Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DannyS712 (talk | contribs) at 03:52, 5 April 2019 (→Template:2011 Horizon League baseball standings: Closed as keep (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< March 20 March 22 >

March 21

Template:1500sProtestantwomen

More suitable to categorise this as Category:16th-century Protestant women. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep--I made this template for women who were a factor in the Reformation, either theological or political. You can't call them all "Reformers" because that would be only the theologians and would also exclude the ones whose role included influencing which type of Protestant church there would be. I went through the plausible 16th century women by nationality categories as well as the list on Women as theological figures to find possibilities. I did not include ones that were women who just happened to be Protestant because it was common in their area. The title of the template is now 16th century Protestant women in the Reformation and I have added four subcategories--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just a seemingly random set of women from the 16th century. Either there should be article about whatever links them or, failing that, a category for them will suffice. Nigej (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sediment transport

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 11:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox with no clear criteria connecting pages. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:SJFA West Division One

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:SJFA West Region. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:QMJHL trophies

Unused navbox with no parent article Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My vote to merge has not changed. The parent article the league. Consensus at WikiProject Ice Hockey when these articles were created was not have separate articles. Flibirigit (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Flibirigit: thats fine, but your statement I fail to understand the nominator's rationale that it is unused, when transcluded to 20+ articles. is just false... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not used, but there are 20+ articles where it easily and reasonably could be used. I'm perfectly fine with a merger, too, as removing "trophy" from each link would reduce the needed space by a significant amount. Wikiproject consensus notwithstanding, these articles exist, so there's no good reason to say that they mustn't be linked by a template; the only reason we should refuse to link them (as opposed to removing them from a template where they don't fit, or deleting a poorly made template) is if they get deleted in the future. Nyttend (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above, the guidelines for deletion says (emphasis theirs) "The template is not used [...] and has no likelihood of being used". I believe this template is likely to be used though I would support a merge as well. BLAIXX 15:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Steelers1946DraftPicks

Unused navbox with no navigational links Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ejgreen77: I opposed the rest of these TfDs but on this one (at the moment) he has a point as only 3 pages are linked to this one, I thought 5 was the minimum.--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seconding Ejgreen77 with the fact that further discussion should take place at WT:NFL, for there are a large amount of templates of this style and category that will need to be taken into account if we delete a small portion of the templates but not all of the templates. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ron Wyden series

