Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:TFD)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
"WP:TD" redirects here. For TemplateData, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/TemplateData.
"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 you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}. If it is an unused, hardcoded instance or duplication of another template, tag it with {{Db-t3|~~~~~|name of other template}}.
  • 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]

April 25[edit]

Template:1942 NCAA University Division independents football records[edit]

Unused and misnamed duplicate of the existing and correct Template:1942 college football independents records. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:2017 Division I independents football standings[edit]

Unused and misnamed duplicate of the existing and correct Template:2017 Division I FBS independents football standings. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Strongarm[edit]

There are only two items in the navigation template: the band and a member. No recordings or anything that should be listed in a nav template. The creator seems to have been using it as a list. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

April 24[edit]

Template:Editorial[edit]

Propose merging Template:Editorial with Template:Essay-like.
Exactly the same. Worse, "editorializing" has a totally different meaning in the Manual of Style that is not reflected in this template. Merge. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Mitsuru Meike[edit]

Insufficient navigation: only two entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:GPnotebook[edit]

No longer free access. It appears one needs to register / pay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete that's a real pity, this was a straightforward and cleanly written link for many anatomy articles. A pity to see it behind a paywall, but we are not here to offer advertisements to other websites, especially profit driven --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

April 23[edit]

Template:West Florida Argonauts football navbox[edit]

Two (2) links (w/main article as a redirect)... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There will be more as more years go by.... --Jpp858 (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Shorter Hawks football navbox[edit]

Two links (main article is a redirect)... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There will be more as more years go by.... --Jpp858 (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jpp858: That's not the point... the point is there are 11 years that could have an article, but they don't. How do we know if the future seasons will be created? The primary purpose of the navigation boxes is that they navigate. This one obviously doesn't, nor does West Florida in the section above. Until there is at least five (5) active links total in the navboxes, they should be deleted. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:R to anthroponymy page[edit]

Confusing, unnecessary, and only used on a few redirects. All of them are about names similar to "Alphonse" for some reason. I don't think an article should have anthroponymy in the title, anyways. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep Whats confusing? Its cleary says that the redirect pages are used to indicate that the links aren't mistakes, like linking to a disambiguation page via "page name (disambiguation)" Christian75 (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously. Template has a clearly defined purpose, exactly analogous to redirects to dab pages, but differentiated because anthroponymy pages are treated differently. —swpbT 13:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. There shouldn't be a need for any redirects with "(anthroponymy)" as the disambiguator, let alone a dedicated rcat to them. See WP:APOTITLE for the disambiguators that the Anthroponymy project uses—"(Anthroponymy)" isn't one of them. -- Tavix (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Use other rcat templates for dabs.   Pariah24    19:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Nominator's alternative proposal: Move to {{R to set index article}}--Mr. Guye (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I still don't see the point of such an rcat. Unlike {{R to disambiguation page}} redirects like these aren't needed for technical reasons (WP:INTDABLINK). -- Tavix (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox rugby league biography[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox rugby league biography with Template:Infobox rugby biography.
During the course of implementing the rugby union merge, I noticed that both {{infobox rugby biography}} and {{infobox rugby league biography}} have parameters for both codes of play. In fact, "rugby bio" has more league parameters than "league bio" itself! There is no need for multiple templates to do exactly the same thing. Primefac (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

