Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

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

Closing instructions

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

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

How to use this page[edit]

What not to propose for discussion here[edit]

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

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

Reasons to delete a template[edit]

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

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

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

Listing a template[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twinkle[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

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

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

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

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

January 15[edit]


January 14[edit]

Template:ProSieben Shows (current and upcoming)[edit]

Unused. These templates should only be used to group original programming produced by a network per conventional usage and per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. -- Rob Sinden (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Periglio/Reject[edit]

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

Template:CyMoBase[edit]

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

Template:Prism/Lights[edit]

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

Template:NewyorkadamGA[edit]

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

Template:Cite Hochreiter:2000book[edit]

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

Template:Miss Denmark[edit]

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)

Template:Barbara (WVS) friendly med ref reminder[edit]

not sure why this is in template space if it is named for a particular user. Frietjes (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Denimadept/Da-delete1[edit]

not sure why this is in template space? Frietjes (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's in my personal space. I use it occasionally. - Denimadept (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
then move it out of template space. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

January 13[edit]

NandiAwardBestActor templates[edit]

This is sub template for {{Nandi Award for Best Actor}} and is redundant. The above template contains ALL awardees and has been used to replace this template on all peritnent articles. Agrawal.akshay98 (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: These have been combined from the original Jan 5 listing into one nomination because the rationale is identical (as is the one !vote)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:IPL Player of the Series[edit]

Nivas88 09:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Nivas88, what is the rationale? is this being nominated for deletion? Frietjes (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
@Frietjes Yes I nominate/request this template for deletion. Nivas88 17:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I support nominator to delete it. GreenCricketTALK 07:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At the moment there has been NOREASON given for this nomination. Please give one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Procedural close Nivas88 seems fairly new to Wikipedia (348 edits as of right now since signing up September 30). I recommend closing this nomination until both Nivas88 & GreenCricket learn a bit more about how procedure works around here. It's no big deal, we all had to learn, but this discussion isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

College football all-time team navboxes[edit]

As discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#All-time team navboxes, these navboxes denote obscure all-time team selections that do not warrant stand-alone articles or navboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment I will note some of the same things I noted there: The Georgia Tech and Sewanee navboxes represent teams regularly published in official publications. These were created some time ago, and are of a different kind IMO. Georgia Tech's boxes in particular; I would oppose their deletion. After the Navy box was made, I knew of other teams by George Trevor, and thus made the Georgia and Illinois boxes. As a similar but different case, I also made the Vandy box. In other words: If the Navy box deserves deletion, then so do Georgia and Illinois boxes at the least, and probably the Vandy box too. That was the point. However, I did not have Tech or Sewanee in mind, and had made those already for other reasons, and so am a bit more dogmatic about those staying. Cake (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Cake, thanks for the comment. The distinction you've offered up is understood and reasonable. However, I don't think the Georgia Tech and Sewanee navboxes past muster, nonetheless. Is Everett Strupper's selection to the "Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets All-Era football team (John Heisman Era)" so key to his biographical identity that it deserves to be a dimension of navigation? The heading of the Template:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets All-Era football team navbox clicks through only to Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football and John Heisman, and no mention is made in either of those two articles about this "All-Era" team. We are left with no context about how this team was selected, when it was made, and who made it. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
That could be a flaw in the articles. Heisman's article would probably be enhanced by its mention. I grant you there is not much about the selection process, but like the Tech Hall of Fame it seems somehow to be issued by the university, e. g. here (page 155). I am also curious if the All-time Southeast teams are worthy of navboxes or articles. To answer the question, say if we get rid of the All-Southern navboxes, then I would wish somehow to connect Tommy Spence to Strupper. Cake (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Cake, the All-Southern articles are certainly notable, and I think the navboxes have merit if we consider this honor to be perhaps just be a smidgen below All-American. It was something of a regional All-American team, right, given the the main All-American teams of the day tended to have a bias toward Northeastern and Midwestern players? If you want to connect Spencer and Strupper, shouldn't the body of each article make mention of the other, since the two played in the same backfield? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, from 1933 to 1952 it is like an early All-ACC team, and after that like All-Conference USA or All-Ohio Valley Conference or whatever; but until about 1932 it is something like as you say a smidgen below All-American. You can see some of that with the earliest Hall of Fame players linked on the All-Southern page and their profile on the Hall's site. Strupper is mentioned on Spence's article. You are right Strupper's would probably be enhanced by a mention, but I would not want to stick it in haphazardly, and Strupper is so large a figure for southern football then. There is much to cover. Spence is often neglected for mention of, say, Judy Harlan. Cake (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all - These navboxes fail multiple criteria of WP:NAVBOX, and the subject "honor" is neither major nor arguably notable per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:13, 3 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)

Template:Covert United States involvement in regime change[edit]

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)

Template:Back to contents[edit]

used only around 70 times, so it's not clear why we need this. if there is a desire to have links go back to the TOC in article space, then why wouldn't we have them automatically added (by the backend software) next to section edit links? Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Was made for help articles that dont have a "section edit" like Help:Directory...not sure how it got all over.....but was made to navigate large directories. I guess we could just add the code manualy...but that would just be more coding on the main page for no reason. Let me know what happens so I can fix the help pages -- Moxy (talk)
  • Keep per Moxy; I don't really see much of a problem having this. Long pages with many sections and long intros would have the TOCs not close to the top, but useful. Though a software solution would be better, if the software automatically added a back to TOC link before a section and at the bottom of the page. ; we already have {{skip to toc}} for the top of pages with long sections before the TOC shows up -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Restrict to non-mainspace. I see zero reason for this in the mainspace since directly using Html (and thus headers which don't have edit links a la <hN>) there is basically banned. (The other reason you'd see pages without section edit links would be the magic word lying around which turns section edit links off, which also goes unused in the mainspace.) --Izno (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep prior to seeing this notice, I added template to multiple sections at Wikipedia:Tips, the complete library of tips arranged by subject. For this help article, I find the Back to contents template to be useful. In addition, I added to Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day at the 12 monthly Tip maintenance tables. --  JoeHebda  talk  19:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This template is looking like it will be kept, but is there any consensus to restrict it to non-mainspace use?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 20:20, 13 January 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)

