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 Replace with {{main}} and delete. Ruslik_Zero 17:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Content fork (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hatnote. Produces: {{Content fork|TOPIC}} → {{Content fork|TOPIC}} Maybe not a clear cut deletion yet, but please stay with me for a moment. Deletion is proposed for the more general goal of hatnotes: use when needed, and if so then stay simple & standard. This one can comfortably be replaced by more standard ones like {{see also}}, {{for}} (or even {{rellink|any text}}, though "any text" would not be standard, I agree). So the reader will see more of the same hatnote texts. For example, please take a look at these current uses, and imagine a replacement:

• Powers of the President of Singapore
• Presidential elections in Singapore

(note: actually these are the only two uses in mainspace). This is for our readers.
The other side of the same coin (that says: how & when do we want our hatnotes) is for us, editors. If we keep it, it should be used and documented well. But since we already have ~65 hatnotes, documenting all & everything well (including their parameter variants) is too big to be useful. We cannot request an editor to scroll all the variants before picking the right hatnote template. Reducing the numbers is useful as we do not drop essentials.
Roundup: to keep the hatnotes low in variants, this template could be replaced with a more common one. Less variants is also better for editor's documentation and lookups. -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with {{main}}, which also works for sections and is certainly more widely used. --NYKevin @994, i.e. 22:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge, per Kevin. this template and {{main}} are somewhat different in intent - this one implies both a clearer content hierarchy and the sense that the article is a discussion of one side of the issue, which main doesn't - but they are similar enough that a merge would be feasible. --Ludwigs2 23:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Argh. We need to keep our hatnotes simple and avoid using them for general editorial commentary in order to keep them usable. The semantic difference between this and {{main}} is slight enough as to be unnecessary. Furthermore, it is muddying the waters to go around tagging articles as "legitimate content forks"; we should not be encouraging people to view articles in that light, even if there are a small number of exceptions which justify it. Replace the two existing transclusions with {{main}} and delete this to prevent it from being used again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Chris here that the differences with main are minor enough, and the number of transclusions is so small, that it is not worthwhile to keep this one. Replace it with {{rellink}} and be done with it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace with {{main}}. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 17:44, 25 February 2011 (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) 02:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

It can be covered by {{Infobox comics creator}}. Magioladitis (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Idealy, yes it could and should, with the fields the nom struck intact. "Idealy" wasn't working last time round. Hopefully it will next time around. - J Greb (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's orphan anyway so no pages were affected All the yob, etc. fields are better to be replaced with {{birth date}} anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and hardcoded duplicate; that's T3 territory. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:48, 7 February 2011 (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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rosters within Cleveland Indians organization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary inter-template navigational box. This category suffices. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This template serves to aid editors when updating the Indians' minor league rosters. This ususally involves multiple players moving from team to team and, thus, from template to template. The arrangement of the teams in order of playing level in the template provides a visual clue as to the structure of the organization, making it easier for editors to update rosters. The category, however, arranges them in alphabetical order, providing no helpful information as to each team's classification level. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:54, 6 February 2011 (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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rochester Sports (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Huge, unused template. The top section seems to have been superseded by {{New York Sports}}. A lot of the rest of it ("personalities", "venues", "golf" tournaments) is too loosely related to belong here. What's left ("semi-pro teams", "college teams") = WP:NENAN. I don't know what to do with the "defunct teams" bit, though. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator. It's unused because I wanted to develop it before putting it on the relevant pages. Template:NYCMetroSports is the model and the precedent. Template:New York Sports organizes by sport and makes it hard to find other local teams, whereas these templates organize by city. If it's important that it be used, that can be rectified in short order. Powers ^T 11:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it helps if this is placed on articles. But it needs to be fixed first. The top, nameless section is non-standard and should be turned into a normal group row. Also, notice that {{NYCMetroSports}} only lists sporting teams; I agree with that one, and I don't think this navbox should contain the list of sportspeople, nor the list of tournaments that have been held in Rochester. If that's fixed, and there is still enough content left for a navbox, then I'll withdraw this nomination. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a content issue and an appropriate topic for the talk page, but surely not cause for deletion? Powers ^T 14:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:53, 6 February 2011 (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 against merge. The main arguments for deletion (misuse) is not a valid reason to delete. Duplication of {{current}} is also not established as the text is vastly different, which is why a discussion to merge may be helpfull. — Edokter (talk) — 21:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recent death (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are several things wrong with this template, including its continual, habitual but somewhat understandable misuse.

