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 with the possibility of split/merge/substitution into article space at a future date, perhaps after the pandemic has subsided. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 flu pandemic table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Huge template with now only 2 tranclusions. 2009 flu pandemic timeline doesn't really needed. I suggest that we substed it in 2009 flu pandemic by country and delete it. In the 2009 swine flu outbreak article was replaced a month ago with a smaller and better template. Magioladitis (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. The template in the 2009 swine flu outbreak article is definitely smaller as you say, but 'better' is a very subjective term; what's 'better' to some--the lack of information--is probably not better to the many thousands of people who continue to monitor the current template. Tracking the spread and growth of A/H1N1 continues to be something in which many folks are interested, and that interest will likely grow as the Northern Hemisphere slides into the fall/winter flu season and things really take off. In a matter of days, the intention is to include a column showing official national case estimates; it would be a travesty and an injustice to only provide deaths by continent/region as found in the 2009 swine flu outbreak article, as without case numbers to compare to, death counts alone are nearly worthless. Sqlman (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep thousands upon thousands of hours have gone into updating the table. Subst'ing it & removing attribution for all those edits would be completely inappropriate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP I agree that plenty of contributions and work was put into making the table what it is today, and it would be an injustice to remove it or delete it. I also want the main article to include this template in the future. Several countries are still reporting and displaying the reported number of A(H1N1) cases and the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention has done similar reports for European countries and death counts. Roman888 (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no reason to delete this template. It is also well beyond 5,000 revisions now (9,624 at the time of the TfD) which means only a steward with bigdelete permissions could delete it anyway (which would also cause a noticeable slow-down of the servers). --Tothwolf (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move, if possible, to article space (thereby preserving history); otherwise subst onto a new page. That way, the table can be maintained, shown with 100% font size and width (and so be more readable), categorised, and linked to from the currently-transcluding and other pages. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Convert to article and then histmerg sounds reasonable. I haven't thought about it. I totally agree. We need to preserve edit history somehow. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A history merge wouldn't be feasible. For a history merge to work properly the two article histories have to have very minimal or no overlap (time wise). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that not be feasible, if this is moved/ merged to a new article? Failing that, deprecate and protect the template, and copy the contents to a new article, with a note on its talk page as to the location of the prior history.Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it would make the history completely incomprehensible. History merging is only for merging two non-overlapping histories. Please read this if you don't understand what I'm talking about. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're talking about; I don't think you understand me. In what way will the history of the template "overlap" the history of a new page? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you are saying put it in a new article & move the history to that article & do nothing else, then there is no problem. I though you were saying do that and merge the newly created page with an existing one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - at least until the pandemic is finished. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not see the amount of time/effort/work that has gone into it as being a good reason to keep the template, if it were no longer a used or useful part of the encyclopaedia then there would be no reason to host it. However, the template is currently used and if it is used it requires attribution. A history merge is not an option (It would make the combined article history completely incoherent) and if the history has to be kept somewhere then the table might as well be kept in the template namespace for all the reasons it was put there in the first place. If the table is depreciated and no longer used in any articles then I would support its deletion but that's a content decision which I do not think can be made in a deletion discussion of this type. Guest9999 (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This table has valuable information and adds to the usefulness of the encyclopedia. It is large but that is no good reason to delete it unless the information in was so dated that it was no longer useful which is not the case. Most countries around the world are now included in the chart so it will not grow much larger. --Daveonwiki (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I replaced the template in the 2009 swine flu outbreak article less than a week ago and created the small new template. The replacement was necessary, not because the 'full' template is 'worse', only because the article had grown too big and had to be reduced in size. I like to hear, that you rate the small replacement 'better', it shows to me, that you can use the information in it. But that does not mean, that the information in the Template:2009 flu pandemic table has lost its worth. Quite contrary it becomes more valuable than ever: the pandemic is continuing, media are publishing biased informations and it is very important to have a place, where you can get up to date informations about the world-wide situation stemming from a multitude of different sources. This table is well referenced and up to date. What justifications do you have for a deletion, besides that you like the small template better? This table has a very specific content and it is transcluded into only two articles (additionally it is meant to be linked from the main page, the link to 2009 flu pandemic by country has the only purpose to make the table visible). But at the same time it has a lot of user traffic. It will be very interesting to see the usage statistics at the end of september, because they will show, how many users are intending to see the table and how many are intending to see the article. --FHessel (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you read my nomination, I certainly believe that the information to this template is worthy to keep. I think we have to keep it in an article so it's readable. Template space is not appropriate to fit so much information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 points: It is 100% necessary to keep the table form. The table is a frame, which gives the chance for (partly) automation of updating tasks. There is no way to maintain such a rapidly changing amount of information without that frame.

