Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:TFD" redirects here. For the page used for TimedText, Topic, or talk page deletion discussions, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
"WP:TD" redirects here. For TemplateData, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/TemplateData.
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Closing instructions

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

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

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

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

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

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

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

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

Listing a template[edit]

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

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

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

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

II List the template at Tfd.
Follow this link to edit today's Tfd log.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twinkle[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

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

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

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

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

February 7[edit]


February 6[edit]

Template:X11 color chart[edit]

Why is this a template? It is only used on one article and is a fairly straight forward set of table. Seems like it would be better for it just to be merged back into the web colors page. It is also misnamed as it is the SVG/CSS web colors instead of X11 color names. PaleAqua (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep — on the basis that it would probably be useful for the X11 article as well. Speaking as a contemporary user of NCSA Mosaic 0.5 (the original public alpha release), the W3C extended color names are directly derived from the X11 colors, and were a de facto standard for web use long before being formalised, from the very earliest days of the web. I believe they are still very closely aligned with X11 (either identical or with only a minor supplement). CSS Color Module Level 3 formally calls them the "X11 colors", although curiously uses X11 color names on Wikipedia as a reference, rather than something from the X.Org Foundation as a formal standard should do. So, I believe the name is not in any way unreasonable or fundamentally wrong. To me, they remains the "X11 colors", no matter what other standards adopt them for their own use, when those new standards essentially use them verbatim (with only very minor additions, no major deviations from the X11 standard). As for the merits of this template, some consideration should probably be given to whether it should be used on both "X11 color names" and "web colors". Minor additions / variations for CSS use (SVG defers to CSS) can (and should) be noted via footnotes. The issue of it being a target of persistent vandalism (according to revision history) also needs to be considered. Murph9000 (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    • The list of colors used by HTML / CSS / SVG is actually slightly different then the list used by X11, the 16 HTML colors replaced the similarly X11 colors for example hence why green is different between the two list. X11 color names also already has a full table of it's colors with a smaller chart showing the colors that are difference. I don't see why it would make sense to also have a complete list of the web colors which would be mostly the same. I am very aware of the origins of how the web colors ended up based on X11 colors, if the color wasn't in the HTML list of colors the code would just pass it through to X Windows and use that default. Which meant that the colors would work differently between Unix and Windows systems back in the the day. I actually did my first web page In late 92 before NCSA Mosaic. PaleAqua (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - as it's the only templated HTML/CSS color name chart I've found that is arranged into color groups. The others are all arranged alphabetically, which is useless if you're trying to find the RGB or Hex code for a particular shade of, for example, green. Call it whatever you want, and put it wherever we need to, but the chart needs to be retained. Is that what you mean by "merging" with Web colors? Sorry, I'm a bit of a noob when it comes to templates. - Tim D. Williamson yak-yak 02:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes that's what I mean by merging it. I don't see why it needs to be a template if it's used only in one place and doesn't use any advanced template meta programing that take advantage of being a template. PaleAqua (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Fremantle Football Club navboxes[edit]

Fail WP:NAVBOX #4 where "there should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template", and articles are unlikely to be made due to failing notability. Also in accordance with the recent deletions of AFL club awards where a consensus at WP:AFL has been reached to delete these type of awards. Flickerd (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Jenks24 (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool templates[edit]

See Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool: "AFT5 was removed from all Wikimedia wikis on March 3, 2014." Therefore, no need for these templates to be left on pages. See Category:Wikipedia feedback pages for pages that use it and see wasted posts made there in the last 30 days. Anything related to AFT is wasting time of any newbie who thinks it is still used. There are probably more useless pages related to AFT if anyone wants to weed them out. Rgrds. --64.85.216.192 (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Miss Czech Republic winners in the Grand Slam pageants[edit]

WP:NENAN. This template, and four others to be bundled with this discussion, link a total of two articles. Suggest delete and propose later recreation when more can be done here. C679 13:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as not needed clutter. Legacypac (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Bassets[edit]

All dogs covered in this template are already covered in Template:Hounds, Template:Pastoral dogs or Template:Terriers along with their national breed templates (Template:British dogs, Template:French dogs and Template:German dogs etc). Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Bradford City W.F.C.[edit]

Only used in the main article in a bunch of drafts for the seasons. Nothing but red links here. If there's a belief that the drafts are notable enough to mainspace then this could be useful. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - No useful purpose. Can be recreated if required in the future. JMHamo (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Sled dogs[edit]

Propose merging Template:Sled dogs with Template:Spitz.
Template:Sled dogs is completely covered by the Sled dogs group of Template:Spitz. This template should be merged into the latter. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - agreed, unless someone can show me a widely used sled dog breed that isn't a spitz type dog. - Tim D. Williamson yak-yak 02:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

February 5[edit]

Template:Village[edit]

given that {{infobox village}} is a redirect to {{infobox settlement}}, it's not clear why we need yet-another-frontend for {{infobox settlement}}. I could see having a 'substitution-only' version for translating articles, but that would not be named 'village' and it would also not use 'blank' parameters for things like population and density. Frietjes (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this template is match for more in village article in indonesia, density and population are need, that is for complete information on village, but this template allow to use other country beside indonesia.

Regars -- Face-smile.svg Ays (Talk) 14:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Top video game publishers[edit]

Arbitrary collection of publishers and distributors, based upon revenue. But that's original research, what would be "major" or "mid-sized"? The sources provided aren't reliable. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#New_navbox. @Czar: I've nominated it for deletion. Soetermans. T / C 15:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep There has been a lot of discussion about this being based on WP:OR, but I would like to ask anyone who closes this to discount these !votes. It's all based on reliable sources, to at least the degree that most articles are not WP:OR. It's highly referenced from reliable sources. Its based on the fact that I have not listed all publishers and digital distributors of games. Why is that? Because the size would simple be too big: there are thousands of video game publishers, including the fact that many developers also self publish to some degree. It would make no sense to list Tencent (with revenue of 78 billion renminbi) next to a defunct publisher. No navbox exists for video game publishers, and it is not suprising given the level of misunderstanding I have encountered. Also it is not an article (or else I could reference every single entry), and for non-articles it fully complies with WP:NAVBOX. So whoever closes that should bear this in mind when closing.
Also I've used sources outside WP:VG/RS, but can they honestly pretend that it contains all reliable sources? It obviously won't contain reliable and reputable market research organizations will it? It beggars belief...--Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
No Mrjules, you haven't used reliable sources. This is the third time I'm mentioning this, have you checked WP:VG/RS? Is this not coming through to you? Regardless, you shouldn't have to use sources for a navbox rationale, because navboxes are intended for navigation between related articles. While the concept of "video game publisher" is a subject and has its own article, "top video game publishers" is not. It's not clear that you're talking about revenue, but even then there's the fact that it was you personally who made the arbitrary distinction of what constitutes as "major" and "mid-sized", whatever that means. Just because there aren't any navboxes for video game publishers means that there has to be one, you know. --Soetermans. T / C 17:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
There's List of video game publishers and Category:Video game publishers. This template is based upon their revenue, but that's not a subject of a Wikipedia article. It completely fails WP:NAVBOX:
  1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. The subject are video game publishers based upon revenue, which isn't a coherent subject.
  2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. As articles about companies, articles about video game publishers probably do mention revenue, it's not what those articles are about.
  3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. They don't.
  4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. There isn't one. --Soetermans. T / C 17:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Changing tack now?
  1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. Correct.
  2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. Correct.
  3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. Correct.
  4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. Video game publisher and Digital distribution
  5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. Well maybe not every article, but it would certainly be favorable for Video game publisher and Digital distribution and List of video game publishers.

--Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Tack? Video game publisher is not the same as Video game publisher revenue, you do realize that don't you? You claim there are too many publishers, so you've decided to make one based upon revenue. That's arbitrary on your part, and original research. --Soetermans. T / C 17:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Its too broad of a subject, and too hard to enforce inclusion criteria on something like a template. And while revenue is a concrete criteria, where you draw the line and label it, is original research. In short, neither the neither the industry or the world in general organize them together in this manner, so I don't believe Wikipedia should either. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. This was discussed at WTVG, as mentioned in the lede. The subject is a broad category best handled as a cat and maybe list, but the items are not interconnected enough to warrant a navbox. It has serious (irreconcilable) scope issues and the criteria for major/mid is original research. For more explanation, see the original thread. czar 20:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete but not for the above reasons. OR is a potential worry but it's a Wikipedia template, we're allowed some leeway. No, the problem is that this template has nowhere to go, unless it's stuck at the bottom of every company on the list, which would be ridiculous and a classic case of template-itis where there's 20 random templates at the bottom of a Wikipedia article. It's just not a useful template. Coca-Cola Company does not have a template link to Pepsi-co in the bottom of the article (although, checking, it does have a link to the Dow Jones companies... a useless template I'd rather see deleted, though.). SnowFire (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per arguments above. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WT:VG thread. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per arguments at WT:WP/VG. Poorly related items (articles don't link between themselves and are not directly related) and criteria (top/mid is OR and sourcing on such division remains contested and ambiguous). As noted already, List of video game publishers and Category:Video game publishers serve this better without semi-OR grouping. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Cite pmid/12615090[edit]

Orphaned citation template. According to User:RussBot/Orphaned templates/004, this was orphaned in a 2009 database dump so it's been orphaned a while. Ricky81682 (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment Really, what is the point of nominating these templates one by one? There are thousands of them. Let the bots handle it. This also applies to the nomination below. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know the number of these that are orphaned. I was also proposing a speedy discussion about it and the issue of what's the TFD consensus is there. Old discussions have resulted in being kept so that it can be discussed more so I wanted to flush this out more. We can still delete this one and let the bots handle the rest since according to Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Orphaned_Category:Cite_doi_templates, there's 7094 orphaned ones and 4 in use. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete hardcoded instance of a citation template; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate database -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Cite doi/10.1001.2Farchneur.1971.00480340107013[edit]

Orphaned cite doi template. The template is deprecated but there's still over 58k pages in Category:Cite doi templates. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment While it seems pointless, I didn't know the number of these that are orphaned. I was also proposing a speedy discussion about it and the issue of what's the TFD consensus is there. Old discussions have resulted in being kept so that it can be discussed more so I wanted to flush this out more. We can still delete this one and let the bots handle the rest since according to Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Orphaned_Category:Cite_doi_templates, there's 27.9k orphaned at the moment which is roughly half. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete hardcoded instance of a citation template; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate database -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:KCC Malls[edit]

Template:Extinct volcanoes of the Andes[edit]

Propose merging Template:Extinct volcanoes of the Andes with Template:Andean volcanoes.
As noted on Template talk:Extinct volcanoes of the Andes, this template has problems with WP:OR (many of the volcanoes listed are not called "extinct" by sources), partly because the distinction is rarely meaningful and difficult to make. Further, the subdivision of extinct volcanoes in three volcanic zones makes no sense since the gaps separating them are defined by the lack of present day volcanism (c.f Andean Volcanic Belt and [1]). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose the merger because:
1. extinct volcanoes can not be fit into the four modern arcs of the Andean volcanic belt as it is currently done in Template:Andean volcanoes, and including them would therefore destroy an otherwise "round" template.
2. adding extinct (pre-Holocene) volcanoes to the Template:Andean volcanoes would make it a rather unselective dump with no clear end.
It would be better to delete Template:Extinct volcanoes of the Andes and create categories in the style of Category:Miocene volcanism in South America. Sietecolores (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Good points there. Taking note that things like Category:Volcanoes of Chile already exist, just deleting the "Extinct..." navbox may also work.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank for feedback Jo-Jo Eumerus. I was a bit a bit harsh in the in the opposition, but I see we seem to agree. I think the option for now is to delete the template and making a good categorization of everything that was on it. I like templates (for example: template:Major South American geological formations) but I am also concerned about the proliferation of templates that can be redundant (adds little or no value). Sietecolores (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Mission[edit]

This cleanup template references a very specific issue that is usually easier to fix immediately, or indicates some broader problem that is better tagged with {{advert}}, {{peacock}}, etc. At the moment, it has very few (or no) transclusions. It categorizes articles into Category:Articles with sections that need to be turned into prose, which is misleading; it implies a structural issue rather than a content issue. — Earwig talk 23:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; ridiculously specific issue that's unlikely to arise frequently; {{peacock}}/{{advert}} should suffice. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no requirement that templates address only frequently occurring issues. This template very clearly describes a quality issue that is seen in articles covering corporations or other organizations in a way that more generic quality tags don't. The lack of current transclusions can be explained not only by the size of the niche this addresses but also the effectiveness this template has in getting those issues addressed. I agree that categorization issues should be resolved but lets not through the baby out with the bathwater. --RadioFan (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment It can be hard to know if these templates are being used, because if they do their job, they will have no transclusions. At the same time, the fewer number of them, the less time editors waste looking for the right one. I'm leaning towards consolidation in this case... —PC-XT+ 00:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as overly specific. The problem doesn't appear to be on enough articles to warrant a split from {{advert}}. I wouldn't mind specific issue as subpoints and optional parameters on the main template. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Montana State Bobcats bowl game navbox[edit]

