Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 1

April 1[]

Template:Cyber Girl Playmates[]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Playboy Cyber Club was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playboy Cyber Club (2nd nomination) for being non-notable. It's playmates, which are a sub-topic, are non-notable as well. As a result this templates fails WP:NAVBOX#4. Gonnym (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - I agree. I don't think that this template has a particularly good reason to exist. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. No red links. Arguments for irrelevence questioned. Hard to see reason for why Playboy Cyber Club couldn't be redirected to a proper subsection on the matter in other article. PPEMES (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Additional comment: I'll add that 18 links out of the 19 links are all redirects (the 20th entry is a non-link), as the playmates themselves don't have any article. So this is a navbox about a subject which was AfD as non-notable, with redirects links to non-notable individuals, while the template itself contains unverifiable data, as it's a navbox which shouldn't have references. Pretty legit. --Gonnym (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Navigation template with very little useful navigation if any. Only 2 of the 18 blue-link entries are Wikipedia articles. As the nominator states, the rest are redirect to a list or direct links to a list. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
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).

Template:Mad Love (JoJo album) tracks[]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89(T·C) 07:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Unused and unnecessary. Only two songs have articles, which link to and from one another from the infobox in each. Plus navigation is already provided by {{JoJo}}. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessary navigational template for only two articles that already link to each other in their articles. Aspects (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete: navigation already provided by {{JoJo}}, no need for duplication. Richard3120 (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
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).

Template:Eastern Hockey League seasons[]

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete navbox template that does not link to anything for over six years; unlikely to ever be used (and if it was, it is likely to link to what would be stats only pages). Yosemiter (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete, template unlikely to be used. Flibirigit (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- AquaDTRS (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: I just created two seasons pages for the EHL, so the template is now being utilized. The league and its seasons are notable and received significant press coverage, so I see no reason to delete the template anymore. Does this change your decision, Flibirigit? --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 19:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No, I have not changed my mind. There is no evidence of "significant press coverage" at all. While the Eastern Hockey League itself is notable, its individual seasons are not. Statistics are not enough to pass WP:GNG and are simply WP:ROUTINE. I have spent significant time researching the league, and while there is enough information to write an article about Tommy Lockhart, there just is not enough to justify season articles that contravene WP:NOTSTATS. Flibirigit (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
This league was covered extensively in major newspapers around the country, including The Boston Globe, Philadelphia Daily News, The Charlotte Observer, The Tennesseean, and the Miami Herald, which wrote about the games, players, and such. I have a newspapers.com account, and found 1,979 hits from 1970 alone. The season articles pass WP:GNG easily. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 22:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Prove it. The coverage I found was routine reporting of scores and standings. These do not pass GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
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).

Template:F[]

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 08:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Per the discussion on the talk page, there are concerns that a) this template is not used, b) this template's name is not indicative of its use, c) there is an actually-used template on Commons that is potentially giving confusion, and d) it has a "premium" name and at the very least should be renamed to something else. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. No need for a template that is used to save people writing "WP". --Gonnym (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not advocating for it, but if we are to use {{f}} for shortcut, here's my two cents. Original discussion hinted at using {{f}} for {{file link}}, as on Commons. But as far as I know, linking to files on enwiki is not a prevalent as on Commons. An idea: look at Category:Wikipedia template-protected templates, starting from F. Would we want to use {{F}} as a shortcut for any of those? Some of the most used templates already have pretty short names, like {{for}} and {{flag}}. I looked at: {{format link}} and {{further}}. It seems that {{format link}} is almost never used directly—mostly through other templates. Does {{further}} warrant a one letter shortcut? The letter F is not required to be in the beginning of the template's name. For example, we have {{xt}} which is "example text". A search for intitle:for, intitle:file, or another word in the middle of template's name could be done. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
    Not relevant at all to the TfD. But to respond, oppose any usage. "F" is ambiguous and as such fails WP:TG. Gonnym (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • delete and salt, confusing. Frietjes (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Insufficient complexity of markup to warrant a template. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
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).

