Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 7

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. Magioladitis (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bishop Lamont (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an unused template that would only connect the artist with a future album. Aspects (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2010 (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 Speedy delete as a test page. RL0919 (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:!xt2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Abandoned test template (related I think to

Speedy delete. Blanked weeks ago and unused. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also {{!xt2start}} and {{!xt2end}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment blanking is usually a sign of vandalism. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of a test template - of which we have a whole lot more BTW - that is not necessarily the case. Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a (failed) attempt to make a template like {{!xt}} able to contain block elements. ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 13:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Keep for now Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tfd-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated in favor of {{Tfd|type=inline}} (which I can't actually get to work... Can someone fix this?) There really isn't a need for both of these templates, and it makes sense to fold them into one and incorporate that material into {{

Comment Proposing this template for deletion caused me a headache. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, because
  Template talk:Tfd and someone can help figure it out. --RL0919 (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per RL. As soon as twinkle gets updates and the last uses of {{Tfd-inline}} go away, we can safely delete.

Comment - There is some issue with Tfd showing up in the documents of the nominated pages, but other than that it works ok. You probably got confused by the many notifications in there. Plus, if you actually put a Tfd in there without the noincludes, two notifications will be transcluded in the pages that still use Tfd-inline. Oh, and the Tfd documentation is updated. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double notification is not a problem at the moment, because once it was nominated, I orphaned Tfd-inline (replacing with the new inline option for {{Tfd}}) to prevent any possible confusion over what was being discussed where. Doesn't mean it won't have new transclusions if someone uses Twinkle or adds it manually to a new nomination. --RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Shouldn't the correct action be a redirect or something? Why force people to learn a new system if they don't have to? Dragons flight (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template redirects don't work correctly when a parameter is needed on the target template that wouldn't normally be on transclusions of the redirected template. If we just redirect {{
    Tfd}} and someone (say, a Twinkle user) transcludes it without including the 'type' parameter, then it will show up as the non-inline version. --RL0919 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • So don't use #REDIRECT, just replace the content of the {{tfd-inline}} with a direct call to {{Tfd|type=inline}}, etc. It is a long established name, and even if it were redundant I don't see any reason to remove it. We should respect usability when possible, and not eliminate familiar templates just because some new approach comes along. Keep. Dragons flight (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• After all obstacles and problems have been removed, this template can be deleted. Until such time, I think we should speedily close this nomination, and renominate it only then. Debresser (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what we probably should do. --JokerXtreme (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2010 (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. Magioladitis (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ilion Animation Studios (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It is not required to have a navbox to navigate between only two articles. –Grondemar 19:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One of the reasons why I wrote
  WP:NENAN in the first place. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:01, 10 March 2010 (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: Uncontested, and barely used. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per

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) 23:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used in a handful of articles. Uses a dagger symbol, which can be confusing— see JPEG 2000#Application support where the table uses multiple daggers inline that link to different notes. Can be readily converted to <ref>...</ref> tags— see Update of Clanking replicator. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the transclusion of the TfD template breaks tables, I have set |type=disabled. If consensus is to delete, I will convert the articles where used. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used in any articles. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Multiple daggers can definitely be confusing and even if an article originally only used it once per table, I can see others thinking this is the way to add multiple references Other approaches such as using grouped references as suggested above are more maintainable and less confusing to the reader. While the initial conversion is a bit of work, (for example took me two hours for one article with heavy amounts of notes), that's a one time cost and seems like Gadget850 is hard at work fixing the others. The redirect page {{RefUn}} should also be deleted. PaleAqua (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one has been a lot of fun. All but

Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients have been converted (which is a bastardized mix of <ref>...</ref>, Refun, Note and Note label with bunch of Anchor templates for some reason). My head hurts. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. We have more than enough redundant note templates. --RL0919 (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2010 (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. Magioladitis (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:!xt3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The purpose of this template is unclear. I can see no practical use for it. Additionally, it is poorly named; the name gives no clue as to the purpose. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I looked at this the other day and could not understand it. The black on red text violates accessibility and it calls a nonexistent {{table_syntax}} template. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete seems to be a demo template that someone designed for showing wikitable syntax. pretty much useless. --Ludwigs2 18:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unused, maybe because its use is indecipherable.  fetchcomms☛ 01:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe this is related to this discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2010 (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 and replace with {{note}}. Ruslik_Zero 14:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated template with a handful of uses; can be directly replaced by {{Ref}} / {{Note}} in cases that do not duplicate HTML ids; standard tag|ref}} in others. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Has benefits that the newer templates do not, such as no need to set up a numbering system.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rf / Ent can be directly replaced with Ref / Note with no change in appearance or functionality. I have tested this in several articles and don't see any issues. If consensus is to delete, I will convert the articles where used. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant to other templates. I guess I missed this one when commenting on the others below. We have too many redundant note-making templates, of which this is just one. Replacing the less-used/less-flexible ones with more widely used counterparts is a good thing. --RL0919 (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redundant. Its role can be easily filled with other, un-deprecated templates. Airplaneman ^talk 20:09, 19 March 2010 (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 and replace with {{ref}}. Ruslik_Zero 14:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated template with a handful of uses; can be directly replaced by {{Ref}} / {{Note}} in cases that do not duplicate HTML ids; standard tag|ref}} in others.-— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Has benefits that the newer templates do not, such as no need to set up a numbering system.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rf / Ent can be directly replaced with Ref / Note with no change in appearance or functionality. I have tested this in several articles and don't see any issues. If consensus is to delete, I will convert the articles where used. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please use Ref/Note then, as the current replacement you're using, R, is bloating tables on several video game articles, causing authors to go ahead and revert your work. Please note that Rf is used extensively in video game articles, and using something closer to it will make the transition much more smooth. --Teancum (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I really don't see the point in this one. It uses IDs that are not compatible with any of the other systems and it can be done by any number of other footnote systems. We already have way too many footnote systems, it is time to cleanup some of it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace with one of the numerous other note systems. Blessings upon the nominator for making the effort to standardize and delete some of these. --RL0919 (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redundant. Its role can be easily filled with other, un-deprecated templates. Airplaneman ^talk 20:16, 19 March 2010 (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. Magioladitis (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was used in only two articles (now converted to standard <ref>...</ref> tags) and template {{

• Delete Totally redundant and now unused. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant and used only in one user sandbox. --RL0919 (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2010 (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. Magioladitis (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

Was used in only one article iPodLinux, which has been converted to standard <ref>...</ref> tags. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused and creates more confusion than that it actually seems to solve a problem. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Another note template, thankfully now unused. --RL0919 (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

• Weak keep Five articles is pretty much the bare minimum for navigation as far as I'm concerned. Also, each of these articles is pretty long, so I can see how this would be visually useful if someone was scanning articles. If List of villains and monsters in Powerpuff Girls Z was added, I would definitely be in favor of keeping, as there would then be six articles with some clear theme and which are all long enough to merit some navigation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Considering the lack of information on the subject in-template when compared with other animated series, The Powerpuff Girls seem a poor choice to template at this time. ShawnIsHere (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Those 4 articles I agree are long and are much much easier navigation on the reader. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I noted that in a past AfD for this article that this template leads to 5 articles NOT 4 as someone pointed out and this has not changed. The 5 articles are: The powerpuff girls, The powerpuff girls movie, Powerpuff girls Z, List of powerpuff episodes, and list of powerpuff episodes. I feel the template covers the series nicely and as was pointed out before alot of see also's would have to be put in place if not for this template. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This has been nominated three times previously and kept each time. After the last nomination closed, the nominator (not the same as the current nom) edited the template to remove two links, one of which was restored prior to the current TFD. I just restored the other one. With six total links, I think this is a decent navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2010 (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 Speedy delete under