If used according to its documentation, this tag should only be applied very sparingly. It should not be used merely to inform readers that the subject has recently died—the text of the article is more than sufficient for this—but rather to inform them that the article may change as facts come to light. That is, it is a special case of {{current}}

This is a wiki, articles will change—constantly. Why do we need a tag to tell readers this? Even if some sort of tag was thought necessary wouldn't {{current person}} do the job just as well, especially given this tag would not be used more than two or three times a year. (there are just not that many Michael Jackson and Steve Irwin-type events).

The mere existence of the tag encourages editors to place it on every article where the subject has recently died, regardless of the wording of the tag or the documentation. I can understand their confusion: What is the tag supposed to be if you can't put on the article of someone who has died. However, the best solution this continual misapplication is to not extend the use of this entirely unnecessary template, but to remove it entirely. Mattinbgn (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to {{Current}} along with {{Current related}}, and {{Current person}}. – Allen4names 17:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain as the creator of the template. It's been nominated twice before, shortly after its creation and almost two years later. Several points here:
  • FWIW, I created the template after musician James Brown died on Christmas 2006 and former U.S. President Gerald Ford died the next day. People were arguing over whether {{current}} should be used in such cases--after all, a death is not a "current event," is it? Plus, the only things likely to change in the article relate to information about the death itself. So I figured, why not create a template that addresses this specific case?
  • I figured the template would be used for high-profile individuals like Brown and Ford, much like the use of {{current}} in such cases at the time. I never imagined people would use it in all possible cases.
  • I wonder if "I don't like how it's being used" is a reason to delete. Isn't that a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? If you feel its use is inappropriate in such-and-such article, remove it. I guess if it's being slapped on every article when the subject dies, its use is unnecessary, so it's being used too much and should be deleted. But if its use is limited to truly high-profile cases such as Michael Jackson or Heath Ledger, it's not being used enough and should be deleted.
  • On that note, I don't think all the instruction creep in the documentation is necessary. Templates shouldn't come with a long list of rules. If the template is helpful to the encyclopedia in such-and-such case, use it. If not, don't.
• szyslak (t) 00:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If you feel its use is inappropriate in such-and-such article, remove it." I do, and I get pushback from editors nearly every time, see [[Talk:Template:Recent Death]] for details. I don't like the template, that is true but I want it deleted because it is unnecessary and unhelpful.

The problem is that the template invites misuse. It simply is not appropriate to have such self-referential templates on articles unless absolutely necessary. If a template like this exists, it will by virtue of its existence be placed on every article where someone has died by editors who have not read the huge list of documentation. The best way to tidy this up is to remove the template altogether.

"after all, a death is not a "current event, is it?" Of course it is. The events surrounding the death of Michael Jackson did not stop the moment he was pronounced dead, no more than the events surrounding the 2011 Domodedovo International Airport bombing stopped from the time the explosion happened. Such a narrow definintion of the word "event" is rather peculiar. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If someone is beaten to death with a hammer we don't outlaw hammers to stop it from happening again. Merging it would not solve the problem of it being misapplied either as the current event tag has exactly the same issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It would solve the problem of editors placing the tag on articles where someone has died where there has not been any great event. It is the concept of a "recent death" tag that isn't actually supposed to be used for recent deaths that misleads editors. Not sure how the hammer anecdote is relevant. If there is no need for a "hammer", what is the point of having one lying around in a situation where it will almost certainly be misused. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If the template would have been used the way it's supposed to be used, I'd be fine with it. But it's not. People see a template called "Recent death", see an article about a person who recently died, and add the template. That's the reality, and no matter how much we can argue that, in an ideal, hypothetical world, people would not do that kind of silliness, people still do it. No amount of rules or manual removals of the template will stop people from adding the template to articles where it's not supposed to be added. So, ultimately, it's simply not worth having the template, considering the amount of work it takes for us volunteers to make sure it's used correctly. --Conti|✉ 14:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I really don't think the fact that it's not being used correctly is a reason for deletion. I think the template is helpful to many people and explains that info may change as more is known, which can avoid confusion. A death is not a current event (as it happened at one specific point in the past), so it would not be suitable there. Per szyslak. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course a death of a very famous person is a current event, in the same way that a big event (say, the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster) is a current event even if it only happened in one specific point in time. --Conti|✉ 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An unnecessary template. 1) Odds are, when someone looks at an article of a recently died person, they probably already know that. 2) The article should say anyway that the person recently died. 3) Very rarely are facts rapidly changing, and this is a wiki; that should be assumed. Reywas92^Talk 21:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because the template is unnecessary. Template:Current already exists. James Michael 1 (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge My initial reaction was keep, as I tend to be rather liberal about these things, and think that people misusing something does not make that something bad. However, I think that the bigger issue is: "will removing this make the wiki better, make the wiki worse, or not really impact the wiki?" On reflection, I think that what is best for the 5-years-from-now-wiki is to merge this template with Current. Any issues with Current should be addressed separately, IMO. 64.74.213.98 (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC) [Edit: Bah! Thought I was logged in. Merge Comment written by Oliepedia (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC) ][reply]
