frietjes (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2018 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Location map/data/United Kingdom Weston-super-Mare (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map United Kingdom Colchester (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map United Kingdom Exeter wider (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map United Kingdom Oldham (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map United States Jacksonville Region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map United States Virginia Alexandria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Burma Mergui Archipelago (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Uruguay Montevideo Ciudad Vieja (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Commonwealth of Nations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Gulf of Naples (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map England south of the Humber and east of the Isle of Wight (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Southwestern Approaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Wiesbaden (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Brazil Rio de Janeiro Centro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Canada Vancouver Richmond (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Croatia Zadar County (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Location map Ecuador Guayaguil (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and better to use an interactive ((mapframe)) Frietjes (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2018 (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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox farm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - only ten eight transclusions
• Template:Infobox park (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox farm into Template:Infobox park.

Suggest merging to the park infobox, because Template:Infobox garden was merged into that. Apart from synonyms, and generic parameters (which could instead be converted in the ten existing transclusions), only |produce= would need to be added, and that can apply to (market) gardens also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Only eight articles use the farm infobox. And three of them do not use |produce=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant; there are innumerous articles on farms, many of which I personally know will benefit from this infobox. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose vehemently. Farms and parks are radically different things; this is like merging Infobox Outhouse and Infobox Statehouse just because they share location and sqft parameters. Infobox farm, as well, could and should have many other useful and unique parameters, like type (public, private, coop, working historical farm, etc), owner(s), manager(s), locations, livestock or crop types, production method (organic, conventional, biodynamic), and more. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this is like merging Infobox Outhouse and Infobox Statehouse" Indeed. Both would use ((Infobox building)). The question is not how similar are the subjects, but how similar are the infoboxes. Furthermore, note my point about ((Infobox garden)). Infobox park already has |type=, |owner=, |location= and |manager=, which suggests that you (and Tom (LT) who echoes your comment, below) are !voting without actually having looked at the issue at hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only difference between parks and farms vs outhouses and statehouses is that there's a common term for the latter: buildings. Thus an editor writing a new article or adding a new infobox, upon finding out there's no ((Infobox outhouse)), will use ((Infobox building)). So what happens if an editor finds out there's no ((Infobox farm))? Even if it redirected them to the park infobox, they'll think it's wrong to use (because it is).
      Anyway, your logic is flawed - I simply stated important aspects that are lacking from the farm infobox, most of which Infobox park does not have and should never have. Crops and livestock do not belong in a park, nor do decorative flowers, benches, and fountains belong on a farm. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're thinking about them physically (even though they're still insanely different that way). We don't just merge radically different topics' infoboxes together simply because they happen to share most parameters. Farms are more like organizations (as they often are one organization/company), and thus also need parameters like: logo, predecessor, founder, status, purpose, region, services, leader_title, leader_name, board_of_directors, key_people, main_organ, parent_organization, staff, volunteers, website... Almost all of these could be used on the article Stone Barns, as well as more agricultural params like type (public, private, coop, working historical farm, etc), livestock or crop types, and production method (organic, conventional, biodynamic). ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "what happens if an editor finds out there's no ((Infobox farm))?" Template:Infobox farm will - just like Template:Infobox garden - redirect to Template:Infobox park, which , instead of explaining, as it does at present, "This Infobox template can be used in articles about parks and gardens.", will say "This Infobox template can be used in articles about parks, gardens and farms." HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "parameters like: logo, predecessor, founder, status, purpose, region, services, leader_title, leader_name, board_of_directors, key_people, main_organ, parent_organization, staff, volunteers, website." Every. Single. One. of those parameters can be applied to parks. Or to gardens. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're ridiculous; a redirect with a small hatnote is barely an answer to a new editor trying to write in ((infobox farm, or searching for it on the search bar or from a list. And no, parks are generally public, owned by a government, and that's why "logo, predecessor, founder, status, purpose, region, services, leader_title, leader_name, board_of_directors, key_people, main_organ, parent_organization, staff, volunteers, website" are typically irrelevant and thus are not and should not be part of the parks infobox. You can't merely say 'oh this could exist in parks too' for any one radically rare instance. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • And you're reduced to making unacceptable personal attacks. Not to mention inventing quotes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • That was stating your argument is ridiculous, your thought process in this case. It's not a personal attack. And it wasn't a quote, I always use double quotation marks for quotes and single for paraphrasing; not sure how that is in any part of the UK. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Anyone with a reading age above five can tell the difference between "You're ridiculous" and "your argument is ridiculous". And single quote marks are called that for a reason. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Not the same! --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 00:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, with a radical Suggestion. My main objection to many of these merges is the converse of the argument Pigsonthewing uses. I care more about the parameters of the merge target that are not appropriate for the merge source. That is, there are parameters in ((Infobox park)) that are not appropriate or that useful for farms (e.g., |camp_sites=, |hiking_trails=, |collections=, |transit=). This is asking for misuse.