Not a useful template. Also not used in any article. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: I should mention that the only article that used this template was Ron Wyden. This template contains two things: his political positions, which already appears in the same article, and his Senate elections. There's nothing special about any of his elections. We have no idea what he has accomplished as a Senator, let alone as a Representative. Unless there are true highlights we can include in this template, this template will remain useless. Other series templates like Template:Bernie Sanders and Template:Rick Perry have way more important information than just their elections or political positions, so that WP:OTHER argument is not a good reason to keep this template. We do not have to create a sidebar for every single politician. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I love how you refuse to elaborate on how the template isn't useful and claim it's not being used in any article after removing it from the article it was being used in. It is very common among templates of political figures to contain their elections as well as for there to be a link to their political positions, whether it is a seperate article or part of the main article for the political figure, but Wikipedia isn't known for common sense in every edit. 05:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: LOL. If you bother to look at the template now, you can see a multitude of legislation with separate pages that he's sponsored. Wyden is not the average senator, and no one said anything about creating "a sidebar for every single politician". You now have a multitude of ideas of what he's accomplished as a senator, but continue to go on a crusade against this template. Informant16 (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty straight forward... The template is not used. No reason for it. WP:NENAN --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's back on the page. Let's all watch as you retain the same position even if it's no longer true. Informant16 (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Informant16, well apart from the fact that you are blatantly violating WP:AGF you are also trying to game the TFD by changing the templates status in the middle of the discussion. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zackmann08, have something you made to better navigate the site be called "useless" and see how well you take it. Better yet, have something you did months ago without any controversy at all suddenly rebuked repeatedly via nominating numerous ones you made for deletion. I am gaming the TFD discussion by addressing the concerns of the person who nominated it? I have to wait until the template is deleted before it can be improved to suit his critiques? I find it ironic that you accuse me of trying to "game" a discussion by addressing the concerns of the persons in opposition while calling me the one not assuming good faith. If I try to improve the template during discussion, I'm the bad guy. If I tell you how perfectly fine it is and that it should be left alone, I'm the bad guy. No winning on here. Informant16 (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Informant16, sorry you don't like the way things work around here, but thems the rules my friend. Making statements like Let's all watch as you retain the same position even if it's no longer true is a clear violation of WP:AGF. As for having stuff I created deleted, it happens ALL THE TIME!!! If you are going to take it personally, then you aren't going to last here. Discuss the merits of the template, not the motivation of those nominating it. Engaging in personal attacks and questioning the motives of those who disagree with you is absurd. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zackmann08, we've established you believe I engaged in personal attacks, but this wasn't? you are also trying to game the TFD by changing the templates status in the middle of the discussion. That wasn't a personal attack? Me changing the template to accommodate the wants of the person who nominated it for deletion and having my motives probed was not in good faith. This was a personal attack and questioned my motive. Informant16 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Informant16, That was actually stating a fact. If you want to take it personally that is your call bud. Take care! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was fact that I changed the template around after it was nominated. It was opinion that I tried to "game" the discussion. Informant16 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm personally not a big fan of these series templates and prefer {{Navbox}} templates. That being said, there is a long standing process of creating sidebar templates about politicians. If this is to be deleted, I think a broader discussion is needed. For this particular template, it is now used on multiple pages so I think it is worth keeping. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; I think it's potentially useful. I don't think these templates clutter up the page that much (if at all). Ethanbas (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it doesn't make sense to claim the template is useless when it has over a dozen pieces of legislation that he cosponsored or was responsible for. Crazyzaku(talk) 0922 March 14, 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep As I've commented elsewhere, there are no policy reasons behind these deletion nominations. Our purpose is to benefit the readers, and a template which may be helpful whilst not going against any policies ought not to be deleted. As was noted in the first reply, you can't remove the template from the articles in and proceed to argue "it's not used in any articles." It's hard to defend that as good-faith behavior; I've seen people remove all the citations from articles and then proceed to flag an article as lacking sources and propose deletion, and that's not an acceptable practice. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw as this template is more meaningful now. Will do the same for other navigational boxes that went through a major change after their TFD. Also, the two templates I mentioned on top were supposed to be Template:Bernie Sanders series and Template:Rick Perry series. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike some other sidebar series navigation templates, the contents of this one aren't a series of articles about the subject. Rather, they're a set of related topics. So the template is misleading. But also, it would be misplaced if included in these articles. --Bsherr (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is misleading to include the legislation of a senator in their template? Even the deletion nominator admitted this format was what exempted the Template:Bernie Sanders from meeting the same fate. His legislation is what defines his positions as a senator and thereby fundamental to one's understanding of what he's accomplished while in office. Informant16 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When the template describes itself as listing a series of articles about Wyden, then yes, one would expect the contents to be articles about Wyden's campaigns, Wyden's positions, Wyden's scandals, etc. To say an article about, e.g., the Internet Tax Freedom Act, is part of a series about Ron Wyden is, yes, misleading, because nobody would say the article is about Ron Wyden. --Bsherr (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the goalposts have moved. The template was initially rebuked for just containing Wyden elections that were, by definition of being multiple articles, a series of articles about Wyden. The complaint was addressed by adding legislation that Wyden either authored or cosponsored, so much so that the deletion nominator Walk Like An Egyptian withdrew the nomination. Would you change your vote if I reinstated his elections or would that still be "misleading"? --Informant16 (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The goalposts are the same: The question is, can it be concluded that the included article is actually about the subject of the sidebar template or not? Concerning articles about the elections, it depends. 2016 United States presidential election contains several "part of a series" sidebars concerning the candidates. However, the sidebars appear in sections of the article that include extensive coverage of the subject candidates. In that sense the those sections can be said to be about those candidates, and the sidebars work okay. Contrast that with 2010 United States Senate election in Oregon, in which there is really very little substantive content about Ron Wyden. See the issue? --Bsherr (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 Horizon League baseball standings

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sports table. Tournament has no article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now used. Billcasey905 (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Billcasey905, ok it is used on ONE page, why does it need to be a template? Subst it directly onto the page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:2011 Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference baseball standings

Unused sports table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now used. Billcasey905 (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Billcasey905, ok it is used on ONE page, why does it need to be a template? Subst it directly onto the page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012 NCAA Division I baseball independents standings

Unused sports table. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now used. Billcasey905 (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Billcasey905, ok it is used on ONE page, why does it need to be a template? Subst it directly onto the page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WWIIUSAircraft

