Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText, Topic, or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
"WP:TD" redirects here. For TemplateData, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/TemplateData.
Not to be confused with Wikipedia:List of discussion templates.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Closing instructions

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Possibly unfree files (PUF)
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates, except as noted below, is discussed. To propose the renaming of a template or templates, use Wikipedia:Requested moves.

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

  • Stub templates
    Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
  • Userboxes
    Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
  • Speedy deletion candidates
    If the template clearly satisfies a "general" or "template" criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at Tfd, tag it with {{Db-repost}}. If you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}.
  • Policy or guideline templates
    Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at Tfd separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
  • Template redirects
    List at Redirects for discussion.

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

Shortcut:
  1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
  2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template
  3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
  4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing

Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Listing a template[edit]

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process. Note that the "Template:" prefix should not be included anywhere when carrying out these steps (unless otherwise specified).

I Tag the template.
Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:
  • If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the Tfd tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators.
  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    or
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].

Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code). Note that TTObot is available to tag templates en masse if you do not wish to do it manually.

Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the Tfd nomination, add {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the Tfd, this time replacing template name with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}} instead.)
II List the template at Tfd.
Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

Add this text at the top, just below the -->:

  • For deletion:
    {{subst:tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging:
    {{subst:tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

If the template has had previous Tfds, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous Tfd without brackets|result of previous Tfd}} directly after the Tfd2/Catfd2 template.

Use an edit summary such as
Adding [[Template:template name]].

Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:

{{subst:tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code after the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale:

{{subst:catfd2|category name}}
III Notify users.
Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:

to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects (look on the top of the template's talk page) that do not use Article alerts, so that they are aware of the discussion.

Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases.

Consider adding any templates you nominate for Tfd to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the Tfd tag is not removed.

Twinkle[edit]

Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the functions of notification automatically. However, at present, it does not notify the creator of the other template in the case of a merger, so this step has to be performed manually. Twinkle also does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.

Discussion[edit]

Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.

People will sometimes also recommend subst or subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it. Depending on the content, the template page may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.

Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. A list of open discussions eligible for closure can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

November 24[edit]


November 23[edit]

Template:Hewwo :D[edit]

Serves no purpose. Appears to be a test. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Essex Pirates roster[edit]

The Essex Pirates have been defunct since 2011, therefore this template isn't needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned Cite templates[edit]

These cite templates aren't being used, and I don't think are needed. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:OW/OW[edit]

Unclear what the purpose of this subpage is, it simply transcludes the template (which is already shown at the top of the template page) and isn't used anywhere. Fram (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "Unclear what the purpose" is a good deletion rationale. YMMV. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC).
  • delete, unless the author ↑ has a compelling reason to keep it. Frietjes (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The template is used by {{OW load}}. I have learned a new HTML entity, so not a waste of time. Face-smile.svg All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC).

Template:Helper[edit]

No transclusions, and apparently, not intended to be substituted. Confusing use, and unlikely to be used, and redundant to the functionality of several templates in Category:Wikipedia help templates. Steel1943 (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep: These templates are used on thousands of templates. Yours aye,  Buaidh  04:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
    @Buaidh: I stand corrected, to an extent: Template:Helper has 27 transclusions (not counting itself and its doc file), and Template:Helper userbox has over 4000 transclusions. For this reason, I am withdrawing Template:Helper userbox from this nomination for now solely due to its high amount of transclusions, but change my vote for Template:Helper to "substitute and delete" due to lack of usefulness since it returns nothing but a string of text and links (sort of like a canned response hatnote). However, the rest, not counting themselves and their doc pages, have 0 transclusions total, so my "delete" stance still applies to those. Steel1943 (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all less Template:Helper and the withdrawn Template:Helper userbox, substituted as appropriate. These templates don't appear to be particularly valuable--people who need help with anything can always use another of our various help templates or even something such as edit protected to get help.

    Template:Helper should redirect to Template:Help me IMO. No prejudice against deletion prior to redirection. --Izno (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

    These Helper templates send questions about templates directly to WikiProject Templates with preformatted inquires. This procedure is far more likely to produce specific answers to difficult template questions than a generic inquiry via Template:Help me. Please click on the link on the last line of documentation of Template:Epi for an example. Yours aye,  Buaidh  04:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    "These Helper templates send questions directly to WikiProject Templates [...]" is a fact. "This procedure is far more likely [...]" is not, and I find it just as likely that someone using the {{help me}} scheme, which is more generic and thus more likely to get an answer quicker (another not-fact, though we can suppose it), would be able to move forward with the change they are seeking. --Izno (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    At the least, Template:Helper is too generic a name where specifically it is about templates and should regardless of any of the others be re-developed or more likely redirected, preferentially to my already-suggested target. --Izno (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • delete all the unused ones (i.e., everything but Template:Helper and Template:Helper userbox, and then reconsider template:helper. Frietjes (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Slow down {{Helper stub}} for example could be put into the documentation for stub templates, this would potentially be very useful. I do not offer a strong opinion as to whether it should be transcluded there, or substituted. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Convert/text2[edit]

unused subtemplate of convert. (note, there is already a userspace version at User:Wikid77/Template:Convert/text2) Frietjes (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep by author. The Template:Convert/text2 is in use, but has been removed from many pages without consensus; {Convert/text2} was created over 2 years ago (October 2013), to solve the strong user complaint of too many conversions intermingled within article text, so it combines the 2 conversions at the end of the text to reduce the disruption within the free-form text. {Convert/text2} functions as a wp:wrapper template for {convert} and allows quick insertion of free-form text as multiple phrases, beyond the limits of {convert} as designed for ranges of numbers but not free-form text between numbers as in {convert/text2}. Over the past 2 years, the original doc-page was deleted/renamed without consensus, and so it was recreated to begin rewriting the help-text about the various parameters. Removal, hacking and deletion of long-term templates and their documentation, over years, is a massive disruption causing many years of endless suffering, to thwart long-term progress by experienced template editors. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Db-gfdl[edit]

This seems like an exceedingly unusual and highly specific reason to need to delete a page. The same logic could apply to CC-BY-NC type licenses as well; no need for a GFDL-specific speedy deletion template nowadays. — This, that and the other (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Die Another Day[edit]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Skyfall[edit]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Chris Haw[edit]

Don't need a template for two books Legacypac (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

  • weak keep, connects 4 articles. Frietjes (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Shane Claiborne[edit]

Don't need a template for two books Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

  • keep, connects 5 articles. Frietjes (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:RuneSoft[edit]

Subject is video games published: do not refer to each other, only thing in common is same publisher. Other video game templates are based upon developer, not solely publisher. Soetermans. T / C 16:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Images[edit]

Previous thread

Okay, so the previous thread "clocked out" with no consensus because not enough posters showed up. Anyway...

For the reasons mentioned in the previous thread, I don't think we need this template:

  1. Way too generic name:
  2. Basically says you can't categorise FU images, making them hard to find:
  3. Yes, there might as well be local freely licensed images, but still.
  4. Someone in the previous thread suggested having two image category trees - one for free images and one for non-free images. (For example, see Category:Images of Barack Obama vs. Category:Non-free images of Barack Obama). The free image categories would be tagged with a template similar to this one, and the non-free image categories would be tagged with a template that says the opposite.

Thoughts? Hop on Bananas (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I think the template should be kept, but renamed to e.g. "Image category", and the content updated to address your concerns. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if my proposals get done, we wouldn't have this template anymore, would we? Regarding the idea of having separate categories for free and non-free images, the free image categories could be tagged with a template that pretty much says what the current template says, and the non-free image categories could be tagged with a template that says the opposite. But right now, all the current template is saying is that you can't categorise non-free images. As someone said in the previous thread, "it is useful to categorise all files" and if you don't want non-free files showing up on the category page, add __NOGALLERY__. Perhaps the names of the templates I proposed could be "Free image category" and "Non-free image category" or something like that, respectively. Anyway, the just "Images of X" categories would be tagged with a template that says the should only contain categories (I'm pretty sure something like this exists, but I don't know what it's called). Hop on Bananas (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Uw-longterm[edit]

I question the need for a warning template specifically for long-term abusers. The previous iteration of this template said "Vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked", which is a pretty clear WP:BEANS concern. I removed that and changed the wording to "Your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse, and will not be tolerated". But I think the whole template falls afoul of WP:DENY and should be deleted. We shouldn't be acknowledging long-term abusers in this way.

If anything, the very similar but DENY-compliant {{uw-vandalism4im}} can be used in place of this template where it is felt that the user should be warned before being blocked. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Even if I did not agree with the logic of the nomination, this simply isn't being used in any meaningful way. We have plenty of better warning templates, we don't need this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 22[edit]

Template:Split section portions[edit]

A barely-used wrapper for {{split portions|section=y}}, with which it can simply be replaced in the few transclusions. We don't need {{foo section}} redirects for every template with a |section=y (though a few widely used ones like {{unreferenced section}} should probably be retained).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep it's a wrapper, so there's no extraneous extra full templates. I see no reason why we can't have wrappers for section-specific template forms. This suggests splitting portions of a section and not an entire section -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    • It's a wrapper because I just converted it into one from being an extraneous full template. There are not enough uses of this particular one to retain a wrapper for it to pass a single parameter. The use of {{split section portions}} saves a grand total of three characters over use of {{split portions|section=y}}. I have not yet gone through the small number of uses of this template, but I'd bet good money that many of them should be converted to another template anyway. More often than not, people actually want {{split section}}; it's quite rare to need to do a formal split of content that is only a portion of a section (and with the content in question not also forming a subsection – i.e. a section that can be tagged with {{split section}}). PS: The majority of transclusions of {{split section portions}} are actually using the mal-named redirects {{move section portions}} and {{move section portions to}} ("Move" mean "article rename" in WP jargon, so these redir names are confusing). Thus, this template is not being used consistently, and no one appears to be wedded to its continued existence (which is not the case with a widely used wrapper like {{split section}} [note the singular], also a wrapper for {{split portions}} but one that is widely and consistently used and should thus be retained).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment this is not identical to the {{split sections}} but the rationale indicates the same coding, this cannot be, since they have different text. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    • This nomination has nothing to do with {{split sections}} (see nom below), but {{split section}}, which is a different template (for which {{split sections}} is an even more pointless wrapper). And that wouldn't be a valid rationale against the merge/redirect anyway; we routinely do away with redundant templates that do not functionally differ, but are divergent only in presentation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Split sections[edit]

A barely-used wrapper for {{split portions|sections=y}}, with which it can simply be replaced in the few transclusions, though it would be better to replace it with something more appropriate. This one in particular is pointless, as the resultant output is not actually helpful, amounting to "some sections, that I refuse to bother to identify, should be split." If any entire section(s) should be split, the template to use is {{Split section}} in the section(s) to be split. If content diffused across multiple sections needs to be split out, the template to use is {{Split portions|portion=description of the material in question}}, at the top of the article. I'm going down the list of transclusions and so far have not found one that is appropriate, and have been replacing it with something more useful in each case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep it's a wrapper, so there's no extraneous extra full templates. I see no reason why we can't have wrappers for section-specific template forms. This suggests splitting sections off instead of other portions of articles, like paragraphs. It would provide a top-banner to go along with {{split section}} -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    • It's a wrapper because I just converted it into one from being an extraneous full template. And as noted, its output is not helpful. The |sections=y parameter of the parent template can actually be "retired", and the documentation now notes that it is usually not a helpful parameter to use. In going through uses of {{split section}} in articles and converting inappropriate ones to more appropriate, more specific templates, it ended up that a grand total of zero of them were useful instances of this template (now wrapper). It has never had any reason to exist, as far as I can tell, and seems to have been created because someone wasn't sure what pre-existing template to use. If anyone believes that a section should be split off, but has no idea what an appropriate name for the new article could be, they can use {{Split section}} with no parameters. If they think that some material in an article should be split, but they can't narrow it to a specific section because of how it's integrated into the article, but they can narrow it topically, they can use {{tlx|Split portions|portion=topical description of material to split out|Proposed title for new article. If someone just has a vague sense that the article should be split somehow, they can use {{Split}} with no parameters. And so on. There are no use cases for this template/wrapper that are not covered by pre-existing templates, and more specific options of them, than the vague "some sections", nor were there enough uses of this particular one to retain a wrapper for it just to pass a single parameter, especially since none of them turned out to be proper uses of it to begin with, just lazy/imprecise ones that were easily made more specific with other templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:How long ago[edit]

This template should be deleted for 3 main reasons:

  1. The code is a mess
  2. It doesn't take into account 100- and 400-year leap-year rules
  3. its function is better served by {{For_year_month_day}}, to which reasons 1 and 2 do not apply

