Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
"WP:TD" redirects here. For TemplateData, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/TemplateData.

Closing instructions

On this page, deletion or merging of templates (except as noted below) is discussed.

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:

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 they 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. ~~~~}}

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 20 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.

You generally should notify the creator of template and it is also considered polite to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. 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 these users, as well as any related WikiProjects (look on the template's talk page) that do not use Article alerts, so that they are aware of the discussion. (There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: you should 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.

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 before the template page is deleted.

Templates are rarely orphaned (made to not be in use) before the discussion is closed.

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

August 30[edit]

Template:Paleontology in Rio Grande do Sul[edit]

Template:Paleontology in Rio Grande do Sul (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

excessive to have a navbox for articles based on the fact the corresponding flora/fauna were found in one part of Brazil. are we going to have one of these for every place where the corresponding flora/fauna were found? I can see this as a category, but a navbox is excessive. Frietjes (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cities of Paleorrota[edit]

Template:Cities of Paleorrota (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

the parent article, Paleorrota, was deleted at AfD, so it seems this should go as well. even if the Paleorrota article still existed, it's not clear we would need a navbox to connect all the highways, cities, and sites inside the park. Frietjes (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

August 29[edit]

Anita Sarkeesian FAQs[edit]

Template:Sarkeesian FAQ (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Sarkeesian FAQ/FAQ (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused, wrong namespace. The Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/FAQ is now the correct FAQ. These items may be safely excised. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete them as unused, now that they have been substituted in their single usages —PC-XT+ 05:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Wilderness areas of Idaho map[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 18:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Wilderness areas of Idaho map (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This is a template I created over two years ago. It has never been used, and I don't foresee a need to keep it. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Grand Junction[edit]

Template:Grand Junction (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Question - How do I do that? I just tried to expose the hidden template, and put it in an infobox. It wouldn't show up. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I usually don't like to edit templates while they are under discussion, but I did in this case to show it can be changed to include in an infobox, which I have done on Grand Junction Railroad and Depot Company. Anyone is free to revert, if they would like to, but then it will not work in that infobox in the same way. —PC-XT+ 04:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
It may be this was intended to be joined with other templates. The problem was caused by the template producing table code outside of a table when transcluded. That is, it expected to be transcluded into a table structure similar to the one in its noinclude tags. This code was left out of the transclusions from the beginning, which is why I wonder if it was intentional, to be joined with other templates in a table, somehow. —PC-XT+ 05:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Header & Footer code has been cleaned up. Useddenim (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment (from nominator): Now that this template is used, I'm happy for this discussion to be closed as "Keep". DH85868993 (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Wildcat Branch[edit]

Template:Wildcat Branch (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose - The article clearly exists (Wildcat Branch), and clearly can be used. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As noted by DanTD, there's an article for it, but it just has to be added to said article. BostonUrbEx (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • add it to Wildcat Branch. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment - I'd love to do it. Evidently though, it breaks apart unless it's attached to an infobox, just like the Grand Junction template. Anybody feel like making some? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the change I made to the above template would work on this one, as well —PC-XT+ 04:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Header & Footer code has been cleaned up, & template has been added to article. Useddenim (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment (from nominator): Now that this template is used, I'm happy for this discussion to be closed as "Keep". DH85868993 (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

August 28[edit]

Template:Cleanup-bare URLs[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Snow keep --Mdann52talk to me! 13:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Template:Cleanup-bare URLs (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

