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 support is both broad and unanimous, I'm closing this myself, albeit my being the nominator, per WP:IAR. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and discussions had in the previous TfD, which is now linked above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - They're virtually identical - No point in having in essence a duplicate template. –Davey2010Talk 22:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. These should, of course, also be merged with the near identical, and equally redundant, ((Infobox film)), for the wider benefit of the project at large. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting real tired of your idea of merging of these infoboxes with ((Infobox film)), Pigsonthewing. Film and television are different and your previous idea was met with strong opposition because film and television are entirely different in table, base and such. If you continue with this idea, you will face strong opposition from other users. Get that straight. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and previous discussion; ((Infobox television)) feels like a more natural fit for ((Infobox television film)), and it would seem to be an easier and less contentious merge than the last proposal. PC78 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This makes sense, and it's good to see that the nominator and several of the discussion participants listened and understood the points being raised in the previous related TfD discussion. "Well done" to all concerned, including Andy, Alakzi and AussieLegend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Code for the two templates is very similar, although the visual appearance is slightly different. A merge requires only a few extra parameters and adding some aliases to existing parameters. I don't understand why we didn't think of this before. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If it initially airs on TV, reads like a TV infobox, then it should have a broader home. — Wyliepedia 03:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are some rather redundant parameters in the TV infobox, such as "production_website", "production_website_title", "website_title". The "website" parameter itself seems adequate enough to note the company or production or other related websites. The TV-Film infobox itself is lacking in parameters that specify "camera", "picture_format" and "audio_format" which could be useful to know. I'm in favour of the merge. Deltasim (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is a great idea. I agree with AussieLegend this should have been done before. JohnGormleyJG (✉) 20:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per all the comments. Having two templates is redundant and also redundant. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A television film is essentially a "series" of one episode, so this merge makes sense. -- Wrightaway (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Two templates look rather similar. It doesn't make any sense to have two separate templates with extreme similarities.--Chamith(talk) 18:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
READY FOR CLOSE - Note to any passing administrator: this one is ripe for immediate closure. There is clear consensus among the nominator, regular TfD participants, and members of the affected WikiProjects what should happen here, with unanimous support among 14 participants for a merge after 7 days -- which is indeed rare. Let's not prolong this TfD unnecessarily. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I fully support the merge, but I'm thinking a few more days are warranted; not even a full week has passed and the number of articles that would be affected by this change is so much more massive than the number of respondents to this issue so far. Snowlet's rap 03:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most of the relevant parameters/salient details for a television movie can already be represented via the general television infobox, so the merger should proceed with relatively few hiccups. Further, I see no other likely downside here to counterbalance the interest in simplicity. Snowlet's rap 03:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm also for the merge, however I'd like to point out one downside to the merge. In television (at least as far as USA television goes), the person who gets more credit for the show is the writer (who in most cases is also the showrunner) and the director is in a technical position. In film, the director gets the credit (with cases of multiple writers and drafts for the film). If you take a look at the templates, you'll notice that they also use this distinction with director being above writer in the film and television film infoboxes, while writer is above director in the television infobox. As I noted, I'm in favor of merging, if only because as noted above, miniseries are being added with both templates. I'm not a coder so don't know if its possible, but if there was a way for the merge to happen and for the director credit in a television film to still be above writer, I'd be much more satisfied with the merge. --Gonnym (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym:, that probably will be solved when we merged it. Film and television infoboxes are different and are best to keep seperate, but ((Infobox television film)) and ((Infobox television)) are virtually the same with a few minor kinks and that's why it should be merge. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support for merger. Separate infoboxes for television programs of specific genres are completely unnecessary, and television films are no exception. Only one infobox is needed for this medium's programming. --SethAllen623 (talk) 18:33, May 4, 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). 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 do not merge. I was initially gonna let it run the full seven days after the crats were notified, but the nominator is not arguing their case any longer. Given the apparent lack of depth of this non-interchange, I'd been inclined to close it as a "no consensus"; however, xeno put forth a plausible counter-argument in their final response. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:Rfap with Template:Rfaf.
I think both templates should be merged to form a new template called Rfae (Request for adminship end) or Rfa-top (Request for adminship top) with a unnamed parameter which shows the successful RfA thing if p or s is used and the unsuccessful RfA thing if f or u is used. It would make things simpler.