A bot could be used to handle current instances of the template's use, and at that point, I wouldn't see any reason to keep this template. Esszet (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Why do we care about 100- and 400-year leap-year rules? This is a userspace template meant to express how long ago it was that you joined Wikipedia; the last non-leap-and-end-of-century year was more than one hundred years before Wikipedia was established, and we have more than eighty years before the next one. The other template is meant for mainspace; having separate templates for separate purposes makes the metadata more clearly separated. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
No, there is for that {{User Wikipedian for}} and several others, none of which appear to be based on this one. Its main use appears to be in {{Missing for}} and similar templates, which could easily be edited to use a different age calculation template. Esszet (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Australian political party leaders templates[edit]

These navboxes are redundant to Template:Australian Labor Party, Template:Liberal Party of Australia, and Template:National Party of Australia, respectively. Graham (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Halifax Rainmen current roster[edit]

The Halifax Rainmen basketball franchise is defunct and the template is no longer in use. TempleM (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete No current transclusions.—Bagumba (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, defunct navigation. Frietjes (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Mississauga Power current roster[edit]

The Mississauga Power basketball franchise is defunct and the template is no longer in use. TempleM (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete No current transclusions.—Bagumba (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, defunct navigation. Frietjes (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

November 21[edit]

Template:List of scandals in Malaysia[edit]

Not a helpful template. There are seven links to sub-articles, none of which exist. The main article (List of scandals in Malaysia) contains fewer than 10 items, so it seems unlikely they'll need to be created any time soon. Relentlessly (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Fb team Watford U21s[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G4 by Kusma (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

One wikilink in a template, unnecessary JMHamo (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2015 (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:Fb team Bethnal Green United[edit]

was only used in a few articles, and fb team templates are deprecated, so I replaced it with simple team links. it is now unused, so not needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Fb team Mauritius Sports[edit]

was only used in two articles, and fb team templates are deprecated, so I replaced it with simple team links. it is now unused, so not needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:CircleBig[edit]

unused templates created by a user with very few contributions to the project, and obsessed with violating WP:SIGNT (see the history for Template:Quackers). Frietjes (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Fb team Collier Row & Romford[edit]

One wikilink in a template, unnecessary JMHamo (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Fb team Tiptree United[edit]

The wikilink contained can be substituted in the one article it's used in; no need for this template JMHamo (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:TubiTV[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).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete G2: Test page (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Unused, broken external link template. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

speedy delete, clear editing test, and probably self-promotion considering the username of the creator. Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2015 (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).

November 20[edit]

Dubrovnik nobility[edit]

Fails TFD reasons 2 and 4. Both are replaced with Template:Republic of Ragusa topics. The two templates fail NPOV as representing noble families of the Republic of Ragusa as "Dubrovnik noble families", also using Croatian, and not Latin/Italian names for these. The city of Dubrovnik ≠ Republic of Ragusa. Zoupan 22:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Nonsense. Zoupan created what is essentially a duplicate template (with all Italian names pointedly) and wants to delete the old ones, that have served just fine for years and years. As for "NPOV", the user doesn't seem to grasp the fact that the city of Dubrovnik, and the nobility thereof, did not evaporate with the Republic of Ragusa: they continued on as nobles (usually counts) of Austria-Hungary. In fact, believe it or not Zoupan, the majority of those families exist today as well (you're talking with a relative).
In short: strong keep. I'm afraid this is a bad-faith, POV-pushing proposal, intended to advance a particular historiographic point of view. -- Director (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
What is the problem in deleting obsolete templates? The notability of every single article listed is their Ragusan nobility status. There is no dispute over their importance and part in legacy of Dubrovnik, but using the term "nobility of Dubrovnik" for Ragusan nobility, and then using only Croatian names for these, is not suitable. It is anachronistic. Dubrovnik does not have nobility since long ago. Yes, when parts of the Ragusan nobility entered Austria-Hungary, they became part of that system. Descendants may exist today, but that does not mean that they are "Dubrovnik nobility". One should indeed be proud of his heritage, but not take these kind of things personal. These templates should be scrapped.--Zoupan 12:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that the template isn't "obsolete", but is instead being attacked because you disagree with the name forms used in it. You're deliberately attempting to render it "obsolete", by way of a duplicate template, so as not to have to actually push the changes you want to see. This is about your disagreeing with Wikipedia's use of perceived "neologisms".
Furthermore, it doesn't seem like you thought this through: your template "Republic of Ragusa topics" deals with subjects relating solely to the Republic of Ragusa (1358-1808), whereas the majority of these families have histories since as early as the 12th century, and continued to exist (in one form or another) for 200 years after the fall of the Republic. I.e. its scope appears to be about half the time these families existed. -- Director (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Zoupan's duplicate templates or redirects show his particular POV. As for the language, the official language in the Republic of Dubrovnik/Republic of Ragusa was Latin, and both Italian and Croatian were commonly spoken, hence both are at least equal. --Silverije (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove. Long-standing discussion. Everyone agrees that both Italian and Croatian were spoken in Ragusa, but for some reasons this nobility of Ragusa (Dubrovnik?) is presented mainly using the Slavic variant of the name, which is indeed a neologism. Side note: sources are in favor or using the romance version of the name when referring to those noble Houses. However, the articles do not meet IMHO the minimum requirements of notability and should be removed. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Could it be because Dubrovnik (Ragusa) is a Croatian town? But this illustrates my point from above: what's at issue here are the name forms used in the template, not the template itself. This is an attempt to deliberately try and make the template "obsolete", so as not to have to properly discuss its content, i.e. the said noble surnames (presumably due to lack of relevant arguments: all I've heard is "they're neologisms", which, even if accepted - doesn't matter per policy). -- Director (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Talk-vandal1[edit]

A four-level series addressing vandalism to own talk page. Judging from an old discussion found on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User warnings/Archive 1 this series created in 2007 was supposedly meant to deal with cases where users removed e.g. warning templates from their own user talk page. Judging from Previous revision of Wikipedia:User pages the templates would have seen very little meaningful use then, and likely even less now, were they to be promoted. They have never been part of the Uw series, and I can't see a reason for why they should be. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding {{Talk-vandal4im}} belonging to the series. Sam Sailor Talk! 22:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Chicago Outfit[edit]

only used in one article. Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Frietjes So are most of the templates for most crime families. What difference does it make for it? --Donovan Ellis (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Donovan Ellis, which other ones are used in only one article? I would like to nominate those as well. Frietjes (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Frietjes Idky you're doing this because either mine or the other crime family templates have violated any rules but its all the five families and some of the other crime families--Donovan Ellis (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Quackers[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).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per WP:CSD#T2. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

violates WP:SIGNT. Frietjes (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2015 (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:Zoos footer[edit]

Template seems to be added to every zoo navbox, which is not appropriate use, as the toplcs listed here are too broad to be linked in a geography specific navbox such as {{Zoos of California}}. Fails WP:NAVBOX. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, which I partly support, but then logically, the other links maybe also should be removed? Before I express any opionion, which links at the footer would you suggest as alternative? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Are your serious Rob? You know there is a discussion ongoing, you are involved in that discussion, and you can see there is no consensus that items on a list which is listed on a template can't have this template. In fact this zoo template is the prime template focused on at the discussion. I put the templates on every zoo article, it is entirely appropriate and immensely useful for the Zoos project and for Wikipedia readers interested in particular zoos, and you once again are taking away weeks of my work for no reason other than you think something is policy when it is not only not a policy, not a guideline, but by ongoing discussion consensus seems perfectly fine. And Dan Koehl is taking your word as template-gospel? Please, Rob or Dan, put the templates back. Thanks.EDIT: strike, it's not the {{Zoos}} template, my mistake and apologies. Randy Kryn 18:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)/ 16:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment we have {{Zoos}} why do we need this? We can just have two footers at each article, one like {{Zoos of California}} and the generic {{Zoos}} together -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    Good point, the template Zoos footer isn't the same as template zoos. And yes, the {{Zoos}} template seems to me appropriate for each article. Randy Kryn 14:33, 21 November, 2015 (UTC)
    Not sure how to interpret this, are you suggesting a fusion of the two templates, e.g. that the template "Zoos of X-region" should in its footer incorporate the template {{Zoos}}?Dan Koehl (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    • No, I am not suggesting a merger. I am suggesting we use template as other articles uses templates, that is, when appropriate, have more than one template as the footer templates on an article. There is no reason for a regional template to include generic information, when there is a generic template to provide those links. Just use a second template. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I created this template because I thought these items would be handy to have in individual zoo articles, and I had the same experience as Dan K. (see User talk:Dan Koehl#Zoos navbox, where my zoo article edits were removed on the basis of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. I'm lazy, so rather than inserting these entries manually in every single "Zoos of" template, I created this template. I would personally prefer to use the two templates as 70.51.44.60 suggests. Randy K above says this bidirectional rule does not have consensus, but on at least two occasions in the past years, individual zoo articles have gotten modified to remove the second template, based on this rule. Putting at least some of that information "in the same template" (by using the footer) seemed like a better solution than not having any of the information. If we can keep people from editing out the Zoos template, there is no need for this template. Don Lammers (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have gone back before I posted and looked up the original, which was back in 2012. The diiscussion can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Zoo/Archive 3#Zoos template. Don Lammers (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Pitch Perfect film series[edit]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Two films, no series article. Can easily be dealt with through normal linking. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Scottish dogs[edit]

Propose merging Template:Scottish dogs with Template:English dogs.
I propose changing the name of Template:English dogs to Template:British Isles dogs and merging Template:Welsh dogs, Template:Scottish dogs and Template:Irish dogs into it, in a similar manner to Template:Horse breeds of the British Isles. The histories of these countries and their dogs are intertwined, many of the breeds covered are shown in two or more of these templates and it will allow the separation of the Scottish, Welsh & Irish dogs into categories by role / type. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - As it is part of the United Kingdom, but I'd suggest "Template:United Kingdom dogs" or "Template:Great Britain dogs" as the name of the template.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose instead create a new template called Template:British dogs and a redirect from Template:British Isles dogs ; and merge all three templates into the new template, and redirect the source template names. There is no reason to promote the history of the English template instead of giving equal consideration. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Welsh dogs[edit]

Propose merging Template:Welsh dogs with Template:English dogs.
I propose changing the name of Template:English dogs to Template:British Isles dogs and merging Template:Welsh dogs, Template:Scottish dogs and Template:Irish dogs into it, in a similar manner to Template:Horse breeds of the British Isles. The histories of these countries and their dogs are intertwined, many of the breeds covered are shown in two or more of these templates and it will allow the separation of the Scottish, Welsh & Irish dogs into categories by role / type. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - As it is part of the United Kingdom, but I'd suggest "Template:United Kingdom dogs" or "Template:Great Britain dogs" as the name of the template.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose instead create a new template called Template:British dogs and a redirect from Template:British Isles dogs ; and merge all three templates into the new template, and redirect the source template names. There is no reason to promote the history of the English template instead of giving equal consideration. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Irish dogs[edit]

Propose merging Template:Irish dogs with Template:English dogs.
I propose changing the name of Template:English dogs to Template:British Isles dogs and merging Template:Welsh dogs, Template:Scottish dogs and Template:Irish dogs into it, in a similar manner to Template:Horse breeds of the British Isles. The histories of these countries and their dogs are intertwined, many of the breeds covered are shown in two or more of these templates and it will allow the separation of the Scottish, Welsh & Irish dogs into categories by role / type. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Portimonense S.C.[edit]

Links only to two stadia. Two blue links, not a useful aid to navigation Fenix down (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Dil Dosti Dance[edit]

The template is meant to be for the characters of the fictional show Dil Dosti Dance, but has piped links to the actors and not characters unlike maybe how Template:Desperate Housewives has links to characters. And I don't think we make templates of actors who have worked in a TV show. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Uw-imagepermission[edit]

Less effective than and redundant to {{di-no permission-notice}}. If an image is tagged with a free license but with no proof of permission by the copyright holder, it should be tagged for speedy deletion criterion F11 ({{Npd}}), which uses {{di-no permission-notice}} to notify users. Steel1943 (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep if the file is listed through another process, such as WP:PUF or WP:FFD, then the di-notice is inappropriate, as it wouldn't be a CSD. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, that is not correct since the CSD criterion would still apply; the file would still have no proof of permission. Also, this nominated template is not part of the notification process for either forum just mentioned (FFD or PUF); those templates are {{Fdw}} and {{Fdw-puf}}, respectively. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This would be an additional template to the FFD and PUF notification templates, indicating why it showed up at FFD or PUF. And if the file is not templated with the CSD, then the user should not have a CSD warning issued, since it is incorrectly warning about the wrong process. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, redundant. Frietjes (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a bad template, but it is certainly redundant to {{di-no permission-notice}} (in the case of DI deletions) and a clear explanation of the problem by the FFD or PUF nominator (in the far less common case of nominating a file lacking permission at those venues). What's more, it has barely been used in 6+ years. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Wikipedia talk[edit]

