Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:TD)
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.
"WP:TDF" redirects here. For the WikiProject Cycling run Tour de France taskforce, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Tour de France task force.
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

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]

  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 nominated is inline, do not add a newline between the Tfd notice and the code of the template.
  • 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]].
  • Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.

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.

If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following:

{{subst:tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ), plus one more in |with=. |with= does not need to be used, but should be the template that you want the other templates to be merged into. 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 make any interested WikiProjects aware of the discussion. To do that, make sure the template's talk page is tagged with the banners of any relevant WikiProjects; please consider notifying any of them that do not use Article alerts.

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]

January 17[edit]

Template:Southern Rocks Squad[edit]

Current squad template for cricket team, now obselete as the team was disbanded in 2014. Jellyman (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Medcom box[edit]

Unused template. Not sure what it was intended to do. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Curcuminoid[edit]

Redundant to Category:Curcuminoids. Not useful for helping users move between topics. WP:NENAN also applies. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Biogeochemical cycle[edit]

Redundant to Category:Biogeochemical cycle, even if fully expanded to contain all the members that are in said category. Not useful for helping users move between topics. WP:NENAN also applies. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

January 16[edit]

Template:Mister International[edit]

Navigational template with all but two entries deleted. Little useful navigation left between the pageant's main article and the 2016 edition. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Current APEC finance ministers[edit]

A form of CRUFT: see also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_11#Template:Current_APEC_Foreign_Ministers Vanamonde (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:CRUFT as in linked discussion.

Template:ASEAN Foreign Ministers[edit]

A form of CRUFT: see also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_11#Template:Current_APEC_Foreign_Ministers Vanamonde (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:ASEAN Defence Ministers[edit]

A form of CRUFT: see also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_11#Template:Current_APEC_Foreign_Ministers Vanamonde (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:ASEAN Finance Ministers[edit]

A form of CRUFT: see also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_11#Template:Current_APEC_Foreign_Ministers Vanamonde (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Navbar-navframe[edit]

Used on only 17 pages. Replace with {{navbar-collapsible}} in a table header row or {{collapse top}}. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
11:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:UTSA Roadrunners football coach navbox[edit]

Fails WP:EXISTING... the category is a better fit than a navbox. When the program adds at least 2 more coaches, then this navbox can be WP:REFUNDed. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete as the head coaches article page is already included in {{UTSA Roadrunners football navbox}}. I deleted the template for this and the reason justified above over six years ago. I'm surprised it still has a life. Fortguy (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:RSWMX[edit]

I've phased this template out of its former use on Mexico radio station templates. Radio Station World was used to build the original templates. However, it has become inaccurate over the years due to AM-FM migration and the assignment of dozens of new noncommercial stations. The lists in the current set of Mexico radio templates are built from the IFT tables. Raymie (tc) 03:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Unreferenced[edit]

Propose merging Template:Unreferenced and Template:Unreferenced section with Template:Unreferenced.
Use one template for unreferenced articles, sections, lists, etc. We can simply add a parameter to a template that basically does the same thing, see this this discussion. In fact, if you look here, there are quite a bit of specific and trivial templates that do the same thing only for sections, and are put in the same maintenance categories. Also, there's a parameter for saying if it's a list even though the template is for sections, for example one can put that "this list has no sources" even though it uses a template intended for sections. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 03:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @Eric0928: Um, there's a duplicate nomination in here... Pppery 18:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I had through that {{Unreferenced section}} was already the equivalent of {{Unreferenced|section}} (e.g., convenient for people who are less familiar with template syntax. I would support a merge that simplifies these two on the back end, but not one that makes {{Unreferenced section}} redirect to {{Unreferenced}}. Editors will be unhappy if they type {{Unreferenced section}} and end up with the whole-article language instead of the section language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • More pointless tinkering for the sake of tinkering. The two current templaces do the job, and do it adequately. Leave well enough alone. --Vicedomino (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with WhatamIdoing (and to a lesser extent with Vicedomino) -- PBS (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Vicedomino. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree per WhatamIdoing and his reasoning. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 21:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree/Oppose merge as per others above. The "section" functionality has long proven its worth in this template and others, if you are suggesting it be eliminated. I should also note that AWB currently "corrects" {{Unreferenced|section}} to {{Unreferenced section}} and there may be a bot that does the same.— TAnthonyTalk 22:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons already stated by WhatamIdoing. Two of your three templates are identical, and the third is already the implemented via the other one on the back end. – voidxor 23:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I would prefer one template that takes parameters, instead of two templates that are manually kept in sync in case of updates. Keep Wikipedia DRY! zazpot (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose any action that does not leave a section-specific unreferenced tag, or that otherwise confuses its use or interpretation by laypersons reading the articles in which such tags appear. User:Leprof_7272 [I will return and replace the IP signature when I can again log in.] 73.210.155.96 (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have a mixed feeling. If the two are to be merged, then another parameter should be added to tell whether the message is for a section or an article. Is it possible to do if statement on a template message, or no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LakeKayak (talkcontribs) 03:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even if all it does is expand to {{unreferenced|section}}, {{unreferenced section}} is an easier way for inexperienced editors to get this result. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, but only if {{unreferenced section}} continues to work as it does today. That said, it would be nifty to be able to type {{unreferenced|list}} or {{unreferenced|section}} and have the template display the right thing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Vicedomino. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, these are duplicate templates than can and should be merged. We can save users and bots the effort in replacing the template for sections.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – I'm in complete agreement with Jonesey95. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 08:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Agree with WhatamIdoing and David Eppstein because these two templates are for entirely different uses and much easier for inexperiences editors than {{unreferenced|section}} (even after 10 years I don't use that one). Several articles do have references but have sections, sometimes quite extensive ones, that are unreferenced and those sections should to be tagged appropriately. Using {{Unreferenced}} for such instances in incorrect and because such articles do have some references that tag may get removed without ever resolving the section references at all, so the problems remains. Having and keeping {{unreferenced section}} targets the specific problem the other one can never focus on properly. ww2censor (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: section unreferenced can be more helpful to editors as it points out exactly where the article is lacking, whereas the overall template can be used if the article is seriously lacking. DrStrauss talk 10:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Union Bulldogs football coach navbox[edit]

Fails WP:EXISTING... only two articles. The category is a better fit than a navbox. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete No immediate prospects of expansions either. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:RugbyUnionAt1920SummerOlympics[edit]

Template is unused. Rugby union at the 1920 Summer Olympics uses a standard Infobox template instead. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Slight complication -- it turns out that this is one of a series of related templates. Where there are multiple events such as Template:FencingAt1920SummerOlympics, these function as navboxes. Where there's only one event, however, they're redundant, eg Template:FieldHockeyAt1920SummerOlympics (note "Football"). I've pinged Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: In theory these could/should contain links to separate articles listing squads, qualification etc. in addition to the event links (e.g. Template:Rugby sevens at the 2016 Summer Olympics). However, given that only two teams were involved and that even if there was a qualification system (I doubt it) we wouldn't easily find enough details for a separate article then it can probably all be included in the main article and I don't see a need for the unused template. There may be a few other examples that fall into this category, like the hockey one above, kicking about as well - Basement12 (T.C) 16:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

January 15[edit]

Template:Launching[edit]

A lot of rocket articles have this template. It pops up on top of an article for a few days/weeks around a launch saying something like "current launch in progress, things may change".

I find this template highly ridiculous and distracting on top of articles, and sometimes two of them come live at the same time, if two launches are close. Let's face it. Rockets are cool. The future of civilization depends on them, and so on. But there is nothing notable about a rocket launch to warrant all this fanfare. A rocket either goes up, or is delayed, or goes boom.