As an additional note, there are a few subpages of "league bio" that will rather unnecessary after a merge, so they can probably be deleted. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
As someone who edits mostly one side of the fence, could you please explain what the nature of the proposed merge would be. A scan read of the discussion from rugby fans did not see a clear direction on what is to be done, apart from a broad yes three into one makes sense, let's do it. Given that so many players have played both codes it makes sense that both sides of rugby would need to be involved in the discussion on what is being asked. Also cricket and AFL has links I believe.Fleets (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Fleets, I'm not sure what you mean. The end template would allow for backwards compatibility (in the short-term) for both templates. Given that (in my opinion) "rugby bio" is better coded (mostly because it doesn't rely on table sub-templates) the parameters and any missing information from "league bio" would be merged into "rugby bio". Primefac (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess the main difference, is that the rugby bio will have to be expanded to allow for number of tries, goals and field goals - rather than just the current points total. Is someone willing to do that work? I also have a number of questions, such as why does the rugby bio treat State of Origin and City v Country separate from other representative games? Why does it include amateur and youth teams, which are usually not notable (anymore)? etc. Maybe it is better to create a combined one involving both projects, before a merger proposal. Mattlore (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Mattlore, I have no idea why Super / SOO / CvC / etc get their own params. It was there before I started work on the merge so I left them in, and this discussion never reached a conclusion to remove them. Might be worth re-opening that discussion, though that's not really in the scope of this proposal.
I have zero issue removing youth/amateur listings, but that also isn't relevant to this discussion.
As for the points - this discussion found that having every combination of scoring was excessive, and just the total points was required. It's never been discussed on the league template, which is probably why it's still there. I agree with that discussion's consensus - having every scoring possibility just makes things too messy, but if the templates are merged I have no issues with starting a new discussion to sort that out. Primefac (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess in union points is a messier situation as they have more scoring rules (with cons and pens being worth different points). At this stage, I don't think I'd support a merge and then have discussions - I'd rather have the discussions first, so we know what we are agreeing to, or otherwise keep the two sports separate. Mattlore (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I also think the templates should remain separate. As @Fleets: mentioned above, a number of players also played cricket and AFL. How far do we want to take the merging? Would it not be possible to make both templates embeddable, i.e. allow for the rugby union template to include a rugby league section and vice versa? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
They are both embeddable, as they are both based off Template:Infobox. Verdun Scott is an example of the RL and cricket infoboxes merged together in the same page. Mattlore (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
"embed" and "child" are both invalid parameters for Infobox rugby biography. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, question for the above. Why again are you opposed to having both rugby codes in the same template? The way I read it, it's either "we might lose our points specificity", "it has too many irrelevant parameters", and "some rugby players also play cricket". I'm sorry, but none of those make any sense as a reason to oppose the merger of two (nearly) functionally identical templates. Primefac (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My view is that the RL project might lose some functionality, as the two templates are not identical. Until I am clear on if this is the case or not (ie until I am clear on what I am supporting) then I don't want to support the merge. But, in saying that, that does not mean I am opposed to the idea of having one infobox. Mattlore (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
My intention would not be to lose any functionality (trust me, it took me six hours, 1000 lines, and 1600 parameters to perform the previous merge to keep everything working). As with every other "big" merger I've witnessed and/or participated in at TFD, merging doesn't just mean hacking-and-slashing things together; as much as feasibly possible, the content of both templates is maintained.
I know the league folk (at least those posting here) love them some points stats, but quite frankly there has never been a proper discussion regarding whether to keep or ditch the points breakdown. That doesn't mean that if this merger goes through we cannot keep the points breakdown, it just means if the merger goes through that discussion needs to be held. While I personally think it's too much detail and bloats the IB, if the consensus goes the other way I'll still do my best to code it (and/or help out) and make it look good.
For me, it really just comes back to this - we have two templates that do almost the same thing (i.e. both have league and union capabilities). Why are we keeping them separate? And if they really should be separate, then we should strip all union params out of the league template, and vice versa. This half-and-half stuff is kind of silly, and the entire reason I brought it here. Primefac (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Primefac, if amateurism precludes presumed notability then your streamlined infobox (with amateur fields removed) would not be used for Rugby Union subjects before 1995. In which case we would create a separate Rugby Union template to be used for those subjects meeting the General Notability criteria. Clearly in these cases there needs to be a different infobox to cater for subjects in the 100 years before 1995 going back to 1895 (when RL was created due to the ongoing amateurism of RU) and before, for cases such as Robert Seddon playing for amateur teams from the 1870s. -- Ham105 (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Never said I had any issue with youth/amateur, I was just saying I have strong attachment towards those parameters (and that the keeping/removing of those parameters isn't really relevant here). Your rationale makes for a good argument to keep them in, though. Primefac (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It does my head in when union players have a league template following a move over to union (eg - Denny Solomona) for one specific reason; they aren't called field goals in union! Would this merge actually be an improvement, would it actually make all the ru/rl pages better, or is this just one persons opinion or frustrations? MunsterFan2011 (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I actually came up with a "real rugby union" infobox but unfortunately, i tried to get it used for 6-7 years now to no avail but yes a merge would be a silly idea cause there is no such thing as a Field Goal in union, they have one less parameter, they have "Games/Try/Goal/Field Goal" whereas union has "Caps/Try/Conversion/Penalty/DropGoal" and i have complained about why we use the league infobox for dual-code players previously but accepted it because its a much better option to use than the current "soccer" infobox (with 2 options ONLY of Caps/Goals which is beyond idiotic) which we currently use for rugby union players, so i support the merge...we have to start somewhere..--Stemoc 09:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In principle I support the idea of one template but I think that, certainly on the RL side there are too many unanswered (unasked?) questions about what should be in there to make the merge sensible at the moment. For example, the existence of the CvC SOO sections show a huge emphasis towards RL in the Southern hemisphere and the RL part doesn't meet the needs of representative level RL in the Northern hemisphere.
Is another option a basic biography template like {{infobox person}} with insertable child modules covering the two different codes? That way the participants in each project can tailor the module of what there needs of independently of each other. It might in the long term suggest a solution for the examples cited above of people who played other sports too. Nthep (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
If League wants SOO / CvC removed from the template, then we'll remove it. If someone has a question, I'll answer it. If someone has an alternate proposal, I'll listen to it. This is a discussion, after all. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe I don't fully understand this proposal but if we go through with something such as just one infobox supporting both codes, will it change the look significantly to what is used now? If it's going to look different than what they are now that would be alot of work to transfer existing articles infoboxes into a new one. Perhaps that's something your willing to do? Or am I on the wrong track? I have noticed there are a couple (maybe a few) infoboxes for rugby union bios and personally I'm only used to working with what I believe is the older one. For example: JNicol pumps out articles with the newer version. The majority of articles use the older version like I do. As for Rugby league I've only used one infobox when writing articles. I don't think I support a merger, however I will help out rewriting them if something goes through. Sirpottingmix (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Northwestern State Lady Demons softball navbox[edit]

Two links (used in two (2) articles)... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 08:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tetsuya Takehora[edit]

Insufficient navigation: only one entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, only connects two articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:This?[edit]

4 transclusions, and 3 of them unto itself or its subpages. Honestly quite pathetic. And anyways, if content needs to be linked, be bold. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, apparently rarely needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

April 22[edit]

Template:Central Arkansas Sugar Bears softball navbox[edit]

Two links... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete redundant navbox Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, only connects two articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Pp-main-page[edit]

This template does not appear to be in use anymore. Should it be deleted or simply marked as historical? (It has a fair amount of links) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and add to {{c-uploaded}}, as that seems to be its intended use case. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
    Doesn't seem to be used however. Maybe merge the code of the pp template into the c-upload one? (Perhaps even make the latter template produce an error message if the file is edit or indefinitely protected, as none of these two things are in its scope) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Merging sounds good too. I'm not too familiar with when {{c-uploaded}} is necessary - as far as I understand it's merely as a backup when the bots are down now? – Train2104 (t • c) 20:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{c-uploaded}}; unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me
    13:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • redirect as suggested, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Viral life cycle[edit]

This illustrates influenza virus only. Other viruses replicate differently. It gives incorrect information by implying that all viruses replicate like this. Graham Beards (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Rename Per the argument of the nominator it should simply be renamed to "Template:Influenza virus life cycle". Why delete though? Debresser (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • rename, seems useful. Frietjes (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:KNUTE[edit]

only one active link, provides no navigation Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, connects two articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Higher education in Crimea[edit]