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I created this as an aviation analog to the various WW2 military equipment template such as those for ships, infantry weapons, fighting vehicles, etc. It's probably fairly complete, and I'd like to create/use more of the same for the other nations involved, but the problem is that most aircraft articles seem to already suffer from template-spam, with some having six or more navboxes.
I personally think it and similar templates could be a useful addition, but I've been hesitant to add yet another navbox to these pages without having some discussion first. If there are no objections to doing so, however, I'll be happy to add this navbox to the appropriate pages and begin creating similar ones for other nations. Russ3Z (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:Tim Kaine series

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Tim Kaine. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x11) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x12) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In general, sidebars like these are beneficial to navigation. And although a separate Tim Kaine category exists, this is still not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE. However, this sidebar reads more like a Table of Contents for the main article on Kaine. I do not support Delete here because there are enough articles on Kaine to improve this sidebar. I do not support Keep because the sidebar is currently very weak. Let's WP:IMPROVEIT. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:Rand Paul series

Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Rand Paul and {{Rand Paul}}. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - duplicate of {{Rand Paul}}. --Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further, as per WP:NOTDUPE, "[t]hese systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." The sidebar being duplicative of another template is not a valid reason for deletion. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. As for "NOTDUPE", actually read what it says. I wasn't against having a navigation template, just not a side bar. These navigation templates aren't different than any other bottom navbox and should be placed there. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x10) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x11) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one specifically. links to only 5 articles, plus one sub-section. All are easily and logically found on the original Rand Paul page, which also has {{Rand Paul}} Hydromania (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As per TheSubmarine, this sidebar is beneficial to navigation. Although a separate Rand Paul category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE. I will change my comment to Keep if we can WP:IMPROVEIT. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mitch McConnell series

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Mitch McConnell. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep; I think it's potentially useful. Ethanbas (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x6) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x7) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw as this template is a bit more meaningful now. Will do the same for other navigational boxes that went through a major change after their TFD. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Colonestarrice (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. It is especially beneficial because there is no Category:Mitch McConnell and because the sidebar's content is strong. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In this instance, I don't think the articles contained in the template can properly be described as a series about Mitch McConnell. Rather, they are merely topics related to him. So this doesn't perform the function of this type of navigational template. --Bsherr (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The most recent comment by Bsherr is trying to create a new standard where articles relating to a politician must either be named after them or speak exclusively about them. If you look at the sidebars of presidents, oftentimes you see laws that came into effect during their tenure, and they in the sidebar as they make up what that person did in office. This is why Walk Like an Egyptian withdrew the deletion, because the template now also consists of laws and bills that McConnell sponsored or played some role in constructing. Informant16 (talk) 9:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    It is misleading to call most of these articles "part of a series about Mitch McConnell". Because it stretches rationality to say an article about an act of Congress is an article about Mitch McConnell, such that it would be part of a series of articles about Mitch McConnell. And since this is a Category:"Part of a series on" sidebar templates, it's reasonable to question whether this template should exist. We don't, or shouldn't, employ this type of sidebar for articles "relating" to a subject. That's what navboxes are for. --Bsherr (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:Jill Stein series

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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Jill Stein. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion - No policy basis. WP:NENAN is not a policy. (x2) It's an essay, and one I disagree with. It is of no benefit to the readers to delete, but it is of benefit to the readers to provide these templates. You mass-proposed deletion of templates with no policy basis. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - {{Donald Trump series}}, {{John Kasich series}}, {{Jeb Bush series}}, {{Rand Paul series}} and {{Rick Perry series}}, with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate {{George Washington series}}, {{Abraham Lincoln series}}, and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited ({{George Washington series}} could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I see no reason why this template should be treated any differently than the others nominated. SashiRolls t · c 21:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This series is beneficial to navigation and is especially helpful because it does not appear that there is another template, list, category, etc. that organizes Stein-related articles. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:Joe Biden series

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 April 3. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Gretna 2008 F.C.

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with only 4 links. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:Guangdong Sunray Cave F.C. squad

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused "current" squad template that hasn't been updated since 2015 and is mostly redlinks. WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:Guatemala squad 2012 FIFA Futsal World Championship

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox with almost all redlinks. WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:Guinea squad - 2011 FIBA Africa Championship for Women

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with nothing but redlinks. WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Guizhou Renhe F.C. squad

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 redirect to Template:Beijing Renhe F.C. squad. Obvious copy-paste move. Histmerge is done now. If redirect is improper, please go to WP:RfD (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox that claims to be current but hasn't been updated since 2015 Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:Górnik Zabrze

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox that violates WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:Hong Kong Legislative Council constituencies 2016–2020

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Hong Kong Legislative Council constituencies 2004–2012