EDIT: When h is used it could place the RfA on hold. TL22 (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but leave redirects. Eman235/talk 00:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a positive development, but please post at Bureaucrats' noticeboard to notify interested parties of the merge. Mamyles (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was done at 11:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC). –xenotalk
Comment. If we're going to do this (no strong views either way), it would make sense to merge Template:Rfah as well. WJBscribe(talk) 13:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great point. I have put Rfah for merging. --TL22 (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as unnecessary complication. If this passes, please ensure the old templates are turned into wrappers for the new one. –xenotalk 11:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. I fail to understand why something that works fine should need to be changed. Maybe the OP cares to explain. Or rather not, not another time-sink please. Kraxler (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if you want to develop a new template system, please do so in parallel, not while deleting the existing system. Andrevan@ 18:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for now) - I'd like to see the new template and how it's been set up before deciding if it's "better" or in need of merge. Mkdwtalk 19:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I agree with creating a new template and testing it for a while before deciding to do away with a system which works very well. If it works out, then we can discuss deleting the old templates (after making sure all uses as subst'd before deleting them). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Current system works fine and I do not see overwhelming benefit of new system. -- Avi (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The separation of these templates hasn't been a problem, and may, in fact, be simpler than combining the three into a single one with a parameter. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you explain in simple language what you're proposing and why it's better? --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose . Solution looking for a problem. Nothing broke, nothing to fix. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Templates should be made simpler - or eliminated - not made more complicated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Uh-oh, its snowing! (I mean that this nomination is dangerously close to WP:SNOW) --TL22 (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome does seem clear, someone should close this discussion now... I think the main argument for the current system is that non-bureaucrats will never need to use the "pass" or "hold" options (and due to non-bureaucrat closures, bureaucrats rarely have instance to use the "unsuccessful"), so it just makes sense to have the templates separate for ease-of-use. Thanks for the suggestion, though. –xenotalk 15:35, 22 May 2015 (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.
Template:Girls Can't Catch
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.
Another navbox without enough articles to support it. Each of the three articles already link to the other two without it. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because its not very useful. --TL22 (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The music group has disbanded and there is little chance for expansion with further articles. Dimadick (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2015 (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.
Template:Polytechnic University of the Philippines campus map
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.
pointless now that the image has been deleted. Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused template per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless since there is no map. Borderline to G8. --TL22 (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2015 (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/redirect. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed template that never gained traction; redundant to ((Being deleted)), where templates are concerned. Alakzi (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ((Deletion pending)) is for "merge and delete" and "redirect" and ((Being deleted)) is for "delete". It is not to be confused. --TL22 (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it actually being used though? The template was created 8 years ago, yet the doc suggests that it's still just a "proposal". A better name might help, if nothing else. PC78 (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Have you read the documentation of ((Being deleted))? There is a "merge" parameter. Where templates are concerned, "redirect" is a supplementary outcome; it means, either, that some parameters are to be incorporated in another template, after which time the template can be redirected (a "merge"); or that the template is wholly redundant to another, but the name is kept as an intuitive redirect (a "delete" outcome). It's never been the case that we needed to advertise that a template's due to be redirected. (b) Where would ((Deletion pending)) be actually used, if kept? Alakzi (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, assuming no one actually uses it. I can't see any significant difference in intended use compared to ((Being deleted)). PC78 (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Being deleted" covers a different situation, where the decision is actually happening imminently and automatically, perhaps within minutes, or implied to be very imminent. This template is for non-administrators watching the article, and readers who happen to be interested in the article, to be informed that the page could be deleted shortly, its content will then be inaccessible, and to copy or back it up locally if needed, before this happens.
Perhaps this advice/info could be included in brief in the deletion process templates, though? FT2(Talk | email) 09:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
((Being deleted)) is not used when deletion is imminent and is not used in articles. Alakzi (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2015 (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 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 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.
Template:Meryl Streep
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 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.
Template:The 100 (TV 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Unnecessary template. Only four links, including the link to the main article. While it is likely in the future that more articles may be created, for now there are not sufficient articles to justify creation of a poorly populated navbox when internal links in the related articles will suffice. AussieLegend (✉) 10:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Internal links on the related articles do suffice. — Wyliepedia 05:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The four links are already connected to each other through links making this template redundant. Aspects (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems of little use as it currently stands and there seems to be little chance for an expansion. Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2015 (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 do not merge. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:Inherit the Wind with Template:Lawrence and Lee.
The people mentioned are not characters from this work of fiction, but their real world counterparts. Not appropriate for this navbox and do not satisfy WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. The adaptations could easily be incorporated into ((Lawrence and Lee)) thus reducing the need for multiple navboxes. We could possibly also introduce Scopes Trial to this navbox, but it probably isn't really needed. Another option would be to have a separate ((Scopes Trial)) navbox which included the people involved and a "See also" pointing to Inherit the Wind (play). --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, repurposing ((Inherit the Wind)) as a ((Scopes Trial)) navbox may be the best option (even including all the adpatations), losing the links to the writers only, as they are not directly related. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Inherit the Wind is a work of fiction, not history. Adding links related to the Scopes Monkey Trial to this movie navbox, or vice versa, is no more appropriate than including links to Gone With the Wind in Template:American Civil War, or links related to The Winds of War in Template:World War II. We should not be mixing dramatic fiction elements with history -- that's bad ju-ju. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, this is outside of my area of expertise. I have created many historical fiction templates that have been overhauled by others and that retain the historical elements. I am not sure what is correct. Obviously, the ones that have had the most eyes on them bringing them to a broad consensus are the Shakespeare ones like Template:Henriad, Template:Shakespeare tetralogy, Template:Julius Caesar, and Template:Antony and Cleopatra. I have also done other historical templates with historical characters that have survived such as Template:The Last of the Mohicans. I neither know the work Inherit the Wind well enough to know the relevance of the historical characters nor know the general propriety of historical content in such templates, but feel the removal of such content seems inconsistent with other works I have been involved in.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would suggest renaming the Template:Inherit the Wind to Template:Scopes Trial to cover both the historical articles and their influence on popular culture. The template would be more useful to covering creationism-related articles. Dimadick (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oppose merger, the "scopes" of the templates are different. Frietjes (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Lawrence and Lee template is replete with items that have nothing to do with ItW or the Scopes trial. It clearly should remain separate from anything that is done to the other template. MarnetteD|Talk 00:18, 14 May 2015 (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.