Navbox with just 3 links, only two of which are the topic of the Navbox. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Historical capitals of Serbia[edit]

Being a historical capital of Serbia is a quite ill-defined property: what's a "capital" in the 10th century? What was "Serbia" in 1526 and how Subotica was its "capital"? How Timisoara was a capital of Serbia in 1849–1860 I dare not even look up, as it isn't even mentioned in Timisoara article. Even if it were better defined, it still clearly fails the criterion at WP:NAV: "Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?". It could be made into a list with clear explanation of the "capital" or "Serbia", but a valid navbox it isn't. No such user (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice that it has been nominated before, at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 17. Still, I believe that the issue is worth revisiting, and that having been some kind of capital of some form of Serbia is not a property which would make anyone navigate from one article to the other (except out of sheer curiosity how it was Timisoara or Debrc). No such user (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per point in previous discussion.--Zoupan 11:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see anything stated as a reason for deletion. If Subotica or Timisoara were not capitals of Serbia, they could easily be removed from the template. Someone reading about the history of Serbia might want to read up on its historical capitals and might want to go from Pristina to Skoplje. Nikola (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    The policy reason I stated is WP:NAV, and my broader concern is Wikipedia:Avoid template creep. Too much information and navigation templates simply impede the efficient user experience. I was cleaning up a dozen navboxes at the bottom of Belgrade, and that one stood up as quite unnecessary (along with even less appropriate {{Eurovision Song Contest}}). No such user (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Sinosceptic[edit]

Not sure why this template/userbox was created. It doesn't seem suitable for Wikipedia, because it says that the user has a phobia against anything associated with China. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. Sinoscepticism is a valid opinion for one to hold; whether it's a good or bad opinion is beyond TfD's remit. A display of one's (dis-)interests and opinions is allowed on userpages, as with all the other examples in Category:Political user templates. Deryck C. 23:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Singaporean Sinosceptic[edit]

Not sure why this template was created. This template is an userbox that says that the user has a phobia against people from Singapore. I believe this template/userbox is not suitable for Wikipedia. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep, see above. Deryck C. 23:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Sporting Fingal F.C. squad[edit]

The team dissolved in 2011, so this roster template isn't needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

February 4[edit]

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

WP:EXISTING -- The navbox is only used in the 2013 League season article, making it hard to navigate. The standard for this type of thing would be a standings template (e.g. Template:Standings Table Start), if there were season articles that existed, which there are not any. Quite frankly, the 2013 Summit League men's soccer season should be deleted as well. But that's another forum. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 23:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:AirAsia Philippine Patriots team roster[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Lincuri/google[edit]

Template created in 2005 as a test and appears to have no use at all subsequent to that point. Template appears to be orphaned, save for 2 or 3 user page transclusions. Safiel (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I suppose this could be userfied, but otherwise it should be deleted. —PC-XT+ 21:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Userfy so we don't need to relist this -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

ESPN RISE football navboxes[edit]

These templates denote a minor award that is not a defining biographical element for its recipients. These navboxes are therefore unneeded and clutter more pertinent navboxes in the footers of the bio articles on which they are transcluded. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. I might also add that the second, third and fourth navboxes lack a supporting article or list on the specific subject of the navbox per WP:NAVBOX criterion no. 4. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep ESPN RISE Elite 11. While all of these originate from Student Sports and ESPN, the Elite 11 (high school quarterback recruiting rankings of graduating seniors) has a stand-alone article and is by far the most notable. We already treat quarterbacks differently than other positions, such as via starting QB navboxes. A simple google news search shows the award referenced in many high school recruiting articles by mainstream newspapers, national sports sites in cycle to recruiting coverage, college media guides, and such. Similar coverage exists for the other awards, but they lack associated articles and the coverage is less prevalent. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Ibrahim[edit]

Previous TfDs for this template:

The family list is something for an infobox, the remaining three links can easily be put in a "See also" section, if not in the main text itself. Of those three, the link to Maqām Ibrāhīm redirects to tiny subsection in Petrosomatoglyph, leaving actually only two meaningful links. HyperGaruda (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Fb team Springwood FC[edit]

Unused, seems to have been created in error JMHamo (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  • delete, I added some from the same category after fixing the issue here. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Keep - I don't understand why the above changes had to occur? - J man708 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Also, these weren't unused at the time of creation. Frietjes' edit had them taken out, as to "avoid using new fb team templates, which are deprecated". I know this isn't going to win me any friends, but I build a LOT of football pages and find this system a million times more user-friendly than the new system. I'll avoid using the new system as much as possible, especially as other football season pages prior to this new system utilise these "fb templates" aswell. - J man708 (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Englishmen with 100 or more ODI caps[edit]

WP:NOTSTATS and simply not notable. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 07:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep 100 ODI caps is a achievement..a odi team on avg plays 20 or more ODIs a year so if a player plays 100 ODIs then he must have been regular in team for nearly 5 years which certainly is a achievement to remain in competitive team GreenCricket 14:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable achievement. GiantSnowman 14:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - If you people consider the above template as a notable one, then this Template:Cricketers with 300 or more ODI caps is also notable, which is being considered for deletion as well. If GiantSnowman, GreenCricket and The Rambling Man think that the above template should be kept, then please place your valuable comments here. Your decisions are valuable. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 03:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I think arbitrary number is not considered as achievement..yes, a template with 100 or more caps must be kept other must be deleted GreenCricket 09:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless template that adds no value and is a waste of space. Jack | talk page 20:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancrufty navbox that especially fails guideline #4 of WP:NAVBOX: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. The 300-cap version already got deleted. Why would 100 caps be that special, apart from being a perceived likable number in the decimal system (nothing extraordinary about it when written in binary: 1100100)? I do not see any award associated with it... - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - No supporting article or list on the specific subject of the navbox, per WP:NAVBOX criterion no. 4. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:White nationalism[edit]

Useless for navigation purposes, no clear boundary to prevent obscene growth, little to no evident pattern for users to hop from one topic to the next. See reasons given in prior discussions for similar templates here and here. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear on what the objections to the template are, but if it's kept, I'd recommend removing the "Individuals" section. That's the section that's already out of hand and could grow almost infinitely. I guess I'm also wondering why it's useful to have a "white nationalism" template, since the article on the topic seems pretty vague. A template for "white supremacy" and/or "white separatism" might be easier to define and manage within the desired boundaries. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not necessary to delete this template, just it has to be improved for better navigation. Some sections could be reduced, but all the template can't be deleted because it's important, the subject is controversial and need to be clarified as best as possible. Navigation template works, I am against of deletion. --Humberto del Torrejón (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

February 3[edit]

Template:Place[edit]

Evidently, the purpose of this template is to place small annotations (1, 2 and 3) regarding place, such as in competition. Only transcluded in a handful of articles and surely something better exists. Delete or merge as prudence dictates. Safiel (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Adelaide Football Club navboxes[edit]

These navboxes are all for redlinked articles that are unlikely to pass WP:N. As such, they fail WP:NAVBOX criterion #4. Additionally, the recent WP:AFL consensus is that these relatively minor individual club awards are not notable enough to merit a navbox. Jenks24 (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Would argue to Keep the Best Team Man award, and Emerging Talent award ones - Best Team Man is considered a prestigious award at all levels of the game, and the amount of focus on rookie type awards in the AFL is high (even if probably out of proportion). Screech1616 (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete all fail navbox #4 and realistically will never have articles about them due to failing GNG. Also in accordance with the recent AFL club awards navboxes which were deleted. Flickerd (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Shenyang Metro[edit]

Unused. Not useful, considering that each line of the metro only has one station with an article. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:SYDTcolour[edit]

Unused, replaced by {{SYM color}}. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:SYDT[edit]

No usage. Despite the documentation and the template headers, this is not a navbox for the Shenyang Metro but for Guangfo Metro line 1, for which a template already exists. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Uw-vandalism4im[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 keep. Inexplicable nomination by a now-blocked editor. Cannot imagine this getting a delete vote, so saving time for all those about to say "keep". Floquenbeam (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Is misused very often and has little to no practical use Krett12 (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep: It's definitely a practical template needed to warn egregious and blatant vandals. only (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, but admins hardly ever accept it. I know you're all about only this only that (haha get it?) but still, it is often regarded in 99% of its uses as invalid, I've never seen it properly used once, and on IPs, you can NEVER use it. What's the point of it?! Krett12 (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Yet here you are using it hours after nominating it for deletion. So, why are you using "invalid" templates, then? And, as an admin, I've seen it used plenty of times appropriately. only (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. I don't know if this is some kind of performance art or just good old fashioned cluelessness but deleting one of Wikipedia's most important templates would need an actual reason. ‑ Iridescent 19:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

February 2[edit]

Template:Abnormal clinical and laboratory findings for urine[edit]

Propose merging Template:Abnormal clinical and laboratory findings for urine with Template:Urine tests.
These two templates should really be merged, in view of overlapping content areas and similar subject matter. It benefits editors by having concepts like what is tested for in urinalysis displayed in the same navbox template as what the results are. Tom (LT) (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:FS number[edit]

These unused templates are part of the infrastructure of the long-defunct Featured Sounds / Sound Of The Day initiatives (e.g. see Portal:Featured sounds and Wikipedia:Sound of the day/requests which has had no significant edits since 2007). They include references to things such as "the featured sounds director" and "designed to go live on the main page of the English Wikipedia sometime in 2011". DexDor (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  • KEep While FS is dormant for now, it's a project we should have, and deleting all infrastructure (including setup templates!) will only make it harder to restart with NO benefit to Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Reading F.C. Women squad[edit]

Too few wikilinks, does not aid navigation JMHamo (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - five current links and four other players are capped by Wales, so "notable" with a reasonable prospect of getting articles shortly. 90.213.60.115 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - not enough wikilinks, and the redlinks look to be non-notable so no possibility of them receiving articles as the IP falsely indicates. GiantSnowman 10:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment - there are now nine links, despite what User:GiantSnowman falsely indicated! SevcoFraudsters (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

February 1[edit]

Template:Cite pmid/25150838[edit]

Unused citation template. Mangoe (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete hardcoded instance of a citation template; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate database -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Cite pmid/25254650[edit]

Unused citation template. Mangoe (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete hardcoded instance of a citation template; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate database -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Radyo Ukay[edit]

January 31[edit]

Template:EQ2 requirements[edit]

Redundant. Not used. The1337gamer (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete — Apparently an unused remnant of what looks like a misguided attempt to reduce the size of an article. Nothing of value in it. Murph9000 (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2016‎ (UTC)
  • Delete as is redundant and unsused. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as template for a single page. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Halifax Rainmen roster[edit]

The Halifax Rainmen went bankrupt in 2015, and no longer play. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Clearly there's no need for a "current roster" template for a non-existent team. BTW, was this team related in any way to Rain Man? Interesting choice of team nicknames/mascots. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Hay Dasakan Chartarapetutyan Akunknerum 2003[edit]

Unused reference template MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Hamilton Nationals roster[edit]

This template is for the Hamilton Nationals which haven't been active seen 2013. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Menorca Bàsquet[edit]

This basketball team was disbanded in 2012 Menorca Bàsquet, Therefore, a roster template isn't needed anymore MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Mobile Bay Tarpons roster[edit]

This template is for a inactive SIFL team Mobile Bay Tarpons and I don't think it's needed. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

January 30[edit]

Template:C418[edit]

Navbox exclusively consists of redirects/redlinks (not watching this page, so ping me if you need me) czar 16:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as only the parent article and One (C418 album) exist, everything else redirects back to the person's article. Not a useful navbox unless way more albums get articles. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Hellknowz. --Izno (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Miss Universe Denmark[edit]

Navigation template with nothing left to navigate. Aside from the main pageant article, everything has been deleted or redirected. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as pointless now. Legacypac (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. G8? I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 04:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Weatherbox Rio Branco, Acre[edit]

merged with Rio Branco, Acre, so no longer needed (could move to article space and redirect if we need to preserve attribution). Frietjes (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

La Liga and PFA teams of the Year[edit]

The point of a navigation box is that it assumes the user is likely to want to get from one article in the box to another. For an actual team, this is likely. However, in this list, while someone interested in one person on the list is also likely to be interested in the others, it does not follow that a user reading an article on one person who did well in 2015 is likely to want to view the page on another player, who may well have played for an entirely different team. That's before we even get into the WP:TOOMUCH argument. No need of all these.. making a junk GreenCricketTALK 14:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: I can't see why these templates deserve to be deleted, to be honest. They represent an award, just like any other (goalscorer award, best manager award). It's like a Team of the Season award resumed. If some people doen't want to view another player who did well in 2015, they won't. That's not a valid point. MYS77 14:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Qed237: I see. Isn't this a case of WP:GRAPES, then? MYS77 03:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@MYS77: A very short essay that I would not read to much into, but I guess you can see it that way. Qed237 (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all - topic themselves are notable (given significant coverage of such awards) and these navboxes provide a useful navigation tool. GiantSnowman 10:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems like someone is "mad" about his templates getting deleted. Kante4 (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge all, and list teams, not players - This is a team award, not an award given to individuals. There should be one navbox that lists only the team winners of the award, not the individual members of the teams that won the award. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: I think you missunderstood these awards, they are individual awards were they make an XI of the best goalkeeper, the best right-back and so on. The players in the templates are from different teams. Qed237 (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Qed237: So these awards are, in effect, "all-league" honors for a given year? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: Not sure what you mean with "all-league", but yes. After each season the league picks out the best players for each position for that season and calls it "team of the year" and it is an honour to be given that award. Qed237 (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Players from the whole league can be choosen. Qed237 (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I did misunderstand: this is what we would call "all-league" or "all-star" team, the equivalent of All-NBA for pro basketball, All-Star for Major League Baseball, All-Pro for the National Football League, or All-America for college sports. Scratching my comment and !vote. I said nothing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have no idea why these would be removed, I think it's useful to have all the winners of a certain award in one navigation boxThe Raincloud Kid (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