This template namespace page has been blanked, the corresponding edit summary read "remove for now per WP:BRD". Pinging the user who performed the aforementioned action for their input. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't really see any advantage in deleting because a blank notice is treated the same as a deleted notice by the editnotice system. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@MSGJ: Well, the software probably skips a few steps, including fetching the edit notice, if there's no edit notice, if that's significant. Alakzi (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Bentley Falcons football coach navbox[edit]

WP:EXISTING -- It is used in only one article, Hal Kopp, making it hard to navigate. Also fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template", and there isn't an article for the Bentley Falcons football or its coaches. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 02:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

November 19[edit]

Template:Trick 'r Treat[edit]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Can be dealt with through standard linking. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; use a See also section if necessary. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:PubChemCID[edit]

Propose merging Template:PubChemCID with Template:PubChem.
Possible functionality duplication. Djadjko (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
They produce three different results (eg prefix is PubChem or CID, external links). What will that be after the merge? -DePiep (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Combined two prior redundant discussions, will poke relevant wikiprojects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge. I can't see any reason for more than one template to link to a PubChem listing. There are two types of listings, CIDs and SIDs, but if links to either are desired, that could be handled by a single template as well. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Talk archive/philosophy[edit]

Unused and redundant; the Philosophy WikiProject now use the standard archive box. Alakzi (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

November 18[edit]

Template:Islamic Personalities Revered by Shias[edit]

WP:LISTCRUFT falling into the category of WP:OR. A major concern is that the template criterium is too vague and might in theory include an indefinite amount of people, since new spiritual leaders (the "revered personalities") pop up continuously. HyperGaruda (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Nepalese male actors[edit]

better to just use the list article and the category. we don't need a navbox as well. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete or list per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cabinet of Narendra Modi[edit]

Propose merging Template:Cabinet of Narendra Modi with Template:Modi.
I have created the new template, covering all the articles of Narendra Modi, except his ministry, since I think it would be better to merge the existing template itself. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose The Modi template would become too bloated then. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Cricket templates for speedy deletion[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete for multiple reasons:

AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

In spite of the consensus being Delete all in TFD, they are not deleted yet. Hence, nominating again for speedy delete. Chris8924 (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2015 (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:Black Messiah track listing[edit]

Template used in only one article and also serves no navigational purpose. One can simply link to the album article for info about the album. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

November 17[edit]

Template:Fdw editintro[edit]

The template is not used and has no likelihood of being used. A simple text explanation type entry that would belong on a help page or in a guideline, not in template format. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment how does one determine if it isn't used? I assume this is an WP:Editnotice, or a WP:Preload, which is called by MediaWiki software settings, and is not transcluded. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Geologic Ages Inline[edit]

Propose merging Template:Geologic Ages Inline with Template:Period start.
Redundant to a better designed template. The name makes the purpose unclear, whereas {{Period start}} tells you exactly what you're going to get. It is also paired with {{Period end}}, so you can provide the time span of a geological time unit without needing to look up the next unit. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree I think merging is fine. Alhtough I think that "period start" does not return the age-measurement-error yet. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Since this TFD notice was added, it broke a few others, so this template is in use by Template:Geological_range. So much care is required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Tuguegarao City TV[edit]

Template:European Games stadia[edit]

Navboxes with only one entry, far below the five article guideline to warrant one. If this event ever actually happens again then these could be recreated in the future, but as it stands not everything needs a navbox. QueenCake (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • delete, better as a category or a section in the parent article in any case. we don't need a navbox for everything. Frietjes (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - We don't keep one and two-link navboxes; they serve no navigational purposes for our readers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

November 16[edit]

Template:TOC Regions of Ukraine 2[edit]

unused and redundant to a standard horizontal TOC. Frietjes (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose, at least tentatively: I notice Frietjes has recently replaced numerous usages of template:TOC US states by use of template:Horizontal TOC, in each case severely damaging the appearance of the articles. (See discussion I opened at User talk:Frietjes.) The "standard horizontal TOC" does not work properly (at all perhaps, making a VERTICAL oriented TOC currently), and it definitely does not have customization for U.S.-specific features, e.g. for editor selection of how non-state but like-a-state capital region Washington, D.C. should be treated. About the template of regions of the Ukraine, Frietjes did you also eliminate multiple usages to make it "unused"? I would like to see verification that the horizontal TOC template achieves exactly what the Regions of Ukraine did. If the change is losing features about any capital region or otherwise, and/or if it is damaging appearance, it is not "redundant", and the Ukraine template should be kept.--doncram 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

* Delete. Definitely redundant to the existing Template:Administrative divisions of Ukraine which is much better and really used. However, next time better don't nominate a template for deletion without referring to an existing replacement. PanchoS (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    • PanchoS, I didn't refer to Template:Administrative divisions of Ukraine because it's not a TOC template, and hence this template is not redundant to that template. you see, TOC templates generate links sections/anchors within an article, while navigation boxes generate links to other articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Indeed, I'm ashamed I got that wrong, sorry. :/ PanchoS (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ensemble Members of Porchlight Theatre Ensemble (Porchlight Music Theatre)[edit]

Not enough active links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, and replace with simple "see also" links. Frietjes (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a navigation template created in late 2014 by new editor Danceandsingandact, with apparent intention to link among about a dozen articles. It is sensible to have a navigation template; 12 or so See also links would be awkward and wherever there was a redlink, other editors or a bot would delete them. Navigation templates serve well to indicate a list of intended articles. Deletion of this and an associated template also nominated for deletion would eliminate a large proportion of the new contributor's edits, tending towards discouraging them and driving them away from Wikipedia. Significant cost that way, vs. no benefit in eliminating the templates -> Keep.
Also, I don't mean to be sarcastic or rude, honestly, but don't people have better things to do than to go around hurting new editors? I find myself asking this question and making essentially this comment, repeatedly. There is no policy violation in nominating these templates for deletion, but it is "morally" wrong in my view, and I hope other editors concerned about editor retention will agree. You can choose not to take actions that are likely to turn off new editors, I suggest.
But again, even without considering new editorship as a factor, the template serves a reasonable purpose and should be kept. --doncram 21:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
How does linking to a single article serve a reasonable navigational purpose? And how is it "morally wrong" to nominate a useless template for deletion that should never have been created in the first place? I'm not even sure the "ensemble members" can be backed up by a reliable source. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Also note that the "new" editor in question made a couple of dozen edits about a year ago and hasn't edited since. All the edits by this WP:SPA were regarding the Porchlight Music Theatre. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete and list Paul Goebel under "notable actors". We don't know if the other actors are notable at all. The list might be incorrect or outdated. We don't know, possibly can't even find out, and certainly don't have the time to do so. So all we can do is delete the list, especially as a semi-orphan template. PanchoS (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Yazdânism[edit]

The article Yazdanism and even more this template try to conceal the fact that Kurdish scholar Mehrdad Izady's theory of a unique pre-Islamic Kurdish religion which he calls "Yazdanism" isn't much more than a theory, a theory that has been heavily disputed by other recognized experts of the field and that therefore even may be considered a fringe theory. This is supported by the fact that Yazdânism is not even mentioned as a theory in some of the most elevant articles linked from this glitzy template. In the only really visible article of the supposed four branches, the one about Yazidism, the template isn't transcluded at all.
As the theory has been very influential in Kurdish nationalist discourses, it definitely is notable enough to earn its own article. I'm totally fine with that, and not even opposed to the theory. Still, it remains a disputed theory that may not be presented as if it was a widely established fact.
The template might be possibly replaced by more specific templates based on established knowledge and terminology, which might still refer to different (even fringe) theories about possible common origins and close relationships. But this particular template clearly has to go. PanchoS (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that I partially rewrote the article Yazdanism for clarity and neutrality. This doesn't change anything about the template though. PanchoS (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I concur with the above. Aside from the prominent Yadzanism infobox template, the Yarsanism article never mentions "Yazdanism." The Yazidism article doesn't discuss it either. I suspect many members of these faiths would be surprised to learn that they're "Yazdanis". Now, much like PanchoS, I don't deny that Yazdanism as a concept is out there. Let it have its own page. But to subsume these other religions under the banner of a highly debatable position like Yazdanism is deceptive and not supported by the available sources. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PanchoS (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Chris Amon Racing[edit]

a) lacks notability: b) not necessary for a team that only produced one car Tvx1 22:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete; as stated above, there is little, if any, use for this template. Eagleash (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • They entered as a privateer team in the 1966 italian gp but dnq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.226.6 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:VGgenre/sub[edit]

A template that is not used anywhere, and as far as I can see never has been, created by an editor who left Wikipedia over four years ago. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, unused and not needed. Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Smart conversion templates[edit]

The so-called "smart conversion templates" are completely unused. Their purpose is to remove commas but this can be done with Module:String instead (and much more efficiently). Delete these redundant unused templates along with Category:Smart conversion templates. Jimp 12:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, unused and not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Recategorized both to Category:String manipulation templates. Unsure about these two.
    {{uncomma}} might be useful as a wrapper for {{formatnum:}}, because nobody would expect {{formatnum:}} to be usable for such stuff. The other one, {{uncommanum}} basically does the same as {{formatnum:|R}} and could also be a wrapper, though we might want to rename it to {{unformatnum}}.
    In the end, we want to explain users how to use the magic words directly, so we might want to rename them sensibly and replace them with errormessages as this one here. PanchoS (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cvt[edit]

This is an unused fork of {{convert}} which would fall under WP:T3 but I'm listing it here because the T3 tag from a year ago was removed. Jimp 11:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment irrelevant to the discussion itself, but I have removed the lvl-4 header these two templates were listed under because they are being treated as separate nominations. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete unnecessary fork. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • delete or redirect, although calling it a fork isn't really accurate. it's a frontend. Frietjes (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep by author. I created {{cvt}} five years ago to simplify the coding of abbreviated conversions in thousands of pages, as making typical conversions twice as short in perhaps 70%-80% of conversions, such as using {{cvt|4|km}} rather than the verbose "{{convert|4|km |abbr=on}}". In reality, {cvt} should be in use more than 2x the number of {convert} template calls, but some people have been systematically removing the use of {cvt} to thwart its use and frustrate the users who want conversions to be less-wordy in pages. Over the past 5 years, {cvt} has been used hundreds of times and should be used in more than one million articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment this isn't a fork, it's a wrapper -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. To see a typical example of {cvt} inside a list, see page "List of rivers of Taiwan" (permalink) with 61 instances of {cvt} to show "km" for "kilometers" rather than 61 of "{convert|...|abbr=on}". Some users really dislike wordy syntax in parameters, and that is why {cvt} was created in 2010 as a short-form template, especially for use in lists or tables. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Convert/E[edit]

This was created before {{convert}} could handle E-notation as input (without outputting E-notation). {{Convert}} has since been updated so that this is no long a problem thus making {{convert/E}} redundant. It's also unused (except in about half a dozen places like archives and test pages). It probably falls under WP:T3 but I'm listing it here just in case. Jimp 10:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete unnecessary fork. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • delete or redirect, unused and not needed. Frietjes (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep by author. The Template:Convert/E is a wp:wrapper template (not a fork) used with Template:Convert/old, formerly with Template:Convert, to handle units not supported by the Lua {Convert}. For example: {{Convert/E|9E17|USqt|UStsp}} shows "9 × 1017 US quarts (4.2 × 109 US teaspoons)" while Lua {Convert} could not yet handle that conversion: 9×1017 US quarts ([convert: unknown unit]). -Wikid77 (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    • If these units are worth having they can be added to {{convert}}. Jimp 01:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep used with OLDconvert, so should be kept. I suggest that @Wikid77: copy over {{convert/old}} to Wikia Templates [2]. Indeed, all the old ParserFunction general utility templates should be undeleted and transferred before being hidden again on Wikipedia. It's a great loss to the MediaWiki user community that Wikipedia has deleted all the old templates, since they can be used without LUA. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • What do you mean by "used with"? {{Convert/old}} doesn't use {{convert/E}} and {{convert/E}} wasn't using {{convert/old}} until yesterday. What's more, {{convert/old}} isn't even in use anyway. Why are we keeping this stuff? Jimp 11:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Why are we deleting this stuff so soon, when there are still problems with the Lua script version of Template:Convert? Meanwhile, using Template:Convert/old supports unit-codes not provided by the Lua version and helps spot errors, such as Lua "{{convert|1|m2|cm2 in2}}" giving "1 square metre (10,000 cm2; 1,600 in2)" while {convert/old} shows the correct "1 square metre (10,000 cm²; 1,600 sq in)". Years ago, we decided the square-inch symbol would show "sq in" and never "in2" as in the Lua version during 2015. {Convert/old} still works correctly, and quickly provides unit-codes not supported by the Lua version, although people have been removing many instances of {convert/old} to pretend it is not needed. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
        • This discussion isn't about deleting {{convert/old}}, it's about {{convert/E}}. Jimp 02:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Eigenfactor website[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by Versageek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Unused, broken external link template. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2015 (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 county youth biography[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).