All citations which link to websites may be subject to link rot, not just the ones with bare urls. We should get rid of this template and replace it with one that refers to the ugliness and uninformative nature of bare urls, unless it already exists. If it does please tell me about it. Jodosma (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. The wording may be a little inaccurate or misleading, but that's an argument for editing the template, not deleting it. I would support an edit, particularly one linking to an explanation of how to replace bare-URL citations with full citations of archived pages (such as those hosted by archive.org), which are much less susceptible to link rot.
It's also worth considering that this is an extremely widely used template. Its talk page also specifies that it's used by two common edit automation tools, and requests that proposed changes be brought to the attention of those tools' users, but it doesn't look like that happened. — Control.valve (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - fix the template if it really needs to be fixed. Eeekster (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Control.valve. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 21:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep: No argument for deletion has been advanced. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Of course all URIs can rot but if I know the name of the author, the title of the work, its publisher, and date those are helpful for finding archives, mirrored versions, or a new live URI of the work. {{barelinks}} is used by folks who clean up references to insert this helpful information. Since it is demonstrably useful and used as such to make the encyclopedia better, I don't understand deletion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with the nominator that the template should be speedily kept and cleaned up. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  21:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Keep per Koavf. Also, can we get some eyes on splitting and AFD for List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep although annoying to see this template on an article, there is no reason to delete it given above. Just change the text if it needs improving. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful template. The nominator has a point though, a second template is needed. — Lentower (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Duh keep This is, in fact, probably the most common issue I see in new articles. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. While all web links are subject to rot, those that are URL-only are most likely to become useless when the link becomes dead. When a NYT article that cites author, title, date/issue, and URL loses its URL to rot, the rest is still useful, and can often serve as the basis to relocate a valid URL. Specious argument. Tag is necessary, valuable, and should remain. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and discuss changes on its talk page or a more appropriate venue, such as one of the tools' talk pages —PC-XT+ 05:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep if the bare URL is a link to a published document with ISBNs, DOIs, PMIDs, etc, then the linkrot will not occur if it is properly documented, because you could look up ISBNs, DOIs, etc, yourself. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per all above. I would prefer to see this template used at the top of reference sections rather than the top of articles though. --LukeSurl t c 12:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • speedy keep i also support LukeSurl in preferred usage in the refs sections. unlike many templates that help advise our readers about the quality of the content they are going to read, this is purely a backstage clean up which is valuable for long term quality of the article, it provides no real value to the current reader. but that is a discussion for another forum. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is the most useful and important maintenance template we have. If it needs rephrasing, please do so. Deletion is not an option. Fylbecatulous talk 12:52, 29 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:GoogleBoekenCitations[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was G7'ed. Principal/only author requested deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  21:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:GoogleBoekenCitations (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This template appears to only be used on a single article, and is considered to be duplicated by other cleanup tags. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This template is obsolete, so it's OK to delete it in this case. Jarble (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Hero of Ukraine[edit]

Template:Hero of Ukraine (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Redirect'ed to Template:HOU, of which this was probably an accidental duplicate. Template:HOU is the same thing, and is currently used. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  00:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and replace {{HOU}} Keep this version and replace all instances of {{HOU}} with this template. "HOU" is an opaque name with no indication of what it is, there's no documentation on that template either, so it's a rather poor template. HOU is a disambiguation page. Instead, delete {{HOU}} and replace all transclusions with this template. The redirect should not have been emplaced while the discussion was in progress. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Newts Recreation Center[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 18:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Newts Recreation Center (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Purpose unclear (to me). DH85868993 (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't know if it has a clear purpose. I'm thinking speedy delete. —PC-XT+ 05:11, 29 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

August 27[edit]

Template:Christopher McQuarrie[edit]

Template:Christopher McQuarrie (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unnecessary to have a template to house just three links. A "See also" section can easily accommodate a couple of links. Betty Logan (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep since I find three films an acceptable threshold to have a director navigation template. (I did not know about Mission Impossible 5 till now.) There have been a number of templates with that number of films, and I believe some of them have won out in TfDs. However, this template should exclude non-director credits due to their indiscriminate nature. It should be strictly focused on director credits. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
We are not exactly talking Hitchcock or John Ford here, who have been extensively written about as academic subjects. Jack Reacher and Mission Impossible are first and foremost Tom Cruise vehicles, so I don't think being directed by Christopher McQuarrie is a defining characteristic. I honestly think Category:Films directed by Christopher McQuarrie is sufficient in these cases. Betty Logan (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • weak keep, links four articles, which is enough for me, and the director is still active. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep because the only reason it only has three things in it is because you keep deleting his writing credits, Betty Logan. You can't say that there is too much information in the infobox as a justification for deleting things and then immediately claim that there is too little information in it as a justification for deleting the infobox entirely. You can't have your cake and eat it too. "See also" is not the correct place to put other films by the same director and I don't know where you got that idea. There are plenty of infoboxes with only two things in them but this is a person who has written or directed ten films and created a television series, though you would never know it from the way you keep deleting the information in the infobox in order to try to influence the course of this discussion. That is deceitful and disruptive. Your desire to relegate him to someone merely associated with Tom Cruise shows a blatant disregard for the rest of his work. --Nicholas0 (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Nicholas0 is misleading the discussion here with a personal attack, since I don't "keep" doing anything. I have edited the template precisely four times: once to remove a link to a redirect, once to revert a disruptive edit by Nicholas0 which perpetuated an edit-war against a long-standing consensus to not add "writing" and "producing" credits to film director templates (which occurred after the deletion nomination), and twice nominating it for deletion (speedy and this one). If we don't have a Tom Cruise navbox on films like Jack Reacher (film) and Mission: Impossible 5 (which are primarily Tom Cruise vehicles) then perhaps Nicholas0 could enlighten us to why we need a Christopher McQuarrie navbox?? Betty Logan (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Nicholas0, please remember to be civil. There is strong precedent for having director templates, and much less precedent for including other credits in such templates. Writing and producing credits in particular tend to be numerous and lack immediate relevance or is only tangentially related, per WP:NAVBOX#Disadavantages. Similar logic has applied to excluding actor navigation templates; actors' involvement in a film vary by degrees, running into the same disadvantages. If this template is kept, it should be limited to the director credits only. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep if it only includes director credits —PC-XT+ 05:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Conjugate[edit]