• Personally, I would like to keep this tag. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This template serves no purpose. If it is meant to highlight that the subject of the article has just died, then that date is mentioned in the lead anyway. If it is meant to be an aggregator of deaths, then the article Recent deaths already serves that purpose. Pointless, and just creates a nuisance tag that someone else inevitably has to clean up. WWGB (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Fearstreetsaga. Its not being used right is nothing but IDONTLIKEIT --Guerillero | My Talk 05:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not, as I have explained in my comment above. Care to respond to my arguments? --Conti|✉ 11:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All I can see its IDONTLIKEIT and it requires work. Neither of these are a reason for deletion. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was describing how the template is never going to be used the way it is intended to be used. Never. There's always someone eagerly adding it to all kinds of articles, and heavily defends its use there. That's why it should be deleted. If you disagree, it would be helpful if you could explain how we get all(!) people to use the template as intended. --Conti|✉ 00:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even as the creator I wish this template weren't used in all possible instances. However, all notification templates are "misused" to one extent or another. People add {{unreferenced}} to referenced articles, people add POV dispute tags when there's no real POV dispute, and people constantly add the wrong copyright/NFCC tag to images. In this particular case, while I wish people didn't "overuse" the tag, I don't think it's a big deal when they do, in the sense that it's no great danger to the encyclopedia. The real issue is not misuse or proper use, but whether this template is helpful to the encyclopedia. I'd say it's at least as helpful as {{current}} FWIW, and helps to address the specific issues that come up in biographies of prominent people when they pass away. szyslak (t) 01:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • A fair point. I think there's a difference between, for instance, Template:Unreferenced and this one. Basically, it's about what the template appears to be doing based on its name. A template called "Unreferenced" should be added to all unreferenced articles. A template called "Recent death" should not be added to all articles about recently deceased people. But that's what people think. So, maybe renaming the template to something more fitting would be an alternative for deletion, I'm not sure. It would certainly help. --Conti|✉ 01:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with a bolder reminder of its proper use. --TEO64X 19:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's redundant to {{current}}, and that's reason enough not to have it. There should be documentation for {{current}} that provides a copy-paste invocation suitable for deaths (or reported deaths) and then there will be no need for a separate template. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The template serves a specific purpose very well whereas using the more generic {{current}} in its place would be far less informative and therefore inferior. If there is a problem with the over-use of the template then address that (I'm not convinced there is) but simply deleting it and using something else in its place won't fix that problem, it will just move it elsewhere. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WWGB. --Shanes (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is useful to avoid people adding rumours and other stuff that may not be true or verifiable. --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? How the heck does the template manage to stop people from doing that? :) --Conti|✉ 22:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to {{current}}.--Darius (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gavia immer. --John (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The purpose of the template is to warn readers, especially those who may not be regular readers of Wikipedia, that the information about the subject's death may not turn out to be entirely complete or accurate, because new information may come to light. This is a consistent issue when a notable person died, especially in circumstances that are not entirely clear. Typically, and understandably and often correctly, editors want to update the article with the most complete information available from reasonably reliable sources, even when the information is subject to change. The reader should be cautioned, in such a case, that Wikipedia is doing the best it can but that the available information is likely to evolve. I can think of no means better than this template of communicating such message. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about Template:Current? If needed, we could create a parameter with the specific wording which would serve the same purpose. That way, people wouldn't add the template to every article of a person who recently died. --Conti|✉ 09:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is another issue. Currently there is this arbitray rule of "100 or more edits" to justify using the template. I believe everyone who has died in the last 7 days should have this template. How many articles is that going to be? Well just look at any 7 days on the recent deaths log to see. Pretty much anyone who dies, weather it's someone with a featured-article bio or a one-liner stub has their article edited 10-fold directly after they die. Lugnuts (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? Let's look at the biographies of people that died on February 5: Pavel Vondruška and Adjie Massaid were created after the death, and both didn't receive a lot of attention so far. Pertti Purhonen got 4 edits from 3 users and 1 bot, Omar Amiralay received a bunch of edits from 5 users, 2 IPs and 1 bot, and Brian Jacques received about 40 edits from various IPs and users. So, basically, your statement is simply not correct. Some biographies receive a lot of attention after their subject's death, some don't, and most get - at most - a dozen or two edits before editing returns to a normal level. If an article suddenly receives 40 edits in 4 days then there's really no need to warn our readers about anything, it happens all the time. I'm not sure you understand the purpose of this template (and Template:Current). We're telling our readers not to trust the article because there is so much going on that information might be incorrect, outdated already, etc. There is no reason to do that in nearly all cases of recently deceased people. --Conti|✉ 11:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • • I'm not sure you understand the purpose of this template I think you need to assume good faith - of course I know what the purpose of the template is. We're telling our readers not to trust the article because there is so much going on that information might be incorrect, outdated already, etc which begs the question - why have the current template either? Lugnuts (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you know the purpose of the template, I don't understand why you want it to be on all articles about recently deceased people. There's no reason to warn our readers on the examples I mentioned above, is there?