"Current event" templates are meant to be used sparingly, for very unique and unexpected events (e.g., a nuclear reactor exploded), not for routine and periodic events where nothing much happens. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as largely unnecessary; use the usual {{Current}} if necessary during actual launch. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me
    05:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thank you Oleg, I couldn't agree more. Huntster (t @ c) 09:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom — Iadmctalk  10:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete along with all its subtemplates. It was certainly a lot of work to create them, and they are fun to watch sometimes, but frankly the maintenance burden is too high and the value provided to readers is questionable. HOWEVER I would keep a template formatted along these lines and called {{Launch incident}} which could be used when something unusual and notable happens (going boom or otherwise). — JFG talk 15:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • JFG, that's where the {{Current}} template would work fine. It's wording can be customised to suit the need. Huntster (t @ c) 20:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Huntster: I hear you; I'm just saying that the space-specific format of {{Launching}} with appropriate parameters would be more useful than the standard {{Current}}. I'm willing to work on that if the consensus is to delete. — JFG talk 20:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: Okay? I don't understand the point of building an entirely new template when we're trying to get rid of this one. A discussion for another time, I know, but this seems counterintuitive. "Current" alerts the end users without getting into unnecessary nibbly bits, which was one of the main points of this deletion proposal. Huntster (t @ c) 20:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Huntster: We may be talking past each other. I do support the deletion and I'm only suggesting to create a spaceflight-specific template to alert people about developing launch incidents when they happen, i.e. roughly twice a year these days. That will be much lighter and much more relevant than making every launch a special event with flashing lights at its rocket, spacecraft and spaceport. Wouldn't you agree? — JFG talk 20:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: What I'm saying is that "{{current||launch incident|date=September 2016}}" gets the point across in a standardised format without the need for a new template. Huntster (t @ c) 21:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Understood, we'll agree to disagree on this. Let's see what happens to the template first. — JFG talk 21:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:CatTrack[edit]

This template no longer seems to serve a purpose, as the tool it was connected to has long since ceased to function. Avicennasis @ 03:30, 17 Tevet 5777 / 03:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:NKR Def Table[edit]

Unused template. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:GOJHL team[edit]

Unused template. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox danish local election[edit]

Unused template. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Plume[edit]

Doesn't seem to convey any readily-apparent meaning.

Content is: <span title="Symbol used for writing an article">[[File:Nuvola apps ksig horizonta.png{{subst:!}}30px{{subst:!}}link={{subst:!}}alt=Symbol used for writing an article]]</span><noinclude>

Renders as: Symbol used for writing an article

January 14[edit]

Template:Portland Freeways[edit]

Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, and here. Rschen7754 18:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete—per precedent and all of my past comments on those deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979  21:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hungary youth football templates[edit]

Long standing consensus at TfD/WT:FOOTY that youth level football templates are not needed Joseph2302 (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - there is long standing consensus that youth squad templates are not notable. GiantSnowman 10:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • delete per prior consensus. Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:News media[edit]

Inappropriate title and the source is out of date, and therefore there is a POV issue for you can take any source and that source could say the exact opposite of what is in this template. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Yes. This page can be deleted. Ranks of liberal and conservative may have bias. Marxistfounder (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
hope this helps in some way - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep This a ranking of Media sources by their responding audience, so it includes no Wikipedia-related bias. It is also not dates, as the source only dates to 2014. Dimadick (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. 2014 is not out-of-date, and if you have even-more-recent sources, then improve the content. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. If you dislike the title of news media because you are concerned that not every instance of a news-publishing-entity is included, or because you think the listed organizations tend to be USA-centric rather than representing a worldwide view on the subject, I would agree with a title change, but then WP:SOFIXIT and change the title to something better. As for your assertion that the news organizations listed in the template, may dispute their own ranking, that is also not very pertinent as a reason to delete. I agree that per WP:ABOUTSELF we can say in the New York Times article that they describe themselves as honest and unbiased (they do!), and we can even say per WP:ABOUTSELF in the Breitbart.com article that they describe their target audience as center-right to conservative (they do!), but that has no bearing on whether we have a table at the journalism article which summarizes what the bulk of the independent-of-those-news-entities reliable sources say is the ACTUAL audience of each entity. There are plenty of pre-2014 sources, as well, such as the 2005 paper discussed here, direct link here.[1] 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I don not see the value of showing the bias of the readers, as opposed to the publication, and it can cause confusion. The Economist for example is not liberal, even if the readers are. The Wall Street Journal draws readers equally from accross the political spectrum not, as the chart implies, mainly from the center. There is also, beyond the range presented, left-wing media such as The Nation and Mother Jones and right-wing media such as Alex Jones' Prison Planet and World Net Daily, as well as sites further left, such as the World Socialist Website, and further right, such as The Daily Stormer. Who reads what is interesting, but it needs explanation, which a template cannot do. TFD (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: The "{{News media}}" template is a sampling of audience preferences for several very major media sources (esp those in the USA) - and is based on a very WP:Reliable source (ie, Pew Research Center at http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08-2/ ) - the template is not intended as a comprehensive listing of all news media - the noted news sources are wikilinked (hyperlinked?) to the noted news source articles for more details - to be clearer - and to avoid confusion - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

January 13[edit]

Template:The Sons of Champlin[edit]

Only six distinct working links, far too many red links and unlinked text. Per WP:EXISTING red links can be retained if they are likely to become articles, but in almost eight years this has not happened so seems unlikely to happen soon. Sons of Champlin already has a sidebar which does a much better job of summarising the group and providing navigation, I don’t see why this is also needed. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, the articles are already well-connected. Frietjes (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cue sports bios[edit]

Never possible to be completed. We don't have templates for every basketball or football players, nor famous ones. 2001:DA8:201:3512:F997:D2AD:311F:A546 (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, better to use a category. Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Presidents of Joint Council of Municipalities[edit]

connects two articles which can be accomplished without a navbox Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • First of all thank you for invitation to discussion. I was just thinking what to do with this template. It was one of the first I ever created. I think a good idea is to connect (redirect) all of the existing templates related to the topic to one template (since one template can better represent the topic instead of few separated). So I think that actually the best idea is to redirect all of the following templates Template:Settlements of Joint Council of Municipalities, Template:Presidents of Joint Council of Municipalities and Template:Locations in Joint Council of Municipalities to reorganized Template:Joint Council of Municipalities. I think that it is now good time to resolve this long lasting unusual situation with multiply templates. I will highly appreciate if someone can help me in this redirection and reorganization job, or at least postpone deletion until templates are all integrated into one. All the best!--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Mirko proposes above is the way to go: definitely a single template is the best solution. I don't think, however, that presidents should be included in it: they are not necessarily individually notable, and navboxes should not contain permanent redlinks. I'd be willing to help with the merger of the rest, time permitting. GregorB (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    I just reorganized main template so that now it include most of the old templates contents. I decided to change content a bit (you can give your opinion on this since I am not sure if this is the best idea). I decided to exclude geographic locations and non-minority institutions or religious organizations (originally I was thinking it is not the best idea not to include them, now I think the other way around). At the same time I included some communities and institutions/organizations that are outside of the member municipalities, but still in the area of two counties to which territory work of this organization is limited based on agreement with government. I also changed the colors of template to be more in line with Pan-Slavic colors used in both states and colors of different Serbs national symbols (some of them like National colours of Serbia officially used in Croatia trough the Flag of Serbs of Croatia or Flag of Serbian Orthodox Church, especially in this region). Also, municipalities in question use similar colors on their local symbols as can be confirmed on this and this link.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:555 Port-Mann Exp[edit]

Route map for non-notable bus route, 555 Express/555 Port Mann Express "Pepper" @ 04:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pepper! This route template is used on Langley, British Columbia (district municipality) page. It is a primary transit connection to the Skytrain network from the Township of Langley. It receives 868,000 trips per year (page 88), this is less than the 501 but is notable as an express bus route with few stops. I think we should keep it. James.bc (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@James.bc:, thanks for the comment. As the 555 does not have its own article (and probably shouldn't based on discussions regarding other non B-Line express bus routes in Metro Vancouver, 43 Express, 480 Express, 84 Express), there is no notability basis to keep this template. I also feel that its placement in Langley, British Columbia (district municipality) is unnecessary, and would support removing the template from that page whatever the outcome of this discussion. In general though, thanks for your work on Metro Vancouver topics! "Pepper" @ 19:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox state or union territory of India[edit]

Template is not used. Not sure if it ever was, but clearly surpassed by {{infobox settlement}}. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

January 12[edit]

Template:Editnotices/Page/ATV[edit]