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Hong Kong Legislative Council constituencies 2000–2004

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Hong Kong Legislative Council constituencies 1991–1995

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with non-specific links. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Railways in Jalpaiguri

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused railways box. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Hadith Sources

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox that is almost entirely WP:REDLINKS thus violating WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Hammond Pros

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

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Now in use. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox about minor team. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Hamo Beknazarian

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with no parent article (I.E. an article about the films directed by Hamo, actor page is not parent article). Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Handball teams in England

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with a bizarre format and mostly plaintext (non-links) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Hinduism in Africa

Navbox is redundant to just doing {{Africa in topic|Hinduism in}}. Was previously unused and all current transclusions used the above code. I attempted to CSD under T3, but a user replace the code above with this template. No reason for this template to be used at all. In my opinion this still is a WP:T3. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: mistake? Christian75 (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zackmann08, I think you might find it that people will be a bit less exasperated if you listened to what they'd said to you before bombarding them with the next deletion notice. Now, as I've explained on my talk page, {{Africa in topic}} is a quick and dirty way to create a variety of navboxes that might be suitable for some circumstances, but it doesn't really wor here. See for example how this template appears on Hinduism in Sierra Leone: you see quite a few redlinks (most of them permanently so: they were formerly blue but got deleted at AfD or RfD), and most of the blue links are actually redirects, usually to broad articles where Hinduism (or the country) are only mentioned in passing. If you want a navbox consisting mostly of redirects and redlinks, then yes, {{Africa in topic}} will do just fine. But if you want a navbox that does what navboxes are expected to do – navigate between articles, then you can't easily avoid having a dedicated template like {{Hinduism in Africa}}. The situation, however, gets complicated by the existence of {{Hinduism by country}}, which I've just noticed now. In a way, this makes {{Hinduism in Africa}} (+ {{Hinduism in Oceania}} and the like) redundant. Its downside is that it is a sidebar. So the question is, do we prefer a sidebar or navboxes at the bottom of the article. Personally, I'd opt for the less intrusive navboxes, but I'd rather leave the issue to others to decide. – Uanfala (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hawaii Rainbow Warriors 2013

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Claims to be current, but out of date since 2013. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Heads of State of Bulgaria

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox that is redundant to multiple used templates. {{Bulgarian monarchs}} & {{BulgarianPrimeMinisters}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Heirs to the Qajar Throne

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Herbal teas

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

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Now widely used (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Not everything needs a navbox... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Higher education by region

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with mostly redlinks violating WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:History of Gan

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. All but 1 of the links redirect to the same page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Hokkaido Soccer League

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. WP:REDLINKS & WP:EXISTING Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Hospitals in Richmond upon Thames

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

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Now in use. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's now in use on five WP articles. Headhitter (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:House of Glücksburg

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused massive navbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Lists of Marilyns

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Template:Lists of Marilyns (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Delete - There is only one list of marilyns page now. All links on the template are redirects to List of Marilyns in the British Isles, and a 'See also' link would work just as well. Nessie (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The breaking up of Marilyns into separate regional WP articles (which prompted the creation of this template) was a misguided action. Marilyns, because of the complexity of measuring their topographical prominence, which is how they are defined, are subject to major ongoing revisions. We now have one central WP List of Marilyns in the British Isles article, that will need to be updated from year to year. Thus, we thus have no further need for this template (or separate Marilyn articles). Britishfinance (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe I created this template originally. I've long since retired from Wikipedia and have only returned to comment here because someone contacted me outside Wikipedia. Personally, I think it was a mistake to combine the lists of Marilyns into a single list which is now far too large and unwieldy, not least because a wiki is a poor way of presenting big tables of data like this. But I wasn't involved in the decision to merge the lists and am not planning to come out of retirement to contribute or comment further on the issue; in any case, there are other database-driven websites which present this data far better. However if the lists are to remain merged, this template is now pretty pointless. ras52 (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new combined list is a direct download from the most authoritative online database (there are lots of other online sources that have old/wrong information), the DoBIH. The format that it is now in (e.g. a single large page), is deliberate, as it can be downloaded in 15 mins from the DoBIH and pasted into WP while preserving the "blue links" and other WP formats. (including sort-ability, which no other online database gives). Thus WP will have a large "blue linked" accurate Marilyn article that is only a few months out of date. The Marilyn table always needed the "Find" function to navigate under all past versions. Britishfinance (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:Houses descended from King Mongkut

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with mostly redlinks (WP:EXISTING) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Hudson Valley geography