January 28[edit]

Template:GamesSport2[edit]

Propose merging Template:GamesSport2 with Template:GamesSport.
1) not used; 2) full analog of GamesSport template with parameter Format=d; i.e. {{GamesSport2|Athletics}} = {{GamesSport|Athletics|Format=d}}. Nitobus (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment The implementation is not the same, as GamesSport2 just delivers a link straight to the sub-article (no link to the sport itself). That said, it isn't in use and GamesSport works better in terms of the principal of least surprise for the where the links go. SFB 00:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Brisbane Lions major sponsors[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Nominating this separately from the navboxes below because it's a bit of a different case. The rationale is the same though: it fails WP:NAVBOX criterion #4 because there is not an article on the subject. Additionally, I don't think I have ever seen a navbox like this for any sporting team. Jenks24 (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete: Fails navbox criterion #4, and I haven't seen this type of navbox anywhere else. Fine as it is on Brisbane Lions main page, but it doesn't need a navbox. Flickerd (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: per the rest of the deletion sweep --SuperJew (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable trivia. Subject deserves a brief paragraph in the Brisbane Lions, and it does not require cluttering the bottoms of the pages about businesses who were formerly sponsors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Brisbane Lions navboxes[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

These navboxes all fail criterion 4 of WP:NAVBOX because subject of the templates do not have an article. Not everything needs a navbox and these serve only to bloat the footers of articles. Additionally, a fairly recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 6#Navigational box notability? agreed these templates should be deleted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete, simply a poor lack of judgement by me, thought they were notable then, have realised otherwise. Sorry for the inconvenience! Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 22:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: consistency with recently deleted Collingwood templates, can't have one club get theirs deleted and the other keeps theirs.
However, as a note, in the mentioned discussion there was a comment for keeping best young-player templates, which wasn't really discussed. I'm for this as I think the AFL and all clubs place significant emphasis on training and elevating young players. If so we'd need to restore the Harry Collier Trophy. --SuperJew (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @SuperJew: As you're probably aware, I'm not so keen on the best first year player/young player navboxes. But I do agree it should apply consistently, so if there is a consensus to keep any one club's we should keep all of them. Jenks24 (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I'll bring it up again on the talk page. --SuperJew (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Flickerd (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all - Non-notable team-level awards and honors. If important enough, these team award recipients may be listed in the main team article. Among the sports WikiProjects, very few team-level awards are considered noteworthy enough to have navboxes -- navboxes for team-level awards and honors are usually reserved for team halls of fame, retired jersey numbers, etc., which recognize the handful of players who constitute the team's all-time greats. Listing the annual best player at each position does not rise to that level. Not even close. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Record label navboxes[edit]

No artist roster per precedent at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 28#Record label templates. Without this, navbox is useless. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • It was wrong for you to nominate all of these together, where the only similarity is a music record label, they should each be judged in their own discussion, with regards to their individual merits.The Cross Bearer (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Brainfeeder and Stones Throw, no comments on the others as I don't know enough about them - they are small labels with a limited roster of artists, the navboxes provide useful navigation between related artists, serves a purpose and should be kept. GiantSnowman 21:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Thumper Punk and Reach, They are relevant to the Christian music scene and their artists are covered in Christian music publications, so they pass notability by reliable sources.The Cross Bearer (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • delete, navbox cruft per precedent. better to just use a category. anyone commenting here should remember that these aren't articles, these are navigational boxes. hence, citing notability guidelines for articles it not really helpful. Frietjes (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:PD-unknown[edit]

Not used template Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

  • @Stefan2: Can you foresee any use for this template? This seems like a template that would need to be updated in the event that new information helps determine if the file is free or non-free, but doesn't declare either by its existence alone. It's almost like a "bookmark" for a page to be checked again at a later time, like this template is supposed to place the page in some sort of cleanup category, though it currently doesn't. Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Normally, we use country-specific templates such as {{PD-UK-unknown}} for anonymous works. Different countries define 'anonymous' differently and may have odd rules, so a generic template which doesn't refer to a specific country doesn't seem useful to me. Another problem is that it doesn't say in which countries the material is in the public domain. For example, United States law makes no difference between works by known authors and works by unknown authors if the work was published before 1978, and completely different rules are used for works by anonymous authors which are either unpublished or first published in 1978 or later. In Sweden and the United Kingdom, the template doesn't always apply if the work is unpublished or if the first publication was later than 70 years after the work was created. I suggest that we delete this template and make sure that we always use country-specific templates instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Since EN.wiki operates under US law, this template should only work for US legal circumstances. Just like all the other general templates that apply to all resources on EN.wiki regardless of local source jurisdiction because Wikipedia itself operates under US jurisdiction. Indeed, that's why EN.wiki has different media rules than COMMONS, because we follow US law, and why PD-US images from foreign countries reside on EN.wiki instead of COMMONS due to source country legal differences. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
        • It is useful to indicate that something is free in the source country as this helps people who wish to move files to Commons. This template reveals nothing about the copyright status in the United States, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

cricket templates for speedy delete[edit]

Leads to junk. There can be more than 10 of these templates created for various cricketers yearwise. Check ICC Awards. For eg: Dhoni, de villiers,..etc can have 11 templates as they are involved in many teams. Smith won 2 awards& was named in 2 teams in 2015. 4 templates are created for 2015 alone on Smith's page. 11 such templates can be created for Dhoni, de villiers, sachin, .... Imagine a cricketers page with templates list being 2008 ODI team of the year, 2008 test team, 2009 ODI team, 2009 test, 2010 ODI, 2010 test,.. so on. And there are templates already for {{ICC Cricketer of the Year}} {{ICC ODI player of the year}} {{ICC Test cricketer of the year}} {{ICC T20 performance of the year}}. In spite of various warnings, SWASTIK 25 & GreenCricket have not stopped creating template junk. SWASTIK 25 has been blocked currently. Chris8924 (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete; the point of a navigation box is that it assumes the user is likely to want to get from one article in the box to another. For an actual team, this is likely. However, in this list, while someone interested in one person on the list is also likely to be interested in the others, it does not follow that a user reading an article on one person who did well in 2015 is likely to want to view the page on another player, who may well have played for an entirely different team. That's before we even get into the WP:TOOMUCH argument. Harrias talk 09:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree @Harrias: I agree very much with Harrias who have pointed rightly but i have concern in navigation box which are currently present on footballers who are also from different nations and have templates with much similar conditions...I want to have your opinion on those templates..what you say about that? GreenCricketTALK 13:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd say that you are possibly right, but that those templates are not the subject of this discussion. Harrias talk 13:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: Notable and valid, a good example of how Navboxes can be used. If the number of them is the concern, perhaps could be merged into a single 2015 ICC Teams of the Year Navbox with separate groups for each of the disciplines.Screech1616 (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete – We have no need for all these templates. Qed237 (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. A list should be made in the article, not a template that clutters the various pages. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think merging all the ICC team templates by year will be the most efficient move in this case. Ikhtiar H (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge I also think we need to merge both temp. into one Template:2015 ICC Team of the Year which will serve one tem. per year GreenCricketTALK 13:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@GreenCricket: the previous ICC team templates such as 2014 Team of the year doesn't exist yet. It will be best to create them and merge all in a Template titled ICC Team of the Year. Otherwise this will be deleted. Someone has to take the responsibility. Ikhtiar H (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Fb team Abano[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 per precedentPlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

unused template, non-professional club. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Marvel Video Games[edit]

Subject of template is Marvel video games, which is a too broad for a subject. There's also List of video games based on Marvel Comics and Category: Video games based on Marvel Comics. There's {{Spider-Man in popular media}} for Spider-Man, {{X-Men media}} for the X-Men and Wolverine. Soetermans. T / C 12:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

There's also {{Blade}}, {{Avengers}}, {{Captain America}}, {{Punisher}}, {{Hulk}}, etc. --Soetermans. T / C 16:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge as appropriate to the series-specific templates. Where that's not possible (e.g. the crossovers) consider a new template e.g. Marvel crossovers. --Izno (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Delete or merge per Izno. At the very least, I think it's fair to say that a navbox really shouldn't be too much longer than one screen-length. Graham (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa templates[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Unused templates and redundant with generic template present at Template:Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as apparently unused and redundant —PC-XT+ 09:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:I-League Champions[edit]

Unnecessary template. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep - I don't think it to be an unnecessary template. A template featuring a country's top tier national league champions should be considered a notable one. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 19:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Not needed, now really not. Same Template:La Liga Champions here. Kante4 (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete What's the point? Coderzombie (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Not needed, I cant see how this template can be useful. Qed237 (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - useful navigation between champions. Inclusion is defined and notable. GiantSnowman 19:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Hans-Hermann Hoppe[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Not used. Was a listing of H-H H books that now contains 2 titles. – S. Rich (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. A navbox with three links is hardly useful. Graham (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Too few members for separate category. TFD (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Wikivar[edit]

Apart from the recently added and rarely used {{{style}}} parameter, this is basically a subset of {{tlg}} though it only supports a single parameter.
I'm proposing transclusions to be accordingly subst'd and the template to be redirected to the plain version Template:tld. PanchoS (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Sounds like a good plan to me. Replace transclusions and delete redirect to {{tld}} —PC-XT+ 23:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC) If we wanted to, we could add a |link= parameter to {{tld}} relatively easily. That would be more of a merge discussion, though it would make most replacements unnecessary. —PC-XT+ 06:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment
    Clearly this isn't the case, since "tlg" expects a template, while not all MAGICWORDS are also coded with template documentation pages (like "NAMESPACENUMBER") -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    Examples:
    {{tlg|nolink=yes|NAMESPACENUMBER}}: {{NAMESPACENUMBER}}
    {{tlg|nolink=yes|code=yes|NAMESPACENUMBER}}: {{NAMESPACENUMBER}}
    {{tld|NAMESPACENUMBER}}: {{NAMESPACENUMBER}}
    {{tlg|code=yes|NAMESPACENUMBER}}: {{NAMESPACENUMBER}}
    and it doesn't show the extra bar at the end, which causes the software to think it is a template when copied/pasted. Magic words expect a colon, instead. (I've actually had trouble with that, once, recently.) —PC-XT+ 15:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC) 15:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    Just removed it from help:magic words because it had the extra bar at the end. all: hastemplate:wikivar. — CpiralCpiral 08:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

January 27[edit]

Template:Video game console timeline[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Unused, not updated since 2012. Unclear what timeline is about. Video game consoles in North America? Production? Sales? If so, nothing that can't be explained in text. Soetermans. T / C 15:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete, unused. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete because it's unused and hasn't been updated since at least 2012, it seems (no consoles after 2012?). Anarchyte 09:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Final Fantasy locations[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Two articles listed, not necessary to have in a siderbar template. Soetermans. T / C 15:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Merge to Template:Final Fantasy (or other appropriate FF template) the unlinked links therein, then delete. --Izno (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - links are present where they should be in the FF footer templates, no need to merge. This template exists because 9-10 years ago it had a dozen articles linked; over time the crufty articles have been pared away until we have just this. --PresN 17:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per PresN. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Two articles in a tiny box on the right hand side... not really necessary. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:StrategyWiki[edit]

Unnecessary, unencyclopedic to point to one provider of walkthroughs. StrategyWiki's welcome message reads: "Welcome to StrategyWiki, a collaborative and freely-licensed wiki for all your video game strategy guide and walkthrough needs! The guides here can be edited by anyone, so feel free to jump in and improve something!" No different than GameFAQs, CheatCodeCentral or any random cheat or walkthrough guide. It fails WP:ELYES, as it is not "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" to know how to finish a game. As it is user-submitted, we can't tell if it is accurate to begin with. WP:ELNO No. 1: it is not a "unique resource", as it is a "how-to" guide. Soetermans. T / C 15:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Here is the previous deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 17#Template:StrategyWiki
  • Keep: A lot of content from some of the wikipedia pages was transwiki'd to strategywiki, and the links are provided so people who initially felt the information belonged now know where to find it. The template is created to make it easier to link. The links are all within the "External Links" section, so it's not meant to be encyclopedic, it's for users to find further resources that don't belong on wikipedia. -- Prod (Talk) 15:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
They do not belong in the External link section either. WP:ELNO No. 1: a walkthrough won't be used beyond for a featured article, as these are user-submitted and also... No. 2: it's unverifiable. We can't tell if these guides are actually accurate. No. 12: only open wikis with a substantial history are okay. There are articles on Nukapedia, on Memory Alpha and on Wookieepedia, but not on StrategyWiki. Wikipedia is written for a large audience. That's why video game articles describe gameplay in general, not in detail. So after reading an article about a video game, the general reader would have more use of a link to an official website, an interview with the developer or an in-depth behind-the-scenes piece. Being presented with a guide on how to finish the game is not necessary. Further more, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other websites that offer the same content like StrategyWiki. There are strategy guides like Prima Games and there's GameFAQs. Having those would be considered inappropriate as well. Why make an exception for StrategyWiki? --Soetermans. T / C 16:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to review the entirety of ELNO#2, which is "A website which misleads the reader by [etc.]"; StrategyWiki clearly does not fall under the category of a website attempting to mislead the audience. As well, their material is not unverifiable--go and play the game yourself.

