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) 23:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heroes character box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan (only some leftovers in sandboxes) and redundant to {{Infobox character}}. My "speedy" deletion request was declined in its 7th day (no wonder why not many editors use T3 anymore) because it's non "T3-worthy at this time". I still it has to be deleted as all other templates that have been superseded by a better one. Magioladitis (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular view either way as to the deletion of this, but I don't particularly appreciate the nom statement in reference to my declining the T3. It appeared in CAT:CSD, as far as I could determine it was still transcluded on various pages and listed for use in Wikipedia:WikiProject Heroes, so it therefore didn't fit the "not employed in any useful fashion" criterion. If someone else thinks it genuinely fit T3 at that point then by all means speedy it without objection from me - I may be misinterpreting. ~ mazca ^talk 00:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just stated the situation. Maybe you are right about the T3 but we have to do something because I see a lot of templates where the could be deleted without TfD. Cheers, Magioladitis (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But yes, I think this is indeed an unnecessary hardcoded duplicate of {{infobox character}}; so I'd agree with a delete here. ~ mazca ^talk 11:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. --RL0919 (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unused in article-space, and redundant to more flexible templates. Robofish (talk) 21:44, 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) 23:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Oakleigh indoor sports comp team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Was tagged for deletion on 7 August, by another editor, but not posted here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused and has lots of redlinks. --RL0919 (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - blatantly newbie test, with someone experimenting with a template for their pet team. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unused and unlikely ever to be. Robofish (talk) 21:43, 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 after replacement with equivalent {{convert}} commands. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Auto bhp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Auto PS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Auto Nm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Auto km/h (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Auto L/100km (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) This, and the two other stricken out examples below have not been fully replaced by {{convert}} and should not be deleted as of yet. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Yes they have actually. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Mpg (Imperial) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:L/100km (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This templates are redundant with Template:Convert. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^{¤ • ¢} 21:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the following templates:

Template:Auto mm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Auto kg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Auto lb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Auto mph (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Auto shp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Auto cc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Auto litres (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Auto in3cm3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Auto ihp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Auto cc-cu in (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I have checked to ensure that these can be replaced by {{convert}} and everything seems okay. {{Auto CID}} and {{Auto Lrev}} have not been superseded by "convert" and thus should remain in use until they have. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we switch over the auto pages which use them before deleting? Sounds like a good job for a bot. 68.100.149.150 (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I was going to suggest if there was a consensus on the delete. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^{¤ • ¢} 22:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after switching. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a pain to figure out which Auto template to use in each instance; Convert works consistently for all cases. Getting rid of Auto also puts to rest all the bickering over which one to use and the messy articles that mix both.--Dbratland (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment #1: {{convert}} does not seem to "work consistently" for all cases, reading the comments below. If it can't output all the variations of fuel economy, {{mpg}} / {{mpg (Imperial)}} / {{L/100km}} definitely need to be left alone. --DeLarge (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC) They seem to be OK after all, per User:OSX, which assuages my concerns. --DeLarge (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment #2: {{auto mm}}, {{auto in}}, {{auto kg}}, {{auto lb}}, etc look more redundant than those listed above, yet haven't been nominated for deletion? --DeLarge (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I've been meaning to do this myself for some time. However, issues with fuel economy will need to be addressed prior to the deletion of those templates. Also, as DeLarge suggested, the mm, kg, and lb templates should also go. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: with addressed modifications above, can we have bot or some group to change templates, there will be lots of work.. And we should do this quite fast schedule, now it messes hundreds of articles--Typ932 ^T·C 13:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"And we should do this quite fast schedule, now it messes hundreds of articles": agreed, this deletion should (must) be expedited if possible. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually removed the deletion tags from the templates as the aesthetic and practical affect is quite bad. I know this is out of line with common guidelines, but I think commonsense would support my decision. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense would support your decision if there were not a way to avoid this but you can always put the tag within <noinclude>s. JIMp _talk·cont 16:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Switch them over to convert and delete them, all of them including the fuel efficiency ones (it can handle US mpg, imp mpg, l/100 km and more ... sorry no lightyears per teaspoon ... the "inconsistancy" is addressed below). JIMp _talk·cont 16:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Change the source to use {{convert}}, then subst and delete, where this is possible. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: {{convert}} does in fact support the correct conversion of fuel economy figures, so I have "un-stricken" the relevant deprecated templates from above.