Provides navigation to two or three articles only, unused since 2015 Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: it needs reformation, but for now does not seem to be useful. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Has many entries, just that not many are articles yet. The potential, however, is there. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
That seems to go against the principle of a WP:NAVBOX being for navigation, it would be better to create the articles first before creating this template. At the moment it is mostly a list and that doesn't help any reader. Aloneinthewild (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand, with categories it is a rule that we look at the potential. Although I agree with you that with templates we do not have such a rule, I think we should cut some slack to an area which on Wikipedia is not yet as developed as e.g. the US, by which I mean the Crimea. Debresser (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Higher education in Uman[edit]

only one active link for navigation Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • make sure the list is in Uman, then delete. 14:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Article probation[edit]

Article probation is no longer used by ArbCom and has replaced with discretionary sanctions on article it was previously active on. No need for this template, other than maybe redirecting it to Template:Ds? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 23:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:NHL on Global[edit]

Once you remove the commentators per WP:PERFNAV, and the articles that do not have any relation to the actual coverage of the sport by the network (the games, etc), you are left with one link! Rob Sinden (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Your comments that the games themselves have no relation to the actual coverage of the sport by the network makes absolutely no sense. It would be sort of like saying that you can't acknowledge that NBC was the American network that broadcast this particular year's Stanley Cup Finals since they don't go hand and hand one way or another. Whether you want to admit it or acknowledge it or not, these games in question were broadcast by SOMEBODY in particular. Again, you're not reading between the lines and having an extremely narrow focus. You're just taking something that you seemingly didn't actually bother to read into or fully understand such as its context and therefore, decided that you might as well throw the baby out with the bathwater. BornonJune8 (talk) 01:59 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The articles are about the finals, not the coverage. Where on the 1987 Stanley Cup Finals article (for example) does it discuss in any detail the coverage of the finals by the Global network? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, the beauty of Wikipedia is that you could always add the broadcasting information in a section about that. It isn't like we could just create a separate article about the television coverage of said Stanley Cup Finals.
BornonJune8 (talk) 16:20 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. if you remove the broadcasters and the tangential sections, you are left with nearly nothing. Frietjes (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Bill Willis Trophy[edit]

Not career-defining. Minor award that receives minimal media coverage. One of several given by the Touchdown Club of Columbus. Lizard (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, not career-defining per nom. Frietjes (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Uw-userspacenoindex[edit]

Now that userspace is NOINDEX'ed by default, this template message is unnecessary. — Train2104 (t • c) 23:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep Unfortunately the default setting can be overridden – see this current discussion. When setting a user page or subpage back to "no index", it is very useful to have this template to explain to the user what has been done: Noyster (talk), 07:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The template could use a rewrite, since it's now a matter of removing __INDEX__ not adding __NOINDEX__. But given the typical use pattern of user warning templates, I'm not sure if it's accepted practice to significantly change the tone/wording/meaning of an existing template under the same name. (since indexing is now a manual decision, a "you shouldn't index this!" should probably be a little stricter) — Train2104 (t • c) 13:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, but fundamentally rewrite to reflect the update and with a stricter tone per Train2104 and Noyster.--Mr. Guye (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Current Scottish MSPs[edit]

Out of date and redundant. See Category:Scottish Parliament membership navigational boxes for how templates for members of the Scottish Parliament are organised. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Would this be useful if it was updated? Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, unless someone wants to update it and start adding to articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:British honours system[edit]

Propose merging Template:British honours system with Template:Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom.
For collected overview per WP:Consistency with other equivalent national templates. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. ratings[edit]

Unnecessary and unrepresentative of the series as a whole; these templates are not used for full season-order series, as it becomes far too cramped. -- AlexTW 16:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete unused Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete per AlexTheWhovian. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Readd to article, and subst, and delete the template - and discuss on the articles talk page (it was removed from List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes before it was nominated for deletion here). It looks like all the numbers are sourced in the article, and IMHO it gives a better "image" of the number of viewers then the numbers in each row. Christian75 (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@Christian75: I reiterate: the template is unrepresentative of the series as a whole; if the template was indeed expanded to display all four seasons, these templates are still not used for full season-order series, as it becomes far too cramped. -- AlexTW 09:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:2017 Thai League 3 Upper Region[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 G7 by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 11:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Article in template space, duplicating 2017 Thai League 3 Upper Region. Unused as a template. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • delete or move to user space, fork of 2017 Thai League 3 Upper Region. Frietjes (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • comment No one disagree it should be deleted (or moved). Its look like a sandbox version which by some strange reason was done in template space (user has nearly 10000 edits). Ask the creator if they want it moved back to user space, or sppedy deleted as G2: test page or G6: house keeping by an admin. Christian75 (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
delete or move per Frietjes Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not sure whether the template should be kept, but I am sure that the non-free File:T3 logo 2017.png should not be being used in it per WP:NFCC#9. Non-free iamges are only allowed to be used (i.e., displayed) in the article namespace in accordance with WP:NFCCP. Adding the image to a template will automatically add the file to any pages, which may not be in accordance with relevant policy. I have removed the file from the template, but it should not be added if the consensus is to keep this. Consider adding a freely licensed or public domain image instead if an image is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted per WP:G7 as the creator of the page blanked it. They're also blocked for socking/disruptive editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 24 April 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:2017 Thai League 3 Lower Region[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 G7 by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 11:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Article in template space, duplicating 2017 Thai League 3 Lower Region. Unused as a template. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

delete or move per Frietjes Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted per WP:G7 as the creator of the page blanked it. They're also blocked for socking/disruptive editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 24 April 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:2017 Thai FA Cup[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 11:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Article in template space. Unused as a template. Content fork of 2017 Thai FA Cup. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

delete or move per Frietjes Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted per WP:G7 as the creator of the page blanked it. They're also blocked for socking/disruptive editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 24 April 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:2017 Thai League 2[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 G7 by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 11:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This is an article in template space. It is a content fork of 2017 Thai League 2. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

delete or move per Frietjes Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Incubate into a draft or userify into userspace so ‎Rukkiet can edit improve it enough for a mainspace as part of the existing article.--Mr. Guye (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Rukkiet: Seriously, you should comment here.--Mr. Guye (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted per WP:G7 as the creator blanked it. They're also now blocked for socking/disruptive editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 24 April 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:Toxik[edit]