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)

January 12[edit]

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)

January 11[edit]

Template:FlagiconUCI[edit]

I created this back in 2007 when I didn't understand WP:MOSFLAG as well, which it clearly fails. Severo (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per WP:G7. The nominator, User:Severo, is template creator, and has requested deletion via this TfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Dirtlawyer1, G7 does not apply, as Severo is not the only substantive contributor to the template. Relentlessly (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. What substantive contributions would that be? Here's the net contributions all of the various contributors have made to the template since Severo created the template: [1]. To my untrained eye, the net additions appear to be not much more than the TfD notice template. Your mileage may vary. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Miss Global Beauty Queen[edit]

Nothing to navigate The Banner talk 19:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

January 10[edit]

Template:Brown Bears bowl game navbox[edit]

Navbox with just two links, only one of which is the subject of the template. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Another one-link navbox that is serves no function other than banner-hanging. This is what in-line links and "see also" sections are for. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Los Angeles-St. Louis Rams Annual Sack Leaders[edit]

Not everything needs a navbox. Not a notable enough achievement. No other team has templates for sack leaders. Yankees10 00:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Would certainly add to navbox bloat at the bottom of articles as well. MarnetteD|Talk 00:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. Please nominate any similar team "stats leader" navboxes for TfD review. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

January 9[edit]

Template:Southern Arkansas Muleriders bowl game navbox[edit]

Navbox with just two links, only one of which is the subject of the Navbox. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 16:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator's rationale: we don't do navboxes with one link. If the bowl game is not already linked in the text of the main team article, it should be, and perhaps added to the "see also" section as well. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Loan[edit]

Template is not defined or described, 'loan' covers so much. Not required as it doesn't save any time/spacr; should be substituted and deleted. GiantSnowman 14:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete It's just hard-coded text. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 13 January 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)

January 8[edit]

Template:CONMEBOL top caps and goals[edit]

Same as Template:UEFA most caps and goals listed below. WP:NOTSTATS and simply not notable Qed237 (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:The Odd Life of Amy Letwis[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. I've struck my vote for procedure's sake. This template was related to an AfD for a film that ended up being a hoax, one of several related items created to further a hoax that'd already been detected and deleted on the Spanish Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Template only links two articles. These are The Odd Life of Amy Lewis & Martina Rodriguez who stars in The Odd Life of Amy Lewis. It is not serving a useful function. Blethering Scot 19:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC) *Delete. It serves no current purpose and I'm actually somewhat concerned that the film is a hoax of sorts, in that the film (assuming it exists) does not appear to have won any awards, aired on television, or been made into video games. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • It's all a hoax. If no one minds, I'm going to speedy this as a blatant hoax, one of several created by a now-blocked editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:51, 9 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:Cricketers with 300 or more ODI caps[edit]

Not notable, who says 300 is a good limit? Why even have this list? Qed237 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep: How much limit do you want, 500??? It implies that you are not an ardent follower of international cricket matches. Don't opine about the things, you know the least. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 18:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@SWASTIK 25: I dont want any arbitrary number. Wikioedia should not pick number out of thin air. Also I dont think the template is useful, we should not have a bunch of templates if they are not useful. Qed237 (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@Qed237: It's not about any arbitrary number, but about the achievement. The logic you are giving out of thin air is simply rubbish! — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 06:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: playing 300 international ODI matches is considered as a great achievement. Check the list closely. How many players did achieve that feat if that was so easy to achieve as per your logic? Suman420 (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@Suman420: I have not said it easy to achieve those numbers but it is an arbitrary number and wikipedia should not decide those. Also the template is not useful. Qed237 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@Qed237: You may find that the template is not much important in effect. I also think so. But it's 50-50. Keeping this template won't harm any article...as well as deleting.Suman420 (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: 300 is an arbitrary number. Yes 300 matches would be an achievement, however who are we to pick that number out of thin air. Also is the template useful? It adds nothing the article can't to ease navigation.Blethering Scot 19:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see any point in having this template. An article listing numbers of LOI appearances might be fair enough but then you have to decide on a cutoff (perhaps 100). Jack | talk page 14:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - is this a notable milestone? Doesn't look like it. GiantSnowman 17:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as an irrelevant number and artificial division. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
A foolish comment. That template as you know is also being considered for deletion! Which means, yes, both templates are equally pointless and neither can be defended. Face-wink.svg Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you think Template:Englishmen with 100 or more ODI caps should be deleted? But some doesn't consider that to be deleted. See this. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 18:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
If it mattered what I think, then I would have !voted there already. But I haven't. So it doesn't. Remember, though, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 20:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete arbitrary and unneeded. Harrias talk 18:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - More bottom-of-the-page fancruft. Template fails several of the WP:NAVBOX criteria, most notably the requirement of having an article or list on the specific topic of the navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:UEFA most caps and goals[edit]

Not notable list of scorers. Qed237 (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@SWASTIK 25: Done, it is now listed above, thank you I was not aware of that one. Qed237 (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: If notable topic should be replaced by an article.Blethering Scot 19:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - no context, NOTSTATS, not needed. GiantSnowman 19:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not needed. Kante4 (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator's rationale and WP:NAVBOX criterion no. 4. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Tiptree Residents Association/meta/shortname[edit]