Template:Conjugate (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Fork of {{overline}} which produces non-standard way of producing overlines, and seemingly created for personal aesthetic reasons. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Redirect to {{overline}} since they have the same function. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Nothing actually links to it. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete On second thought, this isn't the best title for such a template. Conjugate makes me think of grammar before I think of math. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy as unused —PC-XT+ 05:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:The Sarah Connor Chronicles[edit]

Template:The Sarah Connor Chronicles (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Redundant as all content is already on Template:Terminator. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This template name is more specific, but I wouldn't mind this redirect. —PC-XT+ 04:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Mawazine 2009 setlists[edit]

Template:Mawazine 2009 setlists (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Mawazine 2011 setlists (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Mawazine 2012 setlists (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Mawazine 2013 setlists (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Mawazine 2014 setlists (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

no longer needed after being merged (by me) with the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as unused, now that they have been merged into Mawazine —PC-XT+ 05:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

August 26[edit]

Template:TV Azteca Novelas[edit]

Template:TV Azteca Novelas (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Template unnecessary also seems to be a programming guide and wikipedia is not a programming guide. On the other hand; templates already exist: Template:TV Azteca telenovelas 2000s and Template:TV Azteca telenovelas 2010s Damián / talk 18:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • delete as redundant. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

CNYearInTopicX templates[edit]

Template:C14YearInTopicX (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:C15YearInTopicX (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:C16YearInTopicX (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:C17YearInTopicX (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:C18YearInTopicX (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:C19YearInTopicX (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Appear to have lain unused for some time. Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:TCSR/doc[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G8 by Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 11:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:TCSR/doc (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Inactive template used to manage WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:IINFO statistics that were once part of List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes. Template no longer in use following AFD for that article in 2013. AldezD (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:+3[edit]

Template:+3 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Pointless and almost unused joke template that serves no legitimate Wikipedia purpose. If anyone really, really wants to do this, they can do it with {{+1|{{abbr|3|Me, myself and I}}}}. But as with the extant template, this is actually an abuse of <abbr>...</abbr> markup. While can can't prevent people from doing it, we can certainly get rid of a useless template that does it. Should be substituted in the handful of cases it's been used by anyone.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep as this template does no harm, is only used on discussion pages, and improves moral and good will towards other editors. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete or userfy. Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

August 25[edit]

Template:Angelina Jolie sidebar[edit]

Template:Angelina Jolie sidebar (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Delete per the February 17 AfD, where 14 templates used in the same way for other actors were deleted. Nymf (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Safran[edit]

Template:Safran (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:SMA Engines (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Propose merging Template:Safran with Template:SMA Engines.
Template:SMA Engines has only two valid links. Jax 0677 (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose one is a company/business nav box and the other is a product navbox so not the same, number of links is not really a valid argument for merging different types of navboxes. MilborneOne (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - these templates are very different. One is a collection of companies, while the other is a list of engines. They are designed to go on different pages so there is no overlap. As was established by consensus here and here there is no minimum limit on how many bluelinks a nav box can have to be of value. - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Two different navboxes for two different purposes. - BilCat (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppose merge - Different navboxes for different uses. Two links can, in fact, make a valid navbox. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — Similar merges have happened, but in this case, there is little to no overlap, meaning it would make all the navboxes larger with little benefit. If they were merged, then expanded in the future, I would say to split them. On the other hand, for now, it's only a few links. —PC-XT+ 18:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:US 68[edit]