With only four pages actually existing (five if counting main band), it's far too soon for this band to warrant its own navbox, though no prejudice against recreating once more material warrants articles. The links right now can all easily be included on the band's page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • weak keep strong keep, connects 5 articles. Frietjes (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • That's too few, and actually why it should (for now) be deleted, not kept. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    thank you for your opinion, I have updated mine. Frietjes (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Yūji Tajiri[edit]

Insufficient navigation. After articles on nn films have been deleted or redirected (see prior version), only two articles remain that are actual articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete not nearly enough to warrant a navbox, though could perhaps be restored after more subjects are worth having their own articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

April 21[edit]

Template:Notts County L.F.C. squad[edit]

Club no longer exists Telfordbuck (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, defunct = no current squad. Frietjes (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:2TeamBracket-Tennis3NoSeeds[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

now redundant to {{2TeamBracket-Tennis3|seeds=no}} Frietjes (talk) 19:46, 21 April 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:16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis7-NoSeeds[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

now redundant to {{16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis7|seeds=no}} Frietjes (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Unnecessary now. Mohsen1248 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 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:16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis5-NoSeeds[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per author approval Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

now redundant to {{16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis5|seeds=no}} Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Unnecessary now. Mohsen1248 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 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:8TeamBracket-Tennis5-NoSeeds[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per author approval Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

now redundant to {{8TeamBracket-Tennis5|seeds=no}} Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Unnecessary now. Mohsen1248 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 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:4TeamBracket-Tennis5-NoSeeds-with 3rd[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per author approval Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

now redundant to {{4TeamBracket-Tennis5|seeds=no}} Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 21 April 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:Shooting Stars[edit]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Neopaganism-sidebar[edit]

Propose merging Template:Neopaganism-sidebar with Template:Neopaganism.
Reasons: 1. they are the same template, with the same content, being different only in structure and location; 2. the sidebar template that I have proposed to merge is used in a smaller number of pages than the other; and ultimately, 3. the sidebar template is cumbersome. 82.48.45.216 (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. In my opinion, navbars are infinitely more useful and less cumbersome than sidebars, which can be at best unsightly and at worst disruptive to a good page flow and appearance. Huntster (t @ c) 15:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: be rid of the sidebar, merge it into the bottom bar. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:2018–19 Eredivisie table[edit]

Too soon per policy: see WP:CRYSTAL. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:2021–22 Eredivisie table[edit]

Too soon per policy: see WP:CRYSTAL. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

April 20[edit]

Template:Longterm4im[edit]

Probably not used, considering that it's the only template whose name starts with "Longterm". Steel1943 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep/move I do use it occasionally. If it were to be moved to uw-longterm4im and added to WP:WARNING, it might find more use. There are a number of long-term vandals that should be templated with this. Jim1138 (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Just templated with this and the IP just was blocked for three years (school block) Jim1138 (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Camden Riversharks roster[edit]

Defunct team Spanneraol (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete being that they are now defunct a current roster template is pointless. MJHankel (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:BigPage[edit]

Redundant with {{Very long }}. Last thing we want is more templates of this nature spammed all over. Template is not maintenance related nor does it direct editors to pages on said problem...be it help or maintenance. Moxy (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Please stop tagging things. It doesn't help anything except getting a high edit count. The worst thing that can be done to a big page is to add clutter. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{Very long}} since it is plausible title and that template already serves the same function that this one likely would. Sakuura Cartelet Talk 21:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Recentism[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 Withdrawn. That, and it looks as though some bold fixes have already been made to Template:Recentism. Steel1943 (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Recentism with Template:Current.
The differences between these two templates is not all that clear. Both could potentially refer to recent events, whether or not the subject of the article itself is an event or not (such as if recent events are affecting an article that is about a notable person.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support: No need for two templates of basically the same thing. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I think this editor replicates/illustrates my point best when it comes to these two templates being too similar. Cyrus the Penner's first edit was about a month ago, making them a relatively new editor on Wikipedia. If someone who may not be to familiar with how Wikipedia works looks at the current default wording for these two templates and not navigate to the links in the templates, they seem almost identical. Steel1943 (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
      • @Steel1943: On the other hand, the editor's newness might also explain how they don't understand the subtleties of each template. One is a prod to fix systemic issues with an article (ie. "slanted") and can be left on an a page indefinitely; the other is a warning about the volatility of information (ie. "changing rapidly") of current events articles. These are very different situations, and it is very possible a new editor has not seen the breadth of use cases in Wikipedia to understand this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose 2 very different templates use for to very different purposes. One is a maintenance template used to help organize cleanup and inform readers the article may be slated towards new info. The other is to inform readers and editors that this is a new page or section and is currently undergoing changes....not a cleanup tag...but a Wikipedia:Current event templates. What links here is a good indication of there purpose for being. --Moxy (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Moxy: Sort of replicating my concern below, do you by chance know if another template was merged into Template:Current recently? If don't recall its default description/text being so precise that it doesn't sound like it covers subjects affected by recent events when the subject is not an event itself. Steel1943 (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
      This can be disregarded. There doesn't seem to have been any type of merge per the template's edit history. Steel1943 (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nomination - As Moxy said, these two templates have very different purposes, and should be kept distinct. One is a cleanup request, and one is informational that is put at the top of current events/breaking news articles, and is eventually removed over time. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Snow close as another nomination of a maintenance template by an editor who didn't think through the difference between them. Debresser (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    Nope, I did and thus why I made this nomination. If these two templates are supposed to be distinct from each other, additional clarity is needed on one template and/or the other. In fact, I don't remember Template:Current having such a precise description as it currently does; I'm assuming this may have been the result of another template being merged into it itself. Steel1943 (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Moxy. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - while the two templates are similar they are geared twords two different types of articles, and thus should be kept distinct in my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. So these two templates are very different in purpose. "Recentism" is a maintenance tag, used for articles that have a problem (i.e., excessive emphasize on recent events over historical events — an example would be where a recent minor or middling controversy consumes 10%, 20%, or more of an article on a university, corporation, etc. Current is an informational tag used not when anything is necessarily wrong with an article, but when edits are fast-moving because it's in the news. The problem that nominator identifies is that "Current" template seems geared toward events rather than biographies. But that problem can be solved by putting {{current|section|date=January 2017}} in the proper section of the biography at issue. Neutralitytalk 02:46, 21 April 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).