  The main problem is that farms are not protected areas, but are means of production. Thus, my radical suggestion would be to merge this with ((Infobox factory)), because those too are means of production. You wouldn't have to even add |produce=, because |products= already exists in ((Infobox factory)). We may wish to reconsider renaming ((Infobox factory)) to be something more general. —hike395 (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time and again you, Hike395, have opposed template merges on these grounds, only for the community consensus to go against you. In this case, the merge you propose is between two radically-different templates, with very few overlapping parameters

If by "time and again", Mr. Mabbett means "once", then he is correct. I have responded to a total of 9 infobox deletion/merge proposals by Mr. Mabbett in the last 6 years, and in only 1 case did my !vote go against consensus (for ((Infobox beach))). I would ask Mr. Mabbett to stop misrepresenting my positions on Wikipedia. This misrepresentation appears to me to be a form of argumentum ad hominem and is not a valid reason to either keep or delete a template. —hike395 (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there are farms which include camping a side-business ([1]), farms with hiking trails ([2]), and farms that are reachable by public transport ([3], so that argument is false also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh my god. The number of farms that include camping or hiking is insanely small; this is like adding 'cherry picking' to the park infobox, because oh look there's a park where you can pick cherries. Just like you're cherry-picking. Extreme outliers are not an answer, and transit should not belong in the farm infobox either; farms are typically rural without transit, nor are tourists actively going out to visit the vast majority of farms en masse. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for giving us your United States perspective. Meanwhile, elsewhere on the planet... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine then, find some source that anything close to a majority of parks in any country feature transit to their driveways, or feature hiking trails and camping spots. The burden is on you as nominator, and as someone who clearly thinks those parameters belong in the farms infobox. That's preposterous, and don't accuse me of having some narrow one-country-only perspective, that just goes as a personal attack. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're the one who asserted that "farms are typically... without transit"; the burden is on you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, caught yourself there, I see. You're literally the only one who supports the insanely ridiculous notion that public transit should exist on the farm infobox; show me literally any actual evidence why. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, and instead support Hike395's proposal to merge with Template:Infobox factory. The people who use these template don't care the extent to which the parameters overlap. It is simply not intuitive to use the park infobox on a farm article. Directing people to do so makes it harder to edit Wikipedia, and that should be an important consideration. Hike395's important point that Park will contain available but irrelevant and potentially misused parameters for farm articles goes to the same point about ease of use. Also, Ɱ rightly points out the any expansion of Template:Infobox farm will necessarily radically differ from Template:Infobox park. On the other hand, it might indeed be intuitive to combine Farm and Factory. The extent to which the templates overlap is only relevant to technical feasibility. The focus should be whether the templates are similar in scope. If they are—and they are—then merging is a good idea. --Bsherr (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the farm template has only eight transclusions, and I applied some of them, which people do you think you are speaking for? Alternatively, which people would be inconvenienced by the addition of a single parameter to the park template? How will that be "misused"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Historically low use of a template is not an argument for deletion/merging; it's a valid infobox with innumerous potential uses. And, no, it's not a single addition; there are a great many additions I listed above that are totally irrelevant to parks, and park params that are totally irrelevant to farms; thus allowing for misuse. Why don't you get that? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, I'm asserting that the availability of parameters in Infobox Park that should not be used in an article about a farm could lead to confusion and erroneous use. I said nothing specifically of inconvenience, although there might be inconvenience too. The clarify my other point, when I said the people who use these templates, I meant all infoboxes, not just Infobox Farm. But I'm not sure I understand your point. So few people edit with Infobox Farm that we shouldn't pay attention to its ease of use? --Bsherr (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the merge of ((Infobox farm)) into ((Infobox factory)) gains consensus, I volunteer to convert the 8 articles to ((Infobox factory)). This should remove the validity of any argument that it would be difficult to convert ((Infobox farm)) due to non-overlapping parameters. —hike395 (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ, Tom (LT), and Capankajsmilyo: (and any other interested editors...) You have not yet expressed any thoughts or opinions about merging ((Infobox farm)) into ((Infobox factory)). What do you think? —hike395 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I think it would be better to merge farm into outer space. Szzuk (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I still oppose per Szzuk. How are editors supposed to understand this?? A farm is not a factory. Factory could be renamed to something easier to understand and we can have this discussion again. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2018 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Positionskarte/Lineare Kegelprojektion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, and not likely to be used since the creation of old "Template:Location map ..." location maps is blacklisted. Frietjes (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2018 (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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:AHL Outdoor Classic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Essentially is a duplicate list of AHL teams already found in Template:American Hockey League, including linking to the AHL Outdoor Classic article. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey prefers less navbox clutter, and is generally against participatory navboxes linked better elsewhere. Per this brief discussion at the talk page. (The project prefers prose, "See also" sections, or a main generalized navbox as in the main league template). Yosemiter (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:15, 21 December 2018 (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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Unfinished Article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No article is ever finished. This template is basically ((Expand)), which is deprecated (1, 2). It's way too broad, and other tags are better suited to target specific issues. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Most if not all articles are unfinished. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This template is a recent creation. The same rationale that applied to Template:Expand applies here. --Bsherr (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2018 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Women of Honor World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox does not aid in navigation. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The two entries can be linked from the articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2018 (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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Caravel Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In the template there is only one game now alive with the other being a pure redirect. Thus it has no purpose. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per only having one item for a navbox. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:44, 21 December 2018 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Final girl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Do we really need a navbox for this film trope? This a concept, not a defined set, so not really a suitable navbox subject. --woodensuperman 13:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The contents of the navbox are not notable for being 'final girls' they are notable other reasons. I don't think this navbox provides useful navigational value. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2018 (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 Split timeline from Template:Historical clothing to create Template:Timeline of fashion Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:History of fashion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

rarely used and duplicates a section of ((historical clothing)) Frietjes (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Split templates are about two different things - one is about items of clothing and the other about fashion (clothing use over time). The clothing template is really long and I think it may be easier for readers to split them rather than merge. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Split. Per Tom (LT). I agree that the size of the navigational template and the two distinct sets of topics suggests this solution. --Bsherr (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2018 (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 to Template:Infobox character. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Final Fantasy character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 38 transclusions
• Template:Infobox character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Final Fantasy character with Template:Infobox character.
Template:Infobox video game character is being deleted per previous discussion. As this was a wrapper of the video game template, there is no reason anymore to keep as a wrapper and it can use the character template directly. This template has 6 unique fields - 2 of which are available in the Template:Infobox character directly: |class=, called |occupation= in the character template and |race= called |species= in the character template. The other 4 could either use the custom fields available in the character template or be merged into the template itself and be available directly. Note that while there are 4 additional fields, no infobox has used both |skill= and |specialattack= and both could easily be under an "Abilities" field. Gonnym (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like this is a proposal to delete, after replacement, rather than merge. I support that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace and delete per nom's rationale --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 00:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 19:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace for the two common parameters (|occupation= |species=) and delete. If the project develops a consensus to use custom fields for the other parameters, we can always restore from page history. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 18:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There aren't many single character articles except for the cast of VII thanks to the compilation. The other series tend to have one or two characters.Tintor2 (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alright, fine. I'm good with that merge. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2018 (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 to Template:Infobox character. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Mortal Kombat character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 37 transclusions
• Template:Infobox character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Mortal Kombat character with Template:Infobox character.