Template:Infobox tea[]

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox tea with Template:Infobox drink.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. Both templates seem appropriately scoped as designed, not seeing a strong rationale for merging. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge – My own rationale for merging the two is because tea is a type of drink. --Soumyabrata wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 09:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge. The tea infobox contains hardly any parameters not found in the drink infobox. Temperature is one, but it can be added because it's also relevant to other beverages. For example, coffee should be drunk hot, fruit juice at room temperature, and vodka ice cold. JIP | Talk 13:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Virtually all the parameters are duplicated, just with different names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's s 20:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Tea is a drink, but not all drinks are tea.--Auric talk 20:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Earl Grey is a tea, but not all teas are Earl Grey. Should we therefore have 'Infobox Earl Grey'? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's s 09:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose.——联合果君 (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. There's a significant overlap of the parameters used for both and it's easier to maintain the template if it were merged. 'Other names', 'origins' and 'description' are useful for other drinks. 'Temperature' and 'time' (I believe) refers to the brewing temperature and time which is also relevant for coffees and beers, so there really isn't anything specific in the tea template that requires it to be standalone. (If there was a parameter specific to tea, it could just exist as |tea_something= in the drink template.) -- AquaDTRS (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nikkimaria, and Auric. Not seeing the benefit. Template seems to be working fine as is. Has a very clear scope. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
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).

Template:Infobox property development[]

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox property development with Template:Infobox building.

WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, lots of "buildings" are actually rather building complexes but still qualify for Template:Infobox building. In case someone actually owned a town, I guess Template:Infobox settlement would be more appropriate, though? PPEMES (talk)
Many developments are not building complexes either. Look at everything that is using this template. МандичкаYO 😜 16:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge, there is no need for such specification; no special parameters. Wikisaurus (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. They are fundamentally different. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. A property development like Ciudad de Victoria may contain many buildings of different types. It is a container and the buildings are the things contained. Not the same at all. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's a building complex. Any infobox property variable in that article that cannot be retrieved from infobox building? PPEMES (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. These aren't the same thing. In particular a development has not finished, and may contain multiple buildings. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We shouldn't merge these. I agree with the above arguments, and I expect that the results will be clear. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Parameters (buildings/developments)[]
Table of parameter comparisons
Parameter Infobox property development Infobox building
1 No Yes
address Yes Yes
affiliation No Yes
alt No Yes
alternate_name No Yes
alternate_names No Yes
altitude No Yes
antenna_spire No Yes
architect Yes Yes
architectural No Yes
architectural_style No Yes
architecture_firm No Yes
awards No Yes
belowstyle No Yes
building_name No Yes
building_type No Yes
canceled No Yes
cancelled No Yes
capacity No Yes
caption No Yes
chain No Yes
circumference No Yes
civil_engineer No Yes
classification No Yes
client No Yes
closing_date No Yes
completion_date Yes Yes
construction_start_date No Yes
construction_stop_date No Yes
coordinates Yes Yes
cost Yes Yes
current_tenants No Yes
date_demolished No Yes
demolished_date No Yes
demolition_date No Yes
designations No Yes
destroyed No Yes
destruction_date No Yes
developer Yes Yes
development_name Yes No
diameter No Yes
elevator_count No Yes
embed No Yes
embedded No Yes
engineer No Yes
est_completion No Yes
etymology No Yes
facilities No Yes
floor_area No Yes
floor_count No Yes
floors No Yes
footnotes Yes Yes
former_name No Yes
former_names No Yes
governing_body No Yes
grid_name No Yes
grid_position No Yes
groundbreaking_date No Yes
grounds_area No Yes
height No Yes
highest_end No Yes
highest_next No Yes
highest_prev No Yes
highest_reflabel No Yes
highest_region No Yes
highest_start No Yes
hotel_chain No Yes
hotel_name No Yes
image Yes Yes
image_alt No Yes
image_caption Yes Yes
image_map No Yes
image_size Yes Yes
image_upright No Yes
image_width No Yes
inauguration_date No Yes
known_for No Yes
landlord No Yes
location Yes Yes
location_city No Yes
location_country No Yes
location_town No Yes
logo Yes Yes
logo_alt No Yes
logo_caption

Logo_caption

Yes Yes
logo_size Yes Yes
logo_upright No Yes
logo_width No Yes
main_contractor No Yes
main_contractors No Yes
management No Yes
map dot label

map_dot_label

No Yes
map_alt No Yes
map_caption No Yes
map_dot_mark No Yes
map_size No Yes
map_type No Yes
mapframe No Yes
mapframe-caption No Yes
mapframe-height No Yes
mapframe-lat No Yes
mapframe-latitude No Yes
mapframe-long No Yes
mapframe-longitude No Yes
mapframe-marker No Yes
mapframe-marker-color No Yes
mapframe-marker-colour No Yes
mapframe-width No Yes
mapframe-zoom No Yes
material No Yes
module No Yes
name Yes Yes
namesake No Yes
native_building_name No Yes
native_name No Yes
native_name_lang No Yes
nrhp No Yes
number_of_anchors No Yes
number_of_Bars