April 19[edit]

Template:Ardabil Province Labelled Map[edit]

Only one use. subst: and delete. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 23:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Apayao labelled map[edit]

Unused. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 23:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I have transcluded it to Apayao. Laurdecl talk 23:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Ardabil Province Labelled Map[edit]

Only one use. subst: and delete. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 23:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Albanian counties labelled map[edit]

0 transclusions. Maybe subst: to Divisions of Albania but still delete. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 23:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I have transcluded it to Administrative divisions of Albania. Laurdecl talk 23:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Africa Labelled Map[edit]

Only one use. subst: and delete. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 23:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:White African residence map[edit]

subst: and delete: only used in one article. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 23:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep, as organizing that particular image as a navbox is far more efficient and allows for ease of editing with all the code that otherwise be involved. It's the norm for some images with colour codes and multiple location markers to be organized as a template for this precisely this reason. It should be considered in this context, instead of simply as a one-off navbox. --Katangais (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Rio[edit]

WP:NENAN, only four links. Previous AFD closed as "no consensus" Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 22:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, as box is underpopulated and its premise of vague coverage seems rather unnecessary. --Katangais (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:John Pasquin[edit]

WP:NENAN, only four links. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep There is 5 links and templates with similar number of links have been kept in the past.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:MissGrandCountries[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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Template dependent on an article that has been deleted at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grand International (3rd nomination)). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as the parent article has been deleted and salted at AFD. Legacypac (talk) 09:00, 20 April 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:APAWiR2015[edit]

Redundant with the new/superior {{WIR-1}}. The template should be replaced with the new one and then deleted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Merge. The new template set appears to be a clear improvement, nothing will be lost by the merge, and there is no need for having two sets of tags for this information. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tamaulipas TV[edit]

There were once eight templates linked from this template used in templates like {{Tampico TV}}. Now there are three (the other five have all been TfD'd because there were no non-repeater stations). Subst this and get on with it. Raymie (tc) 07:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Headhunter series[edit]

An unnecessary and redundant template article. There are two Headhunter games: Headhunter (video game) and Headhunter Redemption. Wikipedia guidelines stats that only a primary article is made when there's 3 video game articles in a series and an unrelated video game or media item. This doesn't seem to fall under that per WP:NCVG. Neverrainy (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Isotope list[edit]

Procedural nomination following the closing of this AFD. The articles these templates were used on are now deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete all per the reasons I set out in the AfD, where there was a strong consensus to delete these. Thanks for nominating them. Laurdecl talk 15:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Also adding to this nomination: Template:Isolist and its subpages (Template:Isolist/m, Template:Isolist/ms/3i, etc), which were also used only for the now-deleted pages. Laurdecl talk 06:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:Accessibility. Although the fortunate sighted users can learn to read navbox {{isotope_index}} as a periodic table format, those of us with limited sight are helped by the lists of full element names in Template:Isotope_list, where we can even text-search for "gold" or "silv" or "uran" to find the element link to click. Unless a sighted user knows symbol "Ag" is silver, then even many users would prefer using {{Isotope_list}} rather than {Isotope_Index} to click between the various isotope pages. Keep per wp:Accessibility. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note: only {{isotope list}} has been relisted. Its subpages (nominated here) received no opposition to deletion. I'm relisting this in order to potentially address the ACCESS concerns.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is still a delete for me. {{Isotope list}}, is unused. If there are accessibility concerns with the periodic table format, then that template should be improved with alt texts or whatever. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Likewise. If someone is searching for isotope data tables then they known what the symbol for silver is. Also, they can use the full name in the search box. @Primefac: What about Template:Isolist and its subpages (Template:Isolist/m, Template:Isolist/ms/3i, etc), which Headbomb also tagged for deletion? Also used only in the now deleted article. Laurdecl talk 02:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Laurdecl, I thought they were deleted; the script must have missed them. Primefac (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:WNBA labeled map[edit]

/subst. Only used in one article--no need to be a separate document. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 00:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @Koavf: Also a serious TfD nomination. Eyesnore 01:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per my comments on the Zambia template at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 29. Basically, with a big piece of code like this template, segregating the code onto a separate page reduces the risk of accidental damage to the page. Nobody needs to edit this code in normal circumstances, and in the rare situation such as this where you have lots of complicated code whose modification will make a mess without being obvious when you look at the code, we should ensure that it's not edited by anyone who's not meaning to edit it. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete per nom, as a template only used on one page. Pppery 17:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, per User:Nyttend's comments above. --Katangais (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:LTA[edit]

LTA userpage tag that never caught on. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, not used. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me
    14:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

April 18[edit]

Template:2013 Patriot League men's soccer navbox[edit]

One linked article... fails to navigate per WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Yumi Yoshiyuki[edit]