The result of the discussion was Template does not exist. If the template linked contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Broken template presumably intended to be used on Draft:Sam Jeffries(footballer). The user seems to have figured out the correct template to use on that draft, so I don't think this is needed anymore. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2015 (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 Musikalbum[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Unused, broken template that simply consists of a call to itself. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2015 (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:Imagen múltiple[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).

The result of the discussion was delete, unused editing test. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Largely unused, broken template that is stuck in a template loop with itself. Presumably our local Template:Multiple image does the job well enough; we don't need a non-English titled version as well. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Notifying User:Calliopejen1, who has a user subpage that uses this broken template. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • delete or redirect to {{multiple image}}. Frietjes (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • delete Seems to be a test template. PanchoS (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong delete hardcoded instance of non-English template. General use templates on English Wikipedia should be in English. Boilerplate should not be made into a template, this should have been in-page coding, if it were in English. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2015 (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 All-Africa Games event[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Unused, broken template that is stuck in a loop with itself. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2015 (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).

November 14[edit]

Chang Thailand Slammers templates[edit]

The Chang Thailand Slammers have been renamed to Hi-Tech Bangkok City and a template for their current roster is already made. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom. Additionally, they are mostly all red links anyway.—Bagumba (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Talk archive[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).

The result of the discussion was Keep. (non-admin closure) Although one or two weak reasons can be seen, the opposition to a merger is unanimous. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Talk archive with Template:Talk archive navigation.
Very similar templates, with no obvious requirement for more than one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge. Sure. Why not? They seem almost identical. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The reason for having a separate template is because the navigation template not only provides navigation, but requires a very specific formatting for archive page titles. Applying that to an archive page without the appropriate formatting will break the template. oknazevad (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • That's irrelevant. When that specific format is not in place, these two act exactly similar. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the merged template navigation can be turned off or allows the naming convention to be specified. The navigation from {{Talk archive navigation}} requires a specific naming convention that not all talk pages follow. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment There was a previous discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 24#Archive navigation templates. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Per the discussion referenced by the previous poster. There are necessary reasons for keeping these templates separate. Safiel (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, I closed that discussion (and later participated in it when it was re-opened), and I do not see the reason you say exists. That proposal was ill-conceived; this proposal is not. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This is the third time I am aware of that it has been proposed to merge these templates in some form or other. There are users who find the functionality of tan very useful and get concerned when there is discussion that may in some form reduce that functionality. If a proposal was clear as to what is intended, and an awareness of the problems involved in merging the templates, and how those problems would be overcome, then I suspect the proposal would have more success. As it stands this proposal gives no adequate explanation for the merger, and seems to miss that the templates have subtle but telling differences. As the proposal stands it is unclear what is intended, so I am opposed. With greater clarity, and a clear explanation of what functionality is intended to remain, and an explanation of how the templates are to be successfully merged, I think I would be more likely to support. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • This is a proposal to merge tow templates; it is not a proposal to remove any of their functionality. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Some editors use tan at the TOPs of archive pages and just ta at the BOTTOMs. The navigation is useful at the TOP, but unnecessary at the BOTTOM. So, once again, tan the tops and just ta the bottoms!  Paine  15:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose People might want to use one or the other to add customisation. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per above editors and their reasons, which I'd also personally thought of before noting that others had listed them down previously. Alex|The|Whovian 06:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What exactly is the problem that needs to be solved here? Seems like a waste of time. Has the proposer prepared a sandbox version of the proposed merged template? Wbm1058 (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • comment Unfortunately, it appears that people are opposing, after and with no regard to Codename Lisa's comment time-stamped "17:54, 15 November 2015". I trust that whoever closes this will take that into account. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • One barely-detailed support concerning a discussion that is not this one does not force nor require all of us to support it as well. We all have our own views, no matter what other people's views are. Alex|The|Whovian 01:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • All she says is, "Sure. Why not? They seem almost identical." and "this proposal is not...ill-conceived". No explanation as to why she thinks it's not ill-conceived. I don't know anything about any previous discussion, or how that might relate to this. These templates don't seem identical to me. {{Talk archive navigation}} uses Module:AutomaticArchiveNavigator, while {{Talk archive}} does not. That seems like a significant difference. See how in my talk archive, {{Talk archive navigation}} has links to the previous and next archive. If I change it to {{Talk archive}}, those navigation links disappear. That's the difference. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
      • @Wbm1058: That's true; I mean what you say about me. I regard sufficient similarity in purpose and output a valid ground for considering the merger, although I factor in additional problems like TCO. Mind you, "Merger" ≠ "Delete one and redirect". As for "That proposal was ill-conceived; this proposal is not", yes, this is very weak, but I said it in response to the already-much-weaker "there was a semblance of discussion before" argument. But overall, I am not trying hard here. I did what I could last time. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Strawman; the comment you're quoting is not the one to which I referred. Likewise, no one has claimed that the templates are "identical" - another strawman. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Andy, that comment betrays your trademark attitude in TfD of "I'm right, you're wrong, closers, you should just listen to me". That's not how it works, as demonstrated here. If the overwhelming opposition continues the discussion will not be able to support a merge result. BethNaught (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Please discuss the topic, and avoid making personal attacks such as the above. You have failed to refute the point made by CodenameLisa; and your "overwhelming opposition" assertion is bogus; this is not a vote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yet again, really? Talk archive is meant for situations where navigation is not necessary or desired, Talk archive navigation is for when it is. Note the navigation elements only appear in the latter when viewed transcluded. Therefore the nominator's rationale "very similar templates" is not true. BethNaught (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • And yet again you do not establish any argument as to why the two very similar templates could not be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
      • "In your opinion", which is generally respected. In this case since you opened this merge discussion, it's more important for you to establish an argument as to why these two templates should be merged. I oppose the merge because it's unnecessary and because you have not established an argument that the merge is necessary. Be prosperous! Paine  22:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
        • No, not "in my opinion", but apparent from basic reading comprehension. If you believe that to be wrong, please highlight the argument BN made to that effect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Face-smile.svg My secret to wisdom: Never state (nor highlight) the obvious.  Paine  23:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per WP:PERENNIAL. How come every time I go to archive my user talk page, I see the notice of another TfD? (That is a rhetorical question, so don't bother answering it.) This is a solution in search of a problem, and I advise the editors who are so concerned about it to get another hobby. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with the above that WP:PERENNIAL comes into play here. If you want to merge these templates, then convince users to favor one template over the other and make the switch beforehand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tryptofish. - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The consensus of this discussion is quite clearly for opposing the original request for merging, and should be closed as such as soon as possible. Alex|The|Whovian 17:51, 23 November 2015 (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:List of scandals in Malaysia[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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Nov 21. Primefac (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a helpful template. There are seven links to sub-articles, none of which exist. The main article (List of scandals in Malaysia) contains fewer than 10 items, so it seems unlikely they'll need to be created any time soon. Relentlessly (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2015 (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:Bataan Radio[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2015 (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:American Sinosceptic[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Unused even by creator and potentially divisive. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why this template was created. I thought it should be nominated first because it seemed a bit controversial. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2015 (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:Arabenglnotes[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This template looks more like an article than a template. Not sure whether it'll be good to convert it to an article or not. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It was used, subst'd, as a footnote or section on numerous list articles of loanwords (e.g., List of English words of Arabic origin (T-Z)). I created the article, and used it quite often when I was working on those lists, but as far as I know it's not been used by anyone since and - to be honest - I'd forgotten all about it. If it's no longer being used in that way, I've no objection to its deletion. Grutness...wha? 02:44, 14 November 2015 (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).

November 12[edit]

Template:ISO 3166 name DE-HB[edit]

This is a follow-up on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 6#Template:ISO 3166 name DE-HB from 4 1/2 years ago.

I have only tagged this one template, as it would be a bit ridiculous to tag 12,000 templates in one go.

My reasoning from four years ago: "This is a combined deletion nomination for ca. 12,00010,000 templates, of which I have only tagged one. These templates are 5895 templates in Category:ISO 3166 code from name templates, 4060 in Category:ISO 3166 name from code templates, 245 in Category:ISO 3166 name from code country templates, and 1868 in Category:ISO 3166 code from name country templates. These were all created in May and June 2010, and none of them are used. I have asked about them at User talk:Rich Farmbrough#ISO 3166 templates, and he intends to use them in infoboxes. However, no actual examples of where they may be used have been given, and it is hard to see what purpose this many templates can have. For maintainability and user-friendliness, a template like Template:CountryAbbr, which is used to add country or region codes to the coordinates, is much more useful and maintainable. E.g. on an article like Weser, the cooridnates at the top right contain the region DE-HB. This is done automatically, based on the fields in the infobox. The same code could be generated through Template:ISO 3166 name DE-HB, but this would mean that instead of one smart template that tackles all these codes (or a small number of such templates, if it would get too complex for one), we have an individual template for each and every code. For automatisation and maintenance, this is worse. Having one template per country, with the regions parametrised, could be a reasonable solution. I fail to see though how these 12,000 templates will reduce any workload or make life any easier. "

The only change is that we are now four years further on, and as far as I could see, these are still not used (the only experimental use they had was in Template:Infobox bathhouse, which has since been redirected). Keeping 12,000 unused templates around for five years seems like overkill. Fram (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep The Template:CountryAbbr could be rewritten far more efficiently using this scheme. The limitations on template code mentioned in the previous TfD have been removed, so the case for keeping them is now stronger than before. If I get time I'll look at knocking up a sandbox version in the next day or two.
One again I suggest that deletion boards are not the place for starting discussions amongst established editors, but rather a cordial approach on a talk page.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC).
  • {{ISO 3166 name}} has 12,000 transclusions, so the nomination rationale appears to be flawed. {{ISO 3166 code}} is indeed unused, presumably because {{CountryAbbr}} is favoured. Alakzi (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that. It seems as if some of the code ones are used as well, I apparently checked a number of unused ones and thought my original statement of 4 years ago was still valid, but by now the country ones are used. I'll strike the country ones above, and keep this nomination only for the sub-country templates in Category:ISO 3166 code from name templates and Category:ISO 3166 name from code templates (still some 10,000 templates). Fram (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
      • If these are to be kept, I feel that they should be Luafied (and I've - in fact - listed them as candidates for conversion to Lua here). A page for each code and name is an unmanageable arrangement and a relic of the past. Potentially, a list of names and codes could also be compiled from Wikidata (properties 297 to 300); it might even be possible to retrieve these at runtime with Module:Wikidata, though I'm not sure. Alakzi (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Luafy the whole system (and preferably merge with CountryAbbr) per Alakzi. I haven't tested, but with two sets of data pages (code→name and name→code), Lua would probably be about as fast as transcluding a separate template for each, and much quicker than a huge #switch. I even think a slower yet still quick module using a single set would be possible, avoiding the need to make changes twice and ensure consistency. SiBr4 (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Convert to Lua; keep as is until that is done, or if conversion to Lua is deemed impossible or doesn't work. Having thousands of templates like this is a very "old-hat" way of doing things that can be difficult to maintain. At the very least, they should have been arranged in subpages... — This, that and the other (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Geological history[edit]

