< November 10	November 12 >

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. It is redundant to the category. We do not transclude categories onto pages that are contained in them, for obvious reasons. There are a great number of phobias with varying amounts of clinical acceptance, therefore a navbox is inherently a poor choice to organize a navigational aid for them. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template lumps together untelated things, fear of spiders and "fear" of homosexuals. It adds nothing useful for navigation : we already have both category and a list of phobias. What is most improtant this "navigation tempate" effectively hinders navigation enormously: now it is absolutely impossible to find, eg. which articles discuss arachnophobia using "wat links here" function. — `'Míkka >t 22:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This template increases usability by clearly grouping relevant topics together. It does what the category does not through that grouping. • Freechild'sup? 02:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the category groups them too. How is the template better? Picaroon (t) 02:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; redundant to category and list, and needlessly obscures the what links here function. Picaroon (t) 02:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serves no real purpose, adds no navigational advantage beyond category and lists. Doczilla 07:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and not just because I created it. I put this reasoning in that template's discussion:

I have just become aware of Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_20#Template:Phobia and, although I haven't had a chance to see the template they were talking about, I believe that what I have here is NOT merely what's in the category, especially since the articles are not listed by name (nor by the latin-icized name such as hemophobia), but by what they represent, making navigation much easier and practical. Furthermore, the average IP-address user is, for the most part, not aware that the article categories exists, and may see no way to connect them without a template. Lastly, the phobias are grouped by a classification created by a recognized organization (although right now some of them may be a bit off, I'm just putting forth a start) furthering the advantage over browsing the category.--Once in a Blue Moon 18:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

However, if you think homophobia doesn't belong on the template, by all means click the edit link and take it off. That's what Wikipedia is for anyway.--Once in a Blue Moon 10:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The template is much more concise, and therefore seems more practical and easier to follow than the list of phobias embedded in "-phob-". The Phobias category wouldn't seem practical in most cases either -- for those who don't know the Latin prefixes for the phobias, it's useless... it's just an alphabetical list and doesn't offer much ease of navigation in the first place. --Czj 01:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is a far more useful navigational tool than either the list or the category. Even if this template is not deleted, the list should probably be made more like this template. -- Lilwik 04:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There could be some use in a "-phobia" navbox template, just so long as it remains collapsed. Yahel Guhan 05:32, 16 November 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is not used and is redundant to table that exists in 2007-08 NBA season#NBA standings — Truthanado 22:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nominator's reason. No reason for the duplicate information. - Rjd0060 23:08, 11 November 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single use template. It was replaced with Infobox Settlement. — MJCdetroit 22:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete single use template. Doczilla 07:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete single use & replaced/superseded. SkierRMH 02:27, 14 November 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is not used in any article. The charactor links all redir to the show's article, and the final link is clearly on the main page of the show as well. — Reywas92^Talk 21:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and supported by its existence for 3 months with a typo in its name. JPG-GR 01:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misnamed an unused. SkierRMH 02:26, 14 November 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopedic and duplicative of Category:TV stations by channel number. It is just a list of numbers, and it is cluttering up Wikipedia with unnecessary links to disambiguation pages. — Russ (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Doczilla 07:53, 12 November 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused template, links have been moved to Template:Need for Speed series. — MrStalker ^talk 10:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused & redundant at this point, superseded by Need for speed series. SkierRMH 06:08, 13 November 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single use template that was replaced with a standard infobox. — MJCdetroit 04:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused & standardized. SkierRMH 06:00, 13 November 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As in Template:2007 Kansas City Royals roster and Template:2007 Washington Nationals roster, this is an unncecessary template. — Fbdave 04:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as used in one article only, easily converted to table. SkierRMH 06:01, 13 November 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Unused. Picaroon (t) 04:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

You sure? PAGENAME is always subst'ed - so should this be. In any case, this seems a useful thing to redirect to PAGENAME, if such is possible (given that it's a "magic word" it might not be, I'm not sure). Grutness...wha? 00:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that. It is used, but is nevertheless completely useless as it saves no effort (see reply to Doczilla). I don't think we can redirect to magic words. Still in favor of deletion. Picaroon (t) 21:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct as usual, Grutness. Absolutely should be kept. One-word noms are usually a really bad idea regardless. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, replace "unused" with "useless". That's one word and is now a better reason for deletion. Picaroon (t) 21:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. It's useful to me. What harm's it doing you? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 08:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks like useful shorthand. Doczilla 07:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Substing it? That makes no sense. Compare typing ((subst:pn)) with ((PAGENAME)). They take the exact same amount of keystrokes, eight. There is no point in a shortcut if it doesn't save you any effort. Please explain how, exactly, it is useful. Picaroon (t) 21:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nonsense with the caps, shift, or caps lock=annoying, that's how it is useful, not that I care, just stumbled across this.67.173.131.28 07:13, 14 November 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this oddly titled template that is completely unnecessary because it is redundant with Vice President of the United States and related lists and templates. Used in only 2 articles, including Vice Presidents Taking Over the Presidents Term, which I have nominated for speedy deletion. — Orlady 02:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: For the record, the usual terminology for the phenomenon covered by this template is "succession to the presidency." The Vice President of the United States article includes a subsection headed "Nine succeeded to the Presidency". --Orlady 17:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete oddly named template. Navigational need can be served by list. Doczilla 07:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to several existing templates and lists, and not particularly necessary. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. -- RG ² 12:47, 18 November 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, similar templates have been deleted earlier. —Ms2ger 18:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete replaced by Template:Yugoslav First League. SkierRMH 05:55, 13 November 2007 (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.

November 11

Template:Phobias

Template:2007-2008 NBA Western Conference Pacific Division standings

Template:Infobox New York City Bronx

Template:* Simple Rules

Template:Channel number

Template:Need for Speed locations

Template:Infobox New York City Brooklyn

Template:2006-07 New Jersey Devils roster

Template:PN

Template:VicePresidentsTakingOverPresidentsTerm

Template:Yugoslav First League 20s-30s