Films by director navigation template where all of the film articles have been deleted, leaving one blue link. No useful navigation left. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, navigates nothing. Frietjes (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:NBLPlayoffBracket2016[edit]

I merged these with the articles, so they are no longer needed as stand-alone templates. Frietjes (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Scottish (Pre-1707) elections[edit]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Str len/core[edit]

Aside from test pages, this template is no longer widely used (supplanted by Module:String apparently). It should also be delisted from WP:CASC if deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Unprotect and mark historical as a textbook example of how clumsy such templates were before Lua. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Train2104's proposal as this clearly has historical value. I'm wondering if such templates from the old days shouldn't be somehow properly archived so that they're available as a historical reference in a way that doesn't clutter the template namespace, but without going to the trouble of having them deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

IFAF World Cup roster navboxes[edit]

These navboxes denote the rosters of the three teams finished in the top three at the 2011 IFAF World Championship. This is a tournament of relatively minor note and membership on these rosters is not defining to the subjects listed in these navboxes. Furthmore the Japan navbox contains only one valid blue link among its list items, and it's questionable whether the other red-linked players are notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Prod hint[edit]

Are these that common situations that a prewritten template message is required? I don't think so, at least not anymore. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't deal with deletion and novice editors, but these template messages look sensible enough. I think the situation in #1 arises pretty commonly, so at the least this one should be kept. – Uanfala (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • #1 and #3 should be kept: #1 because PROD without giving a rationale is very common, and #3 because nominating for AfD when PROD could be used wastes editors' time. #2 should be deleted because the speedy deletion notification templates serve the same purpose (notifying a user about the tagging for speedy deletion of a page the user created). #2 should also be kept because nominating for PROD when CSD could be used wastes editors' time. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 12:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Re #2: this isn't used to notify the creator of the page, but the person who prodded it. Do you think, Luis150902, that the generic speedy deletion notices can be used in this case as well? – Uanfala (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Answer: No. My vote has just been updated. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 14:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • All of those should been kept while these templates are still useful. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 06:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't say I like this trend of templatifying every message one can think of. These generic and overly cheerful messages should only really be used for vandals, not new page patrollers. It really isn't that hard to type out a personal message. Laurdecl talk 23:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

April 17[edit]

Template:404 error[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 procedural close. Userboxes belong at WP:MFD. (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 05:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Patent nonsense. Also not used on Wikipedia's 404 page. UpsandDowns1234 (Talk to me) (My Contribs) 21:18, 17 April 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:Loki Entertainment[edit]

We don't keep navboxes for games produced by a company, as it's a non-defining trait and the games have next to no relation between each other. Specifically in this case, the publisher creates ports (versions of a game for a specific platform) and isn't even the main producer of the games. czar 17:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Caparica[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Being unused is fixed easily by adding it to the three articles listed in the template, and I did just that. So, keep, unless some other reason is provided - do you have any? (yes, I am Portuguese) - Nabla (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Capitals of Brazil[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Capitals of medieval Arab realms[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Card game categories[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:BocaRiverTable[edit]

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep, update as per Superclásico#Head-to-head_record, and use it at that location. Mariano(t/c) 08:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Making it a template only used in one article, which should be substituted and deleted for that reason. Pppery 17:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Pppery 17:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Warrington - 1973–74 Captain Morgan Trophy winners[edit]

Nominating this per WP:NENAN. Creating navboxes for the winning squads of minor rugby league competitions will just cause template creep. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep - First-grade trophy. Not sure I really need to add more, but the fact that it was so short-lived makes it all the more notable.Fleets (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the notability of the article – see my reply to DynamoDegsy below. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep - Although the Captain Morgan Trophy only ran for one season, it was competed for by the top sides of the era, and the competition is notable enough for its own article, so surely the winners (and the runners-up Featherstone Rovers) "deserve" a template? Best reagrds DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I've no problem with the article itself, or even the squads for the final being listed there - it's the navboxes which are excessive. I think it's fine to use navboxes for the winning squads of major tournaments, as they are often defining points of a player's career, but we have to draw a line somewhere, as overusing them just creates excessive clutter at the bottom of articles. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I would say you have landed on the wrong side of the line then. Were this to be the Emirates Cup then I could take your point, but a first-team trophy, with top flight sides in competition, during the regular season, then I really cannot understand your raising this as potential for deletion. By inference or otherwise, defining this as clutter does not put you in the best light I'm afraid, but thats Just My Opinion.Fleets (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
My reasoning is that it would set a bad precedent. Imagine what an article like Martin Dermott would look like if you included templates for squads of every Regal Trophy / Premiership / county cup final appearance - you'd end up with 20+ navboxes just for his Wigan career. It's complete overkill, and they cease to become useful for navigational purposes. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I can begin understand your reasoning, but you would be omitting the other portion of your reasoning there, that there would be players who had good solid careers, and that a final appearance was a defining point. Not saying I agree or disagree, just saying you can't put forward the half that supports your position.Fleets (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
By that logic you would end up creating them for everyone. Show me an example of another sports project on the Wiki that keeps team navboxes for such minor domestic competitions and I'll gladly re-consider. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
No-one is asking you to reconsider, that line you were looking to put in the sand, it is far to close to the sea and it is going to be washed away. In this instance I could go even further and say that this line that you're trying to draw was already in the water as first-grade, first team, in-season and a one-season only comp. To question it's existence is quite baffling.Fleets (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
At what point have I questioned its existence? I've made my position quite clear (established by previous consensus here). If you disagree, that's fine, but it's more helpful if you do so using policy or examples of consensus, and not constantly responding with such flippant remarks. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
If you are not seeking to remove this template from existence, than I retract any and all statements as I have misinterpreted your position. Unfortunately with that link you are comparing apples and pears. One of the examples was a potential Southampton navbox who were then in the third tier of English football, competing in a tier 3 and 4 trophy. The others were links to the wider sporting entity of the football club Fenerbache, again rugby league is downtrodden, but it is not Turkish volleyball and basketball. Yes they would be examples of consensus, but across a narrow field, and certainly should not be applied here, they could be the beginnings of a position, but certainly not one of strength. The strength of my comments were in direct proportion to the ludicrous nature of this template being brought up for discussion, but that's Just My Opinion.Fleets (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep - I'm ok with keeping this, but the runner up templates are clearly not notable (for any tournament). Mattlore (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Dark Horse tracks[edit]