Because updating becomes harder (it is now more of a daily task, less thrilling, and less editors are involved, on the other hand the pandemic is evolving and the numbers are changing faster than before) only this template is really up to date. Look at the different language versions, they all are more or less (mostly much more) out of date. Thus we should transclude this one template into all different language versions (isn't it better to give explanations in native tongue and have only the table in English, instead of having to send people to a page, which is completely in English, when they want up to date information?). In that way, updating efforts could all be concentrated on that table (instead of shattering them all over the different versions of this table), people would get up to date information and the reason, why the template is a template becomes perfectly clear.

I am not so familiar with the WP procedures. Nevertheless I would propose to merge all similiar tables from the different language versions with this table. Could you start that?

FHessel (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2009 (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) 15:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Car crash (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template not used & I doubt that it would be. Creator was a vandalistic sock-puppet. (Note also Infobox Joy Ride, below.) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Pointless and not used. Jimbö^V1 (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:39, 6 September 2009 (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) 15:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Joy Ride (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template not used & I doubt that it would be. WOSlinker (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this some kind of joke? Delete 81.110.104.91 (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ... this is probably the most useless infobox in existence. GrooveDog (oh hai.) 22:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Snowball; along with Infobox Car crash (above). Creator was a vandalistic sock-puppet. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:39, 6 September 2009 (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 substitute and delete after consensus is reached regarding the precise wording of the text. A wider discussion is strongly encouraged, with perhaps a formal WP:RFC. Once consensus has been reached, and the substitution has been completed, this template can be deleted. This TFD is not the best venue for debating the wording of the text, and hence, a immediate resolution cannot be achieved at this point in time. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CSRT-Yes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A horrible mess, I just had to subst one transclusion, where it ended in mid-sentence. It took me, a veteran editor, some time to figure out what was going on. The last TFD was closed as keep, with only two people supporting that action, one with the caveat "…if modified to remove the images" - this was not done. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. All the templates listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/List of Templates seem to be problematic, particularly given the guidelines at Wikipedia:Template namespace#Usage. There was some discussion of the idea at Wikipedia_talk:Template namespace#Prose exception before it was implemented, but there weren't a lot of contributors to the discussion and the idea was somewhat abstract at that point. The editors at the Terrorism project obviously ran with it. Generally I don't like the idea of using templates to transclude article prose, but this is a somewhat unusual situation that may deserve a more comprehensive discussion, perhaps through an RfC. --RL0919 (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC) JPG-GR (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove images at the least. Presumably there's an article somewhere which can use the images, I don't think they should be included in every such article. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the problem is that we have hundreds of Guantanamo detainee biographies, and when a user sees that the creator used POV language (say, "Administrative Review Boards, condemned by the international community, were set up to try the detainee...") and he tries to "fix" it by adding non-partisan language...it only fixes one biography, so although we have 800 articles that should all give an identical (and fluid, ever-evolving) condensed explanation of a "CSRT" or "ARB", each one was vaguely different, depending who had edited it, some were flagged with warning templates about POV, some had complete rewrites, some were astonishingly "George Bush did this unconsitutional thing" and others were astonishingly "to prove the terrorist guilty of plotting unspeakable crimes" - so we had three discussions, Talk:Template use, Wikiproject:Templates and Wikiproject:Terrorism, and all concurred that in this extreme situation, template use was appropriate to standardise the bits of prose. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please provide us with the links to these three discussions. IQinn (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I searched again for a long time and i can not find these discussions. I can not remember such discussions have been taken place in this way. Please provide us with the links. Thanks IQinn (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You claim there was consensus in the community to use this template even it is against the rules to prevent POV edits/vandalism, you say this consensus is reflected in this three discussions. I do not remember these discussions, i can not find these discussions and you do not provide us with the links to these discussions. As well i could not find information that you claimed where there in the past. No offense but i highly doubt that these discussion have taken place in this way, with the resulting consensus you claim. IQinn (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• IAR Keep, per Sherucij. Ordinarily, templates like this (used to duplicate text in multiple articles) are strongly discouraged, as they make it harder to edit the article; however, in the specific case of Guantanamo detainees (both due to their likelihood to attract POV edits/vandalism, and the sheer number of them), I think it's justified. I'm not sure if the pictures are really needed, but the use of templated text seems acceptable. Robofish (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete improper use of templates (see Wikipedia:Template namespace#Usage and transclusion). Redundant information and pictures that are already covered in the article Combatant Status Review Tribunal. Link to this article is the right action and that's also what internet is all about. No need to pump these mostly background information and same pictures into the biographies of 800 individuals. IQinn (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your first point, WP:IAR as mentioned by Robofish already this is a classic example of IAR. Per your second point, I think it's relevant that information like "The CSRTs are not bound by the rules of evidence that would apply in court, and the government’s evidence is presumed to be “genuine and accurate.”" is included in a biography before we say "his CSRT found him guilty of supporting al-Qaeda", especially when later in the article it says he was released as there was no evidence against him Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To get it straight we agree that it is against all rules written by our community specially Wikipedia:Template namespace#Usage and transclusion.