This is a meaningless template; it contains nothing besides its own name. There is also no demonstrated need for this template, as it is about a non-notable organization. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  • delete, not notable. Frietjes (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Template is required for the functionality of election results boxes. Its deletion will stop the results table at Colchester Borough Council election, 1978#Tiptree (and anywhere else it is going to be used – a new editor appears to be creating further election articles for Colchester) displaying properly (if there is no template, the table breaks – see what happens here when the party name is incorrectly entered (so there is no template match). Number 57 00:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nomination following this discussion. Im not convinced about the notability, but while the article exists this template should, as well. Frietjes, if you would take another look, I would be grateful; if you still believe this should be deleted, well and good, but if not, we can close as speedy keep and avoid an administrator spending time here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Withdraw withdrawal (:-) As per discussion below; if it is truly redundant, and Frietjes seems to have demonstrated, then let's get rid of it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Vanamonde93, I would still rather see this deleted. the sheer number of these meta/shortname and meta/color templates is ridiculous. just do this and you don't need this template. Frietjes (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - As far as I can tell, this template includes no content and performs no function, for a subject of dubious notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Toronto FC Player of the Year[edit]

AfD for associated article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Toronto FC Players of the Year, resulted in a redirect decision so this should probably be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. No article by that name anymore, so shouldn't be a template. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Club-level award of minor note. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 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)

Template:Brigada Mass Media Corporation[edit]

Template:Ciudad Victoria TV[edit]

There is only one article on which this template could be transcluded as the other links are all redirects to national network articles. Not enough local stations in Cd. Victoria for this to make sense. Raymie (t • c) 01:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that I have condensed these four templates into one nomination, as they have nearly identical rationale. The original (separated) nominations are on December 21.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Shooting Stars[edit]

Standard practice not to have cast and crew in navboxes. Remove the cast, and all we are left with is a link to a list of episodes. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Sure you doing right by our readers by impeding navigation all over the place? WP:ADVICEPAGE -- Moxy (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    • There's long standing consensus regarding cast and crew in navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Your right it only makes sense that we dont link cast and crew ever...why would people want to navigate those articles...the people that makes those articles dont want people to find them. What a waste of editors time.-- Moxy (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
There's a reason for this consensus. Over-proliferation of navboxes. Someone who has been in twenty television series would have twenty navboxes on their article. And the connections are tangential. The only thing linking the actors therein would be that they happened to be in the same television series. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
look at Elizabeth Taylor.....yes full of navboxes ....but not one that is usefull to the topic at hand...why because your projects odd belief that relevant navboxes should be deleted. Get to work on stooping the navbox spam of losslly related topics over deleting main topic navboxes. Your project needs to sit down and talk about doing what is best to navigate the topics....not go out of your way to imped navigation because you dislike lots of boxes..work on removing the useless ones....not deleting every link you see. The people that make these articles would like others to be able to find them like you would any other article....no on has the right to go out of there way to orphan theses articles from templates in this manner...your doing wrong by our readers...and is why this type of action is noted in the guideline above!!!!-- Moxy (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I'd welcome getting rid of the awards navboxes too, but that isn't what's being discussed here. Also, I don't have a project... I assume you're talking about the prior consensus at WP:ACTOR regarding cast and crew in navboxes --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no prior consensus at WP:ACTOR regarding cast and crew (perhaps you are referring to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 3#Cast/Crew in navigation boxes?). I do not think that is relevant in this case though as Shooting Stars seems to be a game show (that would be sort of like leaving Vanna White out of {{Wheel of Fortune}} because she is only a hostess; she is clearly listed in that navbox under "Cast and crew"). Game shows, talk shows and reality shows usually have no real actors (and any that do appear, appear as themselves for their TV personality status not their acting status) so the only people involved are cast and crew and any "contestants", "guests" or "participants", etc. Documentaries also fall into this situation if there are no reenactments (and even if there are, the actors often are considerably less notable). Uzume (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    • The principle is the same though - same with the massive proliferation of navboxes for reality show contestants. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Miss Earth titleholders 2001[edit]

The titleholder templates simply display the 4 annual winners - info that is already in the article the template for that year is on. Plus the main winner is also in the Infobox. This makes the templates an unnecessary link farm.

The delegates templates are a massive list of every one of the 80+ girls that competed each year, plus all the girls that DID NOT compete. Many of these girls were simply cast by franchise holders to go to the global event without winning any local event. These lists were also in the article for each year but various editors determined the info was completely unsourced, overly detailed and promotional fancruft of no encyclopedic value.

Both sets of templates display information usable only on one year article, which strongly suggests they are not required as templates. Their function as a navigation aid between event articles is already covered by yet another template.