This isn't what the template namespace is for: this template is hard-coded to be used only on the songs articles of the album.Gonejackal (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Selfsubst[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 G7 by Amalthea (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Template is apparently no longer used; no transclusions and insource:selfsubst shows only the usage of Template:Selfsubst/now string in some sensitive pages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Cool, I forgot about this little piece of template magic. I wrote those templates to automatize versioning of popups -- but removed that transclusion myself from the source in [1].
    Anyway, I'm fine with it being deleted, would do so myself -- but what do you mean with "insource:selfsubst", Jo-Jo Eumerus? I'm not aware that selfsubst or any of it's subpages are used anymore
    Amalthea 11:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Amalthea: "insource" is a prefix in the search function. It can be used to find text in the page source, such as in functions within a template. Useful if you want to find out whether a a parser function or switch calls a particular template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
    Ah I see. FTR, both {{Selfsubst}} and {{Selfsubst/_language/js}} *are* currently in use in all the pages that copied popups.js at the time, e.g. User:UncleDouggie/Gadget-popups.js. Test it: Press edit on that page and 'Show changes'.
    If you delete the selfsubst templates then please be sure to a) delete all the subpages! and b) *start* with {{Selfsubst/now string}}
    Otherwise I have no idea what will end up in those pages if they see edits. Substing a non-existant template will instead cause no changes at all, which is what you want.
    Amalthea 13:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:47, 17 April 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:Checkip/Preload[edit]

This template is no longer employed on Template:Checkip Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Still in use on the "tag" link of {{Checkip}}. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
    Hum. Is there a reason why it has to be in a subpage? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
    No, you can preload any template as far as I know, but why keep them under separate names? – Train2104 (t • c)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Checkuser/Preload[edit]

This template is no longer used by Template:Checkuser apparently Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Colorado State University presidents[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Two links, fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It is three links, but that is still not enough. Delete....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
keep, I added a couple more links. Frietjes (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nomination. Navbox now has more than four (4) links which is enough to navigate. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:01, 18 April 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).

April 15[edit]

Template:Tarō Araki[edit]

Insufficient navigation -- only two entries that are actual articles, the rest of the articles having been deleted as non notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Swtrial[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by CactusWriter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 02:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This almost looks like a test page, but given how old this (and that the author is still active) is I'm going to bring it here. Unused, not even in userspace. Is there any point in marking this historical as opposed to deleting it? – Train2104 (t • c) 19:37, 15 April 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:Translating with Google into Welsh[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

An...interesting user warning template that uses example Google Translate output to demonstrate how bad it is to use machine translation. But this is written for a user translating English -> Welsh, so I'm not sure what purpose this has on English Wikipedia. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, I would think this would be on the Welsh wikipedia. Frietjes (talk) 14:48, 16 April 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:Station exits[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 G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 23:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

A boilerplate sentence for stating suburban station ridership. We have several different change arrow templates, there's no need to do it this way. Unused. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - I agree with the nom's rational and cannot see that this could be of much use. Dunarc (talk) 19:12, 16 April 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:Jim Brown Award[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Navbox cruft; low-end college football award that receives negligible press coverage. Not a career-defining award, and hardly ever mentioned in the body of articles. The award is one of many given by the Touchdown Club of Columbus, and a list of winners is given on that page. Lizard (talk) 18:13, 15 April 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:Sammy Baugh Trophy[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Navbox cruft; low-end college football award that receives negligible press coverage. Not a career-defining award, and hardly ever mentioned in the body of articles. The award is one of many given by the Touchdown Club of Columbus, and a list of winners is given on that page. Lizard (talk) 18:13, 15 April 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:Paul Warfield Trophy[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Navbox cruft; low-end college football award that receives negligible press coverage. Not a career-defining award, and hardly ever mentioned in the body of articles. The award is one of many given by the Touchdown Club of Columbus, and a list of winners is given on that page. Lizard (talk) 18:13, 15 April 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:Jack Lambert Award[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Navbox cruft; low-end college football award that receives negligible press coverage. Not a career-defining award, and hardly ever mentioned in the body of articles. The award is one of many given by the Touchdown Club of Columbus, and a list of winners is given on that page. Lizard (talk) 18:13, 15 April 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:Jack Tatum Trophy[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Navbox cruft; low-end college football award that receives negligible press coverage. Not a career-defining award, and hardly ever mentioned in the body of articles. The award is one of many given by the Touchdown Club of Columbus, and a list of winners is given on that page. Lizard (talk) 18:13, 15 April 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:Archie Griffin Award[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Navbox cruft; low-end college football award that receives negligible press coverage. Not a career-defining award, and hardly ever mentioned in the body of articles. The award is one of many given by the Touchdown Club of Columbus, and a list of winners is given on that page. Lizard (talk) 18:13, 15 April 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:Chic Harley Award[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Navbox cruft; low-end college football award that receives negligible press coverage. Not a career-defining award, and hardly ever mentioned in the body of articles. The award is one of many given by the Touchdown Club of Columbus, and a list of winners is given on that page. Lizard (talk) 18:13, 15 April 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:Kellen Moore Award[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Navbox cruft; low-end college football award that receives negligible press coverage. Not a career-defining award, and hardly ever mentioned in the body of articles. The award is one of many given by the Touchdown Club of Columbus, and a list of winners is given on that page. Lizard (talk) 18:13, 15 April 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:Ozzie Newsome Award[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Navbox cruft; low-end college football award that receives negligible press coverage. Not a career-defining award, and hardly ever mentioned in the body of articles. The award is one of many given by the Touchdown Club of Columbus, and a list of winners is given on that page. Lizard (talk) 18:13, 15 April 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:College Football Freshman of the Year[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Navbox cruft; low-end college football award that receives negligible press coverage. Not a career-defining award, and hardly ever mentioned in the body of articles. The award is one of many given by the Touchdown Club of Columbus, and a list of winners is given on that page. Lizard (talk) 18:13, 15 April 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:Woody Hayes Coach of the Year[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Navbox cruft; low-end college football award that receives negligible press coverage. Not a career-defining award, and hardly ever mentioned in the body of articles. The award is one of many given by the Touchdown Club of Columbus, and a list of winners is given on that page. Lizard (talk) 18:13, 15 April 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:Sam Nicola Award[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Navbox cruft; low-end college football award that receives negligible press coverage. Not a career-defining award, and hardly ever mentioned in the body of articles. The award is one of many given by the Touchdown Club of Columbus, and a list of winners is given on that page. Lizard (talk) 18:13, 15 April 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:Politics of Vatican City[edit]