Template:Species abbreviation
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.
This template is intended for use on disambiguation pages, however it seems like its use runs counter to disambiguation page guidelines, for several reasons:
The template does not provide a way to provide a common name or describe the species being linked, limiting its usefulness for disambiguation.
The template abbreviates the genus name, contrary to WP:PIPING.
The template does not find all relevant species, only those for which a page exists with the abbreviated genus name.
Other users have pointed out similar concerns on the template's talk page. Furthermore, it is unclear if the template's intended use case is valid in the first place. Linking to a species from a disambiguation page about the species name seems to contradict WP:PTM, since species are rarely if ever referred to solely by their specific epithet. For these reasons, using this template is counterproductive and I propose that it be deleted. Augurar (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. replacements such as this one leave much better content. Note also in that example that the template placed two items under an inappropriate pseudo-sub-heading. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it currently stands the template only covers species with a name including the term "nana", a Latin feminine word for "dwarf". It is the feminine form of the masculine "nanus". They derive from the Greek "νᾶνος" or "νάνος" (nanos) which also means "dwarf". Since when do we categorize species by etymology or size? We already have a List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names which probably could use some updating and expansion. This can not be covered in a template. Dimadick (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2015 (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.
Just for posterity, I've copied the talk page comments that object to this template, since these explain what the problem is for future editors that run across it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found this used on a disambiguation page and see here that it is tagged as part of the WikiProject Disambiguation. However, its current function of hiding genus names is counter to the purpose and practice of disambiguation. If this template is meant to support disambiguation of species, I suggest the its purpose be identified and its function refined towards a productive end.
P.S. I would also note, in the case of Excelsa, that a search shows many species articles excluded by the template's filter. ENeville (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
This template is not acceptable for disambiguation pages and I'd advise everyone not to use it there. Here's the issue:
After, deleting this template and formatting properly: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cordata&oldid=563053160 Note that substituting doesn't work since most users wouldn't understand the resulting markup, nor is the result fixable in the visual editor.
Using this template violates many disambiguation MOS guidelines. First, the links should be the exact title of the article so users know exactly where they're going. Second, the links should be followed by alternate names, in this case the common names for the species. Thirdly, each link needs a description, for those who know the species ends in Cordata but aren't sure which one. For this template to be workable on disambiguation pages, it would need to somehow automatically generate common names and descriptions for each one, and link to common names if that's the article title.
One simple improvement that would be much easier to implement would be another template like this that doesn't abbreviate the genus. That gets us closer to meeting guidelines, but is still not quite there. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Template:Unsigned-unk
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. If someone wants to merge it, go for it. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A lazy person's version of ((Unsigned)), the idea of the unsigned template is to sign comments so people will know who they were posted by and when they were posted. "— Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user" doesn't help that purpose. People should use Template:Unsigned for correct signatures. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful. There are times you might not be able to figure out who signed it without undue effort. Is EoRdE6 volunteering to go through the effort on command, or is he just assigning work to other people? Hipocrite (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Seems to me that if you can figure out when a comment was posted, you can also figure out who posted it. If you can't be bothered to do either then you probably shouldn't be tagging unsigned comments. Isn't "unsigned comment added by an unknown user" somewhat redundant? PC78 (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps redirect to ((Xsign)) which displays the same default message but seems to be more useful? PC78 (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
((Xsign)) transcludes this template. Alakzi (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ((Xsign)) then, unless it's also used elsewhere? PC78 (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2015 (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) 04:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ((Unsigned)). It could default to "Unknown user" if nothing is specified on the first parameter. --TL22 (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you're going to add an unsigned template, you find out who the comment was from. This is about as helpful as not inserting a template. Eman235/talk 23:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Emma and flying pigs. --NSH002 (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2015 (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.
Template:Star Parivaar Awards
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.
This enormous template is too unwieldy for navigation. There is already a list at STAR Parivaar Awards which could better serve this purpose. Psychonaut (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "categories" link to other navboxes? Still nothing worth keeping there. Alakzi (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete after the changes, we now have the opposite problem that there are few working article links that aren't redirects. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2015 (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) 04:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NAVBOX, navboxes exist to facilitate readers' navigation among existing articles regarding closely related topics. Navboxes do not exist to daisy-chain multiple navboxes one to another. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was willing to properly tweak this one until I saw all roads lead to the main awards page. — Wyliepedia 05:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article of STAR Parivaar Awards is a glorified stub with unclear notability. It links to next to no other articles. It uses untranslated terms like "buzurg", an Urdu term for "elderly person". The award categories are not explained at all. As it stands, I am surprised that the article itself is not proposed for deletion. It clearly does not need a navigation box. Dimadick (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2015 (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.