Template:Themes in Avatar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is entirely a list of redirects of the Themes in Avatar article. It looks more like a "Table of contents" or something similar. --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Wildly unnecessary. In the fantastical event that there are actually several separate articles on these topics, this would be useful, but otherwise, what exactly is being navigated here other than anchors within a document? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The template was created partially to accommodate themes from the upcoming
    WP:IAR. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Opposed: Agreed to deletion: Although the template is indeed a list of redirects to Themes in Avatar sections, it improves the Avatar (2009 film) article by means of giving the reader a convenient navigation tool through the great many themes in the film, which could not be covered in the main article due to size constraints and thus had to be discussed in a dedicated Themes in Avatar article. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly delete - A template is meant to help navigation between various articles relevant to one topic, not to export one article's list of contents to other articles. This template links to "Themes in Avatar" every single time, it is useless. Furthermore, it is questionable that this film deserves so broad a treatment. It will soon be forgotten. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly delete - Roll all this up into the "Avatar" template, or just have a "Themes in Avatar" in the Avatar template. If it is needed in the future, per sequels, let it be created then. SovereignGFC (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete: Per above. All the links go to the same page. The TOC exist on the article for this reason. —Mike Allen 03:28, 8 March 2010 (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 and replace. Ruslik_Zero 14:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFB Coaching Record Team End (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded by {{CFB Yearly Record Subtotal}}, <50 transclusions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a template is deprecated it should be brought to TfD but tagged for DB-T3 after it's orphaned. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as it is now deprecated and its role is filled by another template. Airplaneman ^talk 20:17, 19 March 2010 (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 and replace. Ruslik_Zero 14:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFB Coaching Record Team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded by {{CFB Yearly Record Subhead}}, <50 transclusions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a template is deprecated it should be brought to TfD but tagged for DB-T3 after it's orphaned. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as it is now deprecated and its role is filled by another template. Airplaneman ^talk 20:17, 19 March 2010 (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 and repalce. Ruslik_Zero 14:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFB Coaching Record Start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded by {{CFB Yearly Record Start}}, <50 transclusions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a template is deprecated it should be brought to TfD but tagged for DB-T3 after it's orphaned. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as it is now deprecated and its role is filled by another template. Airplaneman ^talk 20:17, 19 March 2010 (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 and replace. Ruslik_Zero 14:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFB Coaching Record Entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded by {{CFB Yearly Record Entry}}, <50 transclusions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a template is deprecated it should be brought to TfD but tagged for DB-T3 after it's orphaned. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as it is now deprecated and its role is filled by another template. Airplaneman ^talk 20:17, 19 March 2010 (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 Nomination withdrawn. Nominator has withdrawn in favor of merge discussion already occurring, and no other editors have supported deletion. No prejudice against any future nominations for deletion or merger. RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quote box2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

Unnecessary fork of {{Quote box}}. This has some extra features, but as best as I can tell, they should just be collapsed into the former template and this redirected to that. I don't see the advantage of having both of these. There are several quotation templates and it seems like at least a couple of them are redundant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose/comment: There is currently a discussion on the talk page about merging {{
  quote box3}}. they will probably all be merged into the first. once that's done we can discuss deletion, though that will need a bot to go through and change the template names. --Ludwigs2 01:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)--Ludwigs2 01:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose for now: Per Ludwigs2. There is current discussion on a merge. The merge needs to occur before any deletion process, and this will take careful consideration and work to ensure compatibility. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Where is this discussion? I don't see it at Template talk:Quote box, Template talk:Quote box2 or Template talk:Quote box3. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See