Per Reasons for deletion #2: the navbox is redundant to better-designed navboxes. It includes geological divisions throughout the history of Earth down to a fine scale, and there is little reason to expect that users will want to navigate between most of them. For example: If someone is looking at Zanclean (5.3 - 3.6 Mya), will they suddenly have the urge to go to Rhyacian (2300 - 2050 Mya)? Or even Danian (61.6-66.0 Mya)? Zanclean already has two much more sensible navboxes: {{Neogene graphical timeline}} and {{Neogene Footer}} (it probably doesn't need both). Going up the scale, Neogene has the same two navboxes and also shares {{Phanerozoic eon}} with Cenozoic. Cenozoic also has {{Cenozoic graphical timeline}}; in principle, this could also be shared with Neogene. And Phanerozoic has {{Eons graphical timeline}}. I don't think there is any article where this template would be useful - not even the main article, Geologic time scale, where there already are tables of time divisions. RockMagnetist(talk) 07:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep this navbox, for non-geologist wikipedia users (& editors) that either do not know the geochronological sequence of periods and the eras they belong under, or have difficulty re-remembering them accurately over time. I disagree with you RockMagnetist, regarding "little reason to expect that users will want to navigate between most of them," in the regard that link navigation usage is not the only criteria, another important value is the visual "mapping" always findable in one place. It is especially helpful as the sole navbox template/place to also simply see all the Precambrian and Phanerozoic Eon's epochs and ages together, and their relationships. The 10 Precambrian Eons, 19 Paleozoic Eras, and 7 Cenozoic Eras (usually not using "Early-Middle-Late" of the Mesozoic eopchs); and the ~48 periods/ages are especially benefited by the clarity of this particular template. Graphically, it is much easier to read and simpler to comprehend than the vertically formatted info boxes (excellent in other ways), and so is not a duplicate. Both formats have value.
Navigating without this template placed at (only) the Era level articles, Era parent categories, and topic by Era subcategories is an unnecessary reductionism. For any article/cat/subcat under the Eras level, I do understand that only navbox templates by specific era or period are appropriate, as a recent discussion decided/bot cleanup fixed.
I Strongly Oppose deletion of this navbox template. Please have mercy on those of us laypeople that are interested in geochronology, curious to learn, &/or wanting to edit to the most specific geochron−subcategory, but do not have the expertise or capacity to maintain its complex flow chart accurately in our brains. Thank you — Look2See1 t a l k → 22:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@Look2See1: I appreciate your desire to see it all laid out, but Geologic time scale is more useful for that purpose. It's more informative and you can search it, something you can't do in {{Geological history}} unless you first click on all the [Show] links. Contrary to your statement above, link navigation is the only purpose of a navbox. It shouldn't be relied on as a source of information because it isn't even displayed on the Mobile Web site for Wikipedia (see WP:NAVBOX). And having a few hundred unnecessary links on each chronology page is overlinking. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@RockMagnetist: Thank you for explaining some considerations. Contrary to your statement above, link navigation is not the only purpose of the {{Geological history}} template for some wikipedia users. It's purpose is also a much clearer graphic reference tool than the Geologic time scale article's vertical table. Most importantly, it is visible as a whole timeline, without needing to continually scroll up & down to see only truncated sections, which the article's tall vertical table/graphic requires and which precludes seeing the big picture sequencing and interrelationships. Since the template is not displayed on the Mobile Web site, its not fitting on a small smart phone screen is mute.
The article's vertical table is comprehensively exquisite, which however also makes it much less "whole picture" clear due to the essential "Major events" information it appropriately includes. Therefore, this template is extremely useful and valuable on this main Geologic time scale article, let alone others, for its "whole picture" graphic clarity and "no−scrolling" qualities. The incomplete, barely readable to unreadable (tiny/micro font sizes) sample horizontal timelines in the article have no replacement value for the template. The circular geochronology graphic is visually beautiful, but its text is unreadable without leaving the article, rendering it an indirect tool.
Also importantly, the Geologic time scale article would need to be placed under 100s of --See also-- sections of geochronology articles to offer the same comprehensive "map" — and still worse, be a terribly indirect tool as it is not simultaneously visible on an article's page for referencing as the template is. Linking Geologic time scale on category pages instead of the template is obviously inappropriate, so without its being kept there would be no inter−Era linkage or comprehension support on any Era level articles, Era parent categories, and topic by Era subcategories. Please Keep this navbox. — Look2See1 t a l k → 00:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Delete. The guidelines at WP:NAVBOX are pretty clear:

Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia.

and

Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use.

and

Navboxes are not displayed on the Mobile Web site for Wikipedia, which accounts for approximately 30% of readers.

This template is far too large to be useful in navigation. Per RockMagnetist's argument, having a navbox is a separate issue from trying to make geological time comprehensible to laymen.

If editors think that Geological time scale is too hard to read as an information source, how about adding collapsiblity to the big table, somehow? I think that would really help our readers. —hike395 (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Trim down --- I just thought of a compromise. The main problem with this template is its size. It's gigantic, because it includes links down to the ages. How about if we just keep periods and epochs? This would help laymen navigate (because I really doubt that laymen would ever need to navigate from an age in one epoch to an age in another). —hike395 (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hike395: Down to periods might be appropriate, but including epochs would mean the table goes four levels deep. That seems a bit much. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Trim or delete The articles that this template was spammed onto already have numerous links to related articles for a curious reader to follow. Only one person seems to think that everyone will want to jump from Avitomyrmex to Mississippian. The template should not be placed just to facilitate something that is already better dealt with in existing footers and in the infoboxes at the start of articles.--Kevmin § 17:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

RockMagnetist, Look2See1, Kevmin: Symbol question.svg Question: I went through and dramatically simplified this navbox: a draft is at User:Hike395/sandbox. It now fits on one screen. How do other editors feel about replacing the current navbox with this proposed one, and Keeping it? —hike395 (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It is definitely much cleaner looking then the current version. I still think it should only be used sparingly in categories at the most though.--Kevmin § 13:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kevmin: Agree I think this navbox should only be used on articles, not categories. —hike395 (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hike395: Thanks for doing this. It's much better, although on reflection just two levels would be more in keeping with the guidelines. Also, it should be changed to a uniform color. Those colors make it difficult to read some of the links and are "arbitrarily decorative" (see Style, color and formatting).
@RockMagnetist: Yes check.svg Done I agree that the colors made it hard to read -- removed. Three levels: X mark.svg Not done, because then we would have to leave out Pleistocene, Mississippian, and Neoproterozoic which I think are important. —hike395 (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Looks a lot better! RockMagnetist(talk) 06:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kevmin: At present, the navbox links articles. Are you saying it should be moved to categories? RockMagnetist(talk) 16:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I mistook the usage when i glanced at the what links here page, you are correct.--Kevmin § 16:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hike395: Well done. I like the detail as you did it; the colors need to be calmed down, though. One thing I keep wondering: why is the chronology upside down? Most tables of geological time show the oldest at the bottom, not the top (e.g., here or here). — Gorthian (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Gorthian: Yes check.svg Done I like the stratigraphic order, better. I don't know why the original did it the other way. —hike395 (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hike395: The structure is much improved. The colors are now very tame and...well, blah. Are those the default navbox colors? I was thinking that a little color, like to distinguish the eras all the way across, would be useful. I fiddled with it for a while, but obviously I don't know enough about editing navboxes. :-P
One other clarifying element: is there some way of indicating column heads, so we know what's an age and what's an epoch? — Gorthian (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Gorthian: Yes, those are the default navbox colors. RockMagnetist linked to the guideline, above, which says that navboxes should not be "arbitrarily decorative" in its color. I could try to use the eon/supereon color systematically for the first two columns, but I think that it violates the accessibility guidelines.
Regarding age/epoch. Do our readers really need to know supereon/eon/epoch/period for all of the links? I was trying to keep things compact and unconfusing. There isn't a constant header for each column: the resolution of the third column changes with depth (i.e., it's period for the Phanerozoic, and then switches to "epoch".

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Symbol question.svg Question: In the Phanerozoic, the periods are now listed from latest to earliest, left-to-right. Is this confusing to the readers? Won't they expect time to flow forward left-to-right? Not sure what to do: please advise. —hike395 (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


November 11[edit]

Template:R to other namespace[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This template is deprecated and not used on any pages. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Not sure maybe its a simple template that can be refined by replacing with one of the cross namespace ones (as we do with {{Stub}}). Maybe the cross-namespace ones should be maintained by a bot in which case this is useless. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete. This template has been replaced by all of its more specific cross-namespace rcats. I still monitor its old Category:Cross-namespace redirects, which is now a container cat and can be kept. If an editor were to place that cat "hard" on a redirect, as in [[Category:Cross-namespace redirects]], I can catch it and put the redirect into its correct subcat. This template's only subpage is its /doc page, which can be deleted along with this old rcat. Be prosperous! Paine  06:28, 13 November 2015 (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:Doctor Who actors[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).

The result of the discussion was merge. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Doctor Who actors with Template:Doctor Who navbox.
There's a lot of repetition here. Although I'm personally against having actors in the navbox as it sets a dangerous precedent, if this has to stay the actors may as well be included in the other navbox. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, does lessen the separation and makes it easier to see the overall arc. Maybe a list of companions added as well? Randy Kryn 13:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The companions have their own navbox at {{Doctor Who companions}}, which is already pretty unwieldy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge. Perhaps replace the link in the See also section of the DW navbox that now goes to List of actors who have played the Doctor with the List of Doctor Who companions? Be prosperous! Paine  06:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If it's a choice between merging and leaving them separate, merge, but I'd prefer to do away with the actors entirely per Rob Sinden. I assume the consolidated template will include parenthetical links to each series lead after the link to their respective incarnation, but will that also apply to John Hurt, Michael Jayston, Richard E Grant, and Peter Cushing? And are we going to continue ignoring Richard Hurndall? —Flax5 20:10, 22 November 2015 (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).

Cartoon Network–specific navboxes[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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

In the same vein as {{Cartoon Network programming}}: The navbox for pilots, films and specials is so gigantic, full of red links that aren't in the process of creation, and linkless entries that it's useless. Its purpose is better served by the categories Cartoon Network Studios animated films and Cartoon Network television films.

The function of the navbox for video games is also made redudant by the category Cartoon Network video games and list of Cartoon Network video games. (I created this template.) 23W 16:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I've created himself the template "Cartoon Network pilots, films and specials", but only to solve the problem of a too exaggerated former template (Cartoon Network programming). Then, I am not at all agree on their inclusion of all titles in the above categories, because the template in this way is more comprehensive, functional and orderly. So keep it officially. Luigi1090 talk 23:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

As creator of this template, I had written it before and I write now: "Keep" the page. Luigi1090 talk 23:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2015 (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:Busy3[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).

The result of the discussion was userfy. The main concern seems to be that the user using this template will attempt to recreate it despite it's near-duplicity with {{busy2}}, thus it makes more sense to move it to their userspace for their own personal use. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This was part of a recent batch nomination of templates. I'm renominating this one (per WP:NPASR) because it's easily the worst of the lot; it's basically a fork of {{Busy2}} that has got slightly out of sync, with the only substantive difference being the mention of consensus reality (via an interwiki link, for some reason) rather than real life. As such, it's most comparable to a WP:POVFORK, or perhaps an idiosyncratic equivalent to a userbox, but I doubt this change is going to be sufficiently commonly wanted to be templated.

The only current user is User:MECU. If a template with the diverged wording is wanted, I can understand userfying this (so as to save having to rewrite the template every time the user in question comes on and off busyness), but it's not going to be a sufficiently generally applicable template to hang around in mainspace. If nobody wants to userfy it, just delete it (and replace existing transclusions, likely just the one, with {{Busy2}}). --ais523 22:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no harm in letting users have these little decorations. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC).
  • Keep. User will just recreate it or something similar when needed. Be prosperous! Paine  06:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge with {{Busy2}}, as these are almost the same, with the difference being that it says "consensus reality" instead of "real life". --TL22 (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: deleting or merging will only encourage the user to recreate their preferred style. This template does not appear to be a maintenance burden. Who cares if a user wants a personalised template? BethNaught (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Agreed with Beth, if users or a user wants this template then let them have it, I do not see this as a huge issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2015 (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:Bond girls[edit]