Regards ELNO#1, walkthroughs are clearly material-unique and which go above and beyond what an FA would provide. Please review that statement as well.

Regards ELNO#12, StrategyWiki is an open wiki with a substantial history--that it is not deemed WP:N at this time is irrelevant to that question.

Regards your "what about every other walkthrough site", this is an interesting one but the deletion of a template does not factor into it. --Izno (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No. 1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". To learn how to finish a game does not mean knowing more about the game, which why it fails WP:ELYES No. 3: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". You know I'm also heavily involved in editing video game related articles. I'm always making sure that the general reader of Wikipedia can understand a video game article. So why would it be "encyclopedic" for the general reader to know how to finish Arkanoid? ELNO No. 2 reads: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". I'm not saying that StrategyWiki is "attempting" to mislead, I'm saying it can't be checked. I do not own Arkanoid for instance; I can't check if that information is correct. I've crossed the nobility point out, you're right. Concerning other walkthrough websites, maybe I'm not phrasing it right at this time. --Soetermans. T / C 16:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The walkthrough is only a portion of what is covered. There are also comparisons of different versions of the games that were released StrategyWiki:Arkanoid/Versions and large sections of appendices which contain lists for all kinds of in-game content. The difference from prima games/gamefaqs is that it's an open wiki, with a compatible license to Wikipedia. This is useful as a target to transwiki any un-encyclopedic content, as was done with a number of game-guide books from wikibooks. -- Prod (Talk) 18:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Just because you don't own Arkanoid and can't verify the information doesn't mean that others can't. Most of the contributors to SW make tremendous efforts to verify the accuracy of the content. I'm not clear on what Soetermans's personal bias against the site is? Maybe if he came to the site and joined the community, he would have less misgivings about directing people to learn much more about a game than what Wikipedia is permitted to present to a reader? Plotor (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
While different versions of a game I would consider useful for the general reader, those can also be found on MobyGames. MobyGames also includes original reviews and other information, and is especially useful for older games. StrategyWiki still functions as a "how-to" guide. Xbox 360 achievements and lists of weapons are not useful for the general reader either, and can be found all over the internet.
Just because my reading of WP:EL is different than yours does not mean I'm somehow "biased". I think it's a great idea for readers to know more about video games, but StrategyWiki is not the place. To learn more about BioShock, I'd rather point to scholarly research, than a half-finished walkthrough. --Soetermans. T / C 08:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia should not endorse one strategy guide website over another. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Well what do you know. I nominated this for deletion about six years ago, along with the GameFAQs external link template. The GameFAQs template has since been deleted for similar reasons as this one should be, discussion here. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
      It's not an apples-to-apples comparison Axem. SW has an entirely different nature to GF, as SW was literally born out of the same spirit and goal of WP, and became the extended repository for information which has since been determined out of scope for WP. The arguments for one do not apply to the other. Case in point, there are specific interwiki links between SW and WP, indicating the close relationship they have always had. Plotor (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, StrategyWiki houses all content which was jettisoned by Wikipedia during the great content reform, and is thus a spiritual extension of Wikipedia. It provides an encyclopedic reference to game content that falls outside of Wikipedia's scope, thus providing the reader with another avenue to research specific topics not permissible in the Wikipedia article by Wikipedia's standards. StrategyWiki is clearly a notable, well maintained, reference site of historical note, and deserves to be represented in Wikipedia's knowledge base. Plotor (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    • According to this, it seems that this user is responsible for adding about 350 of this template's 472 transclusions, which also happens to be over 75% of this user's contributions to Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I use the template a lot, I'm certainly not denying the fact. That doesn't invalidate my arguments or my vote. Plotor (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Just because you consider it a "spiritual extension" does not mean we should keep linking to it. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not for people who actually play video games, let alone for people who need walkthroughs to do so. --Soetermans. T / C 08:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
          • What it does is that it shows that there is not "widespread consensus" to use the template, rather, its current usage is the work of mostly one person manufacturing its widespread prevalence. As such, its current degree of usage should be discounted as a reason for keeping. It also suggests that you are a single purpose account who is not dedicated to improving the encyclopedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Note. Three points.
  1. StrategyWiki is not well-maintained, and does not provide a good gameguide for every game. Looking up BioShock, a game released over eight years ago, I noticed StrategyWiki's guide on the game is half-finished. There is no article on BioShock Infinite, released three years ago. There aren't a lot of Tomb Raider games with an articles either. IIIand Underworld don't have a guide, while 1996's Tomb Raider has the first three levels. Randomly looking up other games: Donkey Kong Country misses 18 levels out 39. Age of Empires II is in better shape, but misses three missions and not every unit has an article. I looked up Disney's Aladdin, it has two levels. The level "Inside the Lamp" is described as "Throughout this level, your transported inside the Genie's lamp! Not good! So make your way out of the lamp and continue your epic quest to kill Jafar!" That doesn't provide the reader with anything substantial at all.
    It is true that not all of our guides are in a completed state. It is also true that not all of Wikipedia's articles are either. I personally have never chosen to add the template to any article on Wikipedia for which a guide is not in a completed or featured state. That's why the SW template has not been included on BioShock or Tomb Raider or Donkey Kong Country, and it won't be until such a time when those guides are complete. That's also precisely why we need your assistance on the site, not this useless bickering here. Plotor (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. StrategyWiki is used in 472 pages on Wikipedia, which isn't a lot. Theoretically, what would editors think if the template was added to all video game articles? Wouldn't that be inappropriate? After an article (again, written for an audience), how would pointing to a guide on how to finished said game be encyclopedic or even informational?
    The template should not be used on every game article for precisely the reasons I expressed directly up above. If a guide on SW is not in the kind of shape it needs to be in to provide WP readers with reliable, peer reviewed, and complete information, the template is not added to the WP article. And I would have any such inclusion removed from the article for that very reason. Plotor (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. There are dozens of other gameguides on the internet. StrategyWiki is by no means complete. Why play favorites and link to StrategyWiki (in a template form no less), instead of IGN, USGamer or VG247, all considered reliable sources? --Soetermans. T / C 08:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    All of those sites you mentioned are commercial sites with closed licenses. None of the information presented on those sites is public domain or editable by peers. SW maintains the exact same license and interface as WP itself, and therefore deserves distinction. There is no break or change in philosophy when going from WP to SW and vice versa, and we've worked very hard to maintain that over the years. You are primarily criticizing the site's inclusion due to an incomplete understanding of how the site operates and what it's intended function is. Plotor (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • After having thought about this all night, I'd like to say something. I think it's very unfair, and a little underhanded, for a vocal minority to renominate this template for deletion less than one year since it survived a similar vote. It's as if you're trying over and over until you happen to catch a moment when the people who would defend it are not present or aware. If the previous vote had succeeded, we would not be permitted to reconstruct the template on the basis that we felt it should exist, so why do you continuously get to try and remove it? StrategyWiki has worked tirelessly to be a reflection of WP's community. We have the same license. We have very similar structures and values. We run the site democratically. We started out as the repository for video game content that was being removed from WP, and have continued to build ourselves with the primary goal of being WP's video game extension. If any of you spent a little bit of time helping the site out, I think you'd see that. And I implore anyone who is reading this to do so, we could genuinely use people with the analytic and curation skills that many of you possess. I know enough about WP to know that arguing for or against something here requires a level of familiarity in WP's own legalese that I don't possess, so I can't directly respond to all of the rules being mentioned. All I can say is this. Yes, not every Wikipedia reader cares about walkthrough information, but there's no way anyone can claim with 100% certainty that no one does. And for those readers who do wish to learn more about that information, or perhaps even came to Wikipedia seeking that information without knowing that they can't find that content here, how does it necessarily harm the quality of an article to possess a single external link providing readers with an alternative resource to learn more about a game which they are unable to learn on Wikipedia? Especially one that continues the theme of contribution and collaboration that Wikipedia itself defines? This isn't about blanket favoritism, StrategyWiki has always strived to earn the place it holds, and it's only improved over the years in that regard. So please, consider the fact that this vote was held not even 11 months ago and respect the fact that it has a right to remain on the site. Thank you. Plotor (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Multiple editors happened upon this template and decided that it was worth nominating for deletion. There is no cabal tirelessly working to destroy it. That a website has a similar philosophy as Wikipedia is not a reason for Wikipedia to endorse it. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Your personal opinion shouldn't have to matter in this case. I think "continuously" is an exaggeration, as I wasn't aware of the previous nomination to delete it (and as you can see on this page, I've nominated a bunch of templates). It's reverse logic to keep a walkthrough external link, because there might be people looking for one. That wouldn't make sense in the first place, because if someone would be looking for a walkthrough for BioShock, we can assume they would write 'bioshock walkthrough', and not 'bioshock', to go to Wikipedia, to find an external links section on the bottom of that particular article to point them to a walkthrough. And even if a reader would do that, the template isn't used on every single article and there are dozens of other websites that provide the exact same content. --Soetermans. T / C 13:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Soetermans further comments. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: I've added this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games for further input from the video gaming community. -- Prod (Talk) 00:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
    I actually already notified WP:VG on the matter. --Soetermans. T / C 09:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Though I think the nom covers all major points, I'll add that I cannot foresee a single case in which StrategyWiki would be a worthwhile "unique resource" to link. As an encyclopedia, we don't provide for interest in game guides the same way that we don't link to gardening tutorials. If there ever was a case of local consensus to add such links, it should be as a one-off and not as a templated/institutionalized system. Note to closer: the two "keeps" come from editors closely affiliated with StrategyWiki. czar 17:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

So that's it? After serving the Wikipedia community for over nine years, this template will be unceremoniously deleted from the site, and we have no recourse or alternative? Plotor (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

To be frank, I'm hard-pressed to think of a more ceremonious removal of text from the Internet. czar 01:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Steam app[edit]

Inappropriate to link to a commercial website (WP:ELNO No. 14), unnecessary to have it in a template form. Soetermans. T / C 15:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. ELNO #14 does not seem particularly applicable to me. The link qualifies as WP:ELOFFICIAL, as the content is directly controlled by the developer / publisher, and not by Steam. Obviously, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL may exclude it on a case by case basis (depending on what other official sites are available for the subject). It may also be of use for sourcing per WP:VG/OFFICIAL. Murph9000 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    I don't see why being directly controlled would mean it's okay. It's safe to assume every developer and publisher wants to sell as much as possible, like F-19 Stealth Fighter: "F-19 STEALTH FIGHTER takes combat flying to new heights. With dazzling graphics and authentic, real-world scenarios. F-19 creates action-packed excitement that keeps you coming back for more! It's easy to learn, but satisfyingly tough to master". Most official websites already have a buy or pre-order option (like H1Z1 does) and the Steam page itself also functions as a storefront, not a developer blog or behind-the-scenes featurette. --Soetermans. T / C 15:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    Directly controlled by the subject of the article makes it WP:ELOFFICIAL. Additionally, ELNO #14 is about "lists of links", not individual links, as well as being explicitly invalidated by Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, at the top of WP:ELNO. Murph9000 (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    Most video games have their own official website, or an entry at a developer's website. Steam is a storefront. We do not allow links to, say, PSN, XBLA or Good Old Games. WP:ELPOINTS says: "...e-commerce and other commercial-sales links, which are prohibited in External links". Steam is a commercial link. It is prohibited to use, even if it is "official". Further more, you cited WP:VG/OFFICIAL. It reads: "The crux is that "official" is not relevant to Wikipedia standards. In fan communities, all information released by the game developers is official and important. In a Wikipedia article, information released by game developers is no different from any other reliable source; in fact, it may be less reliable under possible interpretations of the policy regarding self-published or primary sources". So whether or not actually is "official" doesn't matter: it's a commercial link. --Soetermans. T / C 16:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    ELNO #14 does not talk about individual commercial links. It talks about lists of links. It does not apply to an individual link. The specific page on Steam for an app is no more, and no less commercial than a directly published site by the subject. The key thing is that it qualifies as WP:ELOFFICIAL for EL purposes due to being directly controlled by the subject. In the absence of a better ELOFFICIAL, it is an entirely valid EL for a subject. The key distinction between Steam and a storefront, is that Steam serves content on the app page directly controlled by the developer / publisher of the subject. The point about WP:VG/OFFICIAL, is that "official" sources are permitted in the absence of a better source. Yes, WP does not give weight to "official", but the section you quoted from VG/OFFICIAL does not prohibit the use of such links for citations. The Steam app page qualifies as a valid source under VG/OFFICIAL. ELPOINTS does not create the prohibition you claim (if it did, we would be unable to link to the vast majority of directly published official sites for games); it establishes a permission to use links that might otherwise be excluded due to other guidelines. Such a prohibition would be on the basis of ELNO, which does not apply in the case of ELOFFICIAL.
    So, I reiterate, ELNO #14 is irrelevant on several counts (not a list, excepted for official). ELPOINTS #1 does not create any prohibition on its own, and does not establish any basis for deleting this template. Any link which qualifies as WP:ELOFFICIAL is acceptable unless it is excluded by WP:ELNEVER. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL must then be applied to available official links, but failure to be included at that point does not remove the complete exception to WP:ELNO. Links which are both commercial and official are both permitted, and in current vast majority use across WP:VG articles (as the official site link, wherever that happens to go).
    Murph9000 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please review the big, fat, disclaimer at WP:ELNO, which is "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[5] one should generally avoid providing external links to:" (bolding not mine). --Izno (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    Note: Like I said, WP:ELPOINTS says: "...e-commerce and other commercial-sales links, which are prohibited in External links". I just realised something: how is a Steam page "official" anyway? And if its official, why is used in no more than three video game articles, and not in, say, Half-Life 2 or any other Valve game? --Soetermans. T / C 16:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    That item in WP:ELPOINTS is specifically commenting on "This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references". You are taking the statements out of context inappropriately.

