Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 8

< April 7	April 9 >

April 8[edit]

Template:US infantry sidebar[edit]

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, with the possibility of replacing it with something else. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US infantry sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to our succession box templates. If kept, it might be absorbed into the infobox used on the same pages, either directly, or as a module. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in unit histories, units become redesignated, so this style of box would fit into sections to present the order of precedence for a specific time period. Though, I don't see a need for a box so specialized, it should be generalized to allow for use for any unit from any country. This should be possible by changing the header from a fixed presentation to taking a parameter, and renaming the template to {{military order of precedence succession sidebar}} or something. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we need templates for this? If so, why could our existing succession boxes not be used? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are we allowed to use multiple succession boxes in the middle of articles? Military units get renamed over time, and their location in the order of precedence can change. So if a unit history article covers multiple names and the order of precedence changed, then there'd be multiple succession boxes centered on the page in different sections. (note: not all militaries number their units, so precedence could be linking to unit articles that have only names) -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's in use on over 100 pages. I suggest the nominator ensure transclusions of the template are not needed, remove them and re-nominate.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's generally not how we proceed in such cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment could be merged with Template:Infobox military unit, but that would require adding parameters to Template:Infobox military unit. Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the context of Infobox military unit, previous and next would be expected to refer to the units that came before and after the article's subject; this is nothing of the sort: U.S. 3rd Infantry Division just comes before U.S. 4th Infantry Division and after U.S. 2nd Infantry Division, it's not a temporal succession.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a very useful way of navigating these articles. The succession box notion also isn't useful: the US Army priorities which infantry divisions to retain and deactivate during periods of reductions by measures of their histories - and especially their combat record, and not by their numeric order (for instance, see [1] for an explanation of this). Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2014 (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) 23:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We had a British version of this, which I replaced with a standard navigational footer template listing all entries ({{British Army Divisions}}) - this approach generally works better, I think. The numerical system is relatively arbitrary and there's no meaningful sequence or progression between two consecutive divisions. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the 1st through 12th and 23d through 38th Divisions as two sets of examples? That's twelve and fifteen consecutive divisions right there, respectively, so six and seven sets of two. :)
I like the sidebar. It's the first place I look in these articles, because it contains most of the relevant information to my research. In fact, it would be nice if they included the number of days a unit was in combat.ETO Buff (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2014 (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.

Template:Infobox Hopman Cup nation[edit]

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hopman Cup nation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox tennis cup team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Hopman Cup nation with Template:Infobox tennis cup team.
What about merging these two templates? Template:Infobox Hopman Cup nation appears to have a subset of Template:Infobox tennis cup team's fields. stclaus (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge, seems like an obvious merger that the other cup templates have been merged. Frietjes (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment merging it was trivial (just added Hopman to the switch), so it can now be redirected (replaced here). Frietjes (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 14 April 2014 (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.

Template:Canadian video rental shops[edit]

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 repurpose Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadian video rental shops (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Misleading navbox. Most of these chains are not Canadian in origin. Either delete or repurpose to include all video store chains. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: i believe the best course is to make it an international template. It can then be reconsidered to add Sesame Go, LoveFilm and WWE Network to the list if appropriate. --LABcrabs (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2014 (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.

Template:Uw-ipevadeblock[edit]

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) 21:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template has rarely been used after being here for more than 18 months. Eye snore (pc) 01:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created this but it's now redundant. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how it is redundant. E.g. {{SockBlock}} does not have an anonymous version but states that "This account has been blocked..." (my emphasis). I'd like to keep Uw-ipevadeblock and would even advocate its inclusion in Twinkle. That way it might gain more popularity. De728631 (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2014 (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) 22:48, 8 April 2014 (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.

Template:Infobox former communist states[edit]

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) 21:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox former communist states (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only four transclusions. Redundant, most likely, to {{Infobox official post}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep for now, but rewrite it as a wrapper. it's not clear that this could be directly replaced without adding parameters to {{infobox official post}}, or removing information from the infobox. Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Communist states" do not exist, this serves to continue that myth that the Soviet Union and related states were "communist" which does not belong in an encyclopedia. An alternative would be to reform it into being an infobox of "former Marxist-Leninist single-party states", even so the template seems redundant. Zozs (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2014 (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.

Template:Infobox Rugby Union Tri Nations[edit]

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) 05:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Rugby Union Tri Nations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only nineteen transclusions. Undocumented. Redundant to {{Infobox rugby union international tournament}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edited I have added documentation to this template. There is no need to delete it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugby.change (talk • contribs) 23:52, 23 March 2014‎
- The template is still low-use, and redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is it low-use. This template is used on 18 articles, and obviously as The Rugby Championship progresses, more article with this article will increase. Rugby.change (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2014 (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) 05:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in answer to the above: Eighteen transclusions is low use. {{Infobox rugby union international tournament}} has 87 transclusions, and even that is low use. Why is that template not adequate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 8 April 2014 (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.

Template:Infobox Jr Rugby World Cup[edit]

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) 05:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Jr Rugby World Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only seven transclusions. Undocumented. Redundant to {{Infobox rugby union international tournament}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edited I have added documentation to this template. There is no need to delete it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugby.change (talk • contribs) 23:52, 23 March 2014‎
- The template is still low-use, and redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is it low-use. This template is used on 7 articles, and obviously as The IRB Junior World Championship progresses, more article with this article will increase. Rugby.change (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2014 (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) 05:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in answer to the above: Seven transclusions is very low use. {{Infobox rugby union international tournament}} has 87 transclusions, and even that is low use. Why is that template not adequate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 8 April 2014 (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.