Template:US 68 (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. It only has three linked items (US 68, US 168, Bannered routes of U.S. Route 68), which isn't enough to sustain a separate navbox. Imzadi 1979  02:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    @Op47: So what exactly is your deletion rationale? TCN7JM 00:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete, appears to only link two articles, since the US 168 link is a redirect. Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NENAN is not reccomended as a deletion rationaile, and three links is, in fact, quite enough for a seperate navbox. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    Most times I've seen navboxes for 3 articles is for FTs and GTs mainly, so, it could be done if someone wanted to GT them, I'd support it, but otherwise, I'm going to neutral based on other opinions.Mitch32(Protection is not a principle, but an expedient.) 00:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Too few items for a navbox. Dough4872 00:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete – It is my opinion that three links is too few for a navbox and that this should be deleted. TCN7JM 00:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete — The US 168 link redirects to another article and the bannered routes list, which was created 2 days ago, could easily be merged into the main article. In fact, I may do that myself.  V 00:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Tube Bar Albums[edit]

Template:Tube Bar Albums (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Not useful. All self referencing links to promotional pages which are mostly deleted already. SpyMagician (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Unused train/tram templates[edit]

The templates listed above are all unused. However, as far as I can tell, the templates are all correct and hence potentially could be used. The templates were all created by User:Appletreer who is indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet, and hence are possibly eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G5 (?), but I thought it didn't make sense to speedily delete them if there were possibly useful. Hence this nomination to try to determine whether or not they are useful, and whether they should be kept or deleted. DH85868993 (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry or not, many of these can be useful. Unfortunately, a large number of them have been created for station articles that haven't been created yet, and one is for a station article that's badly written. My only hope is that someone will either write or rewrite the articles they were intended for, because I'd hate to see them all go. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanTD (talkcontribs)
  • delete any that are unused. we can trivially recreate them if necessary. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
If we have all the information right, sure. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
when a template is deleted, the history is still visible to admins, so recreation would be trivial. Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete those unused. As for sockpuppetry: WP:G5 would have done the job without problem already (as was done for Template:Mecca Metro color for the same sockpuppet). No reason to honor an dishonest editor. As for keeping unused templates: no need, you can ask anyone anytime anyplace to (re-)create one and you'll be helped. -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete unused ones —PC-XT+ 04:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

August 24[edit]

Template:Istanbul Metro lines[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn (non-admin closure) DH85868993 (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Istanbul Metro lines (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep. A simple template, potentially useful, that is similar to the others at Template:Stnlnk/doc/other. Useddenim (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Nomination withdrawn - template to be included as part of a larger nomination. DH85868993 (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Navbox years[edit]

Template:Navbox years (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

not actively used, and overly complicated, since the same template does two things. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Stella4D[edit]

Template:Stella4D (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused and orphan. I am not sure how and when it was used. Magioladitis (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

  • It may be unused since uploaded images which used it were moved to commons. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete, this should only be used on commons. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as basically useless, here —PC-XT+ 16:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Ancient and historic scripts in Unicode[edit]

Template:Ancient and historic scripts in Unicode (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Deprecated and now orphan and unused. Magioladitis (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

neutral. Delete. I can agree, but it was kept to serve the non-content pages. -DePiep (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Changed to delete. Second look showed that most links are about this TfD & unused-ness. And no tranc's at all. -DePiep (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Same for {{Scripts in Unicode}}. -DePiep (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
DePiep thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: the list is up to date in {{unicode navigation}} (folded, below). -DePiep (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant, unless a use has been overlooked. (I am assuming {{Unicode navigation}} can be used instead, though.) —PC-XT+ 16:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

August 23[edit]

Template:Milk by provenance[edit]

Template:Milk by provenance (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

This does not provide navigation between a set of related articles; I don't think an editor reading Goat needs or expects links to Almond milk or Breast milk. The main thing is they are all milk but for that there's the category, Category:Milk, which is more comprehensive and complete than a template can ever be. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