It is proposed to delete per CSD T3 "Templates that are substantial duplications of another template" ..of the standard dab page editnotice which is shown at the same time when editing ATV. If any improvement to the standard dab editnotice is needed, this second duplicate and currently incorrect editnotice is not the place, but the standard one is. Widefox; talk 23:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The template "isn't correct about redlinks - they are allowed per WP:MOSDAB, and duplicates the normal dab editnotice which links to the do's and don't and MOS. The template warns "Attention editors! No red links." which is not correct per WP:DABRED. The template isn't even needed as it duplicates the correct dab editnotice which does correctly say red links are allowed iff ..(link to Wikipedia:DDD) "Don't include red links that aren't used elsewhere. ... An entry with a redlink must also include a blue link that mentions the term being disambiguated."" Widefox; talk 09:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: why would you delete? It says that entries in the list require an article first. Lists with redlinks are worthless as they do not point readers to the articles they are seeking. (baffled) -- Alexf(talk) 00:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment see also discussion at Talk:ATV#Edit_notice, (excerpt put at top by nom). Widefox; talk 09:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: this is just an ordinary dab page, and the rules for entries are the same as for every dab page; we don't need a shouted "Attention Editors", and "No Red Links" is incorrect. Red links are perfectly OK on a dab page as long as there is a blue link in the entry to a page where the topic is discussed. The edit notice also refers to the dab page as a "list", incorrectly, and seems to suggest that sources are needed in the dab page, incorrectly. Altogether likely to cause stress and confusion, and not to help the progress of this dab page. PamD 10:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, as confused and unnecessary fork. olderwiser 11:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete; it's wrong and adds unnecessary clutter to the edit page. People are confused enough about dab pages as it is. — Gorthian (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Nemzeti Sport Team of the Season[edit]

Template for a non-notable season award that isn't even notable enough for its own article Joseph2302 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete all (including below related) Even the team is notable, per WP:Footy the squad template was for current squad only, it is not intended to create template for historical season. If someone is one club man then the article would flooded with 10 or more templates . Matthew_hk tc 06:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete all - if there is no article then a corresponding template shouldn't exist. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment forget what agreement on Template: XYZ league Team of the Year , as a honour but already shown in other section, thus delete? ( I don't remember but the argument on keeping youth national team template or not) Matthew_hk tc 10:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Shared IP 1[edit]

Useless, redundant, fully-protected template. Redirect to {{shared IP}} and downgrade to template protection. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Administrator note: Reduced to TE protection already. — xaosflux Talk 02:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • My reason for creating this was as follows. The original version of {{shared IP}} was replaced by one which said "Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!" in large print. 99% of the time that is much better, as it is more friendly. However, there are times when although an IP address is potentially a shared one, it has clearly bee used substantially by one person over a long time, and that person is a persistently disruptive editor who has been blocked repeatedly, and very often one who is evading blocks. In that situation, it is not helpful to encourage the editor to create an account to evade blocks again: indeed, to do so would be contrary to policy. I therefore thought that for such occasions it would be helpful to still have the older version of the template available. When I first created it, I used it with low but significant frequency. More recently I have rarely used it, so I would not be terribly upset if it were deleted, but I don't agree that it is "useless". Even if KATMAKROFAN doesn't see any use for it, does its existence do any harm? Is there any reason that it can't be left in existence for occasions when it could be useful, even if they are rare? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 21:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Scratch Perverts[edit]

Fails WP:NENAN since it only links 4 articles not including its main topic. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

  • weak keep, connects 5 articles Frietjes (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Connects 5 articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not provide useful navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional question is why "Harry Love" was redirected to this band. According to this version is was a meager but valid stub-article. The Banner talk 23:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, there is nothing at either Scratch Perverts or at Killa Kela to suggest that he was a member. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The membership of Harry Love is both in the article and properly sourced. The Banner talk 18:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I meant the membership of Killa Kella, and therefore the validity of his inclusion in the navbox. Sorry if that wasn't clear. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Above and beyond the "five link" clause is the implication that these would not otherwise be linked were it not for the navbox and there is something valuable lost as a result of not using a navbox to remedy that situation. I find it very unlikely that these topics would not be linked to each other without the navbox; if they are not already, this is only because the articles need further work (not that this very basic operation requires much or that the articles exist in an advanced state of quality already). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 14:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Men's national inline hockey teams[edit]

Trivial and non-notable pages. WP:EXISTING violation. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep, standard template for national teams of sports. Suggest removing the red linked pages though. Salavat (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, but lose the redlinks. Since left? Salavat, who commented above me, is the creator, and I'm not sure what their activity would have to do with the fate of the template anyways. Karunamon 02:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:PIHAawards[edit]

Trivial and non-notable pages. WP:EXISTING violation. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:PIHA topics[edit]

Trivial and non-notable pages. WP:EXISTING violation. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:PIHA[edit]

Trivial and non-notable pages. WP:EXISTING violation. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:PartofWPPUNJAB[edit]

unnecessary template for WikiProject Punjab which only includes an image of a Sikh symbol. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete I do not see this serving any useful purpose. Vanamonde (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Clearly used on every page of the WP:PUNJAB project. I don't think the nominator even notified the wikiproject, so I did. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Move Could be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Punjab/PartofWPPUNJAB. Doesn't need to be in the template namespace. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    Agreed, that this solution is probably the best. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:2017 UPSL team map[edit]

Single use template. Content is mainly useless, as the dots do not link to a club. The Banner talk 00:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I copied the map data over to the UPSL page, so feel free to delete the template, as long as you don't go to the UPSL and delete the map, too. It's a very useful map for showing the team locations. Links aren't necessary since it's adjacent to a list of teams and the teams are too dense to show the names at this scale. Kingsoto (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:2016 NPSL team map[edit]

Single use template. Content is mainly useless, as the dots do not link to a club. The Banner talk 00:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Links are not the only reason to have a map. It clearly depicts the locations of teams. The teams are too dense to show the names for all of them on the map. Would you prefer this map data was included on the 2016 NPSL page instead of being linked there? Kingsoto (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. @Kingsoto: no other sports team, league or franchise on wikipedia has ever had a map showing locations like this. What precedent is there for adding such a map? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: NPSL and PDL have had maps like this for years. If you don't like the maps, please make them better instead of just deleting them.Kingsoto (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

January 11[edit]

Template:Indefblocked-global[edit]

Redundant to Template:Locked global account. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Hasbro Reconstruction[edit]

Unused. Fails WP:NAVBOX as "Hasbro Reconstruction" does not have its own article, nor is it mentioned on any of the pages included within, so not really sure what this is for. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Sense8[edit]

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Prosenjit-Bollywood Heroin films[edit]

Trivial linking of articles of films starring Prosenjit Chatterjee and "Bollywood Heroine"(s) failing WP:NAVBOX. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Baba Yadav[edit]

Film choreographer's navbox?! Seems trivial linking of articles failing WP:NAVBOX. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, but only if reduced to directing only roles per WP:FILMNAV, but with only three entries, not sure it is worthy of a navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Jeet-Koel Films[edit]

WP:NAVBOX suggests that navboxes should be made of coherent subjects and the articles included in them should refer to each other to a reasonable extent. This is a navbox of two actors, Jeet (actor) and Koel Mallick, probably just created by a fan. I doubt we have such navboxes. We do not even keep navboxes of actors. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cc-sa[edit]

Unused copyright tag. Creative Commons has retired this license and does not recommend that it be applied to works: [2] FASTILY 03:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unused and deprecated. It's that simple. Karunamon 00:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox eSports organization[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox eSports organization with Template:Infobox sports team.
mostly redundant, and it would be nice for more parameters to be supported--Prisencolin (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox rugby league team[edit]

Template provides almost identical content to Template:Infobox rugby league club (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete) and there seems little point in having two templates providing the same output. Any parameters not in this template could easily be added to the merged template. Nthep (talk)

Would someone be willing to work on this to merge the two and avoid data being lost in a merge. Don't know enough about these myself to attempt it myself though.Fleets (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
If this goes through I'll do it. Nthep (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

January 10[edit]

Template:FIRS Inline Hockey World Championships[edit]

This template is mostly red links and several of the ones that are not red could become red soon due to AfDs. Most of the places where it is used are the same articles up for AfD. It mostly defines what was to have been a huge sprawling walled garden of non-notable articles but most of them were either deleted or never made. There seems to be no scope for this subject to have most of these articles so the template seems to have no value. DanielRigal (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Main section[edit]

Ostensibly, this template could be used in place of {{main article}} where the target's a specific section rather than the whole article. However, {{main article}} itself includes functionality that automatically prettifies section links, and is widely used to link to sections. In fact, there are more uses of {{main article}} linking to sections, in featured articles alone, than all transclusions of this template. Given that this template's functionality is unneeded and its use clearly not preferred in practice, we should delete it, replacing its uses with ones of {{main article}}. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