    There are some WP:N games published which do not have their own official website--Steam being the only location for publishing.

    Usage doesn't factor into the question of whether this template should be deleted, there being no policy-based arguments being advanced. --Izno (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

    That's not fair of you Izno, I shortened the statement, but I did not take it out of context. WP:ELPOINTS is a quick summary of WP:EL and reads: "This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section. This specifically includes e-commerce and other commercial-sales links, which are prohibited in External links but allowed in footnoted citations". That ELPOINTS says commercial links are okay in footnoted citations is not the issue here. Steam might be the only place for publishing for some games, but that doesn't answer my question: how makes having a Steam entry "official"? And even if Steam is the only place of publishing, why link to it? Steam still is a digital distributor. ELPOINTS No. 3: "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." To a certain extent, it does matter, unused templates aren't kept around either. With thousands of games listed on Steam, I'm asking why it isn't used, besides H1Z1, Caffeine and F-19 Stealth Fighter, on any video game articles. --Soetermans. T / C 17:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    No, actually, you took it out of context, because you must read it in context to understand its full meaning--that it's a summary, and not one of the actual !rules regarding an external link. I'm going to ignore your question regarding "official"--answered below. Why link to it? Because that's "us as editors" providing readers a place to get official information regarding the page in question. For video games, it also allows you to get the game directly from the source.

    Regarding your usage argument, as I said, it's irrelevant. The template is clearly not unused. One of the reasons why you might want such a template is to track such links, so that you can keep them to a minimum. I don't know why it's not used more--presumably the editors at the individual pages have not found reason to use it in their cases. --Izno (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. This was discussed last year at WTVG. Standing convention has been to not use Steam links as external links, for preference of one store over another, but the consensus of the previous discussion is that sometimes the Steam storefront & community page is indeed the equivalent of the game's sole/official page. In these cases, it is preferable to use the {{official website}} template anyway and not this template, which formats links so as to encourage editors to add the Steam link as another external link among others. We've deprecated these sorts of templates before when we want to generally discourage a type of link. Editors are still welcome to add a manual link to Steam if there is local consensus, but we don't want to make a habit of adding storefront links. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 13:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    It's been a couple of days, I still have to see an explanation on how the usage of Steam by a developer would be considered "official". --Soetermans. T / C 13:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    No, it has been explained to you repeatedly. The content on the individual app page is controlled by the subject of the WP article (in this case, the developer / publisher of the app). The content is not controlled by Steam. Since providing a link to WP:ELOFFICIAL seems to be insufficient, I will directly quote it for you.

    An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:
    1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
    2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

    — WP:ELOFFICIAL

    Both point 1 and point 2 are unambiguously met by a Steam app page. It qualifies as WP:ELOFFICIAL. I have made this point repeatedly, yet you have entirely failed to raise any argument that ELOFFICIAL's conditions are not met. Please either support your claim, or stop parroting a vague assertion which does not appear consistent with the guidelines. There is no difference between a Steam app page and a product page/site directly published by the developer/publisher; the latter is in vast majority use across all Wikipedia articles relating to games/apps/software, on the basis of that very guideline. Murph9000 (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    You're pointing to Wikipedia guidelines. You're still not explaining how a Steam page actually is official. Besides you saying it is, what makes it "official"? --Soetermans. T / C 15:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    The only definition of "official" that matters right here is WP:ELOFFICIAL. No further explanation is necessary. As repeatedly stated, it qualifies as WP:ELOFFICIAL, per the definition quoted. Either provide a credible argument to refute that point, or please drop your misleading claim on that point. Are you claiming that it does not meet the definition of WP:ELOFFICIAL? If so, make your case, instead of just continuing to throw vague unsupported assertions around. Murph9000 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    That's not an argument. You're saying it is official and that's why it's okay to have it. When I ask you how it exactly is "official", you point to Wikipedia's guidelines. Imagine you were talking about a random blog, and claimed it was official just by pointing to Wikipedia's guidelines: that doesn't explain how it is official. What page on Steam says it is official? Is there a reliable source that says so? Or is there an interview with a developer who said something along the lines of "we're going to join forces with Steam"? You pointing to a guideline doesn't mean a Steam page is official. --Soetermans. T / C 19:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    You're treating "official" in the colloquial sense and not the as-defined-by-Wikipedia sense. Additionally (and this is a rarity), I'm going to pull the phrase "common sense" on you. You cannot put a game on Steam which is not your own. If you won't accept that argument there's no reason arguing with you on the point. --Izno (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I will, however, switch to delete based on the argument that WP:ELMINOFFICIAL + WP:ELNO means that the links produced by this template should only be used where there is not a better official link. Those links can or should be linked using Template:Official website instead. --Izno (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not convinced that WP:ELMINOFFICIAL creates a basis for deletion here. I believe that WP:ELNO does not apply for any cases which pass WP:ELOFFICIAL, and that being subsequently pruned by ELMINOFFICIAL does not remove or nullify the exception to ELNO. ELMINOFFICIAL alone provides a case by case basis for exclusion, without relying on anything written in ELNO. As for {{Official website}} being a suitable alternative, it does not retrieve the Steam ID from Wikidata and track its usage. Murph9000 (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

    Paraphrasing: ELMINOFFICIAL says "use the minimum number of official links". ELNO says "except where an item is an official link, avoid these types of links", and ELOFFICIAL says "these are the criteria to consider a link official" (criteria unimportant in this discussion, IMO). The four cases I can see:

    1. Where Steam is not an official link, ELNO says not to link to Steam, without exception (a rare case I'm sure, but to be complete, we should consider it).
    2. Where Steam is an official link, and there is not another official link, then we can link to the Steam page using {{official website}} (which Wikidata should also reflect using the official website property).
    3. Where Steam is an official link, and there is another official link, and that official link links to the Steam page (directly or not), ELMINOFFICIAL says not to link to Steam.
    4. Where Steam is an official link, and there is another official link, but that official link does not link to the Steam page (directly or not), then we should include a link to the Steam page.
    The only case where we "need" this template is case #4. But I expect such cases to be a rarity. Do you disagree with my assessment that such a case would be rare? (@Soetermans: This gets to the question you should have asked e.g. not "how much are we using it currently", but "how much could we use it?") Is there a need for a linking template when the set of item 4 is sufficiently small that we can track its usage via Special:Search (using insource:) or Special:LinkSearch? I don't think there is such a need. --Izno (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
    I believe there may be an additional case to consider, where Steam is an official link, a directly published official link exists, but the Steam link provides better content (i.e. a case where the direct official link has relatively little content, lacks significant information, is not kept up to date, or similar). Now, for the cases you identified, I'll use a list with the same numbering:
    1. Yes, if it fails ELOFFICIAL, there is probably no other basis for inclusion of the link. I agree that this is probably a very rare case, but quite appropriate to mention in a complete analysis.
    2. From a database design and management perspective, I have to question if it is ever correct to insert a Steam app URL into official website (P856) when Steam Application ID (P1733) is dedicated to providing that data. Doing so has a negative impact on database management, in terms of complicating easy reporting of records which lack direct official website data. Additionally, I believe it is more appropriate for the link to be presented as "App name on Steam", rather than "Official website", to allow the reader to know at a glance which type of official link is available (or which type they are about to visit), without needing to hover the mouse and inspect the URL (possibly an even more significant issue on things like tablets and phones). Using this dedicated template simplifies and ensures the use of standardised text / format / markup for that. "Name at/on Site" appears to be a de facto standard for deep links to specific pages on sites which cover many topics (see Wikipedia:Template messages/Links for many examples).
    3. I believe this case needs slightly more consideration. The relative quality of the two links should be considered, and the better of the two used where it completely covers the subject; or both (this is the additional case from above) where Steam provides better coverage, but the direct official site has reasonable additional value.
    4. I believe this may actually not be all that rare, as developers / publishers earn more from direct sales than Steam sales, so there is some incentive for them not to prominently link directly to their app page on Steam. If the link exists, but is basically relatively hidden in the depths of the website, I believe it should be considered not prominently linked, and roughly equivalent to not existing. Note that "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." in WP:ELMINOFFICIAL covers this.
    In terms of current usage, there are over 1000 links to store.steampowered.com/app/(numerical id) currently on the wiki. While I'm sure there may be some of those which could or should be pruned per ELMINOFFICIAL, there are probably also cases where a link could be added. Some of those links might be appropriate to convert to this template. "Choose the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information." in WP:ELMINOFFICIAL should also be considered. Thanks for pushing this over onto the more important discussion of "how much use could be made?", rather than "how much use currently exists?".
    Murph9000 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:ELNO because it's effectively a store link with minimal unsubsitutable encyclopaedic value. The developer has limited freedom to change the content and it's within Valve's overall website/control. The page would rarely present something not in developer's official website or proper reliable sources, but would always have the store interface and other Steam stuff. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    If they qualify as WP:ELOFFICIAL, then no part of WP:ELNO is relevant, per the bold complete exception at the top of ELNO. (Already covered above, just re-stating it briefly here.) The developer / publisher has direct control over a significant portion of the page. Murph9000 (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, I read the discussion above prior to commenting. I don't agree they qualify as official in any way. The page is not fully controlled by the owner, nor is its main purpose other than selling the product. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Gamerdna game[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Unused template. Soetermans. T / C 14:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete unused linkfarming template. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - unused useless template. Anarchyte 09:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Yakuza chronology[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 deleteczar 17:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Per a previous discussion, video game chronology templates generally aren't considered useful. It lists three games that are not canonical, while the rest of the games are subsequential. No reason to have a chronological template. Soetermans. T / C 14:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete, this particular chronology template is not useful. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Rogues Gallery[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Fails WP:NAVBOX completely. Rogues gallery "is a police collection of pictures or photographs of criminals and suspects kept for identification purposes". What probably is meant is "In comics, a specific superhero's recurring and most notable enemies are sometimes referred to as a rogues gallery" (see Rogues gallery (disambiguation). So there is no article on the subject of this navbox, the most important reason for having one in the first place. It lists common enemies and villians from various fictional universes, but those do no have anything in common with each other. Soetermans. T / C 14:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NAVBOX, all 5 of the bullets. --Izno (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - The biggest problem is that there's no real connection among the articles listed in the template. It just gathers articles by their format. In other words, no useful purpose for navigation; people visiting List of X-Men enemies are going to be navigating between the various X-Men-related articles, not every unrelated article of the form "List of [insert franchise] enemies".--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:IPhone video game engines[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 deleteczar 17:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

There's already {{Video game engines}}, listing video game engines. It would be redundant to have separate navboxes for engines on each platform. Further more, this navbox supposedly lists engines "targeting" iOS. But Unreal Engine, Marmalade (software) or GameMaker: Studio aren't specifically "targeting" iOS. Soetermans. T / C 14:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Anarchyte 09:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Trivial. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as indiscriminate navbox with topics not directly related better served as category. (I would say {{Video game engines}} is hardly better as we have categories for this kind of grouping.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Pro gamer achievements[edit]