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Not everything needs a navbox to link to other pages. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Hun Chanyus

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Mostly redlinks. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Hungarian computer systems

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox that is 95% WP:REDLINKS. Clear violation of WP:EXISTING. Also no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Huron County, Ontario

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. not ever county needs a navbox to each city Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:IK Sävehof squad (women's handball)

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. Claims to be current but no substantive updates since created in 2014. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:ION Nebraska

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Module:Headless TOC

Unnecessary Lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Our Peak

unused navbox Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ælfgifu theories

Unused chart template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This template just presents one possible answer to a web of hypothetical relationships for which there is no scholarly consensus, with as many different versions as scholars who have published on it. I suspect this chart was prepared by someone who was entirely unaware of the century of medievalists who have produced alternative reconstructions of the same set of vague relational statements and possible associations. It is inherently POV, and there is no way to fix it - one can't present in a single chart the different mutually-exclusive permutations, nor would having the numerous charts necessary to summarize all the alternative solutions workable. When it comes down to it, this template can't help but produce more smoke than light. Agricolae (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now linked again from Ælfgifu, wife of Eadwig, as it was until November 2018 when User:Agricolae removed the svg of the chart and the link to the template it was based on. The section discussing these theories is well-referenced and notes that they are only tentative and not conclusive. They are not just some individual editor's flight of fancy. It is notable that Agricolae did not remove the text. Why then remove the diagram, which merely illustrates what is written in the text and makes it easier to follow? I have therefore restored the diagram to the text, and the link to this template which provides clickable links, and from which the svg diagram was created. Jheald (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The template was also similarly linked from Æthelstan Half-King, which Agricolae also removed (diff). I haven't yet restored the revision there, but it seems to me it would be similarly useful to illustrate Æthelstan's direct family, and it did state that the possible connections to the Anglo-Saxon royal family should be regarded as tentative. That seems to me an appropriate presentation, so I would be fully minded to restore it there too. Jheald (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed it, because it gives a misleading simplistic representation of what is a very complex issue, even with a caveat (that we both know will be ignored) about it being tentative. Agricolae (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Agricolae: And you also removed it from Ælfgifu, wife of Eadwig, where it directly corresponds to what is written in the text there? Jheald (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed it. I thought I would have made this clear by saying in my previous response that "I removed it".
We do no favors by making a pretty chart template that hides the tenuous nature of these guesses (and completely ignores alternative reconstructions), a chart that can (and no doubt will) then be placed on other pages that lack even the context of the problematic discussion found on the Ælfgifu page. That one could select different sources and end up with a different chart with different relationships (e.g. with Æthelfrith the son of Æthelhelm and father-in-law of Æthelgifu via marriage to Eadric, thereby turning almost all the blue people green, or perhaps aqua) just demonstrates we shouldn't be memorializing any single set of hyper-speculative guesses in this way. Agricolae (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The chart has faults but I do not agree that it is worse than useless and should be deleted. It does show the two alternative lines which are discussed by modern historians and in the article and will help the reader. The fact that other versions, which are not mentioned in the article, have been discussed by scholars is not a reason to delete the chart. The main fault with the chart is that it is not referenced. It is not satisfactory to rely on referencing in the article on Ælgifu, which in any case is very unsatisfactory. Also the article does not cover all the (possible) relationships shown in the table. The descent from Æthelred I is supported by Yorke and Wormald, but not that the line went through through Æthelhelm, which is claimed by genealogists and rejected by historians. It should be removed. The alternative of descent from Ealhswith's parents is supported by Stafford but only discussed in detail by Hart so far as I am aware. I am not familiar with the details of this theory and they need to be fully referenced to Hart. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Agricolae's analysis. I'm not qualified to assess the details of that analysis but I trust it particularly since the events occurred over a thousand years ago. Given that the template is unused and that it probably presents a misleading picture, it should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The template is not transcluded, but it is not unused -- it is linked to in multiple places where the SVG version is shown -- on the Ælfgifu page, on the Ælfgifu talkpage, and on the description page of the SVG itself. The advantage of the SVG is that it can be thumbnailed. But the advantage of the template is that it contains active links which the SVG does not; it is also the raw material from which the SVG was created, and from which any modified version (presumably) would need to be created. Jheald (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the disadvantage is that it allows the such widespread distribution of material that fails to meet some of the most basic standards of Wikipedia - the argument that it is helpful on the original page to show this one scholar's pet theory as described in the text is completely invalidated when the same context-free chart is then transcluded onto other pages that lack any description or relevant context whatsoever about the level of guesswork involved. It is engineered to propagate a POV. Agricolae (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The chart was unused at the time of nomination as it had been deleted from Ælfgifu, wife of Eadwig, but it is specifically intended to show the two lines of descent discussed in that article and in my view does help to explain them to readers, subject to the improvements I suggested above. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not used in article - a template is not an article. It should not be linked to from the article namespace, but should be transcluded. If it fails in this task, then there is no reason for it to be kept. --Gonnym (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia files with unknown source subcategory starter