Now you want to overrule this consensus reflected in our policies because otherwise the articles would be subject to large amounts of POV edits/vandalism.

First of all i have not seen this happen in the past and i do not for-see that for the future. Wikipedia has well established mechanism to deal with POV and Vandalism.

As the nom states it becomes nearly impossible even for established user to edit pages if templates are misused in this way and i agree with him, it is a mess, and causes many more problems. The template should be deleted as there is no strong argument to ignore our rules. IQinn (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are either blind, or acting in bad faith. Take for random example, Abdur Sayed Rahaman (one of the detainees which does not use the template) which has been tagged as having neutrality issues in its desecriptions of CSRTs since December 2007. This is exactly what this template fixes. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out what you type. To accuse me of bad faith because you can not provide the links to the discussions that you claim have taken place in the way you have described them is uncivil. IQinn (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As i said the community has other established mechanism to deal with POV. Do not forget the hundreds of article we are speaking about are biographies of hundreds of different individuals. Copying the same text and pictures (over a template) into all of them makes it impossible for these articles to develop. The information in the template are already covered in Combatant Status Review Tribunal the BLP's do not need to repeat the same information and will link to this article in the future where POV issues can be solved. No need to misuse a template for that. IQinn (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iqinn, although I have disagreed with you, on a number of issues, I don't doubt your good faith.

I didn't state a keep or delete opinion, because there are strong arguments, on both sides. Our nominator and Iqinn are correct, that the policy on what should be transcluded in a template does bar the inclusion of unadulterated text, and only allows certain kinds of images, like icons, or thumbnails of flags.

But I am going to say here that Sherurcij is right about this use of transclusion really helping with some vexing management problems.

I experimented with the use of transclusion myself, in early 2007, before I realized that experiment was counter-policy. I didn't discuss my experiments with transclusion with anyone first. I stopped using transclusion in article space when I realized it was basically counter-policy, until this template passed its first {{tfd}} a couple of months ago. I can confirm Sherurcij did discuss his planned use of transclusion ahead of time. I can confirm some other wikipedia contributors thought that it was worth experimenting with. Sorry, I can't remember where those discussions took place, as it was close to two years ago. IIRC they were discussions I monitored, but largely or entirely sat out.

I 've been thinking about the current and future uses of transclusion in the two years since then. And I believe that a future version of the wikipedia will have better tools for ordinary contributors to make use of transclusion, and use it simply and transparently. The way I see it we are still using the Model A or Model T versions of the wikimedia software, and the current difficulties with transclusion are not the fault of transclusion, per se, but rather that the current wikimedia software doesn't yet have tools to make it easy to use. Our nominator noted that the template contains a fair bit of scaffolding, that is opaque to ordinary contributors. I agree, but I attribute this our current software not yet supporting transclusion. Viewing and/or editing the transcluded material is tricky for the uninitiated too. But this would not be a problem if we indicated we wanted to view and/or edit material differently. Now we have to click on the edit button next to a section heading. We are used to this, so it seems natural. But I think it would be better to be able to sweep our mouse across some text, and then indicate that we wanted to view or edit that selected text. We shouldn't have to know, ahead of time, whether what we wanted to edit was part of the immediate document, or transcluded from elsewhere. Once we indicated we wanted to edit it an editing pane should come up. And if the text we selected contained a transclusion, we should be given a cascade of editing and viewing panes -- one for each transclusion in our selection.

I see Sherurcij's work on this and the other related templates as a very interesting experiment. Without regard to the conclusion of the closing administrator I think there are some very valuable lesson here for those designing future versions of the wikimedia software, as to how those future versions should support additional kinds of links, specifically how they should support additional kinds of transclusion.