Practically unused template. Nothing that can't be explained with a standard wikitable (like seen here). Soetermans. T / C 14:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as unused. One usage doesn't need a template and we should (re)create it only when enough articles want to have a standardized presentation to justify increased editing complexity. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I originally closed this today but just reopened it at @Prisencolin's request. I'm recommending his participation here. czar 21:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:2006 in video gaming by month links[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 deleteczar 17:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary sidebar with events and releases in the video game industry in 2006, divided by year. Soetermans. T / C 14:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete (transclude?) as unnecessary. If we really want to make standard TOC-style stuff for "2006 in Xxx" topics, this should be centralized and standardized, rather than one-off for specific pages. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Map of Square Enix companies[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. Page was already substituted onto the Square Enix page, which is a decent location for it. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary world map of locations of Square Enix companies. Nothing that can't be described in prose or in a list. Soetermans. T / C 14:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Subst and delete, single use, unlikely to be used elsewhere, but still useful and should be kept hardcoded in its article. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep or subst - It'll be useful in the Square Enix article, but that's about it. Anarchyte 09:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if I lean to subst or delete. I've no objection to substing, but this kind of map is uncharacteristic for most of our companies-related articles, which leads me to believe it wouldn't show up in a WP:FA. --Izno (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:AtariAge company[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 28bytes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 14:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfinished, unused Barely used template. Soetermans. T / C 14:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep per my comments from the last deletion discussion less than a year ago. 28bytes (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    It's barely used. I don't see a reason why to keep a template around just for Atari Age and those couple of articles it's used on. --Soetermans. T / C 15:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    This template makes maintaining these articles easier, since when and if the target URL format (e.g. http://www.atariage.com/company_page.html?CompanyID=146) changes, a change can be made in one place (the template) rather than having to be made in several different articles. Deleting this template means more work for the volunteers maintaining these articles in the long run. This is the same reason we have templates such as {{IMDb title}}. That this template is used in much fewer articles than {{IMDb title}} is simply because there are many, many more films than there are Atari 2600 games. What problem is your deletion nomination intended to solve? 28bytes (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    That it doesn't hurt I'm not contesting. I'm saying this is reverse logic: having a separate template for each source wouldn't make sense. That's what this, not an external link template like IMDb. If by volunteers you mean Wikipedians like you and me, it would be more efficient just to point regular ref templates, not one specifically for Atari Age. For those the two articles that use the template, I don't think it'll be a problem. --Soetermans. T / C 09:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    If the only rationale is "I want to be able to update these trivially", find and replace using a notepad can do the exact same thing given the limited uses of this template (which is presently 2 articles). --Izno (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    Perhaps you are right. I will delete the template. 28bytes (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete; it's basically a little-used fork of the CS1 templates. --Izno (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Periglio/Reject[edit]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:CyMoBase[edit]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Prism/Lights[edit]

unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:NewyorkadamGA[edit]

should be moved to userspace? Frietjes (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Cite Hochreiter:2000book[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

unused and not needed. Frietjes (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • delete all User:Hochreit created these templates but never updated any articles to use them. Presumably they are for his own papers. Mangoe (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Miss Denmark[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Three year versions of a pageant, all three AfD'ed. Two of them Crystal balls. The Banner talk 00:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Conditional delete If the articles are deleted, then this template should go to but not before....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
By now emptied by a third party. The Banner talk 16:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Navigation template with only two links, the main pageant article and the 2015 edition. Little useful navigation now that everything else has been deleted. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Now empty. czar 06:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox Quebec political party[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Quebec political party and Template:Infobox Canadian political party with Template:Infobox political party.
These two infoboxes differ only minimally from the generic political party infobox and are therefore redundant rather than a really helpful simplification. PanchoS (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak delete This isn't as bad as some I've seen. There are several hardcoded parameters in the wrapper, so this looks a lot like a template whose purpose is to track the parameters in question. The main things to consider here are: a) are the parameters in question likely to change in a way that means that it's useful to be able to easily change them across articles, and b) are there likely to be enough new instances of the templates that it's convenient to have the parameters in place already? Both of these events seem possible, but reasonably unlikely; in this case, the wrapper probably costs more (in maintenance of wrapper templates) than it gains (in the ability to mass-update articles). But I'm not sure. --ais523 22:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge – I don't see any reason why Canada/Quebec-specific infobox is particularly useful. Graham (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Trains portal/DYK date[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Robert F. Kennedy currently contains a notice that "A fact from this article was used in the "Did you know" section of Portal:Trains on November 4, 2009.". For most (if not all) editors interested in discussing the RFK article that notice is nothing more than a piece of clutter that has to be scrolled past to get to the discussions. This template appears to have been superseded by the use of a parameter on the WikiProject template - e.g. {{WikiProject Trains|...|portaldykdate=January 7, 2016}} (which doesn't add to the visible clutter on the talk page). Note: If this TFD results in the deletion of the template then it could be followed by a TFD covering other similar templates (e.g. Template:OhioSAN, Template:VP Showcase, Template:MedportalSAC). DexDor (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Amended. DexDor (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep This template is useful. It is useful to editors to note that the content of an article is of interest to other editors who may not have made substantial studies on the article's topic. It is useful to me as the lead editor of the Trains portal to know at a glance if a fact from the article has appeared in the portal's DYK section (I try not to use an article in this section more than once). The alternative for me would be to scan the article's links list, which is a more lengthy procedure and an article's past use on the portal is more likely to be missed. With almost 11 years of edit history on the portal, scanning those archives every day would be prohibitively time consuming. This template is only used on articles where the main topic is not within the scope of WikiProject Trains (and the article's talk page would therefore not have the project banner), as can also be seen on Talk:Pocket watch, Talk:1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, Talk:LGM-30 Minuteman and Talk:Joan Sims to name a few more. When I created this template, I tried to keep it as simple and small as possible to say just the most important fact (the date that the article appeared in the portal's DYK section, the text of the DYK fact is archived elsewhere). I added the |portaldykdate= parameter to the project banner because the majority of articles featured on the portal are within the project's scope, and having two banners that linked to the portal was overkill. The parameter in the project banner does not supersede this template; this template is for articles where the WikiProject Trains banner is not appropriate. As to adding banner clutter, there is probably a better solution, such as perhaps incorporating it into the BannerShell template, that is more suitable to a different discussion. Slambo (Speak) 20:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Can you give an example of how having this template on a page is useful - i.e. how would knowing that a page once featured in a portal's DYK affect any edit you (or, more importantly, another editor at, for example, the RFK article) might make? If editors (actually, for many/most portals that should read "the editor") at a particular portal want to keep a record of that portal's DYKs then a list on a subpage of that portal would be more appropriate. DexDor (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
note: I have left a message on WT:TWP for participants in the Trains WikiProject to participate in this discussion.
Since there are now several million articles in this language version of Wikipedia, I avoid having articles appear more than once in the did you know section, so, as the portal editor, I need an easy way to identify that an article has appeared on any date in the past. It's quite a bit faster and less error-prone to check an article's talk page than it is to scan a list of several thousand articles (even when using the Find function in the browser). The Trains portal was created in May 2005, I have been maintaining it for the last 11 years and making additions to the portal's DYK section on a daily basis, that means that about 4000 distinct articles (365x11=4015) have been selected for use as entries in the did you know section. Maintaining a list with more than 4000 entries is impractical. Slambo (Speak) 23:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep — I reject the clutter argument entirely. It's a very small amount of vertical space, trivial to scroll past. I think it is nice to let editors see that the article has gained recognition somewhere else within WP. In addition to considering it harmless, Slambo's argument about it being very useful for managing DYK is compelling for me. Murph9000 (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep — As an editor on a few rail-related articles, I've found it useful as per Slambo's "content of interest" argument. It's also useful to find other interesting content. I also reject it as clutter. It's very non-intrusive, but visible enough to anyone for who it might be of interest. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:WikiProjectBanners[edit]

Propose merging Template:WikiProjectBanners with Template:WikiProjectBannerShell.
It would be nice to merge these two templates so that we have a single banner shell template with all the same options. Currently {{WikiProjectBanners}} is a wrapper for {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} with the parameter |collapsed= set to "yes". So if we could replace all instances of {{WikiProjectBanners}} with {{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes}} then we could just redirect or delete {{WikiProjectBanners}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment It's a wrapper, so it's already been merged. Though you could convert Banners to be a subst-only version... -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The proposal is basically substitute the first template and either redirect it or make it subst-only. They both appear to be appropriate actions, though editors may prefer the subst-only version, if they are used to it. The second template doesn't need to be touched. —PC-XT+ 01:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
    That is correct. I wasn't going to bother making a subst'able template because there is nothing about the name WikiProjectBanners which implies its collapsing function. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Just redirect it. People who think it needs to be a certain way on a certain article should feel free to update their local transclusion of the template. --Izno (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Latin Union[edit]

Pointless navbox that just links to country articles for those countries who are members of the organization. We already have a list article that serves this function. If the template were to link instead to, say, articles on branches of the organization in different countries it might be worth keeping, but not as it stands. NSH002 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep WP:CLN navboxen and lists are not mutually exclusive. When reading a country article, one could conceivably wish to see similar countries, such as other members of the Latin Union. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
    comment It's true that lists and navboxes are not necessarily exclusive, but in this case we have navbox entries pointing to articles that have nothing to do with the topic of the navbox. Instead they point to major articles on countries. It is doubtful that, at that level of generality, those articles would ever need to refer to a relatively unimportant and now-defunct organization. In addition, they are suffering from an excess of navboxes at the bottom, and we really don't want to increase navbox bloat any further. --NSH002 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: I was the one who moved its content from navbox code at the bottom of the article to a tag-implementable template standing on its own. I can't see objections were made to have the navbox code straight in the footer of the articles, however, I don't really see us applying that method as an habit. As for stackning of navboxes, we already have a very well functioning method of collecting related navboxes at the bottom of the articles, that are initially hidden, requiring interaction to open and make browsable. The Latin Union is an important international organisation. I suppose we still have space on the harddisks of Wikipedia. I don't see any reason to save bytes on Wikipedia by deleting the navbox overview of this organisation as opposed to extant navboxes of other equivalent, prominent organisations of international co-operation. However, an navbox like this can always be improved to be even more at hand, and you are more than welcome to assist if you have ideas. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
    comment It is not a question of disk space on the wiki servers. Rather it has to do with unnecessary clutter on wiki pages. The fact that some editors feel it necessary to use {{Navboxes}} to wrap navboxes illustrates the problem of navbox bloat very well - it doesn't remove the clutter, it merely hides it (which may be even worse, since something hidden is much less likely to get fixed). Moreover, by introducing extra click(s) it mostly defeats the purpose of navboxes in the first place, namely to make it easy to navigate between related articles. See Template talk:Navboxes for details of even more problems with this template.--NSH002 (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Why do you consider it unncessary clutter? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Chicby, WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not an argument, nor is anyone saying that the Latin Union is not important: we're discussing if having a template based upon the members of said union is needed. WP:NAVBOX reads:
  1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
  2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
  3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
  4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.

The subject of this template is the Latin Union, which has its own article. But the Latin Union is for instance not mentioned in the article on France. The articles linked do not refer to other members in that sense. So it fails WP:NAVBOX. --Soetermans. T / C 11:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure. However, as far as I'm concerned, I would say the template does qualify to the above conditions. Templates for national or regional memberships in organisations like this, and far less important ones, are typical for Wikipedia. In the academic world, in commerce, in religion, and so forth. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
As far as you're concerned the template does qualify? How? I specifically pointed out how it does not meet WP:NAVBOX: the articles listed do not refer to each other. WP:OTHERSTUFF is also not an argument. You're basically just saying "I don't agree", without an argument. Which guidelines would suggest having this template is useful? --Soetermans. T / C 20:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Well. Technically, I just moved an existing, acclaimed template content into its own template page. Thus, arguably, there was consensus about having this information presented in this template since before. I just changed the location of its code. You seem experienced on Wikipedia and also strikingly concerned about this very subject. I'm not really that experienced, nor concerned. Yet, for now, we are two people who advocate keeping it these template contents in addition to the arguable previous consensus of not deleting it in its previous location of the code. I'm sorry for not yet making an effort to argue more that this, but I shall do it if you do persist in your advoacy for deletion. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Soetermans has pointed out that this template fails WP:NAVBOX on points 1, 2 and 3, so it should be deleted. That's really all that matters in a deletion discussion. You say that it used to be "existing, acclaimed template content" [on the Latin Union page] but this isn't relevant because on that page it is not serving as a navbox (navigating between articles) but merely as a way of listing some information. The use of {{Navbox}} was just a lazy way of adding the info. Also, I see no "acclamation" relating to that info, neither on Talk:Latin Union, nor on your talk page. --NSH002 (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
@Chicbyaccident:, I do believe I am somewhat experienced with Wikipedia, yes. But so are you! :) I might be more familiar with deletion discussions though, that's why I keep pressing on why it should stay or go. And it is my reading of the guidelines which leads me to believe we do not it. But hey, convince me otherwise! --Soetermans. T / C 08:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, was going to say Keep but now that I looked at what it actually is, it doesn't seem defining enough to warrant being able to navigate between members of the Latin Union quickly. The purpose of navboxes is navigation, not organization, not recognition, not importance, not anything else except ease of navigation. This is served both by smart usage of navboxes to group tightly related articles together for sensible "what article do I read next?" navigation, as well as refraining from over-providing such navboxes which would dilute the effectiveness each individual navbox that appears. This is an instance of the latter. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Jedi[edit]