            • The current template exists because there are instances where articles are edited hundreds of times an hour, and where we have to warn our readers of that. There are rarely any deaths that provoke this kind of editing though, hence my suggestion to delete this template or merge it into Template:Current, where it can be used the handful of times a year where it's actually needed. --Conti|✉ 16:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mostly pointless template IMO; {{current}} can be used in cases of high edit traffic or accuracy issues. I couldn't glean a solid reason for keeping from any of the comments above. A strange irony is I wouldn't have seen this discussion if I hadn't seen the link on Gary Moore. –Moondyne 05:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC) –Moondyne 05:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepMerge to {{current}}. It is indeed a special case of {{current}} and as such should follow the same strict guidelines of use i.e. only use when absolutely necessary. However, I understand that all templates are open to misuse but this isn't really a valid reason for deletion. If a famous person dies and conflicting or incomplete details as to the circumstances of their death are currently being reported then this template is necessary. Polyamorph (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have just read Conti's reply to Newyorkbrad above about creating a parameter in Template:Current with specific wording, I think this is the way to go and will help to limit the use of the template? I've changed my "vote" above to merge. Polyamorph (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree (Merge to {{current}}) - This doesn't needs a debate, just in a simple way. No need for a consensus. Let's stick in a simple way; {{current}} and {{recent death}} is the same. It notes a recent event. {{current}} expresses a recent event (local terminal risk/plurality mass risk) while the {{recent death}} is somehow used for a recent event BUT it expresses singularity (personal terminal risk/singularity mass risk). It is as easy as a pie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSaxons (talk • contribs) 10:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia has Kafkaesque rules about living persons, which lead to the whitewashing of material that is very broadly reported in the popular press. The recently deceased template tells editors that these rules no longer apply. I am skeptical that the template is "overused", because there is no way to predict that an article will not change after a death, whether due to media coverage or this policy boundary. In addition, the template warns editors that a thorough top-to-bottom copy edit will be needed to make sure that all the "is"es are changed to "was"es and such. Wnt (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty darn sure that this was never the intention of the template, especially since articles about recently deceased people usually affect the living, too, so WP:BLP still applies. Also, changing all the instances of "is" to "was" is one of the easiest to solve problems in such cases and doesn't need a template. --Conti|✉ 07:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. WP:BLP explicitly applies to recently deceased individuals. Powers ^T 13:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the policy, and it said "This policy does not apply to edits about the dead. ... But questionable material about dead people which has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, should be removed promptly." I'm pretty darn sure that's not "explicitly" applying BLP to dead individuals. It is called BLP, after all. I think it's important not to let this policy bleed out to everything, because whatever it touches often isn't worth trying to edit. Wnt (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I could have sworn it did, but clearly it does not. Back when BLP was new, I recall the recently deceased being covered as well, but I can't easily find evidence of that. Powers ^T 14:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Misuse should be addressed through means other than deletion. Powers ^T 13:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why I say merge to {{current}}. We can have the same or similar wording but it will be easier to control misuse.Polyamorph (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, just in case it isn't clear, it is easier to control because {{current}} adds the article into Category:Current events. Polyamorph (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a useful tag. I don't find the fact that some people misuse this tag all that surprising or disturbing. Pretty much all tags are misused by someone at somepoint. We wouldn't have any tags under the logic being used by the nominator. The solution is to simply remove the tag when you see it misapplied.4meter4 (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the wording of this template is more appropriate than that of {{current}}. If it's a category issue, have this template also add tagged articles to Category:Current events. Lara 16:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The template duplicates the functionality of {{current}}, and this alone is sufficient reason to delete it, according to the guide at the top of this WP:TFD page, and at item T3 of the WP:Criteria for speedy deletion.