An editor reading Goat might read the part about the produces and see milk, and might like to nkow other milk-producing animals - or vegetals for the matter; moreover, a template can be read while reading an article by being inserted in it while a category have to be opened in another tab or window.
--Jean Po (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — If these articles were about the milk, it would be different, but this really should be handled by the category, or perhaps a list. I might be persuaded to support listify as an option. —PC-XT+ 16:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • From these articles, all excepted three, which redirect to subsections related to products,even if one of the three is a subsection about dairy products (horse, water buffalo and the aforementioned goat) are directly about the milks.
--Jean Po (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
And that's why we have categories, to link related articles, both directly and into the larger category scheme. Navigation templates are best for sets of closely related articles which form a recognisable set. Books by author X, for example, or articles on the history of a country. 'Milk' as a topic is too large and diverse for a navigation template; as well as the members of this template there are milk products, milk dishes, varieties such as Jersey Milk. It's also unclear where to draw the line on what to include. Camel milk seems OK but there's no article on Goat milk and Breast milk is very different - "breast" isn't really a provenance. Jersey Milk would seem a better fit under provenance, but then it should include all other regional and specialist varieties.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep if to be merged or trimmed/renamed, but otherwise listify — Hmm, I didn't check enough of the links. (I was short on time, which is why I didn't make an official !vote.) I consider cow milk a redirect to the main article, milk, making 1 redirect, 3 section links, and 5 animal milk articles. That's actually enough for me. The others are included in {{Milk substitutes}}, and therefore are redundant. I would still support listification, but instead of deletion, I will suggest the possibility of a merge with {{Milk substitutes}} or removing those redundant links from this template, and renaming to something like animal milks, because many of those pages don't have a navbox. —PC-XT+ 06:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC) My preference would be trim/rename, because it could be settled in this discussion, and would reduce the template's scope to basically mammalians with notable milk production. —PC-XT+ 07:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems merging this template with {{Milk substitutes}} into a template giving different sorts of milks by vegetal or animal origin could be a good idea.--Jean Po (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

August 22[edit]

Template:Infobox chess piece[edit]

Template:Infobox chess piece (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I posted about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#Template:Infobox chess piece. —PC-XT+ 08:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Wales[edit]

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Wales (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only three links, two of which are tangential, not a useful aid to navigation at the moment and as it deals with friendly tournaments, unclear as to how notable the redlink is. Fenix down (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:ANOEP is just an opinion, followed by just a few users. The Banner talk 22:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Additionally ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete this one per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Potentially many links in each navbox. It was no consensus in that discussion. NickSt (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - potentially, but at the moment there is only one, how is this a useful aid to navigation? Fenix down (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Turkey[edit]

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Turkey (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only four links, two of which are tangential not a useful aid to navigation at the moment and as it deals with friendly tournaments, unclear as to how notable the redlink is. Fenix down (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Additionally ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - potentially, but at the moment there is only two, how is this a useful aid to navigation?

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Slovenia[edit]

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Slovenia (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only three links, two of which are tangential, not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - potentially, but at the moment there is only one, how is this a useful aid to navigation? Fenix down (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Slovakia[edit]

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Slovakia (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only four links, two of which are tangential, not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in the Republic of Ireland[edit]

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in the Republic of Ireland (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only four links, two of which are tangential, not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Northern Ireland[edit]

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Northern Ireland (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only three links, two of which are tangential, not a useful aid to navigation at the moment and as it deals with friendly tournaments, unclear as to how notable all the redlinks are. Fenix down (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Moldova[edit]

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Moldova (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only three links, two of which are tangential, not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Malta[edit]

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Malta (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only three links, two of which are tangential not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete this one per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Useful navigation between similar articles. It was no consensus in previous discussion. NickSt (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Malta was not discusse in the previous discussion, no consensus claim is fundamentally incorrect. Fenix down (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Luxembourg[edit]

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Luxembourg (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only three links, two of which are tangential, not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete this one per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Useful navigation between similar articles. It was no consensus in previous discussion. NickSt (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Luxembourg was not discussed in the previous discussion, no consensus claim is fundamentally incorrect. Fenix down (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Liechtenstein[edit]

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Liechtenstein (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only three links, two of which are tangential, not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete this one per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Useful navigation between similar articles. It was no consensus in previous discussion. NickSt (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Liechtenstein was not discussed in the previous discussion, no consensus claim is fundamentally incorrect. Fenix down (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Kazakhstan[edit]