College soccer awards[edit]

College soccer awards are only notable if they're national awards. These are not national awards. Therefore they're not notable. Some of these templates have previously been deleted per discussion here. – Michael (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom and previous consensus, non-notable regional college awards. GiantSnowman 08:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - no evidence to suggest that this is non-notable, and it is a sweeping assumption to suggest that regional awards for college soccer are not notable. Meets WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG as the athletes have jumpstarted professional careers with these awards. Quidster4040 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete rather local awards. I hope Quidster4040 can prove that the players "jumpstarted" their career due to these awards. But I guess that they would have been picked even without the awards. The Banner talk 00:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    I'm afraid you're a victim of not doing research Banner. Furthermore this meets WP:NCOLLATH.
    No this does not meet WP:NCOLLATH because they're not national awards. – Michael (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep These are notable awards, and is consistent with Wikipedia:Navigation template. Furthermore, we have established conference POY navboxes for football, and baseball among other sports. (Therefore Otherstuffexists should in this case strengthen my argument, because the nominator falsely claims that college sports awards are only notable if they are national.)UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Notability seems to be an improper argument for the navboxes. The awards likely meet WP:LISTN, and most (all?) have standalone lists already for their respective topic, suggesting they are, in fact, notable. A more relevant argument might be whether the navboxes for non-national awards are WP:TCREEP.—Bagumba (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Grantham University[edit]

Template not used for navigation of Grantham University topic. Links aren't directly associated with Grantham (e.g. accrediting agencies and one associated person.) Article has had problems with marketing and peakcockery. The Grantham University page is the only one displaying the template. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:OVERVIEW OF STAINING[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 deleted article in wrong namespace, CSD A10 would apply as well RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Article in template space. Redundant to Bacteria. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: Speedy tagged as in wrong namespace. Linguist Moi? Moi. 17:55, 10 January 2017 (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:OBJECTIVES[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 deleted wrong namespace, appears to be an essay

WP:FAKEARTICLE substub. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2017 (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:INTRODUCTION[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 deleted wrong namespace, appears to be an essay RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Spam KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2017 (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 Antonio Scorpions squad[edit]

Squad template of now-defunct soccer team. Darkhan Aqtöbe (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Club is now defunct so there's no need for a squad template. – Michael (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - a defunct club does not need a 'current' squad. GiantSnowman 08:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:NBA minutes leaders[edit]

This is WP:TCREEP. I've done a random sample (James, Iverson, Mason, Tripucka, Havlicek and Chamberlain), and confirmed that all articles but two (Chamberlain and Mason) did not mention this achievement in the prose, thus not satisfying some of the criteria in WP:NAVBOX. –HTD 07:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:ESPNRISE 2000s All-Decade boys basketball team[edit]

This is WP:TCREEP. I've done a random sample (James, Lawson and Jennings), and confirmed that all articles did not mention this achievement in the prose, thus not satisfying some of the criteria in WP:NAVBOX. –HTD 07:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is a classic example of valuable encyclopedic information, because it gives someone today a first idea of which basketball players dominated media coverage during their amateur career. --bender235 (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX #4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template'; none exists for this 2000s all-decade team.—Bagumba (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:NAVBOX presents five guidelines with the statement "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines". Howard the Duck has pointed out that this template does not follow one of those guidelines (subject is not mentioned in the prose). Obviously, the guidelines are not a requirement based on how they are described as general rule that may be partially followed. Probably a significant portion of the subjects included in {{NBA statistical leaders}} are not included in many of the articles linked in the associated lists and templates. This is not a reason for deletion. This fact actually makes Bagumba's deletion unsupported by fact or policy.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry, what is your reason to keep?—Bagumba (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

January 8[edit]

Template:Sherine singles[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The navigational template for the musical artist consists of 16 links: the artist's article, a link to the discography section of the artist article, an album link (which probably does not pass WP:NALBUM) and 13 redlinks that are unlikely to be made into articles. Currently only the album uses this template. Aspects (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2017 (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:Transfer icon[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) 13:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Was transcluded onto only one page, and was replaced by the single Unicode character Ⓣ. Useddenim (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as deprecated and not transcluded anywhere. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 10:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. (Template's creator). As Frietjes said, it is no longer needed. Usage has been replaced with a more universal version. Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2017 (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:Tram symbol[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) 13:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Obsolete template replaced by {{Rail-interchange|tram}}. Its sole remaining use is on an archived talk page. Useddenim (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as deprecated and not transcluded anywhere. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 10:22, 10 January 2017 (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:Nations at the 2006 UCI Road World Championships[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 T3 by Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 20:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

All are redundant, now and most likely forever per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algeria at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships. BaldBoris 16:17, 8 January 2017 (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 Miguel Beermen (ABL) current roster[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) 13:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Template has only three transclusions and since this team is defunct, there is really no foreseeable future use for this template. Safiel (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, defunct. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2017 (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:Bosnia and Herzegovina Squad EuroBasket 1993[edit]

squad for a team that didn't get a medal, the participants are already archived in EuroBasket 1993 squads, EuroBasket 1995 squads, EuroBasket 1997 squads, EuroBasket 1999 squads, ... Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina Squad EuroBasket 2001[edit]

squad for a team that didn't get a medal, the participants are already archived in EuroBasket 2001 squads, EuroBasket 2003 squads, and FIBA EuroBasket 2007 squads. Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong keep - Unless we are going to add the tournaments played to each player's article, then this is useful and needed info. If these are deleted, those voting for deletion should have the responsibility of adding the tournaments to each player's article.Bluesangrel (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • no problem, assuming there are sources. a navbox should not be a substitute for prose since navboxes are not visible for mobile users, for example see here. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • There is no deadline on when the information should be added to prose, and stop assigning responsibilities to others as Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY.—Bagumba (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete with the same reasoning as in previous discussion – Top 3 teams are the most important and WP:TCREEP is another reason to delete them. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, again for all the same reasons as the previous discussion. I totally agree with Sabbatino Top 3 teams are important. Also, WP:TCREEP 100% applies here. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - As i already explained. Non-basketball editors are deleting templates for most important basketball competitions . First you must remove high school and college basketball tempates, cause they are not important to 90% basketball world.--Bozalegenda (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete It's WP:TCREEP to have a navbox for teams that did not medal. Precedent at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_29#Template:Slovenia_Squad_2010_FIBA_World_Championship.—Bagumba (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per past discussions and WP:TCREEP. ~ Rob13Talk 00:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina Squad EuroBasket 2005[edit]

squad for a team that didn't get a medal, the participants are already archived in FIBA EuroBasket 2005 squads. Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong keep - Unless we are going to add the tournaments played to each player's article, then this is useful and needed info. If these are deleted, those voting for deletion should have the responsibility of adding the tournaments to each player's article.Bluesangrel (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep to all these templates and similar. Major tournaments must have this templates, and EuroBasket is a major one with notable presence of NBA players, e.g. Asturkian (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Bagumba, Bozalegenda, BU Rob13, Howard the Duck, IndexAccount, Nabla, Nn94 14, Primefac, Sabbatino, Vasemmistolainen, and Zackmann08: who participated in the related December 29 discussion. Frietjes (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Note that I'm insistent only on World Cup and Olympics navboxes, not continental-level competitions such as this one where I'm mostly indifferent. –HTD 07:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment It was implied that I was conspiracy theorist earlier for my saying that further deletions would be done and that the justification for them would be that the world cup templates were deleted. As that was the obvious reason to delete the most important templates first, because then you could justify deleting everything else after that. So much for it being a conspiracy theory, as it is a fact now, and that it now even gets called "precedent". Wikipedia policy should be followed by what it is, not what a handful of editors personally judge to be important or not. We are going to see all of these important templates deleted, while much less important ones, basketball related wise, still remain, and with no delete discussions on them at all. US NCAA and US high school templates need to be deleted also, if these are all being deleted. I am saying it, several other editors are saying it. I have yet to see them being nominated for deletion. If they don't start going for deletion, this looks like a clear double standard to me, against anything non US related basketball.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per many past discussions and WP:TCREEP. ~ Rob13Talk 00:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Northeast Conference Women's Basketball Player of the Year 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 Delete (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Used in one (1) article... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 07:00, 8 January 2017 (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:Northeast Conference football rivalry navbox[edit]