These articles appear to be built out by professional paid editors (a number of whom were blocked as socks) that were very generous with links back to the sponsoring organization. Efforts to trim them are met with restoration by Single Purpose Accounts who rebuild them again without sources. I propose deleting all the templates listed, leaving the simple navigation template covering 15 years (not nominated) For an example see Miss Earth 2014. I also found many of these were not in use, and have removed most of the others from use other than in 2014. Legacypac (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep Legacypac, I know for a fact that the majority of the templates above were not created by a paid editor because I created them {{Miss Earth titleholders 2004}} through {{Miss Earth titleholders 2012}} were created by me. The delegate templates are very useful as they link articles of subjects with a common interst group making the navigational linkages important. The titleholder templates serve a similar purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes I realize you created some of the templates but the mass of articles the link are often created by paid editors. The navigation function is provided by the simple year template. 09:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Strong Delete The pertinent policies strongly support deleting the massive, entirely non-notable, grossly inadequately referenced, unverifiable delegates templates. These uncorroborated, trivial, fancruft lists give a long list of delegates for each year, some of whom are appointed arbitrarily, or who do not attend the final pageant etc. etc. These lists have Wikipedia act as an unpaid web hosting service for content of a type that absolutely needs to find a happy home on the commercial sponsor's own web page, or some similar venue, where it is secure, finalized and official. The titleholder templates are less egregious, in that they have some references (or can in principle be referenced and verified), but, as the nomination correctly states, their function has already been totally met by alternative (and already redundant) links. In addition to the two sets of linking mentioned in the nomination, there is also List of Miss Earth titleholders, so there are at least 3 ways to run the cross links already. (Off topic commentary about professional paid editor issues is entirely irrelevant.) FeatherPluma (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I think deleting the template is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. What we need to do is to delete all the non-notable delegates that have articles. If half of the delegate articles are for non-notable subjects that does not mean we should delete the templates. It means we should only link among the half that are notable and delete the rest of the articles. Navigation across the delegates that are in fact notable is valuable. I believe that all delegates are in fact titleholders in their countries. Also, problems at verifying which delegates should not be addressed by deleting navigational links between them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
comment I created some of these for consistency (others already existed). I am not too concerned if these went away (it could be the right thing; I really have not investigated). That said, I believe this meta template should also be added to the list of those considered:
It will be totally unused and unnecessary if those considered in this listing are deleted. Uzume (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
How is that not blatant canvassing? Each creator was properly notified by me already via Twinkle. Legacypac (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
It is obviously not canvassing and never has been. I don't know what Twinkle is. However, it is always customary to notify creators of templates at TFD on their user pages. That is what I did.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Placing your canvassing effort right below my notification of this discussion. You also make it look like I did not properly notify by posting in this thread how you went out and notified the article creators. Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Please learn the definition of WP:CANVASS. In no way is a notification of editors of content up for deletion a form of canvassing. I apologize for the redundant notifications. It is likely that most of them will not even be read. Of the four editors that I contacted, 2 are inactive and 1 is barely active.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete titleholders. Keep delegates for now. The titleholders templates' category is just to narrow for useful navigation. As for the delegates, let's weed out the non-notable contestants first. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are two different types of template listed here. If you have opinions about one but not the other, please make sure you emphasize that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Re: titleholders, some of these templates have only one transclusion. A navbox with only one transclusion is necessarily useless, as it has nothing to navigate. As such, I'm strongly in favour of deleting the titleholder templates for 2001 and 2003. As for the other templates (both delegates and titleholders), whether we keep them seems like it should be tied to the fate of the corresponding articles; if it's possible to get sufficiently many articles that fit on the template and obey the verifiability and biography of living persons policies, and the inclusion on the template itself is verified, then I don't see a problem. I checked a few articles at random, and most seemed to have sources showing that they belong on the templates. Thus I'd favour keeping the templates around for now, and recommend that the nominator focuses on cleaning up the articles that they navigate between instead; if there's nothing wrong with the articles then there's nothing wrong with the templates, but OTOH if the articles shouldn't be there then the template might become useless. No prejudice against deleting the templates if the articles in question get deleted. --ais523 21:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Old discussions[edit]

January 7[edit]

Template:Winners of the Lili Fabilli and Eric Hoffer Laconic Essay Prize[edit]

Only two links, not sure if the prize is notable, there is no article for it Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Chinglish[edit]

Unused specific implementation of Template:Rough translation for Chinese using a needlessly pejorative name. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete If anyone has used this, it would be most likely to be User:Makecat, but that user doesn't seem to have used it often if at all. I don't think we need a shortcut template for hardcoding two parameters unless it's used a lot more often. --ais523 22:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Embry-Riddle - Prescott[edit]

No merit having navboxes for such small institutions. All links are red accept the affiliation. Can be covered by {{Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University}} instead if needed Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete The nomination isn't entirely correct; although one template has just the one bluelink, the other has three (well, two and a redirect, but it goes to a page distinct form those two). On the other hand, it's hard to see how these templates could end up with a noticeable number of bluelinks that aren't just covered by the umbrella template. Navboxes are for navigation, not for presenting information, and so are only useful if they're transcluded on all the pages they link. These aren't transcluded on any of the pages they link. --ais523 22:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

Template:Trains portal/DYK date[edit]

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)

  • 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)

Template:Citation broken[edit]

Delete and redirect. This is completely redundant with {{Full citation needed}}, which specifies what the problem is – lack of complete citation information – and by implication how to fix it, instead of just vaguely complaining, in hyperbolic wording, that there's an unspecified problem of "breakage". In cases where the citation is "broken" because it contains incorrect information or the source does not support the claim for which it is cited, we already have other templates for those issues, too. If the citation template formatting is wrong, the template itself will red-flag this. Ergo, no need for a template this vague, even if it might have been seen as useful back in 2007 before we had the more specific templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment as this covers multiple cases, I don't see why it would redirect to your suggested template. Rather, this seems like a general this citation needs cleanup template. If this is so, then cleanup patrollers should just replace it with the more appropriate template, or do the cleanup, instead of needing all our editors to know every single cleanup message. There should be a basic citation cleanup message (requiring specification as to what is broken) that casual editors can use. - 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Per SMC, redirect at a minimum, delete and redirect at the max. --Izno (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Al-Khaleej Club (Saudi) squad[edit]

Far too many redlinks (i.e. not enough bluelinks), which means that it does mot serve as a useful navigation tool. If it is kept then it should be moved to {{Khaleej FC squad}} in line with the parent article. GiantSnowman 16:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Six articles (seven including the club), and it's likely that many of the red links meet the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) guideline. Peter James (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    But until such time that there are sufficient bluelinks it doesn't serve its purpose as a navigation aid. GiantSnowman 12:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep but move: Name of the template should match that of the main article but the players here are notable and if they don't have a page, we should make them... I will try to create a few to get the template looking good. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 7 links passes the soft minimum at WP:NENAN. Keep for today. --Izno (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Rivers of Northern Province, Sri Lanka[edit]

Obsolete. Replaced by {{Inland waters of Sri Lanka}} Rehman 14:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete works for me here per the nom. --Izno (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Justice Party (United States)[edit]

Delete: This is a little used template for small party that only ran candidate in one election. TM 15:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Do not delete: The party is currently working to build state level parties. It is not running a national candidate for POTUS as it has endorsed Bernie Sanders.

