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) 23:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Lost character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to other television and fictional character infoboxes, with the exception of the Flashback1/Centric field, which is a mixture of WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - redundant to ((Infobox fictional character)). Robofish (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with ((Infobox fictional character)), following parameter are missing (beside the one above mentioned) |age=, |Residence=, |Place=. These parameter can be useful for other series, too. mabdul 12:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the best of my knowledge these were deliberately omitted as in-universe content, not least because they are all intrinsically temporal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:38, 8 May 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) 23:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Winter Baseball Leagues in Victoria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox consists almost entirely of red links. There is no main article for Winter Baseball Leagues in Victoria that established notability of this grouping. —Bagumba (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't qualify for G8 since Baseball Victoria is the parent article, but still navigates nothing, and everything on the list that isn't redlinked is prodded. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:38, 4 May 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) 23:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baseball Victoria Summer League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox consists almost entirely of red links, including the main article Baseball Victoria Summer League. Violates the spirit of WP:NAV. —Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, qualifies as G8 since the parent article is deleted. The only two bluelinks on the template look non notable, so I've prodded. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I had requested the parent article be undeleted and am still waiting for the deleting admin to do that, so G8 is inapplicable and I've removed the tag. This is the top level of baseball in Victoria, so many of the teams listed are notable, but I agree a navbox is probably unnecessary until more articles have been created. Jenks24 (talk) 03:39, 5 May 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; deleted as G7 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philippine Research Universities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template's items are arbitrary and no specific criteria was cited in order to substantiate notability or verifiality of the subject. In essence, almost all universities undertake or include research in their curriculum. No consortium currently exists that support the subject of the template, unlike the Association of East Asian Research Universities or the International Alliance of Research Universities. Since no verifiable source can ascertain the subject at hand, I'm concerned that this is altogether just original research, thus I suggest deletion of the template. Refer to WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:NOTABILITY. Xeltran (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, the key is that the title is redlinked, since there is no official source for this classification. Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence that the entries should be classified together.—Bagumba (talk) 19:26, 4 May 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) 23:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cities in Sweden (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be an informational template formatted to look like a stub notice. Perhaps it could be converted into a navbox listing the 133 entities in question? Or maybe the article listing same should be linked from the infoboxes or some existing navbox. Please discuss. ―cobaltcigs 12:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's simply unnecessary. This appears to be a throwback to the days when we didn't have a properly-defined template / category system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as redundant to the existing category, Category:Cities in Sweden. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not make it into a navigational box (those should all be abolished anyway). It is based on faulty notion that there is a one-to-one relationship between the modern Swedish municipalities and the previous städer (cities). Modern municipalities are huge (in sparsely populated northern Sweden they are the size of small countries) and a few (at least Eskilstuna and Strängnäs, but there are probably others) actually contain more than one former stad, as well as rural areas with a large number of former civil parishes. --Hegvald (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ancient unused artifact. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (weak keep) I think there acctually is a use for this template, but it seems to be used in a very peculiar way sometimes. Instead of being used in articles about the former municipalities which were called towns, it is sometimes added to articles about the geographical places/localities bearing the same name as these former municipalities. It would be more accurate to have it in articles about present municipalities of that name, even if that usually is not entirely correct either (but for some municipalities which have the same name and almost exactly the same borders as a former stad, e.g. Stockholm). If it should be kept, its use must more accurately follow its real meaning. Mr. Atom Scania (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need for the minor bit of factual information in this template to be included in articles by way of a nonstandard boilerplate generator. It should simply be included in the article text as normal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Frietjes. mabdul 12:35, 7 May 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 merge as suggested. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Userpage Barnstar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A barnstar v1 is available at ((Userpagebarn)) and should be merged with the |alt=. mabdul 12:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep the stars are different. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment: Please explain me the usage (and the differences) for both stars, otherwise I won't understand why we have two. One has a good documentation, the other not... mabdul 10:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• They're different, so no harm in keeping both. If for some reason it's decided that only one should exist, at least use the more descriptive name ((The Userpage Barnstar)) for the template instead of the cryptic alternative. Jafeluv (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a merge proposal, not an deletion "request": Many barnstars have alternative versions as you can see atCategory:Barnstars with alternative versions: they are using the |alt= as described in the nom (see also WP:*). (keep in mind that this is Templates for discussion) mabdul 13:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm? I'm discussing. Not sure why you suddenly assume that I'm thinking this is a deletion request. Jafeluv (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then please explain me the difference. (You won't likely know that I'm cleaning up many barnstars and the WP:* related pages) If they are different, ok, but if they have the same purpose, then we can simply merge them similar to the barnstars in the cat linked above. mabdul 14:02, 3 May 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• merge, adding the "alt=" parameter to switch the stars. Frietjes (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, I suppose. These could be combined into a single barnstar, since they have the same purpose. Robofish (talk) 13:00, 6 May 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) 23:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Fame (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Procedural only. Template's original TFD entry on April 12 was removed in this edit by the nominator and discussion was never properly concluded. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original discussion from April 12: This template does not specifically say which is which and not enough links are given to fully understand it. Please consider revising it or it could be deleted, and we don't want that to happen! Thank you! Plmnji (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination doesn't make sense. Plainly a navbox for The Fame is appropriate. Are you suggesting we shouldn't incorporate The Fame Monster into it? That's just a matter of removing the line in question, and shouldn't require a TfD. Or are you requesting something else? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per template:Music of the Sun track listing, template:Loud (Rihanna album) and Rated R (Rihanna album). the links are all sufficiently covered by Template:Lady Gaga. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 3 May 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems fairly redundant to ((Lady Gaga)) to me. Robofish (talk) 12:57, 6 May 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, there may be consensus to merge the three decade boxes if just those three were relisted, but there is no consensus to merge everything. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Palestinian insurgency in South Lebanon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Palestinian militancy attacks in the 1960s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Palestinian militancy attacks in the 1970s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Palestinian militancy attacks in the 1980s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Campaignbox Palestinian insurgency in South Lebanon with Template:Palestinian militancy attacks in the 1960s, template:Palestinian militancy attacks in the 1970s and template:Palestinian militancy attacks in the 1980s.
In my opinion this template is redundant since it provides essentially the same identical information as in the templates template:Palestinian militancy attacks in the 1960s, template:Palestinian militancy attacks in the 1970s and template:Palestinian militancy attacks in the 1980s. It seems ridiculous to have all these separate templates sharing the same info. Therefore I suggest that we'll merge the content of this template into the three templates aforementioned. What do you think? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as creator of this template i see no reason to cancel the campaignbox of a clearly defined conflict in favor of merging with very general navboxes, which don't cencessarily describe the Palestinian insurgency in South Lebanon, but also other arenas. Recent example - there is a navbox for Template:Terrorist attacks in Syria and also the campaignbox Template:Campaignbox Syrian uprising.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 23 April 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the three navboxes (((Palestinian militancy attacks in the 1960s)), ((Palestinian militancy attacks in the 1970s)), ((Palestinian militancy attacks in the 1980s))) and keep the Campaignbox. mabdul 12:38, 7 May 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.