Used in one (1) article... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Big West Conference softball navbox[edit]

Used in one (1) article... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Mid-American Conference wrestling navbox[edit]

Used in two (2) articles... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Metro Conference Men's Basketball Tournament navbox[edit]

Two (2) articles this is used in... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference men's ice hockey navbox[edit]

Used in two (2) articles... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Ivy League women's basketball navbox[edit]

Used in two (2) articles... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - as nominator said, fails WP:EXISTING --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. As template creator, I was hoping it would generate interest in developing at least the team articles linked within, but that never happened. If I was in the northeastern US region, I would develop them, but that would also make me caretaker as well. There's barely interest in the season articles of late, and, this year, those are maintained mostly by IPs with win/loss updates. The two teams I follow are in their ebb stage; only one of those are linked. — Wyliepedia 09:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox writers awards[edit]

Only used in two articles and I don't really see what purpose it serves. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @CAWylie: full disclosure, those were actually because I completely failed at adding the {{tfd}} on the template. If you purge those pages they will look fine. Can you confirm that you still think the template should be deleted? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. In its nine years, it has only been used twice, out of who-knows-how-many awarded authors out there. I view it as a novelty idea, giving a casual viewer a quick glance, but it's nothing that cannot be mentioned in a lead on awards pages. Despite its tweaking over the years, it's just not visible/used enough to take up Wikiserver space. It has no categories and no pertinent links to it. — Wyliepedia 21:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:KHSAA Boys 4th Region Basketball Tournament[edit]

Fails WP:NAVBOX #4 as individual instars of a likely non-notable boy's high school sectional tournament that does not have an article. Only 5 of 35 links are bluelinks and each page is nothing more than bare results in bracket format. Edited to add: Apparent intent was to create and populate all articles but abandoned in 2009 so more redlinks are not likely to be populated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Nations at the UCI Road World Championships[edit]

Per WP:SEEALSO As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. This is used in the "See also" section and the links are also in the navigation box {{UCI Road World Championships}} immediately below (see Germany at the UCI Road World Championships). BaldBoris 03:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Verizon FiOS IP[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 after replacing with {{Mobile IP}}. Primefac (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Redundant to {{ISP}}. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

As the author, I strongly disagree. There is no logical reason provided save for the fact that a template that lists a specific is supposedly redundant... TJH2018talk 02:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Snow Keep Per User:TJH2018 There no need merge this.~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 07:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • delete, the intent is encapsulated by {{ISP}}. we don't need extra branding with cooperate logos, this is WP, not Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc. Frietjes (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. No need for provider specific logos. {{ISP|ISP name}} already provides some customisation to include the ISP name, which is sufficient. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2017 (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:Verizon Wireless IP[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 after replacing with {{Mobile IP}}. Primefac (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Redundant to {{Mobile IP}}. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

As the author, I strongly disagree. There is no logical reason provided save for the fact that a template that lists a specific is supposedly redundant... TJH2018talk 02:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Snow Keep Per User:TJH2018 There no need merge this.~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 07:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment: If this and its kin are kept, we'll have to create {{Spectrum IP}}, {{CenturyLink IP}}, {{Wide Open West IP}}, etc. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • delete, the intent is encapsulated by {{Mobile IP}}. we don't need extra branding with cooperate logos, this is WP, not Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc. Frietjes (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. No need for provider specific logos. {{Mobile IP|Name}} already provides some customisation to include the service providers name, which is sufficient. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2017 (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 open cluster[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 for now. There is a simultaneous discussion at WT:AST, neither of which feel these mergers are necessary. The AST discussion is also going a bit deeper into the question. Primefac (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox open cluster with Template:Infobox astronomical object.

There have been a wide variety of astronomical infoboxes on different types of objects for a very long time (this dates from back in the day when we had HTML-based infoboxes in individual articles!), most of which have very similar sets of parameters, and most of which are only used on a small set of articles. I'm working on integrating these various astronomical object infoboxes together into Template:Infobox astronomical object at the same time as I'm integrating Wikidata into that infobox, to match a recently-created sister template at Template:Infobox astronomical event (that already covers a variety of different types of event, and has a number of wikidata-driven parameters). open cluster was the first one I picked to merge, not noticing that it had already been discussed in a previous TfD to do to this merger (astro object is what I started with to make the current astronomical object). All parameters of open cluster are supported by astronomical object, so to implement this merge the template simply needs redirecting to astronomical object (as I did in this edit, that was appropriately reverted given the presence of the previous TfD). I plan to take the same approach of matching parameter sets before merging/redirecting the other astronomical object infoboxes into this one, and then wikidata-enabling new parameters where possible. Given the previous TfD here, though, this needs to be discussed: ping @Pigsonthewing, SkyFlubbler, Tom.Reding, StringTheory11, DePiep, Montanabw, Martijn Hoekstra, Thor Dockweiler, Graeme Bartlett, Dirtlawyer1, and Plastikspork as the participants in the previous TfD. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

WT:AST & WT:ASTRO notified.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
This was already discussed some time ago. I looked upon the two templates again, and they looked pretty similar except for one. There is a link in the open cluster infobox that really directs it to the article Open cluster. Let's assume that one new user looks at the template, if merged, would link it to the astronomical object template. He would not understand what an open cluster is, and even if so, would not have a link into it. Templates are supposed to give the fundamental characteristics of an object. If we put the fundamentals toward some topic which is very (and I mean VERY) broad, that would cause confusion. SkyFlubbler (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@SkyFlubbler: astronomical object includes a line called "Object type", just below the image caption, that fetches instance of (P31) from Wikidata to display the type of object that the article is about, including a link to the article on it. In this case, that provides the links to open cluster (provided that's set on Wikidata, which I think it is for most of these articles). BTW, as an example, I've converted Pleiades from open cluster to astronomical object - see before and after. Note the 'open cluster' link in both. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose and/or Delay This is a major systematic change to the way WP:Astronomy uses infoboxes - it seems the goal is to use {{Infobox astronomical object}} as the "master" infobox for WP:Astronomy objects. Whether or not it can, or should, be merged with {{Infobox open cluster}} sets a precedent that can be applied to the other infoboxes, from {{Infobox comet}} to {{Infobox supercluster}}. It's not appropriate to perform this change by quietly redirecting other infoboxes to {{Infobox astronomical object}}, and requires more visibility/discussion than normally accompanies a TfM/TfD.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, any suggestions on how/where to hold that discussion? astronomical object wouldn't be the "master" infobox, but would be one of the main ones - along with the others that I've been working on wikidata-ifying/improving, such as Template:Infobox telescope, Template:Infobox astronomical event, and others. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I think a dedicated discussion at WT:Astronomy or an RfC would work.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, will prep something to post there. (I hadn't spotted that WP:Astronomy was still so active, I thought it had gone the way of WP:ASTRO, which is rather quiet nowadays.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Now posted to WT:Astronomy. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
In what way would this constitute a "major systematic change"? Without a sound reason, that just sounds like FUD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge No cogent arguments as to why two such similar infoboxes might be needed have been given, neither here nor in the previous discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose since the agenda is to merge more and more templates into one super template. I say keep it simple and understandable. So you can have the astronomical object template for those that know how to use it, but also hang onto the others for those of us that are less expert in the complex master infoboxes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Note: No evidence of any "agenda to merge more and more templates into one super template" has been demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The consensus from the 2015 TfD was "oppose", even though an admin. closed it incorrectly as "no consensus". I am still of the same opinion. The astronomy related projects are still quite active. The whole purpose is to assist editors in preparing or improving articles. Infoboxes related to the object type are most useful, especially for the newer editor. I will review this further and come back with a response at about 0600 UT, about 9 hours from now. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment 1: In Wikipedia it is desirable to merge infobox templates where the parameters are the same. If we have come to the stage in the various astronomical projects wherein this can be done it should be. Creating an overall "astronomical object" template is of value, provided no information is lost. My concern is that objects in astronomy are not the same as to their attributes that are unique to that object type, even those between open clusters and globular clusters. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment 2: It would be nice if there was a dynamical infobox where an editor could check an object type box and the appropriate parameter entries would populate, but that is in a programmer's skill level. At that level you could create an overall astronomy infobox where you could select a biography or other category, a master box with nesting sub-entry sets of information. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment 3: This issue really is on a bigger level as to infoboxes overall in the astronomy projects. I see that Mike has appropriately listed it in those forums. Thank you. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment 4: Graeme is absolutely correct in that we want simplicity in this, especially for those that are newer editors. I agree that they will get confused. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment 5: I note that several excellent references were deleted on distance in the Pleiades transfer by Mike. I like simplicity but not information loss. Should not those be added back? Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment 6: Mike is to be commended for beginning to implement property elements from Wikidata. The infoboxes in the astronomy projects have excellent datapoints that should be in Wikidata. The positional xyz data for stars, etc. is exactly what Wikidata is all about, with the allowance for us to provide referencing in Wikipedia. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2017 (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 basketball season[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Merged. Neither template has any transclusions remaining and no issues raised in nearly 2 weeks. Templates were nearly identical. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Propose merging both Template:Infobox WNBA season & Template:Infobox basketball season with Template:Infobox sports season.
Most basketball season's already use {{Infobox sports season}}. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2017 (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).