OSX (talk • contributions) 05:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - with one comment, my understanding is that the convention in the automobiles wikiproject (and by momentum but not consensus in the motorcycles wikiproject) is not to use formatted numbers for large units of measure e.g. 1234 mm rather than 1,234 mm. The convert templates always produce formatted numbers. Perhaps this is a good time for the two projects to drop this rather anachronistic convention. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a reply that the no-comma convention has been dropped (Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions) and therefore my comment should be disregarded. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild oppose - While it does make the affected articles more consistent, changing them to {{convert}} also increases article sizes on automotive entries. It will become harder for edit window to fit all the contents and harder to proofread someone else's edits. Shortcuts existed to improve the speed of editing articles and to reduce chances of manual errors. Removing auto templates will undo that effort. For templates 'auto PS', 'auto bhp', 'auto Nm', 'auto lbft', which are frequently used, this problem is going to get a lot worse. Having said that, the auto PS/bhp are getting inconsistent on the presentation of figures, and should have unified into showing PS, bhp, and kW (frequently used by hybrid vehicles) at the first place. - Jacob Poon (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, invoke convert instead Delete is OK

• I can't cite all that WP:blahblah chapter and verse, but for now I'm moderately opposed to deletion because of the following:
  • It leaves no way to find all pages with an Mpg value. "What links here" for {{convert}} is thousands of pages, there isn't a single car on the first page.
  • The semantic consistency of "The number in this template states auto mpg" is pretty valuable for crawlers and resources like DBPedia.
  • Asking auto enthusiasts to master {{convert|30|mpgUS|l/100 km}} instead of a simple {{subst:mpg|30}} is a burden (??)
  • {{convert}} says "The following conversions are currently not available as a range of values... Fuel consumption units (mpg, L/100km)". I'm not sure what that means but it sounds bad!
  • Can you get mpg-imp and L/100km simultaneously out of {{convert}} ?
  • I don't trust anyone with funny symbols in their username ;-)

For comparison, {{mpg}} produces 30 miles per US gallon (7.8 L/100 km; 36 mpg_‑imp) , while {{convert}} produces 30 miles per US gallon (7.8 l/100 km).

Surely a better approach is to keep these templates but just implement them by invoking {{convert}}? Please resolve this speedily one way or the other because hundreds of car pages look bad right now. -- Skierpage (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC) updated, I withdraw my objection[reply]

No idea what is going on here, but if the purpose of this template is to display KW figures after HP figures for the benefit of those of us who use them, please keep it. Either way, can this be solved quickly? This is making many pages look like ass. 124.190.154.40 (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the purpose of one of these templates is to display kW figures after hp. However, this template, and most of the other similar templates have been deprecated by {{convert}}. As I stated above, I have removed the deletion tags from the templates so they do not interfere with the articles. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I attempt a response to the above points:
  • If you want all pages with any given unit, look up "What links here" for the unit's subpage, e.g. {{convert/mpgUS}}.
  • I'd think {{convert}}'s code is more semantically consistence. Can't the crawlers and resources like DBPedia use this too? Is this really a major concern, though?
  • Learning to use {{convert}} is a small burden, it's not all that hard. Asking Wikipedians to master the over-populated Category:Conversion templates is the greater burden. Are auto enthusiasts somehow special?
  • The "The following conversions are currently not available as a range of values... Fuel consumption units (mpg, L/100km)" refers to ranges, e.g. 12 to 20 mpg_‑US (20 to 12 L/100 km; 14 to 24 mpg_‑imp). It won't sound so bad if you note that none of the nominated templates can handle ranges.
  • You can get mpg-imp and L/100km simultaneously out of {{convert}}.
  • Yes, the funny symbols in usernames are a concern.