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Kazakhstan (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only three links, two of which are tangential. not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete this one per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Useful navigation between similar articles. It was no consensus in previous discussion. NickSt (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Kazakhstan was not discussed in the previous discussion, no consensus claim is fundamentally incorrect. Fenix down (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Israel[edit]

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Israel (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only four links, two of which are tangential. not a useful aid to navigation at the moment and as it deals with friendly tournaments, unclear as to how notable the redlinks are. Fenix down (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete this one per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Useful navigation between similar articles. It was no consensus in previous discussion. NickSt (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Israel was not discussed in the previous discussion, no consensus claim is fundamentally incorrect. Fenix down (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Iceland[edit]

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Iceland (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only four links, two of which are tangential. not a useful aid to navigation at the moment and as it deals with friendly tournaments, unclear as to how notable all the redlinks are. Fenix down (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete this one per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Useful navigation between similar articles. It was no consensus in previous discussion. NickSt (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Iceland was not discussed in the previous discussion, no consensus claim is fundamentally incorrect. Fenix down (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Cyprus[edit]

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Cyprus (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only four links, not a useful aid to navigation at the moment and as it deals with friendly tournaments, unclear as to how notable all the redlinks are. Fenix down (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Useful navigation between similar articles. It was no consensus in previous discussion. NickSt (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Belgium[edit]

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Belgium (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only two links, not a useful aid to navigation at the moment and as it deals with friendly tournaments, unclear as to how notable all the redlinks are. Fenix down (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete this one per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Useful navigation between similar articles. It was no consensus in previous discussion. NickSt (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. The other tournaments in the list besides the Bruges Matins are not notable anyway. Why keep a template with only one link, as there won't be any navigating between the articles anyway? Moreover, there is no real link between the tournaments, except for the fact that they are (were) held in Belgium. --Pelotastalk|contribs 10:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:WAFU U-20 Championship[edit]

Template:WAFU U-20 Championship (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only three links, not a useful aid to navigation Fenix down (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only one tournament in 2010 was held. NickSt (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:United Tournament[edit]

Template:United Tournament (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only four links, not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Five links now. NickSt (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment - links added are not directly related to the subject the box is supposed to help the user navigate. Fenix down (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:UNIFFAC Cup[edit]

Template:UNIFFAC Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only two links, not a useful aid to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Frietjes (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Five links now. NickSt (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - redlinks don't count, this is still not a useful aid to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Mohammed bin Rashid International Football Championship[edit]

Template:Mohammed bin Rashid International Football Championship (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only three links, not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Five links now. NickSt (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Back to three now, the two links you added are completely unrelated to the Mohammed bin Rashid International Football Championship. Fenix down (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Long Teng Cup[edit]

Template:Long Teng Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only three links, not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Five links now. NickSt (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Back to three, the FA link is not directly relate to the Cup (why not add a link to the country article if you're going to do that) and the Peace cup Link is wholly unrelated to the Long Teng Cup.

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Greece[edit]

Template:Friendly association football tournaments in Greece (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only four links, not a useful aid to navigation. One link only tangentially related and the red links are of dubious notability. Fenix down (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Navigation between more than 5 tournaments. NickSt (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Redlinks don't count! this is still not a useful aid to navigation. Happy to withdraw if you can actually link to existing articles of relevance. Fenix down (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Football Impact Cup[edit]

Template:Football Impact Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only three links, not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Five links now. NickSt (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Back to three now, the links you added had nothing to do with the football impact cup. Fenix down (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:CFU Women's Caribbean Cup[edit]

Template:CFU Women's Caribbean Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only three links, not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful template. NickSt (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Audi Cup[edit]

Template:Audi Cup (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only four links, not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Five links now. NickSt (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Back to three, those links you added had nothing to do with the Audi Cup. Fenix down (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:A-League All Stars Game[edit]

Template:A-League All Stars Game (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per WP:NENAN. Only three links, not a useful aid to navigation at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep WP:NENAN is not a policy it is an opinion. WP:ANOEP is just as valid. Op47 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ANOEP explicitly says that the goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. The reason this box is here is precisely because it is not useful as it contains only a very small number of links directly relevant to the subject matter. Fenix down (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful template. NickSt (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Location map Kingdom of Hungary[edit]