  • Its use does not meaningfully add to the content of the article in question.
  • If there is lack of clarity about the circumstances surrounding the death of the person in question, this is best placed in the lead or appropriate section of the article, rather than adding a template which fails to actually add understanding by way of explanation.
  • If it is desired to put the article into a category, the best method to do so is to add the appropriate category to the article directly, without an intermediary template.
  • If there are many editors working on the article on the same hour or day, then {{current}} is sufficient to warn editors.
  • The existence of the template promotes its needless and inappropriate proliferation, which the template's documentation, such as it is, fails to prevent.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, we are talking about somebody dying, not just any run-of-the-mill current event. This needs very careful, considerate handling. The template, as it stands, does an excellent job of conveying the possibility of inaccurate and fast-changing information whilst being sensitive to the subject matter. Think - God forbid if this was your parent or partner, would you want their death treated as if it were on the same level as a product announcement or a film green-lighting? Deleting this template and replacing it with an all-purpose insensitive Current Event template would bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Andrew Oakley (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. If this is merged into the current event template, we can add a parameter so it would look exactly the same as this template. Visually, nothing would change.
    2. A random product announcement or a film green-lighting will not get a current event template.
    3. This (or the current event) template is not going to help at all with the much needed "careful, considerate handling" of the article. How would it do that?
  • Frankly, if a relative of mine would die, I would find this template insulting ("Another one bites the dust, eh? Well, here on Wikipedia, we have a template for that, too!"). I can understand why you would not feel that way, though. So please, let's not personalize this issue.--Conti|✉ 12:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is not so much as a warning to readers about the accuracy of the article but to potential editors that information that will be added in this period is going to be heavily scrutinized to avoid biographical falsehoods. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did you reach that conclusion? If this would be targeted at editors, it would be an editnotice, wouldn't it? --Conti|✉ 14:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • An editnotice requires admin action to create, and is only appropriate for a short period during the initial days after a day; this template can be added and removed quickly and without intervention. In addition, it's only seen after a user pressed "edit" and not "before", so a newer or IP editor that feels they want to add something but we know isn't appropriate, it will often be missed. (you can also argue with this logic that all of the other "this article has these problems" templates should thus be banished to editnotices, but clearly no, we intent for editors to be aware of issues before the edit button is hit.) I am not saying that readers don't benefit from this template, but it is as just as much value to potential editors as it is to readers. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point about the requirement of admin action. But since this template is also supposed to be added and removed within days (and only very rare cases where admins will be around to watch and edit anyhow), I don't see too much of a problem here. Generally speaking, templates that are added to articles are mainly for our readers, templates that get added to talk pages are for our editors. At least that's how I've learned it, and it makes sense to me. Also, if an IP-editor is not going to notice an edit-notice, what's going to make him notice the template? They get ignored just as often (every other article seems to have one these days, after all). And, finally, this template was simply not intended for our editors, but for our readers. It's helpful for both, true, but the point of this (and the current event template) is to inform our readers of heavily edited articles, and nothing else. It would be nice if the keep !voters would agree on what purpose the template is supposedly fulfilling, since it seems to be an entirely different one for everyone voicing his opinion here. --Conti|✉ 21:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, merge to {{current}} or a similar template, or move to editnotice. Editors need to know the article is under rapid-fire changes due to a recent death. It's helpful for readers to know but it's not quite as necessary. I'm going to do a village pump proposal for a programmatic/automated tagging of the stability of an article based on recent edit count. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate there are probably due process things at play but does Wikipedia really want the first thing people see on an article of a recently deceased person to be ‹ The template below (Recent death) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus.›? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.54.229 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree. This debate should come to a very quick conclusion in order to maintain the respectful tone of this very sensitive template issue. Andrew Oakley (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with the original rationale for creating the template and I do not agree that it is redundant. It is also a useful failsafe because it serves to flag articles of this nature for chronologists (i.e. people maintaining things like the notable deaths lists on the years pages) but also in the (unfortunately too frequent) cases where a death has been prematurely announced, the template acts as a signal for oversight to occur to ensure the death report is accurate/true. Also, causes of death are not always immediately available, or are misreported. For example, Person X may have been reported killed in a car accident, and said info put in the article, only for a few hours later it to be reported Person X died of a heart attack behind the wheel before the accident. So facts do change -- and this includes date of death. I do feel a time limit should be imposed on the use of the template - maybe 72 hours - so they aren't kept up longer than they should be. 23skidoo (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel strange responding to pretty much every keep !vote out there, but I just can't shut up when I find things that really need to be clarified. If we aren't 100% sure that a person has died we should keep the template as far away as possible from that article. A different wording has been tried ("..who has recently died or who is presumed dead" or something), but that in turn makes a joke out of those articles where there is no doubt about the person's death. So in the cases where we're not sure, don't use the template. Ever. --Conti|✉ 16:52, 23 February 2011 (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) 02:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated and superceded by {{IPA soundbox}}. Virtually all uses are in {{Infobox IPA base}}, but simply replacing one for the other makes the infobox unwieldy. Can someone figure out a way to replace this in the infobox and thereby make this redundant and delete-able? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep see below (speedy keep or withdraw). I am the writer of both old {{IPAsound}} and new {{IPA soundbox}}. Indeed old {{IPAsound}} is used in {{infobox IPA base}} only/mainly (I removed it from {{IPA vowels audio}} &tc already). At this moment, a replacement is in sandbox: {{infobox IPA/sandbox}}, and in that testpage. When eventually put into production, this makes the two templates useless by replaceent. So if we can wait some more weeks, the bright young sandbox version both {{IPAsound}} and {{infobox IPA base}} droppable together. Just don't hurry, nor do spend time on changing the deprecated "base" box. Even stronger: while the new one is under construction (as the template /doc says, from before TfD), we do not wish to see changes to the old one. Such changes might be troubling the replacement plan, and may be undone because of that development. -DePiep (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the moment. Work seems to be actively in progress here. Don't delete unless/until it is stale and no longer necessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete later on: now that the dependent templates are put out of use by {{IPA soundbox}} and {{Infobox IPA}}.

Note on dependency: In TfD:infobox IPA base (and more) are four templates, all depending on (=using) this IPAsound. Clean and easy deletion implies that one first deletes the dependent templates, and then the master (i.e. IPAsound). Even though the dates for closing are reversed by some days. -DePiep (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if and after the templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#infobox IPA base (and more) are deleted. —Angr (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, I am relisting this so that this discussion can be closed first. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now we could change into speedy, to keep things simple ;-) -DePiep (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2011 (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 Redirect, so as not to break transclusions in archive pages. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rarely used fork of {{Wikibooks}}, which has a lot more options than this one and uses the common style for sister project templates. Note: couldn't add TFD tag to the template because it's protected. The Evil IP address (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect this pre parserfunction template to the other one. 184.144.161.207 (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Historical comment; when I was merging the various Wikitionary templates, I discovered that that the naming convention in the dim and distant past was "par" if a template took a parameter. Clearly parameters were something of a rarity at that point. Rich Farmbrough, 01:29, 14 February 2011 (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) 04:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Link wikispecies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Link template, rarely used, with no apparent purpose. If Wikispecies links should have special CSS, this should be done in the .css files, not by using templates. The Evil IP address (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not necessary; redundant to plain links. Replace any transclusions with the correct link. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2011 (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. Non-admin closure - if some of these old discussions aren't closed, TfD is going to begin to mount up hugely. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rarely used fork of Made obsolete by {{Wikinews}}, only difference is the word "more", which if necessary should be added to the main Wikinews template. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment not fussed but it wasnt a fork, the template was created because at the time there wasnt a Wikinews template that handled multiple Wikinews articles. Gnangarra 01:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corrected. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2011 (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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfd-t (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Consensus has not been established for the use of this kind of template. It has been used and mentioned solely by ais523 (talk · contribs). Currently unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I created this template along the same lines as {{sfd-r}} (which is used a lot, including at the moment); it corresponds to a semantic "this template isn't up for deletion, but its name is". Looking on RfD at the moment, there are a few template redirects up for deletion there, such as {{WVinttop}}; that template was tagged {{rfd}}, which would have a side-effect of horribly breaking any page tagged with the template via that name (and only fails to do so because that template is unused). It was needed in the case of, e.g., the tagging of {{del}} (which nowadays still exists but points to a different template); originally it was a synonym for {{db-reason}}, and tagging an article with a template that says {{rfd}}#REDIRECT Template:db-reason puts it not in the AfD category, but in the RfD category. Noincluding the {{rfd}} does not IIRC help either (I might be wrong on that one), but even if it did would leave actual users of the template via the name that was up for deletion in the dark about what was going on. In general, XfD templates follow the principle that anyone using the redirect/template/etc. should know about the deletion. Placing {{rfd}} after the #REDIRECT would avoid breaking any pages, but not notify anyone about the deletion even if they clicked on the redirect directly (although it would be better than nothing due to showing up in watchlists and in the RfD category). Thus, I can't think of any alternative to the use of a template like this one; I created it in the first place just because I needed one to be able to RfD a template redirect currently in use! (By the way, how do you know that nobody but me has ever used it? Given that the purpose of a deletion template is to be deleted, either from the page when it's kept or along with the page it's in when it's deleted, it seems rather hard to research into past uses; I can't think of a way to tell if anyone else used it, and am curious to know what method you used.) I'm not particularly fussed about this template in particular, but some process for deleting template redirects while they're in use should remain. --ais523 16:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  If a redirect of a template is deleted, I would assume the redirect is first orphaned by replacement with the redirect target, avoidng broken template transclusions. Is this not so? Also, since this issue concerns the use of the template itself, not it's transclusions, wouldn't a RfD notice concerning a template be better placed on the target template talk page? --Bsherr (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If the redirect were in use, you might typically want to use an RfD to get a consensus on whether to orphan it. (That's what {{sfd-r}} is mostly about.) There's also cases where you think the redirect might be reused with its original purpose during the RfD itself. (Imagine if there was a RfD on {{uw-v1}}, for instance; even orphaning the template, it would likely be substed while the RfD was in progress. That's the reason I used it the first time around.) --ais523 17:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, this is part of a set, which although some what cryptically named, might move forward deletion/discussion tagging. Rich Farmbrough, 01:35, 14 February 2011 (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) 03:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Central Greece (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No reason for a dedicated template for a single region Constantine ✍ 14:44, 6 February 2011 (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) 02:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-hoax2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant to the single issue warning Template:uw-hoax Pol430 talk to me 10:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Template:Uw-hoax. I agree with the nominator and the discussion at WT:UTM. --Bsherr (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE  Per the nomination and the discussion at WT:UTM. However, I do not see the point of a redirect. The template was only just created and has yet to be used anywhere (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Uw-hoax2.) — SpikeToronto 22:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• These templates are typically substituted. If it's used, it won't link back. To make sure, I searched for the template's first sentence in the user talk namespace and found nothing. So delete. Reach Out to the Truth 14:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT  Ah! You’re right! I forgot about the fact of substitution. Your searching the first line was a good idea. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 22:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redundant template --Guerillero | My Talk 01:17, 13 February 2011 (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) 02:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-Lang1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Uw-Lang2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Uw-Lang3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a newly created series that duplicates—in multi level format—a subject already covered by a single issue notice (Template:uw-lang). Pol430 talk to me 10:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all to Template:Uw-lang. --Bsherr (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all to {{uw-lang}} as an unnecessary splitting of hairs. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE  Per nomination. This is satisfactorily handled by the existing single-level template. Moreover, if an editor continues after receiving Template:uw-lang, there are other multi-level templates that can be applied. Not really sure about redirecting, though, since none of these three templates has been applied anywhere. Also, none of these three was ever added to WP:UTM, so no one would have known of their existence. — SpikeToronto 23:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT  Per User:Reach Out to the Truth’s comment above, I searched text from each of the three templates. The search yielded no pages save for for the templates themselves. So, a simple delete without redirect should be sufficient. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 22:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the singe issue notice seems to be enough --Guerillero | My Talk 01:15, 13 February 2011 (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) 02:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Has signed revisions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Signed revision (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Belong to a failed proposal from 2008. No scope for further use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Concur with nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2011 (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) 02:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pokiri and It`s Remades (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. WP:NENAN. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lightweight template.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that's meant to be "and its remakes"? Evidently this isn't necessary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:51, 7 February 2011 (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) 02:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User President of WikiProject Côte d'Ivoire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Don't know what this is about. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2011 (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) 02:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland Bill, 2009 (changes) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Useless. Unnecessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2011 (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. Ruslik_Zero 17:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scottish Placenames (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Purpose and placement unclear. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is simple - most people find Gaelic hard to pronounce (you have a go at saying dìochuimhneachadh!) so we developed a collapsible template where we can add sound and IPA as necessary. The thing I can't remember is why we ended up using a more generic infobox (see Skye#Etymology for example). MacDui, can you rememer? Akerbeltz (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was your Just one more thought though - do you reckon we should simply name it Pronunciation and arrange it so it does not come with pre-suggest languages? . which seems an excellent suggestion, unless that's already been done. Proliferation of one-per-country versions of stuff has caused numerous headaches. Rich Farmbrough, 01:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_18/Template:Infobox_England_place; I got the feeling that the real impetus behind the merging was Britishnationalism rather than practicality, and not really sure quite how the closer arrived at his decision, but it's just one of the things you have to accept on a big project like this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:51, 6 February 2011 (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) 07:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rotana Group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Only three articles exist on the topic - Rotana, Rotana Records and Rotana Hotels. WP:NENAN. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2011 (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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Population of the world (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't seem particularly useful. There is little consistency about where the "Population of" titles redirect to "___ people", "Demographics of ___", "Population of ___ by year", etc. Even if all the links were blue, it would be too big. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. On the contrary, it seems to me that, rather than deleting this template, the names of these articles ought to be made consistent through moving. I don't find the size objectionable, particularly given that navboxes use autocollapse. --Bsherr (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2011 (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) 07:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pohjanmaan rata (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused rail template. It is extremely difficult to determine where this should be placed; the fact that I am experiencing such difficulty suggests there is in fact no article in which this template belongs. Thus it should be deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2011 (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, blanked by author, DB-G7. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:My Profile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Personal template which is no longer used. The creator has a hardcoded, improved version on their user page. They are irregularly active, hence my TfD nomination instead of asking on their talk page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2011 (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) 02:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ukraine Squad 2009 Euro under-19 Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per many old discussions and Footy discussion, youth event isn't a notable event to create such template, a superstar may won 20+ such "minor" and "major" competitions . Matthew_hk tc 11:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated the following:

• Template:South Korea Squad 2003 U-17 World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:South Korea Squad 1987 U-16 World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:South Korea Squad 2007 U-17 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Korea Republic Squad 2010 U-17 Women's World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Peru Squad 2007 U-17 World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ukraine Squad 2000 Euro under-18 Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ukraine Squad 2006 Euro under-21 Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ukraine Squad 2007 Summer Universiade (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ukraine Squad 2009 Summer Universiade (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Here is another old discussions. Creating such squad template isn't a good way to show honor. Matthew_hk tc 11:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dig out more from the same cat. Matthew_hk tc 12:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Minor competition navboxes are not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (At least one of them.) Do not just pile stuff up all in one. Under 21 competitions are quite notable. Players of such squads compete at top national levels and U-21 teams compete at the Olympics. That is first of all. Now second of all, who defines a good way to show honor? I do not think it is a critical way to approach the subject. I think if the articles related to the template are well documented then such articles and anything related to them should stay. With grinding my teeth I can accept deletion of other templates, but templates relating to under-19 and, especially, under-21 squads, in my opinion, should be kept. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable. Transaction Go (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable tournament TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - at the very least, I believe the South Korea 2010 U-17 Women's World Cup Squad should be deleted, when you take into account that it only contains a single non-red link, thus making it completely useless as a navigational template. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it isn't a voting game, vote twice didn't help, Noel. Similar templates were deleted in January and many in the past, brought back the last conclusion, your reason is weak. Matthew_hk tc 14:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took away previous comment. Excuse, that voted twice, I not knew rules. If you want - delete. But sometimes I am angry, because somebody delete articles and write wise words and later need again to write (for example, it happened with article Dmytro Nepohodov). Sometimes it seems that the removal of these specially made as a form of sadism...--Noel baran (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - As we've discussed at many past AfDs (and at WT:FOOTY) on very similar navigation boxes, there is simply no need for these. They encourage the creation of biographies of non-notable footballers (through redlinks) because very few youth players are initially notable (and many may never be notable). In the event, redlinks are not used, most of these templates would have very few bluelinks (and what purpose would it have). If we allow these for every youth level tournament, there a great deal of added editor maintenance needed - and the benefit is negligible. We've said before that these should be restricted to senior tournaments at FIFA, Confederation or Olympic level, and I don't see any arguments above that justify changing that view. Jogurney (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - not really needed, youth international caps do not automatically confer notability and most of those tournament receive little or minor coverage, so they don't really deserve any place here in a serious encyclopedia (yeah, this is an encyclopedia, not a sports almanac for 17-year old promises with no senior football experience whatsoever). --Angelo (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - General consensus at WP:FOOTY is that only club squads and squads for senior international tournaments should have navboxes. These do not belong to either of those two categories. – PeeJay 21:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Per many discussions in the past, only major tournaments such as the World Cup and Confederations Cup, and Continental championships such as the UEFA EURO and CONCACAF Gold Cup should be created. GoPurple'nGold₂₄ 23:53, 12 February 2011 (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.