JIMp _talk·cont 16:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my funny symbols out of this, they are just Japanese quotation marks :P 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^{¤ • ¢} 05:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimp, thanks so much for your comprehensive response!, switching to {{convert}} sounds doable and worthwhile so I struck out my heading. gu1dry, I was just teasing. -- Skierpage (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you were teasing, hence the :P ;) 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^¤ • ¢ 00:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, "{{convert}} does in fact support the correct conversion of fuel economy figures, so I have "un-stricken" the relevant deprecated templates from above." (see above table). OSX (talk • contributions) 05:46, 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 keep. JPG-GR (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox U.S. state (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. The intention is to converting the backend to use that template, and later substitute. This is part of a large-scale operation to merge similar geographical infoboxes into the generic parent, to reduce maintenance overheads. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, deletion is not required here, per my comment regarding Infobox Swiss town below.  Sandstein  21:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answered under that heading. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Infobox settlement seems to be consuming all other geographic templates, and I'm not sure that's a good thing, since its primary function is for major cities, not for provinces or states, which need an infobox more akin to the one for countries.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 21:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening sentence of the documentation of {{Infobox Settlement}} states unequivocally (my emphasis): "This template should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, etc. - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country…". Dozens of redundant templates have already been merged into {{Infobox Settlement}} in this manner, without problem. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realize that is the lofty and ambitious intent of the template, but I maintain that the primary function of Infobox Settlement, is for cities, and think that opening sentence there makes that clear. To lump U.S. states together with provinces and counties I feel mistakes their unique political situation. Russian republics still have their own infoboxes, as do Brazilian states. Will we add a "U.S. Senators" field to Infobox Settlement? Because I don't think "leader_name1" will cut it. What about "Admission to the Union" or population ranking in the United States?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 20:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The conclusions you draw are exactly opposite of the correct ones; the template documentation makes clear that cites are but one type of settlement covered by this template; and the presence of "leader_name1" very much does cover Senators. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS cuts no ice; those templates will be dealt with in turn. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Andrew, don't blow my comments off with that policy stuff. What I'm saying is that U.S. states, like Russian republics, are more than just "settlements". Like I said, these are more akin to countries than cities. I've been using these infoboxes for years now, and helped convert city templates into Infobox Settlement, so I know where I'm coming from. Here's what you could do to convince me though: Pick a state, say Texas, and reproduce the infobox there with your one. Only do so without loosing any of the fields, or any of the meaning of those fields, or wikilinks embedded in the field names. I don't think you can do that, so I'm going to continue to oppose deletionist policies. Also, why haven't I seen a notice or reasons for this posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Template talk:Infobox U.S. state, or on any of the articles your deletion would affect?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 05:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have no idea who Andrew is; but policies exist for a reason and you can expect to hear about them if you appear to be ignoring or unaware of them. Your challenge is a false one, because the relevant templates have not yet been merged into {{Infobox settlement}}. Instead, consider the vast number of redundant templates already successfully merged into and deprecated in favour of the generic one. This has nothing to do with deletionism, because no content and no functionality is lost. You have seen no such notices, because the notice belongs on the template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

            And in the same way, you can't argue that "because other templates were integrated" this one should be. Again, you're not seeing my points, and are turning to pettifoggery. As I said, you can convince me that what you say is true, that "no content and no functionality is lost" by presenting a working example of a U.S. state in Infobox Settlement. I've looked at doing it, and see a number of places where it falls down.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 16:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

            • • I'm not arguing that "because other templates were integrated this one should be." Since you claim to already "see a number of places where it falls down" perhaps you could share them with us. And your insistence on indenting with ":" when everyone else is using bullet points is breaking this page's HTML. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                Wow, first you want a policy, see WP:TPO. Just leave other user's formatting as it is, and work around it. There does happen to be a method of indenting bulletpoints if you prefer them. Besides the examples I listed, of congressional representation, admission to the union, and both U.S. population and U.S. area rankings, I don't see a field for "Before statehood known as", for both "official languages" and "spoken languages", or for official abbreviations. States such as Indiana also have more than two timezones. Maybe you'd have enough blank fields to make up for some of these, but that's really not how we should be going about making infoboxes user friendly. Again, if I saw it, I might be convinced.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 17:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                • • Thanks for bringing up WP:TPO; perhaps you might note that it says: "Generally, page formatting can be fixed…" [*]. I didn't say that bullet-points could not be indented; I said that "your insistence on indenting with ":" when everyone else is using bullet points is breaking this page's HTML". Each of the concerns you raise can be dealt with by using exiting fields, or adding new ones (such as additional timezones) if there is a need to do so. ([*]Note also that the Layout section there specifically says "Normally colons are used, not bullet points (although the latter are commonly used at AfD, CfD, etc.)". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                    Just because it's not your format does not make others in error. All I will say is that looking through old TfDs there seems to be no right method, and I'm done with this argument. Okay, if you want this to happen, then go ahead and add extra timezone fields and whatnot. I can wait.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 18:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                    • Indiana only shows two time zones in its current infobox as does Texas (the widest state). {{Infobox U.S. state}}, according to its documentation, only has two time-zone properties. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                      There you go, I'll give you that one. Two parts of Indiana don't do daylight savings, so it seems like there are four. My bad. What about the other concerns? Saying "they will be addressed" is not the same as addressing them.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 19:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Does Infobox U.S. state do anything that Infobox settlement does not, either in terms of added functionality, differences in display, simplicity of setting up, or excluding or making optional parameters that Infobox settlement requires? I don't see the importance of having all cities, states, provinces, cantons, and such under one template, but if the template doesn't actually have value, then there is no point in keeping it. -Rrius (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the value is that Infobox U.S. state is intentionally handicapped. Blank fields, such as those found in Infobox settlement, have been repeatedly rejected from Infobox U.S. state, for good cause. One example: There are coin enthusiasts who felt strongly that the state quarters pertaining to each state had a place in the infobox. Ultimately, the quarters were vetoed, but giving these users the near infinite possibilities of Infobox Settlement will reintroduce this issue, and lots more. Ultimately, it will lead to fifty very different looking articles on U.S. states, since each will do theirs differently, leading to less standardization, not more. So the fact that it does less is not a bad thing.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 07:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as said above {{Infobox settlement}} includes all necessary parameters, there is no need to keep this one. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 15:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate in favour of {{infobox settlement}}. Merge in any extra parameters. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sandstein, Patrick etc. Deletion is not required here, and the existing template meets local needs better than the generic. Orderinchaos 19:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This seems to be premature. Why do this when implementation is not even fully fleshed out and similar, smaller templates aren't being included. As someone who wants to prepare a template for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, attempting to work from complex code with far more parameters than necessary is harder than working up from simple code. Sweeping up every all related infoboxes therefore into more complicated templates discourages future creativity. -Rrius (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I share many of the above concerns of Rrius and Patrickneil, and I haven't been convinced that the settlement template supports all of the US state-specific terms and links. The current US state template works well because it is made specifically for US states; it does what it needs to without being too complex. AlexiusHoratius 08:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. local template better than the generic one. mgeo talk 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way "better" (WP:IDONTLIKEIT refers). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because local infoboxes are more flexible and easier to use. mgeo talk 14:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ummmm, doesn't WP:IDONTLIKEIT apply just as well to the nomination? -Rrius (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No; the nomination includes a valid rationale. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. At best, the proposal for deletion is premature. First, the interchangeability of the templates should be clearly demonstrated and second the project(s) that use the templates should be engaged to produce a consensus supporting the switchover. Neither has happened. Furthermore, as others have discussed above and elsewhere, the philosophical approach of one-size-fit-all is deeply problematic in that it usually either results loss of features or in greater complexity (i.e., a higher obstacle for usability). older ≠ wiser 14:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate Per nom for maintenance reasaons. Redundant. Himalayan 15:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have seen no evidence that the generic IS template is better than any number of specific "settlement"-type infoboxes, including this one. The proponents of IS seem to think that standardisation around IS is a done deal. Well, it is not and the case for moving to IS should be made clear and debated widely. Just because we have the capability to create a monstrous template that can do everything is not sufficient reason for actually doing that. Why stop at standardising around IS, we could create one "infobox" with all fields coveing everything from localities to people to organisations etc. At some point, the returns to scale from having one infobox doing everything is outweighed by the increasingly bulky size and difficulty of use of that template. There is a legitimate discussion to be had on that point, despite what the proponents of deletion state. I suggest the proponents of deletion go away and have a think about what they are trying to achieve with these nominations, certainly it is getting them no closer to a standardised template. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A state is not a town, city, or settlement. It needs to remain a separate template. Merging with Infobox Settlement is highly inappropriate.DCmacnut<> 01:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep regionalised templates are more effective, countering WP:BIAS. Gnangarra 06:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to be canvassing, based on a false premise ("globalised templates using terminology and spelling that isnt consistant with the region"). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woaaa, wait a minute. Gnangarra believes making the templates consistent is somehow detrimental to counteracting systematic bias? OMG. I've been a member of the counteracting systematic bias on here for years inclusing under my old account and every edit I make it so try to do this, not affect it. You've really got the wrong end of the stick and what this is about. A specialized redundant template is somehow part of counteracting systmetic bias? Wow, that's bizarre Himalayan 14:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point being made is that generic/global templates must be carefully crafted in order to avoid systemic bias, whereas allowing the use of specialized/regional templates inherently avoids this issue. In spite of the best efforts to the contrary, well-meaning edits to a generic template will invariably be made in a manner best suited to one's own experience and may accidentally introduce bias toward the system with which they are familiar. In any event, you might want to tone down the theatrics ("Whoaa", "OMG", "Wow, that's bizarre") because they accomplish surprisingly little in the way of constructive discussion. Shereth 14:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A localised template uses term that are familiar with the people writing the articles and the people reading them, the use of US style political terminology to describe regions and forms of government is bias to a US system, the suggest replacement template requires that one needs to be able to correctly compare their forms to the US system to correctly use the template this is the BIAS I'm referring. Gnangarra 16:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you object to the use of {{Infobox settlement}}, due to its (fallaciously) alleged US bias, to replace infoboxes about US states? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • As you are quite aware, this nomination by you is part of a program to migrate all "settlement"-type infoboxes to IS. Since the proponents of such migration have not seen fit to argue the general case for such a move in any forum, people who are as yet unconvinced by such a move need to point out all the flaws in the general migration proposal in all TfD discussions, regardless if they specifically apply to this case or not. As for accusations of canvassing, are you not willing to have as wide a discussion as possible. I would think the more participants involved, the more likely that the final result of the discussion will reflect community consensus. I often find that people who complain about alleged "canvassing" are more often than not just not willing to wider scrutiny of their actions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is no such programme. Please stop spreading falsehoods. As to your other attempt to smear, WP:CANVASS refers. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • From your nomination statement "This is part of a large-scale operation to merge similar geographical infoboxes into the generic parent, to reduce maintenance overheads". Please desist from accusing me of falsehood. As for WP:CANVASS, while I think that the guideline is well meaning, its misuse by those looking to stifle wider participation in decision making makes its existence a net negative for the encyclopedia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Where in my nomination do you imagine you see the word "all" (your emphasis)? Your claim was and remains false. WP:CANVAS doesn't prevent wider engagement; it prohibits partisan canvassing such as that described above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a separate template. Merging templates that do primarily the same thing and cover primarily the same subject make sense. Forcing disparate templates to behave similarly through the use of multiple generic parameters is sacrificing simplicity of use (by the end users) for simplicity of maintenance. We should not be designing systems that are complicated to use merely because they are easy to maintain. Shereth 14:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert backend to pass all parameters to {{infobox settlement}}, using a sandbox to make sure that everyone interested is satisfied with the result. Once that has been completed, a discussion can continue about the merits of having this template as a state-level specific frontend. Just ping me and I will be happy to start the process by creating the initial sandbox version demonstrating the conversion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:26, 12 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 keep, with no prejudice toward any backend conversions if they are agreed upon by the community. JPG-GR (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Swiss town (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. The intention is to converting the backend to use that template, and later substitute. This is part of a large-scale operation to merge similar geographical infoboxes into the generic parent, to reduce maintenance overheads. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Template migrations generally only require substitution or redirection, not deletion. Anybody who proposes such a migration should first be prepared to show that {{Infobox settlement}} is capable of supporting all the Switzerland-specific features of this infobox and that there is a workable automated migration process. Discussion among interested editors will then determine whether there is consensus for such a migration. A TfD nomination is neither required nor a useful start to this process.  Sandstein  21:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plastikspork has assured me that conversion will be "very easy". Merging of templates nominated for deletion due to redundancy in this way is commonplace, and often achieved via this process. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, no. I expect the question of whether a template that is currently used on some 3,000 articles should be replaced by another be discussed on the template talk page first, with a concrete proof of concept that the migration actually works and provides a tangible benefit. If we have consensus for migration, then we can discuss any deletions.  Sandstein  22:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean with tangible benefit? with one template the maintenance will be easier. Or is there any parameter that infobox settlement is missing? Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 15:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not in principle opposed to replacing this with a standard template. But we should first make sure that the replacement works, then discuss whether it makes sense to replace it (including input from WP:CH members). If we have consensus for a migration, then we can discuss deletion, but not as the first step in any migration process!  Sandstein  21:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please identify the individual whose suggested course of action consists entirely of the single step "administrator presses 'delete' button". 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly redundant. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 15:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate in favour of {{infobox settlement}}. Merge in any extra parameters. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Contains several Swiss-specific fields which would be difficult to justify deprecating just to comply with some imposed idea of a "world standard". I agree with Sandstein's remarks re the nominator's unwillingness to discuss in good faith with those affected - it seems to be a pattern in these nominations generally. Orderinchaos 19:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You accusations of bad faith are unfounded. This is a discussion; all are welcome. Which fields in this template, do you feel are not covered by equivalents in the generic template? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I've not questioned Pigsonthewing's good faith.  Sandstein  21:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was merely referring to the fact that no attempt had been made to engage with the users of the Swiss project before bringing the deletion debate here, nor were they notified about this TfD. That, combined with the talk on Template talk:Infobox settlement persuaded me that there was no intention to engage with the users of the template and simply to ram this through. Orderinchaos 03:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then you were persuaded wrongly. All users of the template have been invited to participate here, through the requisite TFD notice on the template page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate Towns are well covered by Infobox settlement, and I support this depreciation.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 21:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. — Sandstein  21:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sandstein and OIC. The deletion discussion here and on the other regional settlement infoboxes is putting the cart before the horse. How about the nominator (and the supporters of deletion) try working with the regional editors to develop consensus for a move, arrange an orderly migration process and when all this is done and the template is no longer used, putting it up for deletion. I know this will take longer and may require some compromise but it will avoid the short-term chaos when the template is deleted and will ensure local support for the migration program (should consensus be for a migration). This crash-through approach to standardisation is wrong-headed and counter-productive. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone doesn't understand what "deprecate" means. Someone also doesn't understand the practicalities of carrying out template deletions. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps for the benefit of the unenlightened, you might point out what your supposed "plan" is? Whatever your plan is, it would be better done with local editors on side rather than alienating them. It's obvious it irks you to have to have to talk to the actual users of the templates but hey why should anyone be allowed to get in the road of the "grand plan". -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The an is clearly identified above: "Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. The intention is to converting the backend to use that template, and later substitute". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There will be no chaos, short-term or otherwise. Unless you can show otherwise, please strike through that false claim. Many templates have recently been deprecated in favour of {{Infobox settlement}}, with no drama. And please avoid ascribing feelings to others; to do so fails to assume good faith. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A "one size fits all" approach does not necessarily work globally and adds a large overhead without necessarily allowing for vagaries of specific regions around the world. Donama (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please identify specifically which aspects of this template are not catered for by the generic parent. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. same comment as for Infobox U.S. state above. mgeo talk 13:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say the local template is "better" In what way ? (WP:IDONTLIKEIT refers). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. At best, the proposal for deletion is premature. First, the interchangeability of the templates should be clearly demonstrated and second the project(s) that use the templates should be engaged to produce a consensus supporting the switchover. Neither has happened. Furthermore, as others have discussed above and elsewhere, the philosophical approach of one-size-fit-all is deeply problematic in that usually either results loss of features or in greater complexity (i.e., a higher obstacle for usability). older ≠ wiser 14:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • THis is the discussion "to produce a consensus supporting the switchover". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And many (even most) people who regulary USE the template do not have the template on their watch lists and might not even be aware that such a discussion is taking place. It is common courtesy, if not common sense, to at least attempt to notify projects using the templates about the discussions. And besides, framing the INITIAL discussion from the perspective of those users as a deletion discussion is almost certain to provoke more heated opposition than if you had approached the projects directly.older ≠ wiser 16:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate Actually I did make some ordering improvements to this in the past under my old account and I think it has been considerably improved. I think it could be converted to standard though for maintenance/standardisation reasons. Himalayan 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - how will the backend (am I right in assuming this means the articles currently using {{Infobox Swiss town}}?) be converted to use {{Infobox settlement}}? Can we see a demonstration? Thanks. —BillC ^talk 19:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • the backend means "the innards of the template" - view the source of {{Infobox Kommune}}, which does the same thing. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep regionalised templates are more effective. Gnangarra 06:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to be canvassing, based on a false premise ("globalised templates using terminology and spelling that isnt consistant with the region"). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There nothing false in what I'm saying, A localised template uses terms that are familiar with the people writing the articles and the people reading them, the use of US style political terminology to describe regions and forms of government is bias to a US system, the suggest replacement template requires that one needs to be able to correctly compare their forms to the US system to correctly use the template this is the BIAS I'm referring. That was not canvassing, it was advising the community that a new process was being implimented without prior discussion and if editors are interested they should join the discussions on the template talk page. Gnangarra 16:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It looks like most of the Swiss specific naming can be done with this template, but it requires providing the name such as " | subdivision_type2 = Canton" and then adding the specific canton name while this can be done with only 1 line currently. Additionally, if anything changes, such as changing the name of a page, this can be handled by making one change to the Swiss template right now. With the Infobox Settlement, this will require a bot and 3000+ edits. I also notice that currently the political party of the mayor can be entered with just a "D" for Democrat. Will this template support the vast number of political parties around the world? Will we have to make bot changes every time another country is absorbed into the template and one of their parties intials conflicts with an existing one? The final thing that I don't see at all on the template is the ability to add the SFSO (Swiss Federal Statistical Office) links that are included in the current template. Tobyc75 (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert backend to pass all parameters to {{infobox settlement}}, using a sandbox to make sure that everyone interested is satisfied with the result. Once that has been completed, a discussion can continue about the merits of having this template as a regionalized frontend. Just ping me and I will create the sandbox version to start the process. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:23, 12 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) 20:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Useless. {{lang|ar|xxx}} can be used directly. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 15:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pointless. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Indifferent. - Gilgamesh (talk) 12:30, 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) 20:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Useless template. In these cases wikisintax should be used instead of templates. Unused. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 15:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Completely unnecessary -- Alfred Russel Wallace's is perfectly acceptable, and much easier to type (and remember!) than a template of any variety. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 14:52, 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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is used to create markers for maps of India. However, it's entirely unused and seems unnecessary. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not needed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, delete Himalayan 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Test page. Kensplanet^T_C 05:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --RL0919 (talk) 15:59, 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Single use for a userpage, no need to have this in template namespace. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 15:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete. Unique creations for one's userpage don't belong in template-space. --RL0919 (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Now unused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:04, 5 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) 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Автобусы и троллейбусы Ликинского завода (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template deosn't contain a single word of English so shouldn't be on en.wikipedia.org. WOSlinker (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. Unused Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per above, and also it is unused. --RL0919 (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have translated the Russian text to English, it appears to be a template for models of bus and trolley bus manufactured by a Russian company. If the articles have any prospect of being created, I would say keep, but that looks unlikely. Orderinchaos 06:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ensure the models listed are in the LiAZ article, and then delete the template. No sense in a navbox full of redlinks. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:46, 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) 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Green Day Singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox is redundant to {{Green Day}}, which already lists the band's singles. To be fair, the band navbox only lists them because I just put them back in there; there were 2 separate templates for a while. But I don't see any reason for there to be 2 separate Green Day-related navboxes on every Green Day article, nor could I find any discussion on either template page suggesting or giving a rationale for splitting the singles off into their own navbox. Somebody just seems to have done it at some point, but it seems wholly unnecessary. Since I've put the singles back into the band navbox, I think we can delete this second box. IllaZilla (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely unnecessary and now redundant to have an entire navbox just for singles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 13:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One combined navbox should be sufficient. --RL0919 (talk) 22:58, 5 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) 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American-Wikipedias (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with {{Wikipedias}}. Half of the links are red and is unused. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 15:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unused and full of redlinks. --RL0919 (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of the links are red, and the three that aren't all redirect to List of Wikipedias -- so there aren't any articles this template could even be placed on at this point. Zetawoof_(ζ) 19:44, 7 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) 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:"Nevada's Golden Age of Gambling" (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template namespace is not place for this stuff. Single use. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 15:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed from the article. now unused Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete. Template used to transclude article text. --RL0919 (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; should be added to articles as text, not as a template. Robofish (talk) 21:41, 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.