Template:Infobox video game character is being deleted per previous discussion. As this was a wrapper of the video game template, there is no reason anymore to keep as a wrapper and it can use the character template directly. The 3 unique fields this template has could either use the custom fields available at Template:Infobox character or be merged into the template itself and be available directly. Gonnym (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merege per nom, otherwise delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace and delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 00:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 19:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: All you people don't understand the purpose of enforced standardization. Which is to easily keep and maintain standards, without being drowned in an irrelevant random crap (especially this "otherwise delete" - delete the relevant things in favor of adding the irrelevant!). It worked this way very well for over a decade. There's zero reason for this kind of merging, and what it actually should be merged into is rather only Template:Fighting_game_character as with all other fighting game characters. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do understand that the video game template is being deleted right? This won't work anymore without it. Also, the template you mentioned will be the next to be nominated, I just needed to do some research before to see how it's being used. --Gonnym (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't quite understand it. We (WE, not you, you didn't) have been using standardized templates for well over a decade. It all served a purpose, only important things for the medium, correctly arranged in a specific order. If something wasn't added it was because we actively didn't need it. Fighting games - fighting styles are essential for fighting game characters, but just a trivia for non fighting game characters. Same with the countries they represent and weapon names. Now if you don't understand what I talk about, DON'T TOUCH IT. Like I don't go around randomly proposing changes about things I don't understand, let's say chemistry subjects, just because I feel so, how odd is that? Should I start doing it? SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and why is not anyone talking about it now - it's because sadly almost all the people who also used to be very active in the field have just quit by now (or got driven off from Wikipedia, including being banned sometimes), with hardly any good replacements. I could tell some of them, but it would be "canvassing". Also I wasn't even ever involved in creating or maintaining these templates, they just work very well for what they are supposed to do. There's no need for any major changes (except of removing all the needlessly explanatory internal links from things like "voiced by", which sould be done because it's not a Simple Wiki). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re-read the result of previous discussion, the video-game infobox is being merged into the character one. --Gonnym (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I tell you were wrong interfering as an outsider into things that you don't even understand (you need "to research") but somehow thought you might know better then people people who have used it for more than a decade building all these articles, without whom the articles wouldn't exist in first place. In Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 26#Template:Infobox video game character these people were: just me (due to how many others have quit), and Izno & Salvadrim to a very limited degree on the edges of the subject (editing about games rather than game characters). People you might have rather ask for opinions: Beemer69, Tintor2 (still active!), KungFuMan, Gabriel Yuji, etc. It's like if I was changing estabilished conventions of chemistry subjects based only on my feelings. It's never too late to cancel it. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • SNAAAAKE!!, please discuss this issue with me on your user page. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the former. These three parameters—origin, fighting style (martial arts types), and weapons—are trivia that shouldn't be included in the infobox anyway. If the project decides otherwise, the parameter contents can be resuscitated from each page's history and made into custom parameters within ((infobox character)) as needed. I'd like to see a content consensus before these are merged, actually. Perhaps at WT:VG? Merger isn't necessary as the content is not worth transferring. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 18:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. You know what you will get instead? You'll get: Religion (yay!), Gender (because it's so important and not obvious!), Nickname(s) AND Aliases, Family AND Spouse(s) AND Significant other(s) AND Children AND Relatives, so that Nakoruru and Chun-li both will get "Family=Unnamed father" (they were never named because they're so important!) and "Gender=Female" (a revelation you would never guess from all the "she" or "her" in the article apparently), instead of anything that matters for a fighting game. I so like where it's going. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you'd spent 1/10 of the time you write these none-sense wall-of-texts, actually reading the documentation you will see that |gender= says The gender of the character. Use only if not obvious. Now if we take a look at the articles you've listed, how is |weapon= value None in fighting matches (expert with firearms) in Chun-li's infobox important? Like all other fields - if the value does not exist, leave it blank. Also, for Nakoruru, how is the |weaponname= important? Neither "Chichi-ushi" nor "Father Bull" are mentioned anywhere in the article. On the other hand, |family= for Mario has much more significance and has even effected both the in-game story and the real-world (and it is even mentioned in the lead). Seems you cherry pick what you call "trivia" and "important". --Gonnym (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here you can see the fields that are actually important for Chun-Li - officially right from the dev: http://www.capcom.co.jp/sf4/chunli.html#character_btn Of these, included are: representative country, fighting style (yes), there no weapons because it's not weapon based game (unlike, for