As the article Bond girl shows, it is very difficult and perhaps impossible to come up with any consistently applicable, verifiable criterion for Bond girls - certainly the list given in the template is in no way canonical, and picking exactly one character from each movie seems flawed. Moreover, it's unclear which films should be included - the template seems to arbitrarily limit itself to Eon productions, for instance, omitting several other notable Bond films. Samsara 07:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Also, we shouldn't be categorizing people by their performance or a character they may have played. Nymf (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand Bond girls that do not have articles do not need to be considered. If the Bond girl is a non-notable actress they will never appear on the template, so is of no concern to us in regards to the template. Being a Bond girl is a major event in an actresses career, and they are ever more identified as having been in a Bond film. As such, many people in the world at large (ie. outside Wikipedia) are interested in them and would like to follow information about them, thus making the navtemplate a good idea. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't generally allow actor navboxes. And as the nom points out, what defines a "Bond Girl"? Best left for the article to discuss. Fails WP:NAVBOX. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what "fails WP:NAVBOX" means - I don't see a list of tests in that guideline - apart from the 1-5 numbered points, of which some I think are met, per the rubric "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete Even the article has grappled with the definition of a "Bond girl" and a template cannot capture the subtleties of such a black and white divide. Also, the purpose of a navbox is to facilitate navigation between a set of articles and I am not convinced that a one-off appearance in different films is a strong enough relationship to provide a navigation route from Halle Berry to Eva Green, for example. Like so many templates/potals, they sound like a nice idea but in practical terms not much use. Betty Logan (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per IP 70.51.44.60 – and since a Bond girl could be either a character or a person/female actor, then notable characters like Pussy Galore and Xenia Onatopp should be included, perhaps in a separate "Characters" section of the navbox. Be prosperous! Paine  08:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    Already covered at {{James Bond characters}} --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    Not all JB characters are "Bond girls", so if this template is kept and it's going to be a template to aid navigation to all the Bond girls, then the notable characters that are Bond girls should be included.  Paine  23:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The "Bond girls" are a thing, a recognizable societal meme. Expansion per above may be the way to go on this. Robsinden is correct that the characters are covered in the James Bond character template, yet in my understanding, after careful study and/or appreciation, the actresses themselves are known as "Bond girls" as much, if not more, than their named character, and so this template thus covers a topic which the Bond character template excludes. The template could be expanded into sections, as the documentary film Bond Girls Are Forever should have a place in a See also or Legacy section. Randy Kryn 10:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Which we have categories for. We also have a list which puts them into a proper encyclopedic context. The real question posed by the navbox is do we need a navigational aid to navigate between them? How likely is it that someone would look up Honor Blackman and then want to navigate to Eva Green? A good rule of thumb for navboxes is that the articles in a navbox would appear in the "see also" sections of all the other articles if not for the navbox. Basically the navbox picks up the slack when the "see also" section does not adequately serve its purpose. That clearly isn't the case here, since I see no compelling reason why we need an Eva Green link at Honor Blackman's article. Betty Logan (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Aren't they connected by the fact that they are both Bond girls? While cats help sometimes with navigation, they are not nearly as easy for general readers as navbars are. Moreover, there are rules for See also sections that might not allow other Bond girl names in that section, for example, if they are linked for any reason within the content of an article or in any navbox on the page, then they should not be listed in the See also section – see MOS:SEEALSO. Be prosperous! Paine  06:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Grouping articles together is done by categories, while navboxes are functional: their purpose is to provide navigation between a group of articles. All I am seeing is an argument for a category. Nobody in favor of the navbox has explained why it is necessary to add a navigation aid to this set of articles. Neither is there an evident demand for such an aid either; usually these links already pre-exist in some form in the article and the navbox is just a tidier and more efficient way of providing the same set of links, but this group of articles do not seem to interconnect with each other at all. Betty Logan (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
You may be correct that Nobody in favor of the navbox has explained why it is necessary to add a navigation aid to this set of articles. However, you just explained it very well! ...the navbox is just a tidier and more efficient way of providing the same set of links, yes, it's an efficient navigational aid for our readers who want to visit one or more of the other Bond girls' articles (and not have to "hunt" for them). Be prosperous! Paine  11:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

US miniseries decade templates[edit]

The templates seem to be an arbitrary aggregation of content best suited to categorical presentation. I don't understand why a template is necessary for this subject.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, as last time, my reasoning being that the templates create an interesting overall look at the television interests of the decade and make an easy guide to this particular classification of television shows. The creator of the templates was an active participant in the previous discussion as to why they should be kept, but might not know about this one. Randy Kryn 13:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have made good use of these templates when reading articles. One can also argue that miniseries tend to share many common traits that differ them from longer TV series, such as themes, tone, etc. As there aren't many miniseries to begin with, I think this is relevant enough to warrant more than a simple entry in the categories list at the bottom of the page. Besides, converting this into a category would make it less accessible, as the miniseries wouldn't be ordered by years, and you'd have to open each subcategory to see what series are in there. Daß Wölf (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
But you could all this and more with a List of U.S. miniseries, which is far more appropriate than these navboxes, and you wouldn't be restricted by the arbitrary splits between the decades. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The list has the problem that you always have to go back to the list to find the next item, whereas with the navbox you can browse freely among the items. Besides, the splits aren't completely arbitrary; there are big thematic differences between the miniseries of various decades. Can you imagine Roots being filmed in 1990s, for example? Daß Wölf (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
You mean like Alex Haley's Queen? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I could go on about differences between those, but yeah I'd probably end up deep into WP:OR. It's a shame nobody with credentials has covered this either, judging from Google Scholar results. Still, I stand by my decision to keep, as a navbox in this case is more accessible than a list. Daß Wölf (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Massively multiplayer online strategy video games[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. No objections after having been listed for almost a month. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Template's subject is a video game genre, too narrow for a navbox. There's already {{Multiplayer online games}}. Template is mainly used on video game articles, failing WP:NAVBOX. Soetermans. T / C 14:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2015 (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:Creighton Bluejays women's basketball coach navbox[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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus, and the number of links increased after the initial nomination. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Navbox with just two links and no mother article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete; this is what succession boxes are for one entry doesn't justify a navbox, since there's nothing to navigate to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @SMcCandlish: Actually, Mac, most of the sports WikiProjects (and a number of others) replaced the clunky and graphically hideous succession boxes with navboxes four to five years ago, and the use of navboxes for this purpose has been upheld in multiple TfDs in 2010–11. The question here is whether there are an adequate number of linked articles to justify a navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah OK, as long as they don't do both, it should work either way. (I co-founded a sports wikiproject, and we never had such a discussion, so I'm not sure that preference is universal). In this case, there's just one article, which wouldn't seem adequate. It has a number of redlinked entries, but I'm skeptical that being a coach at a private university (i.e. being an "athletics professor") is notable in and of itself, per WP:ACADEMIC. So it may not be likely that any of those redlinks will ever be articles [for long], except where the subject is notable for some other reason. As with the case below, there is no article about being a coach at this university, so this fails one of the navbox criteria. This is just like having navboxes for films' actors and crew members, basically. Who worked on a team, like who worked on a film, is better handled in article text.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, which sports WikiProject did you found? The consensus about preference for navboxes over succession boxes, which Dirtlawyer mentioned above, and which I also mentioned below in the discussion about Template:San Jose State Spartans athletic director navbox, applies to most North American teams sports at the pro or college levels, and has also been adopted for a number of sports outside of North America; see Category:Sports coach navigational boxes. Also, your analogy for having a navbox for a film's actors and crew is inapt here. That would be analogous to having navbox for the roster of every team each season, e.g. a navbox just for the members of the 2014–15 Creighton Bluejays women's basketball team. Generally, such navboxes only exist for league champions. The navbox in question denotes an succession over time of one office. Finally, I'm not sure WP:ACADEMIC is applicable here. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) is better. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:CUESPORTS (and, yes, there are collegiate-level team pool competitions; I competed for the University of New Mexico in the ACUI southwest regionals back in the day, and the Billiard Congress of America was running university tournaments for decades before ACUI got involved). But whatever; I'm not challenging whether or not any discussion ever took place, it simply does not appear to have been as inclusive as some think it was, and probably only involved "big-time collegiate sports" projects. Anyway, I don't see anything at WP:ACADEMIC that suggests "immunity" to it based on the subject area that a university faculty member is an instructor of. Meanwhile, WP:NSPORTS does not appear to be applicable, since it addresses pro not collegiate/amateur sports primarily. See wording such as (under American football): "players and head coaches are presumed notable if they have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues [list elided], or any other top-level professional league", followed by a note that it doesn't even apply to pro-league assistant coaches. And similar wording under other sports. University coaches and athletic directors do not appear to be encompassed, except in a very short amateur section, that assumes notability only for hall of fame inductees, major award winners, and those who are independently notable aside from their am/college sports connection. Back at the notability guideline on university faculty, it does not specifically draw some circle around athletics departments and exclude their faculty. Perhaps it should be clarified to mention them specifically and remove all doubt that it applies to them as well as to physics professors and university presidents. It's not problematic that two guidelines can apply in a non-contradictory way to such individuals. Notability for leadership of a sports team and notability as an academic or university administration figure are not identical (a coach might be non-notable, due to lack of major coaching awards, in the first case, but notable under the latter case as an oft-cited expert in sports psychology and phys-ed pedagogy journals, for example). Similarly, a physicist could be notable as a science writer (i.e. as an author) and notable as an academic (theoretician); or a theatre figure might be notable as both a playwright and an actor; or an attorney notable as all three of a solicitor, a businesswoman, and a politician (or, in an actual case I can think of, a prosecutor, a fashion model, and an activist).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a "mother article," Creighton Bluejays women's basketball, which included a list of head coaches by season. That said, I am skeptical of the navigational value of a navbox with two links, but I am mindful that navboxes that represent a succession series are one of the possible exceptions for navboxes that are mostly red links. Can someone stub out another couple of articles for some of the more prominent coaches in the succession, so we can have a clean "keep" vote? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • keep for now. useful for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Navbox denotes a notable position. Now has three blue links to bio articles of notable people. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." A list that satisfies WP:LISTN would avoid the banter about whether these entries are actually notable; WP:NCOLLATH says college coaches generally are not presumed notable. It seems these navboxes are circumventing the more stringent requirement for pages, which would not take to kindly to a list of red links without demonstrated notability as a group.—Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep This class of template should be kept as long as there are sufficient notable subjects in the body of the template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:06, 12 November 2015 (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:San Jose State Spartans athletic director navbox[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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Navbox with just three links and no mother article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - The "mother article" for this navbox is San Jose State Spartans, the intercollegiate sports program of San Jose State University, of which the listed persons are the executive directors. A separate list should not be required. Whether three links (and a relatively small percentage of the listed persons) is adequate for a navbox is a separate question. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete; this is what succession boxes are for.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [Changed to weak delete, below, for different rationale.]
    • Creating a succession box is just kicking the can down the road. It dosnt deal with the real issue of determining whether the subject it worth the clutter of any box, succession or navbox. It seems like needless churn to convert just because succession box may be less stringent.—Bagumba (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep this navbox captures the succession of San Jose Spartans athletic directors, who—perhaps, aside from some of the interim office holders— are presumably notable. Generally speaking, an athletic director for an NCAA Division I school like San Jose State is going to be notable. We have 189 other navboxes of this class; see: Category:NCAA Division I athletic director navigational boxes. Is there minimum number or minimum percentage of blue links that would obviate the nominator's complaint above of "just three links"? Also, per SMcCandlish's comment above, this is actually not what succession boxes are for, certainly not in practice. There is a broad, stable consensus among an number of sports-related WikiProjects that navboxes are preferable to succession boxes to capture the succession of office holders in the footer space of articles. We have several thousand of such navboxes; see the category tree at Category:Sports coach navigational boxes and elsewhere. Navboxes are dynamic, easily standardized, collapsible, and contain comprehensive coverage of a succession, whereas succession boxes are static, more susceptible to irregular formatting, clunky and space consuming, and provide limited context. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX No 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template". Create a list that meets WP:LISTN would clearly demonstrate the notability of this subject. Accepting the broader subject of San Jose State Spartans as the "mother article", is a bad precedent to invite cruft navboxes under the guise that an article of a more broader topic presumes notability of any list even remotely related. No prejudice to recreate once LISTN is met.—Bagumba (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Bags, we have never required list articles for coaches, and have accepted main team articles that included the lists as the parent articles for these navboxes. I don't see the AD succession navboxes being much, if at all, different in that regard. That said, I would like to see at least one more live blue link to satisfy what has been considered a reasonable minimum in the past (see my comment below re Tom Bowen). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
"we have never required list articles for coaches": I don't see a compelling reason to go against an editing guideline in this case. It's not like SJSU is a Power 5 school.—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jweiss11. Clearly part of a well-established class of navboxes. At the very least, this is valuable information that we should WP:PRESERVE somewhere, and it's probably best, easiest, and most logical to just keep it right here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: While three entries is enough to serve a navigational purpose, just being a university faculty member does not auto-confer notability, per WP:ACADEMIC, so we can expect some of its entries to remain redlinks indefinitely. And the navigational purpose can be served by "preceded/succeeded by" entries in the infobox. Not every template that could possibly be used on a page should be.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - If someone will create a stub article for Tom Bowen (athletic director) (or retask the present Tom Bowen redirect for that purpose), who is a Bill Walsh protege and a former NFL executive and was the SJSU AD for 8 years, that would give us four blue links and presumably satisfy the minimum number for a succession navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - With Jweiss11's creation of a new article for Tom Bowen, here are now four blue links to existing articles about notable individuals who have served as the SJSU athletic director. That's plenty to support a navbox for a succession, especially when successions are listed as one of the possible exceptions to a 100% blue link navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I question the wisdom of creating a one-source micro-stub on a probably non-notable minor figure simply because he's connected to American sports, when the result is essentially not really an article, but a trivial biographical index entry, the sole seeming purpose of which is to have a place to hang three navboxes. Having been employed by a university doesn't make someone notable, just presumptively competent enough to find work in that sector.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, NCAA Division I athletic directors are clearly notable. Apologies for not taking the time to expand the Tom Bowen article beyond a short stub, but my focus here on Wikipedia is on cleaning up thousands of other articles and establishing standardized formatting for all them, including navboxes like the one in question here. Frankly, it's time to admit you're wrong here and move on. If you're truly intent on whacking some American sports navboxes, I can point you in the right direction. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • SMcC, Tom Bowen is highly notable for his roles as AD at San Jose State and Memphis, as a simple Google News Search will reveal. The initial one-reference stub did not accurately reflect the depth of media coverage for Bowen, and I've started to build out the article with quality sources. That said, even the article in its now-present condition (@10:25 a.m., November 2) is sufficient to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per GNG. It's not an accident I suggested Tom Bowen for stubbing; I looked at the coverage before I made the suggestion, because I remembered his association with the 49ers and Bill Walsh. Bowen got a lot of good ink for turning the SJSU sports program around, and he had been rumored to be a candidate for the Stanford and Cal AD jobs before Memphis made him the highest paid university employee in October 2015. We can argue about the proper role of sports, etc., in American universities and academics, but Bowen is legitimately notable. I won't go so far as Jweiss11 to say all Division I athletic directors are notable, but most are. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jweiss, Ejgreen and Dirtlawyer. Cbl62 (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: with the creation of Randy Hoffman, we now have five bio articles linked from this navbox. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