Template:Location map Kingdom of Hungary (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Not used in any articles, and contrary to what the page says, the distortion caused by the incorrect projection is enough to cause significant error in point placement Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The location points are as of the old map. I made this into a four-colour map (about three years ago) – five if you included Lake Balaton in the blue but you don't need the blue, the counties around it will allow it to be one of the four, so that would be still in four colours.
The problem I had was, I got an old German map and I could not work out exactly the latitude and longitude of the four courners, I asked around and they are on the map but the Germans at that time might have been taking a latitude (but I think not a longitude) from somewhere not at Greenwich, but not Berlin either, so the latitudes for the map were a bit uncertain. I got a printout from somewhere and pinned it on my window (this was on A1 paper it covered the window) and tried to get it best I could but that would be in Mercator projection on this map, I think, and this is in I don't know a different geodesic projection.
The map is accurate in the wossname projection as much as the old one but is a four colour map instead of the boring grey map. It is the same map andd I coloured it but could not pick out the corners for the co-ords, I tried my hardest. I think I put Fiume a bit south.
But I don't think this should go but be corrected for lat and long at the corners. Then it would be good for a bit more colour than the boring brown maps on all the Hungarian articles for places. Therefore, I dispute the deletion.
I live in Hungary now so may have a better chance of getting decent coords.
Hence I say keep even though unused; it is unused because places ended up a bit to the west or east of where they should be. It was welcomed, at the time, and I took the template coords from the old template but never could quite shuffle them to fit. It does no harm, let it stand. Thank you for reminding me, once we check the coords it will be useful and we can run a bot to replace them. The four corners were out and I never got them reconciled. Si Trew (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Any use of this would be doing harm, since a map with points in the wrong place is worse than no map. Also, just getting the corner coordinates isn't enough to fix it - the full details of the original projection would be needed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely: but the four-colour map I think would be more helpful than the one-colour map. Obvoiously I have to change the text sizes (they looked fine on my computer but came up rubbish on WP) but it is all in SVG so that is fairly simple to do, and I put in styles whatever for the fonts so that is a one-line change if zou could reduce the fonts a bit it would look much better. I did it all in the raw and tracked all the points. The counties (Hungarian: megyek all line up now on all their coords on the boundaries, andd the SVG has three layers with the county boundaries, and the fills, and the infills, which the old one does not infill the stretch to make it fit the map is the tricky bit as I don't know what map projection it is. But the same as the old one, just that I four colour filled it and moved so that each county has its own shape (which is labelled and filled) so we can then pick out a particular county and lose the others by dropping them out. I spent days on this, the only trouble I had was lining up the coords for the edges of the map – believe me I tried. If you can try more, that would be great. Then this would likely be a template on about 2,500 Hungarian articles in their infoboxes. Si Trew (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I may have got you wrong. The template maybe should go – though I should prefer it would be kept as it does no harm – the map should not go. If you could help improve it with coords then go ahead. Believe me, we have tried. The old map don't match up either. It puts Fiume far too far north, for example. That's why we got maps out the library, stuck them to the walls with a bit of masking tape and mensurated them with a sextant and using a steel 6 yard straightedge to try to get the best coords. We couldn't match em up. We did our best. But it does no harm and all the coords are on the SVG. Don't lose the SVG. Losing the template I think is wrong when it does no harm. If unused, patently it does no harm. Bytes are cheap. Si Trew (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
If it ever is used, though, it will do harm, since the points will all be in the wrong place, and there's no reason to keep a template that we won't ever use. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you please check that the coords on the old map template and the new map template are the same coords? It may be as simple as that. I know on the map they are. We could never work out why they didn't align. It might be that I cocked up the coords on the template itself. Si Trew (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Where is the old one? Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
That's what I was just about to ask.
it's all in brown and very boring.
I should be able to find it.
In the meantime may I thank you for this civilised and intelligent discussion. Rarely seen on Wikipedida these days.
Si Trew (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec from Jack?) I was also wondering how you were expecting to me to do fewer than a four colour map. It has been proved you need four. I did five to put Lake Balaton in blue, but used a colour that would go four if you notice it. Just chose to colour it blue for effect. Si Trew (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Patently if it is disputed it is a keep. Sorry Jack I think I trod across your toes. But it is better sorted than deleted. It has been wonderful having this intelligent discussion, I don't get it very often. I need to go to bed – safe night or day to you all. Si Trew (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Huh? The fact that a template's creator disputes it doesn't mean it has to be kept, and I never said anything at all about too many colors. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
No you didn't jack. I put on the talk page on its page, which I meant to put here, it has been nice to have an intelligent discussion for a change. But I am getting very tired it is 2am here and I have been up since 6am since excuse any errors. You can find the old map on the infobox on Arad County (former) but I can't find the former. Sorry but it is time for me to sleep now. I think once mine is cleaned up a bit it would look better than that. I have done all the borders in separate layers and you can take out just the lines for each border (they are named by county in the SVG) or take out all the counties (similarly named) or take out well, you get the point, you can pick and choose cos I did it properly. The original was just basically a scan in. But I think the coords are all right but I don't know where that original map was centred on. My stupidity or sleepiness means I can't find where that file is, I checked the infobox but I guess you have to jump through hoops to find the actual file. I can do that but not when I am nearly falling asleep at now 2.12am. Best wishes to you. Si Trew (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way I don't live in Arad county, just it was kinda first on my list alphabetically. Believe me, we do a lot better on EN:WP than HU:WP where people argue all the time on what "should" be the truth than rather what "is" the truth. If the decision is delete the template, then delete it, I won't mind (well a little bit but not much). You may not believe so but you have brightened my evening more by having an intelligent discussion about it. But keep the map – one dday I will get the corners right. And that is why I say a strong keep since it will be used in infoboxes for many historical Hungarian articles once I get the coords right. Si Trew (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps userfy for further testing? —PC-XT+ 08:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Harald Hardrada[edit]