Do not delete: This party is still actively registered with the United States Federal Election Commission--based on a search in the FEC Committee/Candidate Search --and so this template may provide value to WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums. --Morris7200 (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I note this template is used on exactly one article.--TM 12:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

Template:Country study[edit]

I don't want this deleted, but the url it generates, which used to show an index for a particular country, now seems to redirect to the main country index. I was wondering if this url can be improved to, say, "http://www.loc.gov/collections/country-studies/?fa=location%3A" followed by the country name. I wanted to get others' opinions before making such an edit. The template's talkpage is empty with fewer than 30 watchers, the author is on wikibreak, and the template has a previous merge discussion here, so here I ask. Thanks. —PC-XT+ 08:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

January 6[edit]

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)

Template:Nach Baliye 4[edit]

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)

Template:P.I Private Investigator[edit]

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

  • delete, pointless. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Indian Idol (season 6)[edit]

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)

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

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)

Template:Indian Idol Junior (season 2)[edit]

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)

Template:X Factor (India)[edit]

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)

[edit]

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)

Template:Latest stable software release/ChatON[edit]

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)

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

Template:TriMet Rail System navbox[edit]

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)

Template:Non-free Scout logo nocontent[edit]

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)

Template:Modern Family episodes[edit]

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)

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]

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)

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 6. Primefac (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).

December 3[edit]

Minor league affiliates 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:MLB Team (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Blue Jays franchise (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Braves franchise (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Brewers franchise (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Cardinals franchise (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Chicago Cubs franchise (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Indians franchise (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Nationals franchise (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Orioles franchise (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Phillies franchise (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Pirates franchise (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Rays franchise (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Reds franchise (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Royals franchise (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Team Arizona Diamondbacks (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Team Boston Red Sox (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Team Colorado Rockies (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Team Houston Astros (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Team Los Angeles Angels (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Team Los Angeles Dodgers (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Team Miami Marlins (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Team Minnesota Twins (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Team New York Mets (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Team New York Yankees (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Team Oakland Athletics (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Team San Diego Padres (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Team San Francisco Giants (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Team Seattle Mariners (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Team Texas Rangers (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB Tigers franchise (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:MLB White Sox franchise (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

After a brief discussion at WT:BASEBALL, these are redundant, as each Major League Baseball franchise has a main team navbox that already includes links to the team's various minor league affiliates, with correct classifications (which these navboxes also cover incorrectly, as the Class A level is actually split into 3 separate classifications). Don't need a redundant series of navboxes. oknazevad (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all Per WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." In each of these cases, the navboxes link to the respective Major League Baseball team's article, not a new article dealing with minor league affiliates. However, the general MLB articles already have their own navboxes at Category:Major League Baseball team navigational boxes. Delete all as redundant.—Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rlendog (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Unnecessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 9 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:Anthony Marinelli[edit]