January 6[edit]

Template:Infobox tropical cyclone small[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/Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Overwhelming support to keep. Withdrawing nomination. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox tropical cyclone small with Template:Infobox hurricane.
Note that Template:Infobox tropical cyclone redirects to Template:Infobox hurricane. Seems like these two can be merged as they basically show the same info. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Keep they are different infooboxes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.209.33.103 (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep The nominator is incorrect here. They don't have the same exact info and have different uses. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note – Aside from different template sizes and different information, this is not the first time that someone has tried to merge tropical cyclone templates. I recall quite a bit of edit warring and discussions surrounding a number of changes (one of which was merging tropical cyclone templates) applied to {{Infobox hurricane}}, largely by one user, back in 2014. It'd be best to tread lightly on suggesting such changes to tropical templates based on past history. See the WPTC archives for details. Dustin (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep – Completely different templates, requesting speedy closure. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep – I've also seen this happen before, and merging these two templates would have a bad impact on the hurricane season articles. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 21:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep for precedent.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 21:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Mario, these are actually two different templates and merging them would not be easy.--12george1 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep @Zackmann08: As per above comments. Those two templates are obviously different especially when used in many articles. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as explained by other users. Template:Infobox tropical cyclone small is used on season articles to give a brief overview of the storm's intensity and duration. Template:Infobox hurricane, on the other hand, is used in storm articles and lists the storm's intensity in addition to areas impacted, fatalities, damage, and areas affected. Two separate templates. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note so I'm guessing maybe we should keep things as they are? :-p. Seems like an overwhelming majority to keep. Was worth discussing though. :-) --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:22, 7 January 2017 (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:Career achievements of basketball players[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) 02:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Fails WP:NAVBOX #3 ("The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.") and NAVBOX #4 ("There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template"). It seems sufficient to already have Category:Career achievements of basketball players.—Bagumba (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I just thought that it would be easier for users to find these articles via the template, but you are free to delete it if it fails to meet requirements. KWiki (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Completely useless template when there's a category for that. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The category is sufficient. I just don't see a ton of readers needing to flip quickly between (for example) Wilt Chamberlain's and Chris Paul's achievements. Rikster2 (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2017 (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 Gliding Grand Prix report[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Gliding Grand Prix report with Template:Infobox Grand Prix Final report.
There are probably other templates in Category:Motor race report infobox templates that can be merged but these two definitely can and should be (IMHO). Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Highways in Amarillo[edit]

Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, and here. Rschen7754 02:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete—per precedent and all of my past comments in those listed discussions. Imzadi 1979  16:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Chromism[edit]

Unnecessarily duplicates Category:Chromism. Not particularly useful for helping readers move from one topic to another. WP:NENAN applies with full force here. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 10:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-CVV[edit]

This isn't public domain; this is an unacceptable noderivs license. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20051025001353/http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/vvhtml/vvres.html sounds like PD to me. A courtesy request for attribution and no derivatives is not the same thing as a noderivs license. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Jo_Jo is correct. However the template is unused, and - as images to which it applies may be and are housed on Commons - is unlikely to be so. Unless there is a sound counter argument, delete'. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Asian Cuisine[edit]

Substantial duplicate of {{Asian topic|cuisine}}. Recently created and used redundantly to that template. Ibadibam (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete More or less a duplication. I can see the argument for more specific templates, which would contain some of the specific links such as those currently in the East Asian section, but those would be more restricted in focus. Expanding that to the whole of Asia lacks utility. CMD (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Denial of Mass Killings[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) Primefac (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what encyclopedic purpose this template serves, other than collecting a bunch of genocide articles and subjectively labeling certain views as "denials". This is a controversial proposition in itself, as it is unsourced and selective. Mar4d (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak keep -- Genocide denial seems to be a studied concept, so I'm not sure what prevents this template from including the notable cases of of this phenomenon. Are there certain articles that you think have been unfairly excluded from the template? CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The denial stage is a really a pattern of genocides. It's not just an organising concept imposed after the fact. I think it's important to keep this template. http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/tenstagesofgenocide.html KesterR (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC) KesterR (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep, "subjectively labeling certain views" this is false. The articles linked in the template are not based on subjectivity. --RaphaelQS (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Its encyclopedic purpose is cross-referencing related subjects. The articles themselves are described as "denials"; the template didn't add that. I agree the term "denial" has a lot of baggage, but that's an unavoidable consequence of the contentious subject matter; it's doubtful that any other word would be less loaded or that attempts to find one wouldn't just be another step on the euphemism treadmill. Like CapitalSasha, I ask if your complaint is with the selection of articles. I.e. is the complaint about the exclusion of some articles from the template? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2017 (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).

January 5[edit]

Template:Loreto Council Members 2008-2011[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) 02:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

No transclusions. Lists non-notable members of a city council, none of which have articles. Has no need to exist. Raymie (tc) 23:09, 5 January 2017 (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 ice hockey team season[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Merge. (non-admin closure) The sole person who objected to this merge initially, and requested it be discussed, as withdrawn their objection. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox NHL team season & Template:Infobox WHA team season to Template:Infobox ice hockey team season.
Multiple pages that are KHL/NHL/WHA seasons already use Template:Infobox ice hockey team season. I see no reason not to upmerge all these templates. I had initially done this already but the change was reverted by Djsasso saying I needed to get consensus. So consensus I shall get. I also think that my upmerge broke a few things. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hold I am not sure this is possible as the leagues operate differently, with conferences, divisions, different championship criteria. I believe the rest might be very similar. Have you made all of the attributes for each of the league templates work in the Infobox ice hockey one? Alaney2k (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Alaney2k: the only difference between them is that they have different championships. If you look at the code currently in the sandbox, it will work for all 3 templates as I have added each of the championships in. It was working already. I still don't know why Djsasso reverted it. There was no noticeable change on the frontend to the user. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't mean it had to go all the way to tfd, just meant on the talk page or wikiproject. I just thought we should look at it before hand because we have seen people merge templates without talking in the past and have lost functionality. Being that these templates are used on hundreds of articles so merging shouldn't be done without atleast a comment of intention posted on a talk page. That being said if they all work the same once merged I am all good with it. -DJSasso (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Djsasso: do you mind looking at the sandbox code and confirming that they DO work the same? And then if they do, can we could you as a merge vote? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:29, 5 January 2017 (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).