example, http://www.soularchive.jp/SC4/character/mitsurugi/index.html and you can see both the weapon type and the weapon name and then the thrid of the entire profile goes into much more detail on both: http://www.soularchive.jp/SC4/character/mitsurugi/mitsurugi_buki.html) yet her marksmanship is told in the line "skills" (6th best shooter in the world). Things officially most important but not included on Wikipedia are: birth date, blood type (it's important for Asians), weight/height/bust/etc, and likes/dislikes, and these are things that are more important for her than "Gender" ("yes, really female") or literally 5 fields for all sorts of relations and relationships, but we don't have a SF template. As for Mortal Kombat characters, because there is an MK template, I really can't even show you as the official website wiped out itself again (as they do whenever a new game is announced) and is unarchivable (https://web.archive.org/web/20180415000000*/http://www.mortalkombat.com/). Neither "Chichi-ushi" nor "Father Bull" are mentioned anywhere in the article - because they're included in the infobox, and here are Nakoruru essentials: http://samuraianiv.snk-corp.co.jp/english/character/nakoruru/index.php where you can see both the fighting style name and the weapon name, but the father is still not named (never is - not in the additional media too). Mario isn't a fighting game character. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2018 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:EA Sports 10 games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary navbox template, EA Sports games released in 2009. No cohesive subject. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There obviously is a cohesive subject, you said it yourself. These are all EA Sports games released in 2009 that generally correspond to the same sporting season as each other. – PeeJay 14:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. These are games developed by EA Sports, released in 2009. That's it. [x] in [x] for a navbox doesn't work. FIFA 10 is an association football (soccer) video game, NBA Live 10 a basketball video game. Completely different games, different franchises. What they have in common is the developer and year of release. It's redundant to boot: ((Electronic Arts)) lists all franchises, while specific templates like ((PGA Tour)) and ((UFC video games)) list all entries. And to make an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, we don't have navboxes on Nintendo releases in year [x]. And there aren't any other "EA Sports [x] games" templates either. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, completely agree. Should be a category if anything, not a navbox. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It doesn't work. Completely Agree. KILL THAT! Benjaminkirsc (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2018 (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 Europe Hegemony. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Barbarian kingdoms (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Europe Hegemony (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Barbarian kingdoms with Template:Europe Hegemony.
Perhaps worth considering for a merge? Scope seems much overlapping. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Europe Hegemony knowing something about this subject area, I just can't see the use of the Hegemony template, and feel wikilinks should suffice. I do not support a merge because the Barbarian kingdoms has a clear subject matter whereas Hegemony is confusing and would pollute the better template with, I feel, no navigational benefit. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2018 (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. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Anatomists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused; appears to duplicate part of Template:History of biology Frietjes (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! per myself. Have been dreaming about such a template for many years, and will deploy it shortly. There's no easy to access way that links famous or important anatomists across time and I think this is an excellent idea. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In use. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Frietjes, Steven (Editor), Gonnym given this is now in use, any change to your thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • yes, you have convinced me that the inclusion is selective and that there is major overlap with part of Template:History of biology (William Harvey, Andreas Vesalius, and Galen now have both). Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Selective inclusion. Fails WP:NAVBOX. Better served by category navigation Category:Anatomists. --woodensuperman 09:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! That it is a duplicate of History of biology is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. In that case we ought to delete ((History of medicine)) as well. Seeing as the template is in use now there is little argument remaining in favor of deletion. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a massive argument in favour of deletion. Selective inclusion. Why have only a dozen or so anatomists been selected from the hundreds at Category:Anatomists? However, if all were included, the navbox would become pointless and unmanageable, which is why it is best to leave navigation between these people to the category. --woodensuperman 14:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree (but I do acknowledge there is probably consensus at the moment for deletion). Several anatomists (Galen, Hippocrates, Vesalius, Avicenna, Henry Grey) make an outsized contribution to the study of anatomy. For anatomically interested editors, a navbox such as this provides a useful navigational aid to better understand this history of anatomy. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the category is a better navigation tool to avoid WP:OR. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:55, 27 December 2018 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Shark Week (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Most of the content, the names of the hosts each year, was removed. What's left is no longer very functional or related, and only contains four links. Bsherr (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2018 (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).