< May 1	May 3 >

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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CarlaDelPonte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused userbox in template namespace. User who created it was indef blocked as a sockpuppet.. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom, but if I can't have infoboxes supporting my favorite bands, then what makes this so different? – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 06:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Orphan, only one red link. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2008 (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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bianca Dias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template with only red links, articles were deleted.. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The artist is non-notable, and the only links supplied were red. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 06:31, 6 May 2008 (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 debate was speedy deleted by Persian Poet Gal as patent nonsense (G1). — Gavia immer (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brian Este Clyde, Jacob Davis, Gerrish, D'waine Wade, and not Michael "Tina" Tran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template is unused and does not appear to be useful.. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:02, 2 May 2008 (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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blac Haze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The articles for the artist and albums were deleted, so this template is not needed.. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2008 (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 debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially a duplicate of the incumbent succession box on the related articles. ThePointblank (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The below XXX Captains templates are being considered under criteria #2? I don't see how they are weaker than the succesion box templates. The bigger concern is the proliferation of these types of templates without discussion. There is clutter happening on pages. Similar templates are in use and accepted. Discussion about the handling of these type of templates is on-going at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Number_of_templates. Is that where discussion should be going on? Alaney2k (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not only does it meet criteria #2. The information on it is not directly defining to the particular athlete whose page its on. The fact that some other random player 50 years earlier was also a captain of that team does not define the player whose page the template is on. Secondly to the comment up top, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to your line of arguing. Just because other templates of this sort exist doesn't mean this one should. Heck even those ones are not necessarily accepted. And places like tfd are where concensus on keeping them or not keeping them tends to be forged. As much as pump would like to be the place. -Djsasso (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We should stick with the Succession boxes, as they concentrate more on the player-in-question (merely showing his immediate predecessor & immediate successor). GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Exactly the succession boxes are more defining as it lays out who he took over from or who he passed it on to. Anyone prior to or after that just simply don't define the player. And nav boxes should only include links to articles that would otherwise already be linked to in the article. -Djsasso (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Comment So that is criteria #1 then. I do agree that the templates should be deleted on that point. Mostly because they were developed and added without Project discussion. A proposal should have been made, etc. But I do have concerns about the fact that we have some of this type already, that have been present for a while. How are these different from the Draft picks ones? And, these type of templates represent a category in a different way. Should there be categories created instead? As for the design, the succession boxes are not superior, we probably be replacing them with something Navbox-derived, which supports collapsing. Alaney2k (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wouldn't mind deleting all Templates from the NHL articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Now I could be wrong, but I am guessing the reason its never happened before s that people are too lazy to link 30 templates to tfds each time they get created. I know I am, which is why I never nominated the first round draft picks one. But I will probably do so once this one is done as I think a fairly large group of people feel the same way you do GoodDay. -Djsasso (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Djsasso. As far as converting to categories goes, I think the same problem would apply: rampant overcategorization. Players are already listed as being members of the team in a category, listing them also as captains is redundant. I think, in this case, going with lists is the best, and since that is currently being incorporated into the lists of each team's players, we are already well down that path. Same with the draft picks articles. Resolute 21:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As you say I could see it being rampant overcategorization. Only way the captains one could work is if you make the captain category a sub-category of the team players category. -Djsasso (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Already listed in succession boxes, non-defining, and on some of them, such as Template:AvalancheCaptains, there is only one name. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We could only keep the templates if al of them have more captains, which most don't. First I'd like to delete all with few catains but that will cause incompletion so our best resort is just either keeping the captains on the team pages or deleting them all entirly. --Hasek is the best (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no objection to the Navbox style for draft picks, captains, etc., as long as it is contained on the team page within the container so that it is hidden by default. They become useful shortcuts that way. Alaney2k (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We should use the Succession boxes --T-rex 23:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per above. IrisKawling (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Succession boxes work fine for this purpose. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Succession boxes work fine, these simply clutter articles up. [I have broken the templates into two columns for ease of viewing.] RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 12:42, May 11, 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and Comment - can some explain to me what is meant be criteria #1 and #2? Also, if the consenus seems to be against nax boxes based on the postition that people hold, how does that jive with political offices such as ((Prime Ministers of Canada)) or ((NYCMayors))? Isn't that the same phenominon but in another field of human endevor? Either it should apply to both or neither. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 18:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you go to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion and take a look there are reasons for deletion. When someone says #1 or #2 then they mean the first or second on that list. Now I have nothing to back it up but I would say most people on here would say they would like to see them gone from those people as well. Nav boxes should only contain articles that would already normally be linked on the page. And in most cases, other than the captain that came before and after or in your example the mayor that came before or after, no other captain or mayor would be linked on the page and thus don't belong in a navbox. -Djsasso (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2008 (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 debate was delete. Wizardman 02:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern Ireland Assembly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is perfectly executed, but I'm afraid that it's just too big for its purpose. There are 108 members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and with the links to the parties etc, it adds 125 extra links to each article.

This sort of template works fine for smaller groupings, but I think that cross-linking over 100 articles in this way is a step too far. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, its fit for purpose and its user friendly. It is big but all MLA's are now under one template. Its perfect for anyone wanting to learn about the Northern Ireland Assembly and its members without getting completely lost on Wikipedia. I designed it with school and university students in mind who need something like this to help them on Wikipedia. I plan to work on each one of the MLA's wikis to make the template completely worthwhile.--Nanometre (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the MLA articles are already in the same category: Category:Northern Ireland MLAs 2007-, which provides a handy navigational method. There is also a handy sortable list at Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly elected in 2007.

I'm not against templates, it's just that this one is too big. It has just occurred to me that it would be fine if it was split into smaller templates, one per party, which could be cross-linked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. The usefulness us IMO dubious. Links to pages with the full list of members may be in order, but such a template is OTT.Traditional unionist (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. It's just too big. Split into party groups. Have a look at Category:Members of the Scottish Parliament navigational boxes for other examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snappy56 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 2 May 2008
• Delete - adds nothing which is not present in the article and the category. Warofdreams talk 02:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is big but it is not that big. The template contains all the MLA wikis and their parties wikis and means that other templates can be deleted (Template:Northern Ireland Assembly Parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:NI party leaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:Sinn Fein Elected Representatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). Splitting and cross linking them is a bit excessive, the current and simplest solution is the best (Occam's razor).--Nanometre (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Split. Certainly easy to get lost in this one, and the size is large. Would it not be more useful to have a template for each party, and then tie them all together somehow? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Template:GW Bush cabinet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is bigger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanometre (talk • contribs) 22:25, 6 May 2008
  • Note: this is Nanometre's second !vote in this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it wasn't delibrate, I didn't relise it was a vote. I'm still learning the ropes--Nanometre (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • WP:WAX Resolute 15:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is a proliferation of these templates, which are essentially adding nothing to the articles. This one is among the least useful. Scolaire (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Catholicism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is also bigger, so that argument is redundant. The template meets what Wikipedia asks of templates and it does add to each wiki.--Nanometre (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:WAX. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to point out that the subject matter of Catholicism is somewhat greater than the current members of the NI Assembly! Furthermore, its size is largely due to its layout, it still manages to contain less links (~75) than your template. Snappy56 (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2008 (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.