Country at Commonwealth Games navboxes[edit]

This group of templates does not provide significant navigation between topics, as many of the individual year articles simply do not exist. Primefac (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Note some of the templates currently have 4+ links, but some are all redirects and some (like Kiribati) are at AFD and will most likely be deleted/redirected in the near future. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:EXISTING. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the U-boat service[edit]

The template replicates the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients of the U-boat service and is unnecessary. It also links 140 subjects which is excessive. The articles are not related apart from the fact that they cover recipients of the same award. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep. A template and a list are two different things and serve two different purposes. One is a comprehensive list the other is a navigation tool. Dapi89 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment -- the template does not meet WP:NAV:
  • "Templates should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value" -- this template links 140 articles, which is excessive
  • "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles" -- the articles are not related apart from the subjects having received the same award.
K.e.coffman (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Response
There is no logic in that argument. In fact, it is a blatant contradiction. The very issue that makes them notable is the very issue that relates them. Dapi89 (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not a contradiction. A recent discussion at Notability:People (permalink) has concluded with consensus that the awarding of the Knight's Cross does not in and of itself amount to presumed notability. WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly, specifically calling out the Knight's Cross: diff. In addition, linking 140 entries via a template is excessive. A similarly excessive template has recently been deleted:
K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:2016CAGen[edit]

single-use tables which should be merged with the respective articles. we don't need to keep these in separate templates. Frietjes (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Merge all as suggested by nom. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Areas of Glenrothes[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) 02:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Navbox of little or no navigational benefit. Includes about 35 entries, but only 3 that actually link to articles – and none of those articles use it anyway. Jellyman (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete With so few links to articles this seems more like a list than a template and as such is not much benefit to anyone as it currently stands. Dunarc (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete --- insufficient navigation. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2017 (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:RugbyUnionAt1920SummerOlympics[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 Relisted on 2017 January 16 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2017 (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:Brazilian Film & Television Festival of Toronto Award for Best Actress[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) 04:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Award-winners template for a minor award presented by a non-notable film festival. The festival doesn't even have an article; the "BRAFFTV" in its headline just links directly to the main article on the city of Toronto rather than to anywhere that might explain why we should give a hoot about "BRAFFTV". Bearcat (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete – No evidence of notability. Jellyman (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2017 (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 MontrealCanadiensSeason[edit]

No other team has their own unique template. Template:Infobox ice hockey team season should be used... Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hold for study - (edited) Is it possible this can support the NHA seasons, when they used the O'Brien Cup for league championship, but could also win the Stanley Cup? Maybe the WT:HOCKEY group can discuss. Alaney2k (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep This template has parameters that are for the time before the NHL existed and the Canadiens were in other leagues. The other teams were not in that situation so don't need one. -DJSasso (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, unused. was this ever used? Frietjes (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:EUS 2013 riders[edit]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2013 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2013 UCI ProTeams and riders and then deleted The Banner talk 00:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@The Banner: Might as well delete the equivalent for 2014, 2015 and 2016. BaldBoris 23:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I do not know if there is already a list of teams and riders for 2017, that is why I did not (yet) nominate the 2016-templates. As far as I know all others are nominated. The Banner talk 17:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Ow, wait. These are written by somebody else. Out of courtesy I have requested that editor to make a start with the merging. The Banner talk 18:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks like Cs-wolves has taken care of it. I'm not sure if there was ever a discussion about the proposal for them, but I'm sure it wasn't Cs-wolves. Correct me if I'm wrong but I have a feeling it was Sander.v.Ginkel. Is this fallout from all the recent drama? BaldBoris 22:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking through my edit history, I created 7 in 2015 and all the 2014 ones, but I do think that was off the back of Sander doing the 2013 ones, as far as I can remember... Craig(talk) 22:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
So are we keeping 2017 ones? Are there other sports teams that use this method? Also, Category:UCI WorldTeams templates will be redundant now. BaldBoris 23:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

January 4[edit]

Template:Asian Winter Games Bandy[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 ~ Rob13Talk 14:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary, as the event has only been held once (and likely won't be held anytime soon either). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No navigational use. Jellyman (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2017 (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:Scratch Perverts[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 Relisted on 2017 January 12 ~ Rob13Talk 14:12, 12 January 2017 (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:Unblocked[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) Primefac (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Same rationale as this TfD which recently closed as delete. Wholly redundant to {{Unblock reviewed}}, as this is just a hard-coded instance of that template. This template should be substituted and deleted. It's intended to be substitute-only already, according to the documentation. ~ Rob13Talk 07:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep as a harmless and useful time saving wrapper for unblock reviewed (that automatically includes a pro-forma 'reason' and selects the 'accepted' parameter), intended to be substituted when unblocking for self-evident reasons already present on the talk page. Unless we have started running out of template space? –xenotalk 15:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • KEEP Per above. --Brynda1231 [Talk Page] [Contribs] 05:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2017 (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 EN Standard Details[edit]

Not really sure what this is for but not really an infobox... Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  • This is an overview about the basic information regarding EN standards (technical standards within the European Union). If you got any suggestion of how to make this a real infobox in wikipedia terms, I am happy to receive them. No problem to update the box to follow Wikipedia standards, your help would be appreciated. As you can see in the list of related standards, there are many more standards to be covered. So a common box for all of them makes sense. Dr. Florian Ilias 15:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilias.florian (talkcontribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Convert to standard infobox (list at WP:TFD/H to that effect). This has a lot of specialized information that can't be handled by {{Infobox technology standard}}, and it can certainly become an infobox, fulfilling Zackmann08's concerns. Looking at its one use in an article, I struggle to think what could replace it. ~ Rob13Talk 14:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

January 3[edit]

Template:Alma[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 ~ Rob13Talk 14:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Navigation template with nothing to navigate between (just like the first nomination) The Banner talk 23:04, 3 January 2017 (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:THQ Nordic[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 ~ Rob13Talk 21:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Useless template gives nopropper overview, but is scattered around a lot of articles not connected to each other, except for its retrospective ownership. It also includes many unlinked (nonexistent) items, which defeats the template's own purpose. Lordtobi () 20:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't see the benefit of a navbox that lists a publisher's intellectual properties. Navboxes are intended to provide links that are somehow related to each other, the only thing these games have in common is that they're published by the same company. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This is not a timeless list, such as a list of works produced by THQ Nordic, but the list of rights to games owned by this company at some point in time (presumably January 2017). It might be useful to include this information on our THQ Nordic page, but not as a navbox. I'd keep this, but retain only the "Original properties" row, and spin out the big enough rows into their own templates. A game's rights can change hands many times, but the game can only have been created once. DaßWölf 16:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ironically, despite me being the creator of the template, I don't think it's necessary anymore. I've changed my mind because, the THQ Nordic article finally has a presentable page dedicated to the acquisitions that THQ/THQ Nordic have gone through with intellectual properties. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2017 (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:SharedIPBlocked[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 ~ Rob13Talk 21:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This is redundant to the combination of {{sharedip}} and {{anonblock}}. I replaced the only transclusion with {{schoolblock}} (since it was located below a {{repeat vandal}} and a {{sharedipedu}}). KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. It would be in a good mood if some IP addresses have the template that you nominated it for deletion. Right now, I could see that they didn't use the template. 45.23.131.171 (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2017 (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:Country data Kharkiv People's Republic[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 soft delete (no opposition). REFUND applies. As a minor note, Kharkiv People's Republic did exist, albeit briefly and not as an officially recognized country. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no such a country as Kharkiv People's Republic. It is pure imagination. It did not existed even 1 minute Oude-rusman (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2017 (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:Vgrtbl-bl/sandbox[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) Lordtobi () 12:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Abandoned sandbox of deleted template, should as well be deleted. Lordtobi () 12:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

  • As an ancillary of a deleted template this is a straightforward G6 candidate. Ping me and I'll delete it myself; this doesn't need a full TfD. (Likewise for any future cases of the same.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2017 (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:Vgrtbl-bl/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).

The result of the discussion was Delete (non-admin closure) Lordtobi () 12:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Abandoned documentation of deleted template, should as well be deleted. Lordtobi () 12:17, 3 January 2017 (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:Vgrtbl-tx/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).

The result of the discussion was Delete (non-admin closure) Lordtobi () 12:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Abandoned documentation of deleted template, should as well be deleted. Lordtobi () 12:16, 3 January 2017 (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:Vgrtbl/text/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).

The result of the discussion was Delete (non-admin closure) Lordtobi () 12:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Abandoned documentation of deleted template, should as well be deleted. Lordtobi () 12:16, 3 January 2017 (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).

Athletic conference navboxes[edit]

The following have one or two links in them and fail WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 09:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Shared IP 1[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 Relisted on 2017 January 12 ~ Rob13Talk 21:28, 12 January 2017 (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 competition UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Unused template, and the "fb competition" templates are meant for club competitions, not international tournaments. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - not required. GiantSnowman 19:25, 7 January 2017 (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).