Propose merging Template:Politics of Vatican City with Template:Politics of the Holy See.
Largely overlapping, creating confusion. Vatican City is the territory. Holy See is the diplomatic and sovereign entity. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Sahaba's ancestors[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) 17:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

TfD reason #3: unused and unlikely to be used, considering the huge size and confusing layout. Violates WP:NOTGENEALOGY. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:37, 15 April 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:Elizabeth Gillies[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Not used in any articles Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete – in addition to be useless, it was created by a now-indeffed socker. --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough links to be useful. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:19, 18 April 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:Sofia Carson[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Template not used in any articles Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete – in addition to be useless, it was created by a now-indeffed socker. --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's a pretty useless template as most of the links are redirects, and it only has two articles that are actually directly relevant (the eponymous article and "Love is the Name"). If she does more independent work in the future, I think it could make sense to recreate the template, but at this moment, it's just not necessary or useful. -- Irn (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Irn and IJBall. Montanabw(talk) 08:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough links to be useful. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:19, 18 April 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:Category handler/numbered[edit]

This template is no longer used on Template:Category handler and I don't see code on Module:Category handler calling it either. If deleted this should be removed from WP:CASC Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Mark historical. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tamil films[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Feels redundant to Template:Tamil cinema, and it also falls under Category:Film country list navigational boxes, for which we have Template:Indian film list. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

  • comment and Template:Tamil cinema feels redundant to Template:Indian film list. I agree that we don't need both a sidebar and a navbox on the same page providing the same navigation, but it's not clear to me which one we want to keep. Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The one below. That's why I tagged this one for deletion. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:12, 15 April 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:Quantico (TV series)[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Not enough content for an infoox. The link to FBI Academy isn't related to the series, and the characters link is a redirect. -- AlexTW 22:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

  • delete, and replace with simple "see also" links. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Probably just about enough links to be useful. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Robsinden: How so? The three links in the first row are all available on the LoE article, and Alex Parrish is available on the main article. There's no need for this template, it gives nothing extra. -- AlexTW 07:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:NENAN suggests a "rule of five". This meets that. And please stop removing the template from the included articles until the outcome of this TFD is known. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Robsinden: The very title of WP:NENAN describes this case perfectly: Not everything needs a navbox. That is an essay, not a guideline or policy, and it still fails this "rule of five": are there presently at least five articles (not counting the primary article) on which your navbox will be used? No, there is not. Season 1, Season 2, Episodes, Parrish. If not, then you probably don't need a navbox just yet. Nor does this cover the absolute minimum number of links that this navbox provide - this template does not provide anything that the articles do not. Concerning your recent reverts to add the template, just as we revert unnecessary additions to prose, tables, infoboxes, etc., this applies to templates as well. It's unnecessary to include in the article - templates and navboxes don't just get an instant right to addition. The result of this TfD does not affect the exclusion of the navbox. As with all policy and style suggestions, common sense and consensus should prevail. -- AlexTW 08:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hence my "weak keep". And no, whilst the template exists, it should be transcluded on the articles in order to perform its usual function (and also to demonstrate to !voters here how it is employed). --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
You addressed none of the points that I just raised. It would be so kind of you if you did so. And again, it has no function, as it does nothing more than the articles do right now. Just as we would revert a cast table instead of a prose listing, as it's unnecessary, we should do the same. -- AlexTW 08:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Pinging you again, Robsinden. -- AlexTW 05:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't have much to add. There are navboxes with less entries out there. I've !voted for a weak keep. If it stays, it stays, if it goes, it goes, but while it still exists, it remains transcluded on the included pages so that it can perform its function. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
What guideline or policy can you link that states that if the navbox exists, it must be included? It's not doing any particular job, given that the currently existing articles are already doing said job. -- AlexTW 08:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
This is simply how a navbox works. You're making too big a deal out of this. Just wait for the outcome of the TFD, it will probably get deleted anyway... --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Then if it's going to be deleted, then it probably isn't required in the articles. -- AlexTW 08:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
At the moment, I don't think you can reach the episode or season articles from Alex Parrish without the navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 Fixed Face-smile.svg -- AlexTW 09:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
It's still easier to find those articles from the navbox than scouring the text. My weak keep remains. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- insufficient navigation & fancruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete too less content you can link it in the page and infobox. If there is lots more content then it would make more sense --Cs california (talk) 07:08, 17 April 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]

Geography, politics and governance[edit]

Religion[edit]

Sports[edit]

Transport[edit]

Other[edit]

Meta[edit]

To convert[edit]

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

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).

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.

Archive and Indices[edit]