number_of_bars

No Yes
number_of_restaurants No Yes
number_of_rooms No Yes
number_of_stores No Yes
number_of_suites No Yes
number_of_units No Yes
observatory No Yes
opened No Yes
opened_date No Yes
opening No Yes
opening_date Yes Yes
operator Yes Yes
other_designers No Yes
other_dimensions No Yes
owner Yes Yes
parking No Yes
pushpin_label No Yes
pushpin_map No Yes
pushpin_map_alt No Yes
pushpin_map_caption No Yes
pushpin_mapsize No Yes
pushpin_relief No Yes
qid No Yes
quantity_surveyor No Yes
references No Yes
relief No Yes
relocated_date No Yes
ren_architect No Yes
ren_awards No Yes
ren_civ_engineer No Yes
ren_contractor No Yes
ren_cost No Yes
ren_engineer No Yes
ren_firm No Yes
ren_oth_designers No Yes
ren_qty_surveyor No Yes
ren_serv_engineer No Yes
ren_str_engineer No Yes
renovation_date No Yes
roof No Yes
room_count No Yes
rooms No Yes
seating_capacity No Yes
seating_type No Yes
services_engineer No Yes
size Yes Yes
start_date Yes Yes
status

Status

Yes Yes
stop_date No Yes
structural_engineer No Yes
structural_system No Yes
style No Yes
suite_count No Yes
suites No Yes
tip No Yes
top_floor No Yes
topped_out No Yes
topped_out_date No Yes
topped-out_date No Yes
unit_count No Yes
website Yes Yes
weight No Yes

As can be seen from the above table, every single property in the development infobox except |development_name= (which duplicates |name=), is in the building infobox. Furthermore, the development infobox has just 61 transclusions. Therefore merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's s 14:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a note, I've collapsed the table to keep this page (and WP:TFD) a little shorter for those not interested in this particular nom. Primefac (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
A collection of buildings is not a building. We could enrich {{Infobox property development}} to include parameters such as "notable buildings", "public spaces", "main streets" etc. These would not belong in {{Infobox building}}, but would be relevant to many property developments. It would be useful to review usage of {{Infobox building}} to see which articles are really property developments, and to review property development articles to see what aspects are commonly mentioned but not covered by the infobox. Then expand {{Infobox property development}} with more parameters, convert articles on developments to use {{Infobox property development}}, add categories and link it better from other templates. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Right. So if a building has a penthouse on it, it must not use "infobox building", because strictly speaking it contains more than one building? And definitely so if the building has some annex or even separate building to it, such as a standalone garage? Furthmore, if a property development has been abondoned and has no owner anymore, we have to make an new "infobox former property" for that? And if a property is not developed anymore, we need an "infobox deleoped property" for that? Etc. etc.? PPEMES (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a continuum from a single building like Liria Palace (or a main building with secondary structures), through a group of separate buildings planned as a whole like University City of Madrid to a larger settlement that has grown up over time like Madrid. I see {{Infobox property development}} as covering the middle ground between {{Infobox building}} and {{Infobox settlement}}. Some of the attributes of a building apply, since both were planned and built as a whole, and some of the attributes of a settlement apply, since both contain many buildings and other facilities like streets and parks. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
As seen in the parametres above, though, the only separate variable is "development_name". Is that really enough a justification for a separate infobox, or could that variable be merged? PPEMES (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I would prefer to improve {{Infobox property development}} by adding more settlement-type parameters, and to make it more visible to users searching for the most suitable infobox. I can do that after this discussion is closed. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with Wikimandia, a property development is NOT a building. I've actually discussed this a long time ago with actual property developers and my local council. Property development isn't limited to buildings. It can and does include things like roads, water supply, sewage, parks, playgrounds, fences, pathways, in-ground communications and electrical infrastructure, retaining walls, street lighting, water supply and sometimes doesn't include any buildings at all. --AussieLegend () 14:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as property development ≠ building.
    5225C (talkcontributions) 05:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
A property that is not developing would ≠ property development . With the same logic, would you advocate a separate "infobox property not developing"? PPEMES (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
A property that is not being developed wouldn't need an infobox at all, so it's a silly question. --AussieLegend () 10:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
A property development may be planned, in progress, complete, in use, abandoned, demolished. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as They cover two different concepts Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
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).