This nav box is very in-universe in that it is based on the appearances of fictional concept(s) (Jedi, Sith and The Force) in the Star Wars franchise. All of its character, media and topic links are, or can be, covered in one or more of the many existing Star Wars navigation boxes ({{Star Wars}}, {{Star Wars characters}} and multiple others), which are already more appropriately arranged from a real world perspective. — TAnthonyTalk 01:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Jediism is a notable topic that definitely should have been previously included in {{Star Wars}}.— TAnthonyTalk 06:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, as it fails WP:NAVBOX and the arbitrary distinction between what is current canon and past canon is confusing. Jedi and Sith are linked in the template title, so those two must be the subject. But what in the fictional universe of Star Wars is not connected to the Force, Jedi or Sith? It lists four video games, but what about every game in which a Jedi or Sith appears? It could be an error, but why is Darth Maul listed twice, once as Sith Lord with a C behind his name, indicating "Canon" and once in the, I guess, other group? I agree with TAnthony that everything in this template can easily be put into other Star Wars templates. --Soetermans. T / C 08:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, but delete the entire section on "Franchise media", which is just an arbitrary selection of stuff already covered in Template:Star Wars and remove the L and C distinction. Wikipedia cares about notability, not canonicity. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Well then that would leave only the "Canon", "Force-sensitive users" and "Cultural impact sections", and all of those links are already included in either {{Star Wars}} or {{Star Wars characters}}.— TAnthonyTalk 19:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that's ok. As Jedi and Sith are both notable concepts, I think this is a notable subset/redivision of those two templates with a useful organizational spin on it. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, but keep franchise media. This is the only Star Wars template that properly provides distinction between what is and isn't canonical in one place. For the typical reader (like myself), a template like this is necessary. @Sotermans: The Darth Maul being listed twice thing was not there yesterday. The mistake has now been fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.236.211 (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    I appreciate your desire for information about canonocity, but a navbox is not the place for that, at least not in this way. There are other Star Wars nav boxes listing works that could perhaps be separated by Canon vs Legends if they are not already, but this nav box is flawed in that it is based on what works Jedis appear in, and that is in-universe (and redundant).— TAnthonyTalk 19:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    It's Soetermans :) Now Darth Maul is mentioned in the 'other group'. Isn't he a Sith also? Further issues: right now, there are a lot of redlinks in the template. Navboxes are for exisiting articles only, not for general listings. Oh, and the Rebels comics redirects to the CGI TV series. Star Wars Land is an upcoming theme area, and from what I can tell from its article, it isn't clear what is has to do with Jedi or Sith. --Soetermans. T / C 09:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - There are sufficient other templates which provide navigation between these topics without diving into (what can be) controversial "canonicity" discussions. --Izno (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: This template is the epitome of in-universe, with various subsets that someone unfamiliar with Star Wars could not even scratch the surface of for making sense of. As the Characters template covers the vast majority of this one's content, it's fitting that this is deleted and we rely on the more encyclopedic templates to manage the information. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 21:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: LISTEN. Why not split the page? The franchise media is extensive enough to be in its own box. The rest can remain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.191.146 (talk) 2:50, February 1, 2016‎
To my knowledge, everything in this template is included in other nav boxes already.— TAnthonyTalk 23:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
And as navboxes are for existing articles only, a lot of redlinks should be removed at this point. No use to keep it around. --Soetermans. T / C 08:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I've removed all non-existing links. The video games section barely scratched the surface of every appearance of a Jedi or Sith. The templates {{Star Wars}} and {{Star Wars characters}} are more appropriate for listing the rest of the media. --Soetermans. T / C 08:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

January 23[edit]

Template:Days in month[edit]

Redundant to Template:MONTHDAYS. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Redirect to MONTHDAYS -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect after converting any named or omitted parameters. —PC-XT+ 22:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

January 21[edit]

Template:Gotras of Tarkhans[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈ (speak now) 04:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Unused Template that contains no links to any existing articles. — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. First I thought someone had vandalised the template, but previous revisions are also completely lacking links to existing articles. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as useless. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Extinct volcanoes of the Andes[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relist to Feb 5Primefac (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Template:Comedy Classes[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈ (speak now) 04:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Template about a TV show having links to TV Channel, production house and actors. These entries are not related to each other and fails WP:NAVBOX clause of "articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. This isn't how navboxes are supposed to work. We shouldn't be linking to cast, crew and production companies in a TV series navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Indian Idol Junior (season 1)[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈ (speak now) 04:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Fails WP:NAVBOX with no independent article of its own. Also unused. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. We shouldn't have cast/crew in navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Mission[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relist to Feb 5Primefac (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Template:TriMet Rail System navbox[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no good reason for a navigation box listing all of the nearly 100 individual stations on one light rail system. This template is redundant to List of MAX Light Rail stations and to the much better navbox Template:Portland Transit, which lists all of the parent articles that readers are more likely to want to navigate between. Last, every individual MAX station article already includes, in its infobox, direct links to the Wikipedia articles for the adjacent (preceding and following) stations on the same line. SJ Morg (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. There is nothing wrong with this Navbox if it actually provided navigation between all the components, whereas a list is just a list. Since it has been added to very few articles it currently does not serve the purpose of a Navbox. Use it or lose it! Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I would think Wikipedia should have a navbox displaying all lines and stations, but I also recognize that this info can exist in the form of a list. Would it be more useful if this single navbox were separated into distinct navboxes for each line? Keep in mind, a navbox can display more than just stations. The Orange Line category, for example, also includes many of the newly-commissioned works of public art installed along the line. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    • There's no relationship between a MAX station in, say, Beaverton, and one in southeast Portland; the only thing they have in common is that they are both MAX stations, nothing else. Your reasoning suggests that you'd also be OK with a navbox listing every structure in Multnomah county that has a Wikipedia article (there are hundreds, for those reading this who might not know), because they are all in one county, and so they have that point in common. This navbox creates superfluous links between articles that are not significantly related. -- SJ Morg (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
      • @SJ Morg: Do you realise that most rail transit systems have a navbox like this? See Template:NYCS stations navbox and Template:Bay Area Rapid Transit for major examples. But if this one is not going to be implemented, it should probably be gone. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
        • I have never come across one (listing every station) for a light rail system. The two examples you give are heavy rail systems, and individual stations on heavy rail lines are much more notable. (Most individual light rail stations are not even notable and should not have WP articles, IMO, but it's not worth my time fighting that battle.) But that does not change my position, anyway. As another editor noted below, this navbox seems to run counter to WP:TG. I am not going to use this navbox myself, obviously, because I don't feel it should exist. SJ Morg (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
          • That's what I keep saying, but your argument above didn't make much sense to me. Lose it! Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
            • In your first comment, you say "a list is just a list" whereas this navbox would "provide navigation between all the components" if it were fully implemented. Well, List of MAX Light Rail stations also provides navigation between (virtually) of all the components in this template, making this template redundant in my view. The few non-MAX-station links in it are covered by the broader Template:Portland Transit, and really are not warranted here. This navbox is essentially just a list of every MAX station, and that is already covered both by the list article and by Category:MAX stations. SJ Morg (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
              • I keep saying to get rid of it. What is the point of keeping making points? I don't care. Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as a redundant list masquerading as a navbox, per nom and WP:TG. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 10:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominator. --SJ Morg (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as mostly unused. Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Changed to Keep as a widely used navbox. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I am going to be the outlier here and say keep, because I appreciate the template's function as a navigation tool, and based on the definition of a navigation box, which is "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles". I recognize why other editors find the template unnecessary, but I think this template serves a purpose and provides a good overview of the system and facilitates navigation. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    • @Another Believer: What you say may be valid, but to be properly utilized the template must be inserted in every article it contains. That is the point I made above. Use it or lose it! Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, the template could easily be added to all of the articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, its minimal use is a valid reason to delete. What are you going to do about it? Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
          • May have been time wasted if the template is deleted, but I went ahead and added the navbox to all stations. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete crowded navbox with many of the links duplicated. As pointed out by SJ Morg, the information is better served by Template:Portland Transit which includes a link to List of MAX Light Rail stations. JohnMcButts (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The template is now being used, which may sway opinions, hence the relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's overlinking. There's no need for each station to link to every other station. Mackensen (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Non-free Philippines government[edit]

Actually, Philippine government works are in the public domain, except that payment for commercial distribution and use is not connected to copyright. That license template conflicts with this Commons license template, and several Philippine government files are on Commons as free files, and some are on Wikipedia as "fair use" files (not true). TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • For the record, the commercial distribution clause that is established by the Philippine law has been discussed here and another time, plus some discussion here. The conclusion from what I see was that while the "commercial distribution clause" is valid, the law at the same time explicitly disawovs any copyright protection, making the "commercial distribution clause" a non-copyright restriction hence nothing that would get us in legal trouble or trip copyright policies. I would recommend to change our template to reflect the Commons one, unless someone has doubts about the validity of the conclusions in the previous discussions.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Apart from the discussions listed by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, there's also an old discussion somewhere in the archive for WT:C. What I don't like is the fact that the law says that there is no copyright but that there nevertheless are restrictions on the use of the material. This makes me think of a wording in the Swedish copyright law which was added in 1919 and repealed in 1994, saying that photographs weren't subject to copyright. Instead, there was a separate law which protected the 'right to photographic images', which was essentially the same thing but expressed with different words.
One problem with this template is that the files count as 'free' on Commons but 'unfree' on Wikipedia, which is inconsistent. On the other hand, English Wikipedia and Commons both have a template called {{PD-USGov}}, but ja:Template:PD-USGov on Japanese Wikipedia is a quite interesting redirect... --Stefan2 (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I personally have always thought that one important difference between copyright and non-copyright restrictions is that the former frequently apply internationally, thanks to all the treaties, while most of the latter usually don't. Emk was the editor who made that redirect on jawiki; to my knowledge PD-USGov is a bit of US law, other countries with different laws may still consider these copyrightable. As for this template, one major issue IMO is that we cannot enforce a non-free policy for images which Commons considers free; if an image we consider non-free but Commons considers free is deleted here for violating the WP:NFCC, if a copy of the image exists on Commons InstantCommons will make the image display regardless.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The 'right to photographic images' was formally not the same thing as 'copyright' under Swedish law, but was nevertheless still subject to the same international treaties.
If there is a file on Commons which we consider to be unfree, then there is nothing preventing us from disallowing or restricting its use on Wikipedia. Check for example {{Soprintendenza}} on Commons which refers to the Italian exemption doctrine policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the first case would depend on how the restriction is handled by foreign copyright laws; I am not an expert on such matters though. The "soprintendenza" like solution sounds, to use a technical term, "hackish" and I recommend us not to use it on enwiki.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Foreign copyright laws only need to consider one thing: is the work in the public domain through expiration of a copyright term in the country of origin? If this isn't the case, then foreign countries are required to provide protection for the work until the domestic term of the foreign country expires or until the copyright term of the country of origin expires, whichever happens first. For a tag like {{PD-USGov}}, I guess it's debatable whether there is a zero-length copyright term which has expired (in which case other countries do not need to protect United States Government works) or whether United States Government works are in the public domain for a reason unrelated to copyright terms (in which other countries need to protect United States Government works). For example, there was a French court ruling where it was concluded that United States works which are {{PD-US-not renewed}} are in the public domain in the United States for a reason other than term expiration, which means that France is required to protect such works by copyright until they become {{PD-1923}} or {{PD-old-70}}, whichever happens first. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Elimination Chamber winners[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈ (speak now) 04:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

As with the Royal Rumble Final Four, not notable. CrashUnderride 05:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete: WWE doesn't include the elimination chamber in the acomplishments lists. It's not like the Money in the Bank or the Royal Rumble, just a stipulation. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per HHH. It's a rare but not unique stipulation, literally. There's sometimes more than one such match in a night (which makes sense when one considers how much work it must be to set up. It's not something that even the hype machine of WWE keeps track of. oknazevad (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Good info, but there's more to a meaningful template than that. The info's still safe for whoever cares at Elimination Chamber, and every winner's article almost certainly (hopefully?) mentions that part. I'd say the same for the other two, too. Rare, but not unique, and just stipulation matches. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, January 24, 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Not really a useful navbox.LM2000 (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

NCAA Silver Anniversary Awards[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 deletePlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

These templates denote a minor award that is not a defining biographical element for its recipients. These navboxes are therefore unneeded and clutter more pertinent navboxes in the footers of the bio articles on which they are transcluded. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Even if the associated articles satisfy the WP:GNG standard for notability, these NCAA alumni awards for top college athletes on the 25th anniversary of their graduation do not rise to the level of "noteworthiness" that is typical of a navbox worth keeping. The level of coverage these awards receive in mainstream media is relatively small. Most importantly, the likelihood of any of our readers wanting to navigate among the almost completely unrelated recipients of the award -- different sports, different teams, different universities -- is extremely low. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:LSR[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. Apparently I nominated the "wrong" template, so I'll close this and go nominate a thousand subpages instead. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