December 24[edit]

Template:Video game release/sort[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) 18:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Unused, abandoned template. Formerly used by Video game release, but now replaced. Lordtobi () 22:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete -- does not appear to be useful. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2017 (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:Other languages[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) 18:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Also:

    This template will be a year old next week. It isn't used anywhere, and its use seems to contemplate a situation where a page in the English wiki will have alternative language versions under a common title, each suffice by /xx where xx is a two-letter code for a language. Largoplazo (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

    • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the U-boat service[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 Relisted on 2017 January 5 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 329th ID[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. REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

    Insufficient navigation: template contains two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

    Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of KG 3[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. REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

    Insufficient navigation: template contains two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

    I'm not convinced that this should be deleted because it is incomplete. What does policy say on this issue? Dapi89 (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
    WP:NAV states: "Navigation templates provide navigation within Wikipedia. They should not be too small." K.e.coffman (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
    Again, when I view the template, I notice it was much larger before this edit practically deleted all of the links. Dapi89 (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
    Many of these were red links, the rest were redirected to a list: 2015 version, leaving two which are articles. Pls see this discussion for background on the redirects. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the PLD[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. REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

    Insufficient navigation: template contains only two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

    Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 15th Waffen GD[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. REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

    Insufficient navigation: template contains only two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

    Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of KG 1[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. REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

    Template contains one entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

    I'm not convinced that this should be deleted because it is incomplete. What does policy say on this issue? Dapi89 (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
    WP:NAV states: "Navigation templates provide navigation within Wikipedia. They should not be too small." K.e.coffman (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
    The template was much larger before this edit. Dapi89 (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
    Many were red links, the rest were redirected to a list 2014 version, leaving one entry that is an article. Pls see this discussion for background on the redirects. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 320th ID[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. REFUNDable if sufficient new pages are created. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

    Insufficient navigation: template contains two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

    Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:58, 2 January 2017 (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:Life ki aisi ki taisi[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. Cack-handedness by self-promoter. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

    There is a movie Life Ki Aisi Ki Taisi Marvellous Spider-Man 17:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

    • Delete -- unclear what this is. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2016 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    Template:RFDNote-NPF[edit]

    I was originally going to tag this template with {{Db-t3}} since the function it serves is duplicative of {{RFDNote}}, in addition to the template seemingly being unused. However, this template was created by a member of the Wikimedia Foundation, so I'm not sure what is going on since it may be used in a way I don't see and I don't want to break anything. Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

    Just reviewed the template's documentation. Is this template still hardcoded into the New Pages Feed? I can't tell since I don't see any obvious connections to this template and any "MediaWiki:" namespace pages. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    It looks like it is used & subst'd via https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-PageTriage/blob/0aa029dc2dd1e1d618b2b5c4333e08d2876366d2/modules/ext.pageTriage.defaultDeletionTagsOptions/ext.pageTriage.defaultDeletionTagsOptions.js#L319 - So, keep and amend docs (partially done). Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    Delete all and amend whatever is using this to use the standard {{RFDNote}} rather than forking its own duplicate. Pppery 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

    Template:Trump family[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. The general consensus is to trim down the family content in {{Donald Trump}} instead. The specifics of that trimming should be held at that template's talk page. NPASR should the talk page discussion decide that {{Trump family}} should actually be deleted. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

    This is already included at {{Donald Trump}}, I see no need for a separate template. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

    • Delete needless repetition of content Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Keep – This template emerged from a split of a super-long Trump navbox into {{Trump businesses}}, {{Trump family}}, {{Trump media}} and {{Trump presidency}}. In parallel the {{Donald Trump}} navbox emerged which has a bit of the presidency, a (very little) bit of the businesses, a bit of the media and a bit of the family, so I'm not sure what purpose that one serves. I would keep each template separate, which allows a better fit with contents of articles to which they are added. — JFG talk 00:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
      • No, {{Donald Trump}} contains the entire contents of the family template. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Which is not helpful, agreed, but the correct solution is to slim down *that* template, not delete *this* one. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
          • Slim down what? Every US president's template includes a 'Family' section, as do other prominent individual's templates. There is nothing to slim down, the section is already there by site consistency. Randy Kryn 23:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Delete, duplicated in the Donald Trump template and per other US presidential templates which contain 'Family' sections. The 'Presidency' template should also be fully duplicated in some form in the Donald Trump template, and 'Business' could become a fold-out in it as well. Randy Kryn 16:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
    And that would send us back to the pre-election situation: a yuuuge unmanageable navbox (to which now the developing presidency articles should be added). See how it looked and weep: Old revision of Template:Trump . Collapsible sections wouldn't make it any more palatable. I strongly oppose this idea. — JFG talk 21:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
    JFG, just sticking to this template (discussion drift my fault), the complete list is also included in the 'Family' section on the {{Donald Trump}} template. This section, either included or welcome on major individual templates, is a part of all US presidential templates. So just referring to the template under discussion, there really is no need for it. Randy Kryn 23:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Keep the Template:Trump family stuff, and get rid of the redundant subsection of Template:Donald Trump. For an article that is about him *and* about his family, both navboxes would be used. For an article that is *not* about his family, such as most of the political articles, linking to his junior high school son Barron Trump is not very helpful, nor is linking to his deceased grandfather Frederick Trump. Suggest that Template:Donald_Trump should only retain (in the Related section where we currently list Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago) the names that are important parts of his *current* adult life: Melania, Ivanka & Jared, Eric, and DonaldJr. Those are the people that will be involved with the Trump administration in high-visibility roles. Can also have a link to Other family members in the same Related section of the Donald Trump navbox, if that is considered helpful. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
      Even if this template is kept the family section of the main Donald Trump template should remain. All US presidents templates have a family section (as far as I recall), and most templates for individuals either include family or that section would be welcome. Randy Kryn 15:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Keep, notable template regarding the most prominent family in USA. Valoem talk contrib 22:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Keep Shave this off the main Trump navbox, they're independently notable and it makes other navbox a little more manageable. LM2000 (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
      LM2000, as mentioned many times above, the Family section is used or is welcome on all major individual templates. Site consistency. Randy Kryn 11:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
    @Randy Kryn: We heard you. It doesn't help your case to restate your argument as an answer to every Keep supporter. — JFG talk 09:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
    Apparantly it needs to be repeated many times, as there are now two editors below who also think the family section should be 'trimmed' from the main template, thus making it the only exception I know of on individual templates. I've seen closers close these type of discussions in under a minute, thus not all closers study the questions raised and site consistency. There is really no need for this template, and if it is closed as 'Keep' certainly the section would stay on the main template if template consistency has any meaning here. Randy Kryn 21:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Keep and trim or collapse this material at the main Trump template. Surely we've worked nested navboxes into to something of a science at this point.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Keep and eliminate the family portion from the Donald Trump navbox.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2016 (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:Norse exploration of the Americas[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) 16:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

    Propose merging Template:Norse exploration of the Americas with Template:NorseAmerica.
    duplicate purpose Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

    • OnWikiNo, moved your merge discussion here per policy. Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Support since they're redundant.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:52, 25 December 2016 (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:Fool-scale discussion[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 per request. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

    Only used three times (can be subst'd there). This is redundant with various other talk page banner templates in the "be civil and keep cool" vein. This one has a flippantly chiding, WP:BITEy tone that shows its age (2007). As humor, it's not really funny, and it sends the wrong message (that the discussion itself is foolish).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

    • Gosh, there are so many discussions that this should go at the top of. Keep and spread! But if there's consensus to delete, please move it to my userspace, I could definitely use it. – Uanfala (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Delete -- I had a good laugh at it, but I agree it would look heavy handed if someone were to use it in a thread. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    • move to userspace Frietjes (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2017 (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:Shared IP 1[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 Relisted on 2017 January 3 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2017 (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]

    • None currently

    Geography, politics and governance[edit]

    Religion[edit]

    • None currently

    Sports[edit]

    Transport[edit]

    • None currently

    Other[edit]

    Primefac, the first three "completed", the last one I still need to do by hand, it's only about 50 articles. The problem with the first two (wayback and webcite.. mostly wayback) is IABot is still adding them at the rate of 50-100 a day so until IABot is upgraded, I can't complete the merger. I periodically re-run the merge script to catch up. -- GreenC 03:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
    Cyberpower678 and/or Kaldari, what's the best way to resolve this issue? Primefac (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
    IABot needs to have support for the new multipurpose template.—cyberpowerMerry Christmas:Unknown 13:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
    @Green Cardamom:, in case you didn't see ^. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

    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.

    That sounds like a good place to hold the conversation. Primefac (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

    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).

    • 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]