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

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Category template. Appears to have been used for categories at some point but is currently unused. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox D&D creature

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox fictional race. Additionally, make sure any extant uses that go against style guidelines are removed. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox D&D creature with Template:Infobox fictional race.
D&D creatures are not specific characters, but a race or species which {{Infobox fictional race}} is setup to handle. |collapsible= and |state= should not be added as the infobox information shouldn't be hidden and shouldn't be long that it needs hiding. |mythical= and |based= are both used for the same thing - and |based_on= is already available in {{Infobox fictional race}}. |wizards_image_URL= should not be included in the infobox and instead should be available in an External links section. |source= should also not be included and should only include the first/last appearance as is done with {{Infobox fictional race}} and |infobox character= - listing every appearance of something can turn into a giant list. If a complete list is needed, it should be done in the article body. Gonnym (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:Average temperature table

This seems totally redundant to Template:Weather Box/Module:Weather box. Also note that some of the subtemplates are making calls to a user's module sandbox. Only in use on 1 page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Polish Radio Stations before WW2

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 no consensus. NPASR if it's still unused after a few weeks. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with no parent page Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm leaning keep and use here. This is a small group with 5 blue links and 5 possible future links with a related scope. While a parent page would indeed be better for the subject "Polish radio during World War 2", I doubt we'd ever get that article. --Gonnym (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still unused
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:Cantitruncated hypercube polytopes

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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 11:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused table. Data already displayed in much better format on parent page (Petrie polygon) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why it wasn't used, but I (re)linked it. It is useful as a small navigator template between related polytopes. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now has 5 transclusions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:Daylight saving in time zone/techdoc

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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 11:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused supplementary documentation Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Other Radio Stations in Arkansas

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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 11:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused navbox with only 3 links. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also all three links pipe to the same article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Other templates link into this template; radio stations change formats all the time; deleting it would default the page to Spanish stations in Arkansas as the do with other “Other radio stations in x state” templates.Stereorock (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional: There are more links now.Stereorock (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd like to point out that this has actually 2 radio station links - KLRG and KABF and the other links just duplicate these. A very useless template. --Gonnym (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • More links were added. --Gonnym (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete again - Since the creator insists on leaving this a horrible template with duplicate links and many red links (and even some dab links), this template should be deleted, as in its current state it should not be allowed to be placed on any article. To Stereorock, if you clean up the template, removing non-blue links and repeated links, I'll change my position. --Gonnym (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep again as the above user is expressing their own opinions of how the template should look when it’s been explained that the template’s 3 tiers serve the function of sorting stations by city, by callsign, & by frequency. This toes in with most, if not all, all radio market templates in the United States. It has also been explained in a post further down how clunky this template would look otherwise. There are 19 stations, more than adequate for a template. That there are red links is a function of there not being articles for the stations, but there may be in the future.Stereorock (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Additional: when a separate “Other radio stations in (state)” template is not in existence, the default is almost always “Spanish stations in (state), which is not relevant or useful at all.Stereorock (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 3 tiers: by frequency, by format, & community of license.Stereorock (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are now 19 stations listed. I still say keep.Stereorock (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The tiers don't matter and actually violate MOS:REPEATLINK. Also, there are not 19 LINKS, which is what counts, not the amount of red links you can add. But regardless, this does have enough links for a navbox - it just needs work done to actually make it follow guidelines. I'd suggest also merging it with the other Radio of Arkansas templates which would make this template much more relevant. --Gonnym (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reading MOS:REPEATLINK, it didn't mention templates. The tiers are there to help people as they are sorted 3 ways. What should be avoided is how most of these radio format templates are constructed ("WAAA - Anywhere" "WAAA-FM - Anywhere" "WAAB - Elsewhere" "WAAB-FM - Elsewhere").Stereorock (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not any more.Stereorock (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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:Legacies

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 - already deleted by @Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to speedy but there is no category that I can see for blanked templates. This was a very poor template, with red links and links which shouldn't have been added, so even before it was blanked, it had no use. Gonnym (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_21&oldid=891024849"