LSR creates a subpage under Template:Latest stable software release (a full list is here). I am proposing that all of these subpages be substituted, deleted, and the main LSR template be modified so that it does not contain the [±] edit link. Saving information in hard-coded templates breaks quite a few rules, and previous examples such as {{cite doi}} have shown that they should be deleted. Primefac (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The advantage of this template system only applies when talking about software actively under development, and then only if used in more than one or two articles. Templates that don't fit those requirements could most likely be deleted. Wikidata was made for information like this that is really too simple for templates, which may be a reason to keep the main template (converting to use wikidata.) If the subpages are moved to wikidata, they could all be deleted. (I'd probably also like to see something like this happen to other metadata templates.) —PC-XT+ 22:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I hope my colleagues excuse my frankness but I think the nominator must supply a reason for his nomination that is less vague and weasel-wordy than "it breaks a quite a few rules". (Which?) In addition, this template off-loads edits related to version number from the main diff. How are we supposed to fill this need without this template? Moving to WikiData is not feasible at this time; not without causing great hindrance for obtaining Feature-article requirements. See DivX and Adobe Acrobat for examples of challenges to implementing this on WikiData. Add in the fact that different Wikipedia projects need different subsets of those data and might have different policies/guidelines/consensus regarding what has due weight.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
My apologies for not responding earlier, Codename Lisa. The subpages of this template go against the first rule of WP:TMPG (hard-coding text to be used elsewhere). I suppose "a few rules" was slight hyperbole, but there have been quite a few (including the above-mentioned cite doi) TFDs where hardcoded templates were deleted. My question to you is this: if an editor comes in and trashes an LSR subpage, and no one happens to be watching that page, how does anyone know that the information there is most recent? Answer: they don't. This opens the door for vandals and keeps new editors from feeling comfortable editing the page.
As a side note, I don't particularly think this is a Wikidata issue; I think this is an issue (which I've come across multiple times) of editors being confused as hell about what they're supposed to be editing, and also keeping track of changes being made to a specific article. Primefac (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello,Primefac
  1. First and foremost, this template has no subpages other than the standard ones and does not hardcode anything. LSR is just a formatting template. You have nominated the wrong template.
  2. The template you intended to nominate does not store article text; it store table cells. This is not a violation of the guideline you mentioned. Myriads of other templates are doing this already, including all navboxes, timeline templates and tables.
  3. The "if a vandal..." argument is an argument from pure fear. It is true that page watchers must separately watch the templates as well but that's true for all templates, including navboxes, timelines, formatting templates, and all other kinds. Assess the threat carefully and if your fear was justified, request a cascading semi-protection on the parent template.
  4. Still there is the main concern that must be addressed: If a template nominated has huge benefits, the nominator is responsible for explaining a plan to fill that void.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep while there is no replacement. I forgot that it is also useful if version changes flood histories, even for just one article. I would support subst and delete of any subtemplates for discontinued software, but not the main template or most subtemplates that have been updated recently. Wikidata would be nice, but I thought it was funny that it hadn't already been implemented, yet. Thanks for explaining the concerns, Codename Lisa. —PC-XT+ 14:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
PC-XT, I'm not suggesting we delete and remove all of the information. I'm saying that the template is totally fine, but the creation (and hence transclusion) of a bunch of hardcoded subpages isn't. For example, a recent TFD for the ChatON page resulted in the subpage being deleted, and the information is still completely intact on the Article itself. There's no reason for a random subpage to be created to store that information. Primefac (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: it is very inconvenient indeed on the page Comparison_of_numerical_analysis_software not to be able to fetch ONLY the version number or ONLY the latest release date, since we want to be able to order tables according to dates. Is it possible to improve the template ? I do not think so. That is why I am pushing for deletion. Nucleos (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Face-surprise.svg This template has nothing to do with that problem. Are you sure you know what template is this? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Clarification comment I do not want {{LSR}} to be deleted. It's a useful template. I want the subpages of LSR to be substituted, deleted, and LSR changed so that it doesn't create those subpages. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Covert United States involvement in regime change[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. There is support for a rename, but with two valid potential options I'll leave that for a talk page discussion. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Template created to reflect the content of an article that no longer exists.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the article was deleted because it was redundant with content in the CIA and history of the CIA articles. Therefore, the content is still on Wikipedia; all that needs to be done is change the title. "CIA regime change actions" would be quite appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep for now and rename per Vanamonde93. (If it could fit into {{Central Intelligence Agency}}, I would say delete to consolidate in the same manner as the articles were handled, but this is more of a merge rather than current redundancy, and I'm not sure how well the content will fit together, so a merge discussion would probably be better...) —PC-XT+ 11:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename as Vanamonde93 suggests, or rename as "Covert Unites States regime change operations." I don't know why we should restrict content to post-WWII operations: hence dropping the "CIA" part of the name. -Darouet (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Montana State Bobcats bowl game navbox[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relist to Feb 5Primefac (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Template:Historical capitals of Serbia[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relist to Feb 5Primefac (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

January 6[edit]

Template:Mission[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relist to Jan 21Primefac (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Template:Nach Baliye 4[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. BethNaught (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Untranscluded, the season doesn't even have its own independent page, quite useless with Template:Nach Baliye present as one consolidated template. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

delete, pointless. Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:P.I Private Investigator[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. BethNaught (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Untranscluded and quite useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  • delete, pointless. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Indian Idol (season 6)[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. BethNaught (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Untranscluded, the season doesn't even have its own independent page, quite useless with Template:Indian Idol present as one consolidated template. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  • delete, pointless. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Zara Nachke Dikha (season 1)[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. BethNaught (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Untranscluded, the season doesn't even have its own independent page, quite useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  • delete, pointless. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Indian Idol Junior (season 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. BethNaught (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Untranscluded, the season doesn't even have its own independent page, quite useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  • delete, pointless. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:X Factor (India)[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. BethNaught (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

One transclusion, that too only on the main page of the topic, quite useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  • delete, pointless. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

[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. {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} should be modified to echo c:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia, and all instances of {{Non-free Wikimedia logo}} be changed to that template. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This template is still in use and unmodified, despite this statement a year ago that the license status of these images has been changed to a free CC license with trademarks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I suggest that we rename the template and change the text into {{cc-by-sa-3.0|[[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}{{Wikimedia trademark}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest to replace the template with these instead and delete the template. Doesn't seem to me we need a specific template for Wikimedia logos, but I am definitively up for commentary on this.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Rename and amend text per Stefan2 (assuming that synchronises with c:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia per Stefan2's subsequent comment). This seems like an uncontroversial correction to a misleading statement, rather than something needing a TfD thread, I'd suggest. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Latest stable software release/ChatON[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete after substitution. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hard-coded text used only in a single article. Better to just merge contents into article than hidden away in a template. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment If someone is still on the fence, it's still possible to consider this a violation of WP:T3. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Subst: and delete per nom, as it is not likely to change, since the software is discontinued. —PC-XT+ 09:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 08:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Template:TriMet Rail System navbox[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relist to Jan 21Primefac (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Template:Non-free Scout logo nocontent[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete after replacing with {{Di-fails NFCC}} as indicated below. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Non-free Scout logo nocontent with Template:Di-fails NFCC.
{{Non-free Scout logo nocontent}} seems to mean that a file violates WP:NFCC#8. For that purpose, we already have a different template: {{di-fails NFCC|8=yes|date=~~~~~}}. I fail to see any need for this extra template. Stefan2 (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Modern Family episodes[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was merge. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Modern Family episodes with Template:Modern Family.
Barely any links at the target, so wouldn't make for a substantially larger navbox if they were merged. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. --Izno (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge I agree. The two templates could be merged without any issues since the "main" one is almost empty. TeamGale (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge seems appropriate —PC-XT+ 08:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. -- Chamith (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:IPL Winners[edit]

Is there really a reason why there should be a template for the winners of the Indian Premier League? An encyclopedic one? ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case, then there should not be an encyclopedic reason for keeping Template:IPL Player of the Series. Do you have any explanation? — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 11:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Never made it so I don't know. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to nominate that for deletion then be my guest. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
There's no problem in keeping these templates. Is there? — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 08:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, here is one problem with keeping this template. This template just shows the teams that have won the IPL. There is already the IPL template which already lists all the eight IPL teams. Other than a few teams which leave/suspended and some which came in through rebranding/expansion, the teams pretty much remain the same since this is a league, not a tournament like the UEFA Champions League where all the teams that compete in it change yearly and that there is a process to qualify for the tournament in the first place. Eventually there is a good chance that every team can win the IPL so that would make the template kinda useless since there is already a template that lists the teams, whereas that is unlikely to ever happen with the Champions League or similar tournaments like it. You can make a section in IPL team templates (we should create these) where you list what honours they won and when (like in this). There are already a list of who the champions are and details of every tournament final. Basically, due to the nature of the IPL, there is no reason for a template detailing who the winners of every tournament are. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete. What are you, Swastik? A kid in primary school? There was a lengthy discussion (in which i was a part of) already on some useless templates he created before. And now this. I need you to understand that you are wasting other users time with your school projects on wiki. The explanation given by ArsenalFan700 in the last comment is common sense. Shocked to see 2 similar templates on the same page (IPL). Chris8924 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to be CIVIL during these discussions; personal attacks are unacceptable and could result in sanctions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Chris8924, put your bloody thoughts in your 'old' brain only. You are forgetting that Wikipedia is not a place for evaluating whether person is a kid or not? — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 17:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep; not particularly different from {{World Series champions}}. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think this template is not necessary, if it necessary some one create this in past, no need wait till the 9th season. if we open one team like DD/RR/KKR/All the teams, we can see their performance in that pages, Or if we open IPL Main page we can find out all team performance at one place.

Player of series Template also no need as specially. Nivas88 09:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Non-free Philippines government[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relist to Jan 21Primefac (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

December 19[edit]

Template:Modi[edit]

Redundant with Template:Narendra Modi already present. We don't need two templates for same stuff. I prefer to keep the vertical one, not of the orientation, but for the content as the horizontal one has too many diluted loosely connected links also mentioned in it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • delete redundant, per dharmadhyaksha. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dharmadhyaksha. D'SuperHero (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: If this template is having some extra articles related to Modi then those can be added in another template. No need of 2 templates on same person. --Human3015TALK  16:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • keep:Template:Modi is a Navbox. Delete Template:Narendra Modi if you want. That's redundant. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
If that's a Navbox, what is other? And Template:Narendra Modi exists here since before this new one was created. So why should the old one be deleted? Because you created it disregarding work of other editors? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not aware about vertical infobox since I used to edit in Indian religion related topics. It has two boxes one Navbox at bottom for topics and one vertical on top. So I applied same logic here till you suggested deletion. The reason why I suggested keeping horizontal one is that we can't include all articles in vertical one, else it will become too cluttered. You are right about getting rid of loosely linked articles, but they are only 3-4. Rest all are directly linked articles. Vertical template can't even include all Schemes started by Modi Government. I suggest please review the new template closely at least once and reassess the count of articles not required. And yes, please dont accuse me to disregarding work of other editors. I respect work of every editor here unlike some others. I wanted to keep both since they both have different characteristics, forced to chose one, I chose the one with full list. If you want, I can even list the differences, major two being pic of modi and appearance on mobile devices. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Your reason for deleting vertical one; size constraint, isn't convincing. There is no limit to entries that a vertical template can have. And there surely is no reason to keep both. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • merge with Template:Narendra Modi. I prefer the navbox format since it doesn't encroach on the space used by infoboxes and images. Frietjes (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge the two templates. There was a similar TfD regarding {{Ollywood films}} (and other film templates) nominated by Dharmadhyaksha with pretty much the same rationale. I see no reason why we can't have both a horizontal and vertical option for this template as well. Primefac (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Should this be closed as a merge, feel free to ping me; I am happy to merge the two templates. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge Capankajsmilyo has put in some decent work aggregating information in the horizontal Template, however ther vertical format would be better suited because it can accomodate more information (since a lot is still missing in the horizontal and vertical version) and the vertical version gives for better visibility anyways. So I vote that we merge the two by taking all the data in the horizontal format and putting it into the VERTICAL format along with restructuring the vertical one. Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:TriMet Rail System navbox[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relist to Jan 6Primefac (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Template:Top international association football goalscorers by country[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Not needed as a template, seems to be mostly OR and what is the inclusion criteria.. JMHamo (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - simply not needed. GiantSnowman 09:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Needed. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 09:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    @SWASTIK 25: Please explain the inclusion criteria JMHamo (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not needed. Kante4 (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not needed. --Jaellee (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - fundamentally not a navbox, but a list masquerading as a navbox. Fenix down (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unnecessary. I also echo Fenix down's comment. — Jkudlick tcs 04:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I also note that the only mainspace article transcluding this template is List of top international association football goal scorers by country and that this template merely duplicates part of that list. — Jkudlick tcs 04:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:The League of Nations[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominating on behalf of TrueCRaysball, who nominated main article The League of Nations (professional wrestling) for deletion and expressed a desire to include this navbox as part of that effort (see AFD). While the navbox doesn't necessarily violate WP:NENAN or similar, I agree with the overall sentiment expressed in the AFD. Constantly giving such inordinate attention to "the latest fashion" is only further killing Wikipedia's credibility, making us out to be another news or social media site instead of an encyclopedic information resource. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Notability problems aside, there are only four real members of the group (two valets, one of which is no longer a member) which makes for a rather useless navbox.LM2000 (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, too soon, not notable and not needed.  MPJ-US  04:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 3

Completed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell

Archive and Indices[edit]