quote box3}}. And, yes, there are too many quote templates. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. And also Oppose merge. This quote box is used on multiple pages and I have found it to be very useful and helpful. Cirt (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. And also Oppose merge. Per Cirt. And please do it quickly, so the unsightly notice of this discussion is removed from all quotebox2 pages.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious why you oppose the merge. none of the functionality of either template will be lost, so what's the problem? --Ludwigs2 07:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Postpone judgement until discussion ends While I support Epeefleche/Cirt in part, I have to agree with Ludwigs2 on the fact that there is a discussion already in progress. ShawnIsHere (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if you guys want to figure out how to best merge them all, great, but don't delete before that's settled. And I agree with Epeefleche, that note on the pages should go, it's distracting. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gadget850 and ShawnIsHere. So long as functionality is preserved, I don't care where it's housed, but there's no reason to delete this template before its merged and there's no reason at all to delete the template if it isn't merged. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a very useful template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - This deletion debate has produced a big "The template Quote box2 is being considered for deletion" message to appear on the Special:UserLogin&type=signup page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eisoser4 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now put the tfd template inside noinclude tags. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn It appears that the consensus is to merge it at the talk page, so I'll withdraw it here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:22, 7 March 2010 (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) 22:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Infobox promotes confusion by combining under the topic of craters various unrelated geologic processes including impacts, volcanoes, sinkholes and stream erosion. Evidence of incoherence of the subject is use of a disambiguation page and non-existent WikiProject for the type field. Violates

• Delete We should not re-introduce the confusion over the term "craters" that editors have worked to undo. See the mass category renaming Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 22#Category:Craters for existing consensus that Wikipedia needs to avoid confusion by unqualified use of the term "crater". That CFD led to renaming categories named "Craters of..." to "Impact craters of..." while non-impact crater articles were moved to appropriate subcategories of Category:Volcanoes. Ikluft (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have posted FYIs on the talk pages of
  WP:ASTRONOMY. Ikluft (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• At
  WP:VOLCANO. Ikluft (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• For astronomers, there is an additional issue that this template makes no differentiation between terrestrial craters and those on other celestial bodies. Infoboxes do exist for impact craters on other celestial bodies such as the Moon and Mars. But it adds to the confusion that this template would cause. Ikluft (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If "Infoboxes do exist for impact craters on other celestial bodies such as the Moon and Mars." why not for earth? (unsigned - apparently by YakbutterT)

• Being named "Infobox crater" without qualification to Earth/Moon/etc, impacts, volcanoes, nukes, sinkholes, and other types of craters, this template is too vague and confusing. Ikluft (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree completely with the nominator. -- Avenue (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Craters and calderas... craters is too ambiguous. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an atomic bomb test site also contains craters, and this has absolutely no functionality for use on off-Earth craters (like on the Moon) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Template can add clarity to over
  43 entries devoted to impact craters, maybe re-naming it Impact Craters would account for the work that Ikluft alludes to differentiating these from other craters. Some of the suggested ambiguity with volcanoes is addressed by the fact that they already use the mountain infobox template, and in most cases people are more interested in the details of the mtn than the crater. The idea on an infobox is not so much for categorization of the geographic feature (apparently a historic issue for wiki craters) but rather for the presentation of some of its prominent features. There is a need for a template, if it is better to call it 'impact crater' then rename it but this would still leave all the other craters that are not also volcanoes or lake without an infobox. --YakbutterT (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Bolide Type*** —Preceding unsigned comment added by YakbutterT (talk • contribs) 05:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Even renaming it "Infobox impact crater" would cause confusion of its meaning versus {{
  Infobox Venus crater}} and {{Infobox Mercury crater}}. Anyway, when specializing the template for impact craters was suggested on the template's talk page, you argued against it and kept trying to make it an amalgamated craters-geology-astronomy-weapons-everything-everywhere template, which is not useful. Your edit comment on that was "the template is just too groovy." I stopped trying to convince you and nominated it for deletion. Ikluft (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• There are still plenty of volcanic craters and calderas that are not lakes or mountains (or even hills). I can think of half a dozen within an hour's drive from where I live. So there is plenty of scope for confusion. -- Avenue (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with
  Sedan Crater. There is absolutely no "clarity" that {{Infobox crater}} can provide for any of these. Ikluft (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2010 (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.