Template:Harald Hardrada (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Orphaned Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Dubai geography map[edit]

Template:Dubai geography map (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Orphaned Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

August 21[edit]

Template:NONONO[edit]

Template:NONONO (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unnecessary navbox as all articles link to and from each other thus offers no further aid in navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • weak keep, connects 4 articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

August 19[edit]

Template:Dina Rae (singer)[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Dina Rae (singer) (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Firstly, this is meant to be a navbox but isn't. & if it was, it would only have two items: the listed song which is prod'ed at present & another non-notable song which is now a redirect to the singer's biog. TheLongTone (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete not enough content to stand alone as a navbox Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:14, 24 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Palette nodes[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Palette nodes (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Unused, and redundant to {{Knots}}. NSH002 (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as redundant per nom —PC-XT+ 04:50, 24 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Gujarati television[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Gujarati television (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Hardly a useful navigation box when there are only two links, one of them being red! Unemployed; delete. Jared Preston (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Kinuura Rinkai Railway Hekinan Line[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Kinuura Rinkai Railway Hekinan Line (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

The entries listed in this navbox were only minor freight terminals/sidings, which are now redirects, so this navbox is no longer used in any articles. DAJF (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Kinuura Rinkai Railway Handa Line[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Kinuura Rinkai Railway Handa Line (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

The list consisted of only minor freight terminals/sidings, which are now redirects, so this navbox is no longer used in any articles. DAJF (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PD-UN[edit]

Template:PD-UN (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Following on from Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-UN  : The Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 that is used to support this licence does not in fact meet the non-revocable requirement of a free licencee nor is the instruction enforceable against the UN. More importantly it also appears to have either been superseded, revoked or just ignored by the UN and it's agencies, here are just some of the copyright notices from some of their websites :

  • The UN's main website has this copyright notice;
  • The WHO website's copyright notice;
  • The UNICEF website also has one;
  • The UN's News and Multimedia website also makes it clear what the UN's position on copyright is when it says "Prior written permission is required to reproduce UN photos in print or electronic format"

Other alternative licences should be used. LGA talkedits 07:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:TC stats landfall[edit]

Template:TC stats landfall (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:TC stats first landfall (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:TC stats next landfall (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:TC stats no landfall (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Per discussion on the Tropical Cyclone WikiProject talk page, landfalls are no longer used in the season chart tables. These should be orphaned and deleted. Netoholic @ 02:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, they are used. It's easier said than done just orphaning them. It takes a lot of time and effort to convert them. If you wish to, you're more than welcome in assisting completing them :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hurricanehink - I'm a template guy, not a hurricane guy (besides, on principle I still support my other solution more). But, please leave a !vote here, as you were one of the people that said this landfall information is deprecated. -- Netoholic @ 04:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

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.

  • None currently

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.

  • None currently

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).

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]