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

  • Keep I disagree, in today's Wikipedia deletionist atmosphere, standalone soundtrack articles would be AfD'd (merged) into the film article and MOS:FILM#Soundtrack tells us that the film article is the preferred place for discussing the soundtrack, score and tracklist. The soundtrack/score is a creative work and is ofttimes the subject of critic's review and the nominator's Auteur theory (directors only) does not address the placement of Category:Film actor navigational boxes, Category:Film writer navigational boxes and Category:Film producer navigational boxes -- Cheers!009o9 (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    • We shouldn't have navboxes for everyone who worked on a film for the same reason we don't have actor navboxes (note that those in Category:Film actor navigational boxes do not link to their film credits except where they could be seen as a "team", akin to a film series) - these cause navbox bloat. What's next? Category:Cinematographer navigational boxes? Category:Film editor navigational boxes? Category:Best Boy navigational boxes? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
      • If this is such a serious problem, where can one find an essay on Wikipedia:Navbox bloat? We are talking about a 3,310 byte file that can be extremely useful to readers that can reduce the need to repeatedly load the much larger biography to obtain the same information -- instead of linking directly to the desired article -- storage is cheap, bandwidth is expensive. There are other types of collections and relationships ("teams") that readers (film buffs) are interested in, i.e., who works with whom. A reader accessing a 10 year old film article is quite infrequent and that reader is much more likely to be interested in the credits than the film itself. So, I have to ask, have you ever seen a Best boy establish WP:N? We seem to have a widely used exception to the nominator's unwritten rule where Producer Navboxes are allowed. I can't think of anything that Producers contribute artistically; however, they are generally included in the film's promotional material which traditionally reads, Starring... Directed by... Produced by... With music by... More on Navbox exceptions below. Cheers!--009o9 (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • comment, is there an example of another navbox linking articles by composer? Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@Frietjes I think we are in new territory here (off-hand, I would not know how to create a search for other musical score artist templates) and the template storage area does not exist. I did not create one because the film director, actor, producer templates and even Film Choreographer navigational Navbox storage areas do not follow a very logical structure. Also, even though they are composers, the Composers category is for composers who write in notation, not the best fit for film score composers because they also produce and often conduct the music. I would preferred to have a category for musical score composers and then created a Navbox using the composer's category as the basis for the data. I was surprised that I was unable to find a top-level category for film score composers. Cheers! -- 009o9 (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
009o9, a brief search returned {{Goldenthal, Elliot}}, {{William Walton}}, and {{Michael Nyman}}. not entirely the same situation, but in the vicinity. one outstanding difference is that, for example, the links in {{Goldenthal, Elliot}} are all for soundtrack pages, and not for the films themselves. in the case of {{William Walton}}, the template is not placed on the film article pages. for these reasons, I am leaning toward delete for this one with the suggestion that a category, say "Category:Films scored by Anthony Marinelli", would be more appropriate and reduce the bloat at the foot of the film articles. Frietjes (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
@Frietjes It is my understanding that this is how Navboxes are supposed to work, drawing their information from categories and presenting the collection in a user-friendly format in the footer of the article. Nobody clicks through to the categories because there is no indication as to whether there is an interesting collection there. As for bloat, I see the Navbox as a bandwith saver, instead of loading the artist's entire biography, finding the desired link and then loading the film article. Instead of reloading the biography several or more times, the Navbox allows the reader to go directly to the next film article in the artist's history. I suppose I could go around and add soundtrack sections to the film articles in question if that is the outcome of this discussion. Where there is no film article, I guess I could evaluate creating a soundtrack article(s). (See {{Goldenthal, Elliot}} where Drugstore Cowboy (soundtrack) is a redirect from a deleted article -- linking to the film article is largely inevitable with the deletions squads hard a work.) With Marinelli's (this subject) album and television credits, he should probably have a more verbose Navbox anyway. Cheers -- 009o9 (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Category:Film scores by Anthony Marinelli now created and fulfilled. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
No, we generally don't have them. See how we deal with {{Philip Glass}}, {{John Williams}} or {{Hans Zimmer}}, all much more prominent film composers. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
What I am seeing is other exceptions where other composers have Navboxes on Opera and Musical articles, both are stage plays where the music is not always the primary draw and when the music is the primary draw, it is due the conductor and orchestra, not the composer. No matter how well the music is written, the credit goes to the person who pulls the music all together. Is there a general rule where these other composer's Navboxes are limited to articles about aftermarket media, rather than the production (stage play) article itself? IMHO we are discussing another arbitrary tradition where these tiny little files could save the Foundation a lot of bandwidth and processing time, by getting the reader directly to the information they are interested in, rather than searching or reloading the much larger (artist's) primary article. (Additionally, if you are truly concerned about bloat, the Navbox appears to be poorly written, a collapsed Navbox should not call for the (body/list) data unless the user opens it.) Cheers!--009o9 (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
This is because in the case of an opera or musical, the composer is one of the primary authors of the work in question. If a navbox pointed to a soundtrack article, then this would point to the work of the composer, which a film article is not. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for creating and populating the category.
How is this different from the film score composer? (S)he is one of the primary of the primary authors of the work in question, which is the film, if the music alone was commissioned work it would be an album, not a soundtrack. MOS:FILM#Soundtrack prescribes that the soundtrack be discussed in the film article and with the speed that new articles get deleted these days, supporting articles, such as soundtracks are pretty much unwanted by a segment of the administrative editors. This past year or so, I am literally astounded by some of the Policies that have been bent or disregarded so that useful content can be deleted to suit one editor's preference. Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Quite simply because a film score composer is NOT one of the primary authors of a film, they are the primary author of a soundtrack to a film. If that score has an article, then we have deemed the soundtrack notable, and yes, this should be linked to from the composer's navbox, as they are the primary author of that soundtrack. If there is no soundtrack article, then we have not deemed the soundtrack independently notable from the film, and therefore it does not belong in a navbox. {{Hans Zimmer}} is a good example. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not sure how I didn't spot this before, but I note that creation of this template and the addition of it to the film articles are marked as WP:PAID edits. This WP:COI seems to be giving WP:UNDUE importance to the subject of the navbox, as composer navboxes are not standard. On some of these articles, this is the only navbox present. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, my disclosure is all over the place, but it is too easy to forget to add it to the edit summary every time. I'd prefer to have a separate account for paid editing, with a disclosure programmed into the signature, but that type of second account isn't expressly allowed, but I also do volunteer editing and improve a lot of articles with unrelated content. I guess I should have added the new stigmatized PAID (categorized) template to the Navbox talk page. In fact, until the second account issue is settled, I'm going to refrain from volunteer editing and change the signature on this account, the manual disclosure requirements are too ridiculous to try to have a dual-purpose account. Might just as well stigmatize every edit. Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Navigation should probably be updated to clarify the consensus on Soundtrack composer Navboxes in film articles. Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
We had an RFC on the matter, where there was no consensus for restricting it for producers and screenwriters (although this restriction was not without its support), but film composers is a stretch too far. If we allow this, then there's nothing to stop navboxes for film editors, cinematographers, production designers, executive producers, etc, etc, which really would cause WP:NAVBOXCREEP. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 1#Template:Bill Conti, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 28#Template:Ilaiyaraaja Notable Film, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 9#Template:Rahul Dev Burman. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The nominating editor has proposed this new rule in this RFC and the proposal failed. Apparently, this is a case of WP:DEADHORSE. Additionally, Filmography navbox templates specifically exempts "creative" navboxes from the existing Actor exclusion, stating:
"Per this discussion the restriction only applies to actors. Navboxes templates for other creative such as writers, producers, etc. are welcome."[2] --Emphasis mine.
For now, I am not considering the nominating editor's edits to the subject's biography as retaliatory; however, his deletion of the Filmography and other content, where about 20 references where destroyed[3], was unsupported and the content will be restored pending the result of the article's talk page discussions.Talk:Anthony_Marinelli
This is obviously a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. An editor who has proposed a new rule and cannot live by that consensus. The fact that he has won one uncontested deletion nomination with two like minded editors does not take precedence over his failed RFC, or the existing project guidelines. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 19:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
No. That was a discussion regarding producers and screenwriters. There is no precedent for film composer navboxes that link to the film articles. In fact, as you can see from the examples listed, any film composer navboxes of this nature have been deleted. There is no {{Danny Elfman}}, no {{Jerry Goldsmith}}, no {{Bernard Hermann}}, no {{Howard Shore}} or no {{Alan Silvestri}}, all far more important than Marinelli. Why should we make an exception here? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Here is your actual proposal in the failed RfC:
  • "Should we restrict filmographies included in navboxes to directors for films and series creators for TV shows? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)"
Where does that specify producers and screenwriters, or any other creator for that matter? The consensus on your RfC was no on your proposed restriction for navboxes on all creators except directors -- leaving the Actors ban in place. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 20:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