My searches indicate that Chuck Bell, who was also AD at other institutions, would pass GNG, if and when someone decides to create an article. Cbl62 (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
There's plenty of coverage about Tom Brennan as well. I'm confident that we'll find that all of the permanent ADs here are notable. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep This class of template should be kept as long as there are sufficient notable subjects in the body of the template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:05, 12 November 2015 (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:Cal Poly Pomona presidents[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:EXISTING -- It is used in only one article, making it hard to navigate. Also fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template". Corkythehornetfan 06:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:EXISTING with nothing to navigate to at this time. Also fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4 with no standalone article on this topic. These are all signs of a crufty navbox.—Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - One-link navbox serves no valid reader navigational purpose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dirtlawyer1 and Bagumba. This is useless for navigation. Daß Wölf (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2015 (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:Characters[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why this template exists. It is transcluded to a single user page, and linked from two pages that probably refer to a different template with the same name. Also, Template:Spider is nominated for the same reason. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete spider, userfy characters. Samsara 07:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete {{characters}} personal use single use template. Looks like testing, so possibly DB-test -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete {{spider}} -- unused useless template that is not template content. Probable DB-test -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Subst if possible and delete both - I can't guess what this is supposed to stand for. Daß Wölf (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2015 (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).

November 10[edit]

Template:Verstandig Broadcasting[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Essentially a G7 result. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Template for company that doesn't have an article. In fact one of the linked articles doesn't mention the owner. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This was created when the company had stations in multiple markets. Now they have just the four in the Hagerstown, Maryland market. As the creator of this template, I have no objections to it being deleted. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:55, 10 November 2015 (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:RuneSoft[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).

The result of the discussion was relist at Nov 23. Primefac (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Subject is video games published: do not refer to each other, only thing in common is same publisher. Other video game templates are based upon developer, not solely publisher. Soetermans. T / C 16:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (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:Atari game lists by platform[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).

The result of the discussion was delete, redundant to another navigation box. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Way too broad for a template: Atari platforms. Is rarely used, and there are categories for the respective lists of games released on platforms. Soetermans. T / C 16:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Expanding on my reasons why: the template isn't used much, not even on the links provided by the template. Better yet, there's {{Video game lists by platform}}, which lists every list of video game release per platform, making a line by one company redundant. --Soetermans. T / C 14:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep How is this broad? It list all the game list articles for each Atari game system. Being way too broad is Template:Video game lists by platform. Why is that being used in these articles, instead of the one that just list the relevant information? Why have that massive list of unrelated things, instead of focusing only on those in the Atari family? Dream Focus 16:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry, @Dream Focus:, I was in a bit of rush with nominating it, I've expanded on my rationale. Thanks. --Soetermans. T / C 14:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per substantial duplication with Template:Video game lists by platform. --Izno (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (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:Blaby Computer Games series[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Listed are two video game articles developed by template's subject, platforms is too broad and fails WP:NAVBOX, people are redlinked and probably won't be created anytime soon. Soetermans. T / C 16:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Narrow breadth covered fine in the prose and in See also sections as needed. czar 18:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (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:Legazpi TV[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. No objections. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Only one article has this template transcluded. The other two links are redirects and the rest are red links. 121.54.54.238 (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (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:Supermarkets in Europe templates[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Category:Supermarket templates already exists, and a subcat can be created if necessary. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A navbox to link together navboxes? Is this really necessary? At what point do we get down the navbox rabbit hole? Would suggest a navbox subcategory would be better, if Category:Supermarket templates (which already contains all of those templates linked here) itself doesn't suffice. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 15:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete and use a category instead. Doesn't seem likely that someone would be reading the template for one country's supermarkets and say "hey, I wonder what other ones we have?" (navbox to get from one to another) as compared to "I'm looking to see if we have a certain one" (directly going to cat of all actually created ones). The templates' docs can all have a pointer to the cat if one wishes to emphasize the range of availability. DMacks (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • weak delete, I see no real harm here if it's only be used in template space, but, given the small number of links, a category would work as well. Frietjes (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2015 (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:BannedMeansBanned[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).

The result of the discussion was delete, with the main concerns being harassment and grave dancing. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This just constitutes WP:HARASSMENT for banned editors, because when they're banned, they're notified, and when this template is used when they engage in sock puppetry, they be like "I already know I'm banned, so what!?". This would fit better as an user warning, but there is still no need to use this everytime a banned user engages in sock puppetry. TL22 (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

  • See previous discussions here and here. BethNaught (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge with {{sockpuppeteer}} and/or {{banned user}}. Standalone it's just a completely pointless piece of crap. --189.25.195.239 (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge with {{banned user}} or a similar template so the post-merge template includes the text "any edits made in violation of a ban may be reverted" or a similar phrase. Okay with Keep (if kept, consider changing the color scheme from red to grey). Not okay with "delete without providing a replacement that clearly indicates to everyone else that this editor's edits may be reverted". Side-note: I agree with the nominator that the red color and having two templates that both say "banned" on the user's talk page gives the appearance of harassment. The fix is to change the layout and presentation of the messages to both the banned editor ("you are banned") and to the community ("he is banned, his edits may be reverted"), not the meaning of those messages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment See Template:Banned user/testcases for an example of how we can keep the existing template but make it look less intimidating to the banned editor. Note - ideally, the "big red box" that is now {{BannedMeansBanned}} would be neutral grey and it might not even be a box - it might just be text intended to be transcluded into other templates such as {{Banned user}}. I think "Banned user" is the only template that transcludes this one but it's hard to be sure. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Information I have asked that Template:BannedMeansBanned/sandbox's create-protection be removed. Once it is removed, we can play around with variations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessary. NE Ent 01:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Didn't we discuss this one already, or was that a different gravedancing template? Delete it with fire. I just don't understand the underlying model of human psychology here. "Someone is behaving badly despite efforts to make them stop. What should we do about that? I know! Make a template telling them we really mean it!" Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Deleteper Opabinia regalis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 14 November 2015 (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:Rupesh Paul[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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Not such a director who needs a template The Avengers (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

  • keep, connects 5 articles, and seems no worse than the rest of them. Frietjes (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful navigational aid, clearly passes three of the five criteria on WP:NAVBOX, and arguably meets the other two (3 and 5) too. Perfectly standard use of a navbox. There is no added notability requirement for navbox eligibility beyond it linking more than two articles, so I would argue he is such a director who warrants a template. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 03:11, 12 November 2015 (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:Anthony Marinelli[edit]