Template:Infobox Asian Five Nations[edit]

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) 05:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Asian Five Nations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three transclusions, redundant to {{Infobox rugby union international tournament}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edited I have added documentation to this template. There is no need to delete it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugby.change (talk • contribs) 23:53, 23 March 2014‎
- The nomination is due to redundancy, not lack of documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is it low-use. This template is used on 6 articles, and obviously as The Asian Five Nations progresses, more article with this article will increase. Rugby.change (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2014 (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) 05:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in answer to the above: You appear to have lost track of what you're replying to, in cutting and pasting your comment. The nomination is, as noted above, on the basis of redundancy, not low use. Nonetheless, six transclusions is low use. {{Infobox rugby union international tournament}} has 87 transclusions, and even that is low use. Why is that template not adequate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete, now replaced by {{infobox rugby tournament}} in the 6/7 articles using it. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2014 (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.

Template:Continuum mechanics[edit]

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) 21:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Continuum mechanics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Topics in continuum mechanics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Continuum mechanics with Template:Topics in continuum mechanics.
The templates largely duplicate each other, but instead of deleting one their advantages should be combined. For a subject this broad, the navbox should be at the bottom of the page, as Topics is, but Continuum has a better selection of topics (fewer marginally relevant links). RockMagnetist (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd better clarify what I mean by "marginally relevant" - there are a lot of links in Template:Topics in continuum mechanics to narrow technical subjects like Johnson–Holmquist damage model that clutter up the navbox. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original template Template:Continuum mechanics was designed as a quick reference for topics in continuum mechanics. Its contents could have been updated and better organized; but that hasn't happened. I believe that is primarily because few readers click on and expand the links. The updated version Template:Topics in continuum mechanics was designed to provide another option following a discussion in Talk:Bending. I think both can co-exist. The current version is by no means the final version and I would personally prefer separate Template:Solid mechanics, Template:Fluid mechanics etc. Bbanerje (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have always found {{Continuum mechanics}} helpful for understanding how the field is subdivided, but would not have noticed it if it was at the bottom of the page. I would support deprecating {{Topics in continuum mechanics}}, using {{Continuum mechanics}} in its stead. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:38, 28 March 2014 (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) 05:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject continuum mechanics is very wideranging. For some articles, such as bending, the side box, Template:Continuum mechanics, is confusing, rather than helpful. The diagram, which illustrates the derivation of Bernoulli's law in fluid dynamics has absolutely no relevance to bending. The section Laws of the side box lists conservation of mass, conservation of energy, conservation of momentum and entropy inequality - none of which are applied in bending.
I support retaining both templates and using the Template:Topics in continuum mechanics for the bottom of articles, such as bending, where the side box is inappropriate. Apuldram (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative solution to the problem of the all-embracing nature of Continuum mechanics would be an Infobox continuum mechanics subject, which would include most of the headings currently in Template:Continuum mechanics, but would allow them to be tailored to fit the subject of the article. For example, the headings: image, laws and scientists could all be made relevant to the article. Other headings, to facilitate navigation, could be added. For example, parent discipline and related topics. Apuldram (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2014 (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.

Template:Unsourced additions[edit]

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) 21:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unsourced additions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and not the correct format $The Haz talk$ 03:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a substitution template so will always appear unused. I've seen this text before, directly placed in the wikicode, so it would appear to be used. It seems like the correct format for such a type of hidden comment. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2014 (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) 05:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, this is a matter for the talk page and for watchlist vigilance. Adding unsourced statements is not so commonplace it needs an inline warning. Even {{nomorelinks}} is arguably better replaced with an editnotice these days. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2014 (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.

Template:Infobox UK public body[edit]

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 merge with {{Infobox government agency}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK public body (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only four transclusions. Redundant to {{Infobox government agency}} (Transclusion count: 3,659). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is this a merger proposal? I don't see the particular parameters in {{infobox government agency}}. Frietjes (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a discussion. Which parameters do you think are missing and necessary? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - crown status, legal basis, type, sponsor, and head. Frietjes (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - |head= = |chief1_name=; |sponsor= = |parent_department=; |type= is already in {{Infobox government agency}}; |crown status= is part of type, but hardly necessary; which just leaves |legal basis= - again hardly necessary, but we could add that to the more generic template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 4 March 2014 (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) 05:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's a sample conversion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 14 April 2014 (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.

Template:Infobox rugby tour[edit]

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 merge with {{Infobox Tour Rugby}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox rugby tour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use. Undocumented. Redundant to a more generic template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, it's currently used on two articles. But once I create some more Rugby Tour articles it will be used further. Yes I might have done is back to front in terms of I created the template before the article, but that not really a problem, is it? Rugby.change (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Template:Infobox Lions tour, which is very similar except for being used for only one club, and Template:Infobox Tour Rugby, which is not but seems to serve the same purpose. The full list of rugby union infoboxes is here.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We should merge this template with {{Infobox Tour Rugby}} (which doesn't yet use {{Infobox}}), but use this template's the better name. The Lions template can be nominated for merging, separately, once that's done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Template:Infobox Tour Rugby, per the above.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This template gives further information than the Template:Infobox Tour Rugby template. Rugby.change (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why we propose to merge them - to make use of the best of each. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edited I have added documentation to this template. There is no need to delete it now. Rugby.change (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Merged. I have merged the two articles together. Best example is at 2013 Australia national rugby union team tour of Great Britain, Ireland and Italy. Rugby.change (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2014 (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) 05:06, 8 April 2014 (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.

Template:Infobox speedway team season[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox speedway team season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use. Redundant to a more generic template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 2 March 2014 (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) 04:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep, pending identification of redundancy. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2014 (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.

Template:Infobox FIM Motocross World Championship[edit]

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox FIM Motocross World Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use. Redundant to a more generic template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace it with Template:Infobox motorsport championship.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Template:Infobox motorsport championship, which will require allowing the generic template to be used as a module. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2014 (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.