BTW: Regarding importance, Marinelli and Banks revolutionized the way that film scores are composed and were pioneers in the development and adoption of a new instrument in film and music (the Synclavier) and you've removed dozens of those credits from Marinelli's Filmography. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 21:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment It looks like the Film Project may have overstepped its bounds concerning denying Actors Navboxes on film articles. Taking a detailed look at WP:ADVICEPAGE (which is a Guideline, as opposed to WP:TCREEP is just an essay):
However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. From WP:ADVICEPAGE page -- Emphasis mine -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 10:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
You're clearly WP:WIKILAWYERING now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Another essay that falls on my side of the debate (WP:WIKILAWYERING): "Use of authentic legal skills by legal professionals or other persons trained and skilled in the arts of negotiation and advocacy is welcome in proceedings of the Arbitration Committee and on Wikipedia in a variety of contexts." (Emphasis mine) You started a proceeding here that flies the the face of your failed RfC. As far as I'm concerned, I'm presenting my argument in the proper format to the proper audience, it's not like you are a newbie, your talk page confirms this and we are not dealing with article space. Now that you've even taken to editing (collapsing and recollapsing) my comments on talk pages,[4] with the heading of "Extended content", I'm pretty sure your objectivity is hopelessly impaired. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 17:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep This falls under the standard use of templates to list creative works, has a source article, and in no way resembles the decision about actor templates. Dimadick (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The navbox fails several of the criteria at WP:NAVBOX and moreover their usage in this way is not typical of their usage on film articles. The director is generally considered the "primary" author and while we should make exceptions where someone besides the director could be regarded as the author that is clearly not the case here. Unless the films are musicals where the composer could be considered a primary "author" there isn't really a valid reason for linking them with a navbox. Betty Logan (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, a close call, and given that a category does not replace a template in use or importance, creating templates for every aspect of a film would lay out dozens of templates per article. Scoring has major importance in films, it sets the mood of a scene and gives emotional direction to the viewer. Change a few notes or tempo and a sad or tragic scene becomes one of lightness and character-frolic. But in this instance, as Robsinden mentions, scoring templates might be best if kept to musicals, in which the individual's work is not only one of many important jobs but is central to the film's definition and concept. Randy Kryn 11:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with everything said by Randy Kryn. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I am inclined to agree with Dimadick. Composers are creatives along with writers, directors and producers. I think the score performers would be analogous to the actors while the score composers are like the creatives whose navboxes we generally keep.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - useful template that helps readers navigate the topic. Think its time we look at what is helpfull for our users over a projects odd POV that has not passed any proposal process and clearly causes problems all over. Not sure the projects understand why it was formed...should be .here to help navigate topics under its scope...not to make barriers to navigation.-- Moxy (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not particularly an 'auteur theory' subscriber, so I object to the premise that composers (and writers) aren't central to film. Directors do not contribute to a film's music, and their templates don't link just to articles about film's direction/blocking (or a writer's template linking to articles about the film's screenplay). -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Soundtrack is an integral part of a film, and per Moxy, navboxes are supposed to... help. Montanabw(talk) 22:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Note that this user is going on a spamming spree and posting links to this discussion on many talkpages. Time to take them to ANI for a blocking. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I think this was a useful notification, neutral and legitimate, not "a spamming spree", and I thank User:009o9 for bring this discussion to my attention. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, I want to apologize for the total brainfart of providing convenience links when inviting the participants of the previous RfC. I did not consider the multiple notification aspect. Thank you all for participating in spite of this blunder.
IMHO the most important thing here is to have a consensus published somewhere. If certain navboxes are not wanted, it is counter productive to inform the editor after all of the work had been completed.
Finally, as I stated above, not all film scores are suitable for soundtrack albums, which are generally just an aftermarket product of DJ'd songs anyway. I think that a rule restricting composers to soundtrack articles would unfairly limit that artist's collection. Soundtrack composers are creators who are (traditionally) prominently named in movie's marquee poster and other advertisement. (I.e., Starring:..., Directed by:..., Written by:..., with music by....) They are also legally responsible for copyright. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 03:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NAVBOX because the film composer is not enough of a unifying element for the film articles to relate to each other. This template in every film article implies that each musical contribution is so unique that readers need to be given immediate access to the rest of the films to which the composer contributed. One of the stated disadvantages of a navigation template is, "Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template may inadvertently push a point of view. It may also incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic or a linked example is of more, less, or equal importance to others; be used to advertise obscure topics in prominent places; or assert project proprietorship." This particular composer, despite numerous film scores, has been recognized for just about none of them. It seems like the proliferation of this template would heighten the composer's visibility when it is not warranted. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
@User:Erik The subject's article (Filmography) was changed by the nominating editor of this TfD during the course of this discussion, removing 9600kb of information from the filmography.Diff Marinelli is credited with some higher visibility films, (The Color Purple, WarGames, Stand by Me (film), Young Guns (film)) earlier in his career in other credited capacities. Even so, Category:Film scores by Anthony Marinelli, contains 47 blue-linked films where Marinelli is the score composer. Certainly exceeding the constraints in WP:NAVBOX. The wider discussion has become, does the Film Project (or a few members) own the film articles, and if so, exactly who's Navboxes are welcome in film articles? There is currently a ban on Actors, but not other notable creators[5] the nominator of this TfD is insisting that all should be banned except directors. As I mentioned above from WP:PROJPAGE, Projects may not have the authority for blanket bans on Navboxes.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 18:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Even if he is credited for these films, there are no accolades that show that these films' scores garnered recognition. This means no grounds to extrapolate and dump his filmography in every film article. I am saying that one could perhaps make a case for well-known film composers having their own templates, but this figure hardly qualifies. Director templates are accepted because they're at the very top of it all. I am sure among these, there is a subset of templates for work-for-hire directors even when there is no compelling reason to show such a director's filmography on every article. Templates in general lack this nuance; the proliferation of well-known director templates led to editors creating templates for all directors. I think that is the concern that Robsinden and I have, that seems to be a slippery slope. If well-known crew members that are not directors get their own template, it could easily lead to having templates for every producer, every editor, every screenwriter, every cinematographer, every costume designer, every art director, etc., all stuffed in an article's footer. Templates do not have high enough visibility nor contain any content that indicate whether or not the figures are notable enough for proliferation or if they are just being "used to advertise obscure topics in prominent places". I find the latter to be happening here; this film composer, in lacking accolades or fame (not just being credited), should not get his works sprinkled in each and every work that is often much more known for other aspects than the film score itself. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Directors are also work-for-hire personnel, the creators are the writers, cinematographers and score composers.
  1. The only thing that makes the extreme footer of an article a "prominent place" is the absence of multiple navboxes, a condition that appears to originate from the opinion of a small minority of editors -- unsupported in the MOS and elsewhere.
  2. The opinion that the footer should only contain ONE navbox, specifically directors, creates a policy which will ensure WP:UNDUE. Additionally, the navbox template (or instructions) appear to be broken and the template does not collapse when placed without others (even with inline -- see diffs). Even more weight is placed on the director's solitary collection, making them more prominent with a default expanded navbox.
  3. As for the other creators you appear perceive as "obscure topics," they are perfectly welcome in the Wikipedia WP:OBSCURE provided they are notable, I believe the threshold for navboxes is 5 bluelinks.
  4. Multiple navboxes can be nested into a single navbox, so navbox clutter is really just an example of laziness on the part of the editor that it offends.
I really did not want the subject's navbox to be the only one on the page, nor expanded by default (see diffs), I wanted to provide it as a complete collection of film-composing works in chronological-order as a navigation convenience. I contend that it is the unwritten policy/preference of a few editors, creating an absence of other navboxes, that makes this subject's inclusion appear overly prominent.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 18:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
"Directors are also work-for-hire personnel, the creators are the writers, cinematographers and score composers." With this comment, are you really suggesting that the person who composes the score for a film has more of a creative input than the film's director? This is nuts. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Again, the discussion here has turned to the guidelines and your failed RfC there is no need for personal attacks. Citing the Auteur theory, a controversial and outdated copyright opinion of the French courts, to support an adhoc change in MOS FILM is, at best, misinformed. The Schreiber theory (2006) recognizes the that the principle author of the film is the screenwriter rather than the director. Based upon newer copyright theory, the Auteur theory is outdated, with the producer of the film being the primary copyright holder and other creators holding underlying rights:

  • The solution of granting authorship in contributory works is generally rejected, even in copyright systems such as the UK system. The reason is that it would be practically impossible and ethically difficult to deprive authors such as screenwriters and musical composers of authorship of their works.
-- Pascal Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union (2002), Page 167

As for the WP:NAVBOXCREEP#Steps to take argument, the first bullet states: "improve and standardize templates to reduce clutter, ease navigation, and simplify the editing process". Below is a simple wrapper for the Starwars article navboxes.

Star Wars related glossaries
Franchise
Films
Saga
Other
Television
Setting
Production
Legends
Multimedia
Television
Other media
Cultural impact
Attractions
Parodies
Miscellaneous
Merchandising
Related topics
People
Films directed
Feature
Short
Films written
Television
Related
Other
Organizations
Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media
Disney Publishing
Worldwide
Disney Interactive
Franchises
Other
Intellectual properties
currently managed
by Hasbro
Distributed worldwide
by Hasbro
Licensed products
Subsidiaries
Divisions and brands
Fan films
Official
mockumentaries
Plot
Characters
Organizations
Armies
Families
Bands
Governments
Other

This navbox wrapper is 16 lines and a similar, a more inclusive, template for films could be worked out without instituting a blanket ban of "only directors navboxes." If clutter in the footer offends some editors, that editor can easily nest the navboxes categorically. 009o9 (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - The strongest argument for deletion is that the navbox does not actually navigate to the soundtracks created by Marinelli, as found for similar navboxes such as {{Hans Zimmer}}. While the keep corner makes a good point regarding the importance of a composer w.r.t. the film as a whole, the mere existence of a composer does not seem to lend itself towards proper navigation, given that none of these films appear to have dedicated soundtrack pages. Primefac (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
As a note, this was originally closed (by me) as an NAC delete, but was overturned by an admin when taken to DRV on 18 Dec. Primefac (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Completed discussions[edit]

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

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

Closing discussions[edit]

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

To review[edit]

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

To merge[edit]

Templates to be merged into another template.

Arts[edit]

Geography, politics and governance[edit]

Religion[edit]

Sports[edit]

Transport[edit]

Other[edit]

Meta[edit]

To convert[edit]

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

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

To substitute[edit]

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

To orphan[edit]

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

  • None currently

Ready for deletion[edit]

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

  • None currently


Archive and Indices[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=699877951"