Film scores are not appropriate for navboxes, unless they link to the actual soundtrack articles, not the films. The composer is not an "auteur" of the film. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep I disagree, in today's Wikipedia deletionist atmosphere, standalone soundtrack articles would be AfD'd (merged) into the film article and MOS:FILM#Soundtrack tells us that the film article is the preferred place for discussing the soundtrack, score and tracklist. The soundtrack/score is a creative work and is ofttimes the subject of critic's review and the nominator's Auteur theory (directors only) does not address the placement of Category:Film actor navigational boxes, Category:Film writer navigational boxes and Category:Film producer navigational boxes -- Cheers!009o9 (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    • We shouldn't have navboxes for everyone who worked on a film for the same reason we don't have actor navboxes (note that those in Category:Film actor navigational boxes do not link to their film credits except where they could be seen as a "team", akin to a film series) - these cause navbox bloat. What's next? Category:Cinematographer navigational boxes? Category:Film editor navigational boxes? Category:Best Boy navigational boxes? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
      • If this is such a serious problem, where can one find an essay on Wikipedia:Navbox bloat? We are talking about a 3,310 byte file that can be extremely useful to readers that can reduce the need to repeatedly load the much larger biography to obtain the same information -- instead of linking directly to the desired article -- storage is cheap, bandwidth is expensive. There are other types of collections and relationships ("teams") that readers (film buffs) are interested in, i.e., who works with whom. A reader accessing a 10 year old film article is quite infrequent and that reader is much more likely to be interested in the credits than the film itself. So, I have to ask, have you ever seen a Best boy establish WP:N? We seem to have a widely used exception to the nominator's unwritten rule where Producer Navboxes are allowed. I can't think of anything that Producers contribute artistically; however, they are generally included in the film's promotional material which traditionally reads, Starring... Directed by... Produced by... With music by... More on Navbox exceptions below. Cheers!--009o9 (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • comment, is there an example of another navbox linking articles by composer? Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@Frietjes I think we are in new territory here (off-hand, I would not know how to create a search for other musical score artist templates) and the template storage area does not exist. I did not create one because the film director, actor, producer templates and even Film Choreographer navigational Navbox storage areas do not follow a very logical structure. Also, even though they are composers, the Composers category is for composers who write in notation, not the best fit for film score composers because they also produce and often conduct the music. I would preferred to have a category for musical score composers and then created a Navbox using the composer's category as the basis for the data. I was surprised that I was unable to find a top-level category for film score composers. Cheers! -- 009o9 (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
009o9, a brief search returned {{Goldenthal, Elliot}}, {{William Walton}}, and {{Michael Nyman}}. not entirely the same situation, but in the vicinity. one outstanding difference is that, for example, the links in {{Goldenthal, Elliot}} are all for soundtrack pages, and not for the films themselves. in the case of {{William Walton}}, the template is not placed on the film article pages. for these reasons, I am leaning toward delete for this one with the suggestion that a category, say "Category:Films scored by Anthony Marinelli", would be more appropriate and reduce the bloat at the foot of the film articles. Frietjes (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
@Frietjes It is my understanding that this is how Navboxes are supposed to work, drawing their information from categories and presenting the collection in a user-friendly format in the footer of the article. Nobody clicks through to the categories because there is no indication as to whether there is an interesting collection there. As for bloat, I see the Navbox as a bandwith saver, instead of loading the artist's entire biography, finding the desired link and then loading the film article. Instead of reloading the biography several or more times, the Navbox allows the reader to go directly to the next film article in the artist's history. I suppose I could go around and add soundtrack sections to the film articles in question if that is the outcome of this discussion. Where there is no film article, I guess I could evaluate creating a soundtrack article(s). (See {{Goldenthal, Elliot}} where Drugstore Cowboy (soundtrack) is a redirect from a deleted article -- linking to the film article is largely inevitable with the deletions squads hard a work.) With Marinelli's (this subject) album and television credits, he should probably have a more verbose Navbox anyway. Cheers -- 009o9 (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Category:Film scores by Anthony Marinelli now created and fulfilled. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
No, we generally don't have them. See how we deal with {{Philip Glass}}, {{John Williams}} or {{Hans Zimmer}}, all much more prominent film composers. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
What I am seeing is other exceptions where other composers have Navboxes on Opera and Musical articles, both are stage plays where the music is not always the primary draw and when the music is the primary draw, it is due the conductor and orchestra, not the composer. No matter how well the music is written, the credit goes to the person who pulls the music all together. Is there a general rule where these other composer's Navboxes are limited to articles about aftermarket media, rather than the production (stage play) article itself? IMHO we are discussing another arbitrary tradition where these tiny little files could save the Foundation a lot of bandwidth and processing time, by getting the reader directly to the information they are interested in, rather than searching or reloading the much larger (artist's) primary article. (Additionally, if you are truly concerned about bloat, the Navbox appears to be poorly written, a collapsed Navbox should not call for the (body/list) data unless the user opens it.) Cheers!--009o9 (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
This is because in the case of an opera or musical, the composer is one of the primary authors of the work in question. If a navbox pointed to a soundtrack article, then this would point to the work of the composer, which a film article is not. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for creating and populating the category.
How is this different from the film score composer? (S)he is one of the primary of the primary authors of the work in question, which is the film, if the music alone was commissioned work it would be an album, not a soundtrack. MOS:FILM#Soundtrack prescribes that the soundtrack be discussed in the film article and with the speed that new articles get deleted these days, supporting articles, such as soundtracks are pretty much unwanted by a segment of the administrative editors. This past year or so, I am literally astounded by some of the Policies that have been bent or disregarded so that useful content can be deleted to suit one editor's preference. Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Quite simply because a film score composer is NOT one of the primary authors of a film, they are the primary author of a soundtrack to a film. If that score has an article, then we have deemed the soundtrack notable, and yes, this should be linked to from the composer's navbox, as they are the primary author of that soundtrack. If there is no soundtrack article, then we have not deemed the soundtrack independently notable from the film, and therefore it does not belong in a navbox. {{Hans Zimmer}} is a good example. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not sure how I didn't spot this before, but I note that creation of this template and the addition of it to the film articles are marked as WP:PAID edits. This WP:COI seems to be giving WP:UNDUE importance to the subject of the navbox, as composer navboxes are not standard. On some of these articles, this is the only navbox present. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, my disclosure is all over the place, but it is too easy to forget to add it to the edit summary every time. I'd prefer to have a separate account for paid editing, with a disclosure programmed into the signature, but that type of second account isn't expressly allowed, but I also do volunteer editing and improve a lot of articles with unrelated content. I guess I should have added the new stigmatized PAID (categorized) template to the Navbox talk page. In fact, until the second account issue is settled, I'm going to refrain from volunteer editing and change the signature on this account, the manual disclosure requirements are too ridiculous to try to have a dual-purpose account. Might just as well stigmatize every edit. Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Navigation should probably be updated to clarify the consensus on Soundtrack composer Navboxes in film articles. Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
We had an RFC on the matter, where there was no consensus for restricting it for producers and screenwriters (although this restriction was not without its support), but film composers is a stretch too far. If we allow this, then there's nothing to stop navboxes for film editors, cinematographers, production designers, executive producers, etc, etc, which really would cause WP:NAVBOXCREEP. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 1#Template:Bill Conti, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 28#Template:Ilaiyaraaja Notable Film, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 9#Template:Rahul Dev Burman. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The nominating editor has proposed this new rule in this RFC and the proposal failed. Apparently, this is a case of WP:DEADHORSE. Additionally, Filmography navbox templates specifically exempts "creative" navboxes from the existing Actor exclusion, stating:
"Per this discussion the restriction only applies to actors. Navboxes templates for other creative such as writers, producers, etc. are welcome."[3] --Emphasis mine.
For now, I am not considering the nominating editor's edits to the subject's biography as retaliatory; however, his deletion of the Filmography and other content, where about 20 references where destroyed[4], was unsupported and the content will be restored pending the result of the article's talk page discussions.Talk:Anthony_Marinelli
This is obviously a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. An editor who has proposed a new rule and cannot live by that consensus. The fact that he has won one uncontested deletion nomination with two like minded editors does not take precedence over his failed RFC, or the existing project guidelines. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 19:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
No. That was a discussion regarding producers and screenwriters. There is no precedent for film composer navboxes that link to the film articles. In fact, as you can see from the examples listed, any film composer navboxes of this nature have been deleted. There is no {{Danny Elfman}}, no {{Jerry Goldsmith}}, no {{Bernard Hermann}}, no {{Howard Shore}} or no {{Alan Silvestri}}, all far more important than Marinelli. Why should we make an exception here? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Here is your actual proposal in the failed RfC:
  • "Should we restrict filmographies included in navboxes to directors for films and series creators for TV shows? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)"
Where does that specify producers and screenwriters, or any other creator for that matter? The consensus on your RfC was no on your proposed restriction for navboxes on all creators except directors -- leaving the Actors ban in place. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 20:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
BTW: Regarding importance, Marinelli and Banks revolutionized the way that film scores are composed and were pioneers in the development and adoption of a new instrument in film and music (the Synclavier) and you've removed dozens of those credits from Marinelli's Filmography. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 21:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment It looks like the Film Project may have overstepped its bounds concerning denying Actors Navboxes on film articles. Taking a detailed look at WP:ADVICEPAGE (which is a Guideline, as opposed to WP:TCREEP is just an essay):
However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. From WP:ADVICEPAGE page -- Emphasis mine -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 10:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
You're clearly WP:WIKILAWYERING now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Another essay that falls on my side of the debate (WP:WIKILAWYERING): "Use of authentic legal skills by legal professionals or other persons trained and skilled in the arts of negotiation and advocacy is welcome in proceedings of the Arbitration Committee and on Wikipedia in a variety of contexts." (Emphasis mine) You started a proceeding here that flies the the face of your failed RfC. As far as I'm concerned, I'm presenting my argument in the proper format to the proper audience, it's not like you are a newbie, your talk page confirms this and we are not dealing with article space. Now that you've even taken to editing (collapsing and recollapsing) my comments on talk pages,[5] with the heading of "Extended content", I'm pretty sure your objectivity is hopelessly impaired. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 17:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep This falls under the standard use of templates to list creative works, has a source article, and in no way resembles the decision about actor templates. Dimadick (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The navbox fails several of the criteria at WP:NAVBOX and moreover their usage in this way is not typical of their usage on film articles. The director is generally considered the "primary" author and while we should make exceptions where someone besides the director could be regarded as the author that is clearly not the case here. Unless the films are musicals where the composer could be considered a primary "author" there isn't really a valid reason for linking them with a navbox. Betty Logan (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, a close call, and given that a category does not replace a template in use or importance, creating templates for every aspect of a film would lay out dozens of templates per article. Scoring has major importance in films, it sets the mood of a scene and gives emotional direction to the viewer. Change a few notes or tempo and a sad or tragic scene becomes one of lightness and character-frolic. But in this instance, as Robsinden mentions, scoring templates might be best if kept to musicals, in which the individual's work is not only one of many important jobs but is central to the film's definition and concept. Randy Kryn 11:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with everything said by Randy Kryn. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I am inclined to agree with Dimadick. Composers are creatives along with writers, directors and producers. I think the score performers would be analogous to the actors while the score composers are like the creatives whose navboxes we generally keep.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - useful template that helps readers navigate the topic. Think its time we look at what is helpfull for our users over a projects odd POV that has not passed any proposal process and clearly causes problems all over. Not sure the projects understand why it was formed...should be .here to help navigate topics under its scope...not to make barriers to navigation.-- Moxy (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not particularly an 'auteur theory' subscriber, so I object to the premise that composers (and writers) aren't central to film. Directors do not contribute to a film's music, and their templates don't link just to articles about film's direction/blocking (or a writer's template linking to articles about the film's screenplay). -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Soundtrack is an integral part of a film, and per Moxy, navboxes are supposed to... help. Montanabw(talk) 22:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Note that this user is going on a spamming spree and posting links to this discussion on many talkpages. Time to take them to ANI for a blocking. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I think this was a useful notification, neutral and legitimate, not "a spamming spree", and I thank User:009o9 for bring this discussion to my attention. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, I want to apologize for the total brainfart of providing convenience links when inviting the participants of the previous RfC. I did not consider the multiple notification aspect. Thank you all for participating in spite of this blunder.
IMHO the most important thing here is to have a consensus published somewhere. If certain navboxes are not wanted, it is counter productive to inform the editor after all of the work had been completed.
Finally, as I stated above, not all film scores are suitable for soundtrack albums, which are generally just an aftermarket product of DJ'd songs anyway. I think that a rule restricting composers to soundtrack articles would unfairly limit that artist's collection. Soundtrack composers are creators who are (traditionally) prominently named in movie's marquee poster and other advertisement. (I.e., Starring:..., Directed by:..., Written by:..., with music by....) They are also legally responsible for copyright. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 03:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Chris Haw[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).

The result of the discussion was relist at Nov 23. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't need a template for two books Legacypac (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

  • weak keep, connects 4 articles. Frietjes (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2015 (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:Shane Claiborne[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).

The result of the discussion was relist at Nov 23. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't need a template for two books Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

  • keep, connects 5 articles. Frietjes (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2015 (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:Fifty Shades of Grey[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).

The result of the discussion was delete and move {{Fifty Shades (trilogy)}} into its place (leaving a redirect). (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Pointless template. It started out just calling two other templates which were navboxes at Fifty Shades of Grey which wasn't useful. Since then, it has grown even less useful as it now simply invokes Template:Fifty Shades (trilogy). I've changed it's only use to invoke that template directly in the Fifty Shades article so this template is not used any more. Whpq (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

  • redirect to the main template. or, move the main template to this title. Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment It would make the most sense to delete this template, and then move the main template here. This name makes more sense. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete or redirect as substantial duplication under WP:T3. {{Fifty Shades of Grey}} is the better title though. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2015 (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:Salvation Army camps in Canada[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G6 by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I consolidated all the short stubs into one article at Salvation Army camps in Canada and put in redirects so this template serves no purpose anymore. Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2015 (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:Animal-disease-stub[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This template isn't used. In the description for the stub category Veterinary medicine stubs, it says "relating to conditions and diseases of animals, and anatomy specific to animal species" Therefore, I think the animal disease template isnt needed MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment not all animals are part of veterinary medicine. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment true, but I see this template as being redundant. The description includes "relating to diseases of animals" for Veterinary medicine stubs. If the animal disease template were to be used, I think the diseases in the veterinary medicine stubs should be moved over to the animal disease stub category and the veterinary medicine stub description would have to be edited. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Appears to be unused. Vet-med-stub will work just as well, provided that the appropriate categories are listed at that template. Montanabw(talk) 08:23, 12 November 2015 (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).

Air Rifle templates[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Cats don't exist, and so these stub templates don't need to either. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

These templates are not used in any articles. I'm not 100% sure if they'd useful as feeder templates or not. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, unless there is an associated tracking category, in which case this should be considered at WP:CFD? Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment these are not article templates, these are category templates. They should never be used in articles -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment there are no stub categories for these templates. Both link to Air Rifle, which doesn't exist and Air rifle redirects to Air gun. If these templates were to be used, I think the words Rifle and Gun should be lowercase. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2015 (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:Big Brother 2012 (Australia)[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Pointless template. It is specific to one single season of Big Brother Australia, and simply uses {{Big Brother endgame}} with season specific parameters filled in. I've reverted its use in the article as pointless. Whpq (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, no need to split this from the article. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2015 (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:Lutheranism by country[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Pointless t emplate. The creator copied the wiki markup for the map and accompanying legend from the Lutheranism article to create this template. She/he then replaced the original markup with a template which transcludes exactly the same thing. The only use was in the original Lutheranism article; I've reverted as it is totally pointless. Whpq (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, are you sure it wasn't their intention to also transclude it on Lutheranism by region? This article appears to make use of the same file, so keeping the keys uniform makes some kind of sense. Whether that would be enough to justify keeping I'm not sure, though. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 03:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
yes I am reasonably sure. This editor has created other one shot useless templates. See my 2 nominations above this one. As for whether use in a second article would justify not in this case --Whpq (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2015 (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:Lisa Moscatiello[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Second Avenue is the only article in this template that survived a deletion discussion. Even if that were not the case, those 5 albums would probably only belong in Lisa Moscatiello#Discography and not in this template. Blackbombchu (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not enough links to provide useful navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2015 (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).

Completed discussions[edit]

The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell (edit)

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Closing discussions[edit]

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions.

To review[edit]

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

To merge[edit]

Templates to be merged into another template.

Arts[edit]

Geography, politics and governance[edit]

Religion[edit]

Sports[edit]

Transport[edit]

Other[edit]

Meta[edit]

To convert[edit]

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories, lists or portals are put here until the conversion is completed.

To substitute[edit]

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (i.e. the template should be merged with the article) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

To orphan[edit]

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

  • None currently

Ready for deletion[edit]

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

  • None currently


Archive and Indices[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=692125985"