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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation needed cheap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is only used at List of human blood components. It is probably sufficient to simply put the "citation needed" tag at the top of each column, or at the top of the page. This makes this template redundant with Template:Citation needed. -- Beland (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely agree. If a large number of statements is unsourced, we can use ((Unreferenced section)). Debresser (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use unreferenced section, because the sections are not unreferenced. The importance of referencing each item on the table cannot be overstated. Should the references arrive in dribs and drabs, the column headings will be wrong. I considered removing the tags altogether, and using ((More references)) (aka Refimprove). This is still a viable solution., Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as per nom. One template at the top of the article (like ((Refimprove))) should do. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:34, 24 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Slim Whitman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, the standard Jax 0677 case... The Banner _talk 12:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -
  

1. Since the beginning, navbox has had 5 links that do not all connect to one another without the navbox itself (which is the purpose of this type of template). Need I detail which articles do not connect to one another without the navbox?
   
2. Navbox now has 13 links which still do not all connect to one another without the navbox
   
3. How is saying "the standard Jax 0677 case" in compliance with WP:CIVIL when users are advised to "Comment on content, not on the contributor"?
   
4. With proper research, the template could have been easily expanded instead of being brought to TfD--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tirana derby I (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tirana derby II (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -Koppapa (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete per this and prior discussion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IndianTellyAwardBestActress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template of unreferenced information was created by a sock of a banned user. It's being added to articles by further socks of this banned user. Would have CSD-G5'd it but there have been some intervening edits. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 9#Template:IndianTelevisionAcademyAwardBestActorJury for a previous example. Psychonaut (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was userfy Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DTP relBook (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in the userspace of User:Fletch1313. Userfy. DH85868993 (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JWST (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one real article. The other blue link concerns a page that mainly talks about the Hubble Space Telescope, and the "instruments" don't have pages, either. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 09:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Well, the instruments probably could have articles. I find redlinks like that are often helpful in getting people to write articles, like in the "stars of..." templates. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes are not supposed to be created until there are sufficient articles to navigate. They are not article creation tools. See WP:NAVBOX#Properties. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, navbox overkill. It would be so much better to provide meaningful content on the instruments with the parent article. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:39, 24 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IEOTDArchiveBarMarch2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in 1 article (Wikipedia:India Event of the day/March 2005). Subst and delete. Note that there are no other "IEOTDArchiveBar" templates. DH85868993 (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SynthCompoundImage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jamiroquai singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Jamiroquai)). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure. I was the creator of this template and I did so as Jamiroquai has many singles. Therefore I believe that the singles deserve their own template. See examples on Template:Beyoncé Knowles singles and Template:Rihanna singles. However, since User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars has brought this discussion up, I assume that I'm not updated about any amendments regarding the use of templates in the English Wikipedia as I am not very active in Wikipedia than I've used to. Anyways I will leave this discussion for other Wikipedians who are more updated than me and hopefully, we'll reach a consensus. Yours faithfully, Kotakkasut. 20:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or remove singles from artist template) The templates are inconsistent with one another, as many singles are missing from the singles template. That being said, either the singles template should be deleted, or the artist template should not have the singles listed at all. The artist template should probably list the names of the musicians. My 2 cents.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Is anyone else going to reply to this?--Jax 0677 (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Given that the main template is more up to date, it should probably replace the singles template, at least for now.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to ((Jamiroquai)). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• - Then I guess it's settled. If there are no objections, then delete the singles template and leave it to the main one.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The Template:Jamiroquai does it all already. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Solace (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner _talk 00:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Template links six articles, one more than WP:NENAN requires. Many of the articles do not link to one another without the navbox in place.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It links to the wrong articles, which is how you count 6. It only links 4 articles properly. The other 3 articles are incorrect or generic links; further it isn't about solace anyways, so there is nothing about various topics on wikt:solace on it. One might expect it should link to various customs of consolation. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply - If it links to the wrong articles, but the articles exist, WP:SOFIXIT. If a template about solace IS created, we can talk about renaming it THEN. Do I need to once again go through a list of articles related to the band that do not link to one another without the navbox?--Jax 0677 (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply It's been nominated for deletion, fixing it isn't necessary if it is deleted. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - 76.65.128.252, and how exactly do we know that this template will be deleted? Without the navbox, Further (Solace album) and A.D. (album) do not link to 3 of the other albums.--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The links have been fixed, so this template does link six articles properly now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed - Any other points of debate requiring discussion?--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.