So, while I am stopping short of voicing a keep on the basis of WP:IAR -- because I am not a fan of WP:IAR arguments, I will suggest a justification the closing admin could consider. This has been a useful and limited experiment so far. And a close as keep or no consensus could be justified on the grounds of it continuing to be a useful experiment. The scaffolding our nominator suggested was opaque has been improved, is more functional. And if this experiment continues it future development could help those deciding what new features should be added to the wikimedia software new ways transclusion should be handled. Geo Swan (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to close as delete. As everybody agrees that it clearly violates our rules and policies and there is little benefit for POV prevention to expect. For the experiment: The templates functionality has not been improved since nomination and can not be improved until there would be a radical change in the software and UI what is not to expect for years to come and the new solution for transclusion won't be similar to the use of today's templates. The experiment to manage content with today's software and templates as it is done now has failed already. It could also be done at another place where it does not have a negative affect on the Biographies of hundreds of individuals. IQinn (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I removed the images. One person in the previous discussion, and one person in this discussion, have argued that the template should be deleted, unless the images were removed. Well, they are removed now. Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Point of order -- According to the published record 759 captives were sent to Guantanamo between January 2002 and mid 2004. Twenty captives were transferred there in in 2006, 2007 and 2008. So 800 is an exagerration. Approximately 330 captives attended their CSR Tribunal. So this template would be used in approximately 330 articles -- not 800 articles. Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it is actually used (as of a couple of minutes ago) on less than 150 articles. Of course that does not preclude it being used on additional article in the future, but that's the current state. --RL0919 (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for checking. IQinn (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but note also that its counterpart {tl|CSRT-No}} is used on 68 articles, and another 16 use the template {{CSRT}} where there is no indication whether they attended their tribunal. That's 234 out of 330 articles are already tagged with this template. That leaves only 96 articles that remain to incorporate the template, and as you'll notice on Ahmed Abdul Qader (one of the 96 articles lacking the template), it has been tagged with having POV issues in its description of CSRTs since December 2007. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem with the template is that it will become an even greater battle ground as all editors of the ~330 biographies would be forced to make it work for there individual biography in one place. And we will end up with even more tags inside the template that would show up in all 330 articles even most of the articles may not even have a problem. IQinn (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to the closing admin -- I didn't weigh in with a keep or delete opinion during the June {{Tfd}}. And I am not going to weigh in with an opinion here. I will however request the closing administrator, if they conclude deletion is appropriate, to consider how disruptive simple deletion of this widely used template would be. I request that, if they conclude the template should be deleted, instead of simple deletion they first arrange for a bot to perform a substitution-transclusion on every instance where the template is used. If this makes sense, I would ask, further, whether a dead-line could be set for a discussion to take place -- somewhere else -- as to what the final text that gets transcluded in those hundreds of articles should say. I don't think this forum is the appropriate place to discuss what the articles should say. Geo Swan (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to the closing admin -- Sure there would be some cleaning up work needed after the deletion of the template. There are about 150 articles where it is included. But i think it would not be to difficult and could be done by hand and i am willing to help in this work. IQinn (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but note also that its counterpart {tl|CSRT-No}} is used on 68 articles, and another 16 use the template {{CSRT}} where there is no indication whether they attended their tribunal. That's 234 out of 330 articles are already tagged with this template. That leaves only 96 articles that remain to incorporate the template, and as you'll notice on Ahmed Abdul Qader (one of the 96 articles lacking the template), it has been tagged with having POV issues in its description of CSRTs since December 2007. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WRT the suggestion that if the closing administrator concludes the template should be deleted it would be easy for a few people to manually replace every instance where the template was transcluded with in-line text... I left a note here detailing my experience of how much work that kind of replacement requires. I strongly feel that setting a robot to initiate a substitution-transclusion on every instance would be the appropriate step if the closing admin concludes deletion is in order. Geo Swan (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and answered your note and come to the same conclusion that the work needed after deletion of the template can be by hand and i am willing to do that. IQinn (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2009 (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. Garion96 (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template, and it appears consensus is not to use infoboxes for operas. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is often asserted that there is such consensus; but there is not. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I would say lack of use for over three years does indicate some level of consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pure Plastikspork. If there were consensus for usage, the first indicator would be its widespread usage. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' I didn't say that there was consensus for its use; I said that there was not - as is often claimed - consensus against its use. Indeed, the elephant in that room is that any attempt to reach such consensus is stifled. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does that matter? The template is not in use. that fact alone speaks volumes. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may not matter to this TFD debate; but it should matter to Wikipedia, which is why I raised it as a comment, rather than a "vote". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't matter either way. The template is unused, and since there doesn't seem to be any ongoing war over its use, that suggests very clearly that there is a consensus against its use. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete use thereof speaks of the tacit consensus not to use. Skier Dude (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think there is a community consensus to not use infoboxes in opera and painter articles. Himalayan 15:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale – for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. (WP:CONEXCEPT) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's official. I no longer have any idea what it is you're saying here. That the infobox is not used and not subject to an ongoing war to reinsert them. If that doesn't suggest that there is a clear consensus, I don't know what does. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, in this particular case it doesn't matter. The template is unused, and since there doesn't seem to be any ongoing conflict over its use, and the wikiproject do not use them in the articles and it is currently not used, that does account for something. Himalayan 16:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused and there is a statement on the template's talk page deprecating its use that has gone unchallenged since 2006. --RL0919 (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2009 (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) 15:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:La Monnaie company (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. The template is a navbox with only redlinks, none of which seems to have ever had an article. Jafeluv (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom - all redlinks. Skier Dude (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:39, 6 September 2009 (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.