Template:Infobox sporting event organization[]

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. If this discussion were to happen again and there would be more consensus, it may be more appropriate to merge the page with Template:Infobox recurring event. (non-admin closure) Train of Knowledge (Talk) 05:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox sporting event organization with Template:Infobox event.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose-There is a distinction. I happen to be on the Executive Board of an organization that organizes major sporting events. Each event we promote is a separate event with its own organizing committee and history. They are separate. Trackinfo (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge with Template:Infobox recurring event rather than Template:Infobox event. Most of this template's parameters already have a direct equivalent in {{Infobox recurring event}}. @Trackinfo: I recommend you take a look at WP:INFOCOL to understand why this template is considered unnecessary. –IagoQnsi (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind that as an alternative. PPEMES (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I would not have an objection for "Recurring event" for the events. The issue I brought up is the organization behind an event could be much larger. The Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association might be responsible for a multifaceted event that builds up to one day a year, including a parade and a football game. The NCAA or even the College Football Playoff Committee govern the game, in fact multiple games. They are organizations that are responsible for multiple recurring events. Trackinfo (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: Which variable in {{Infobox sporting event organization}} is unique to Goodwill Games that can absolutely not be retrieved from {{Infobox event}} or {{Infobox recurring event}}? PPEMES (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • 'Merge either with original proposed or Template:Infobox recurring event. Should make sure that event templates can be used as a module with organization template. Spshu (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. They are fundamentally different. There needs to be provision for sponsoring multiple events DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge with Template:Infobox recurring event This template is used on recurring championships and games. All the relevant fields are available in the recurring event template, which makes this template superfluous. Oppose merging with Infobox Event as an individual event and a series of events require different data. SFB 00:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose A sporting event organisation is not an event. It's confusing to merge them and there's no convincing reason presented. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Right. Because "infobox recurring event" is only for everything non-sports, non-organised events? PPEMES (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tom (LT): The nomination hasn't made clear that this template is almost exclusively used on articles about recurring events (e.g. African Beach Games). Note that the articles on the organisations that hold these recurring events use Template:Infobox organisation instead (e.g. Association of National Olympic Committees of Africa). This nominated infobox is not actually being used for sports organisations. SFB 17:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
This is utterly ridiculous, already the infobox flood has been merged into infobox event. Perhaps if the ors were less active in merging infoboxes, they'd find less work from new infobox creation. So infobox sporting event will therefore be completely inappropriate.Lacunae (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
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).

Template:Infobox tram network[]

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox tram network with Template:Infobox rail network.
WP:INFOCOL. PPEMES (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. Both templates seem appropriately scoped as designed, not seeing a strong rationale for merging. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge – My own rationale for merging the two is because tram network is a type of rail network. --Soumyabrata wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 09:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: Tram networks and mainline railway networks have very different characteristics, as reflected by the very different parameter set. Force-fitting them together helps nothing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. There are many hyrbid light rail systems to which either of these could apply, and a number of parameters in each template that could sensibly be added to the other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's s 20:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, as I see no benefit to this merge. Some experimenting with the parameters should be done before a future merge discussion takes place (or now if ors are up to it). Using the word 'could" in arguments with no proof of a positive result is not a good argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose.——联合果君 (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge. A tram network is by definition a rail network. Spshu (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep: Tram networks and rail networks do not seem at all similar to me (apart from the fact they both have rails), so it makes sense to have an appropriate template for each. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the scope of both are separate. As mentioned above, the differing characteristics of both are why there are different templates. There is no convincing reason for a merge. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
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).

Template:PlayboyPlaymateTimeHeader[]

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 08:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Unused category template. Gonnym (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:Sentosa Monorail stations[]

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 08:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

All of the links redirect to Sentosa Express, I don't see how this serves as a navbox nor can it be incorporated into an existing template. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete, I don't need it anymore. 2679D (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
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).

Singapore rail transport navbox templates[]

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete -FASTILY 06:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

There was a huge overlap for many of the navigation links in the nominated templates with Template:Singapore LRT stations and Template:Singapore MRT stations, so I converted the MRT/LRT station templates into a selective display that would the display the links relevant to each of the nominated templates once a specified parameter is active, and replaced them by substitution with AnomieBOT (talk · contribs). These templates and their redirects are now redundant to their respective MRT/LRT templates and are not currently used by any article. (Also, I wasn't sure if these counts as WP:T3 so I nominated them here.) -- AquaDTRS (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Notifying template creators as a courtesy (@Dayton12345:, @Sni56996:, @Wpenor:) -- AquaDTRS (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
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).
April fools Nominations

Template:Ambox[]

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).

The result of the discussion was There's a snake in my boots.Primefac (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)=

Totally unnecessary template that adds unneeded clutter to over 1,000,000 pages. See this for an example of what I am talking about. [4-1] -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 19:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:Citation needed[]

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).

The result of the discussion was Somebody's poisoned the water hole. Primefac (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)=

Totally unnecessary template. [citation needed][4-1] -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 00:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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).

Module:Yesno[]

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).

The result of the discussion was This town ain't big enough for the two of us.Primefac (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)=

Let's see what happens. dibbydib Ping me! 💬/ 03:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - We don't need a functioning website anyway. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
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).