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 redirected to Start date by User:ViperSnake151. JPG-GR (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Initial release (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Start date)), which also outputs microformat compatible classes. Should perhaps redirect. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to ((Start date)) same thing, and I can imagine "initial release" being a valid alternate name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((Start date)); simplest solution. ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 21:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((Start date)). JM.Beaubourg (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((Release date and age)); slightly more semantically appropriate than ((Start date)), but either would be an improvement (also, I think it is needless to promote, via redirection to Start date, the usage of templates which do not simultaneously list the number of days since release beside the actual date itself -- IMHO, days since release is just as important.) --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((Release date and age)) for semantic reasons. --w^{L<speak·check>} 08:37, 17 November 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 as single-use orphaned template RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 20:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Population of Japan/Aichi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Current orphaned template. From what I can guess, it's intent is to be used in Template:District data of Japan/figure and then inTemplate:District data of Japan and finally in Template:Infobox City Japan under theBulk Update system used at Japan wikipedia. If this aren't going to be used, all the templates hanging around in Category:Population of Japan should be removed (this one is just for precedent).Ricky81682 (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone is up for some amusement, the notices at User talk:Knua trying to delete these earlier were all removed due to this memorable policy discussion. Kurt Godel would be proud. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This template does not transclude. but some template is used. In response to the request (ja:Note), I had just created. So, please ask BigBang19 whether these template is neccessary. --Knua (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just guessing but from User:BigBang19 updating the figures and inserting them into Aichi District, Aichi, it might be in use. However, I disagree with the purpose of this system. Adding this complexity (I would have look at the Aichi article, realize that it is a link to Template:District data of Japan, realize that requires a link to Template:District data of Japan/figure without having any documentation at all to work off, realize that goes to Template:Area of Japan/Aichi again without documentation, and try to sort through the entire code which is in Japanese), all just to change the population, the district size, and the total area. That's absurd. It's bad enough trying to help new users figure out infoboxes and other work, this is insane. I'm guessing I should really list Template:District data of Japan and go from there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:25, 13 November 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! 11:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Life in the Caribbean Community (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Was never developed. Louis Waweru  Talk  06:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Contains only red links. Since it was never developed, I've tagged it for G6, as I don't think it would be controversial to delete it (the parent article was never touched after creation). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as it does not seem to be at all useful given its inclusion of only red links. I'm not sure about the speedy deletion, though, as the template does not seem to quality for G6 (as it would not be for technical reasons that the template would be deleted) or any T- criterion, as it is neither inflammatory, nor a copy of another template, from what I can tell. It would be better just to establish consensus that the template is not needed here (which is appears it is not) and delete it then. It Is Me Here (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unused list of red links. Icewedge (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unused template with only red links. ☺ Spiby ☻ 12:28, 18 November 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. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 20:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Songs in Guitar Hero (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox template doesn't see to help serve a purpose for navigation that is already taken care of by the various Guitar Hero songlists. (eg it servers no purpose for the actual song articles, only being useful for the GH articles which alreay ahve navboxes. MASEM 04:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 04:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete! This is niche information forcing itself into contexts where it has no business being. Flowerparty^☀ 00:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no valid reason for deleting this template. The current level of accessibility for browsing from one article in this group to another is inadequate for its needs. This will also save room in each song's respective article, by making the discussion of its appearance in Guitar Hero unnecessary, except perhaps songs whose popularity is greatly caused by the series, such as Cliffs of Dover or Through the Fire and Flames, or songs that were specifically re-recorded for the series, such as Anarchy in the U.K. or Cult of Personality, among others. It also provides a link that can lead to a full list of songs in each game. By saying that this navigation template is unnecessary because there are already various lists seems to be a double standard. For example, why should there be a navigation box for songs by one artist when there is a page for its discography, or, further, why are there navigation boxes for anything whose contents may be found in a list somewhere? Also, this template will eventually be modified to automatically include its pages in the category of songs in Guitar Hero, further aiding proper categorization of its articles and reducing the amount of editing necessary to be done. I believe it is a goal of Wikipedia to provide for ease of navigation between articles on different parts of the same topic. It would be desirable in a paper encyclopedia as well, so with Wikipedia there is even fewer reasons that this template should not exist. For those unfamiliar with the series and do not understand the difference between Guitar Hero and other games that might include the aforementioned songs is that the songs in and of themselves are, in essence, the entirety of the game. That is to say, the songs are not simply a soundtrack. Converting a song into a version playable in Guitar Hero takes a decent amount of work, and sometimes involves collaboration with the artists themselves, with the least of which being a transfer of the master track of the song so that the various tracks can be separated. Further, this is unlike a soundtrack from a movie or anything of that nature in that a great many people know of the songs only because of its involvement in the Guitar Hero series. That being said, and considering the immense popularity of the series, it is very likely that a great number of people will seek information about the songs and their inclusion in the game. I feel that simply a group of lists that contain extraneous information does not fulfill the purpose of this template.
  -- Dromioofephesus (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Categories already exist for such a thing as well as lists I do believe. Not only that, I don't think the template even lists all the songs available for each game. And on a purely style basis, it looks horrid enough as it is without adding the World Tour songs and whatever downloadable content appears. Regardless of what the template's creator Dromioofephesus says, it's useless.  Red157  19:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I apologize if I am a little bit retarded, but I still don't understand why the heads of state of a particular nation and the planets in a particular solar system should have their own navboxes, the songs of a group should not. Wouldn't an average person who knows of a particular planet know what solar system is in? Isn't it possible that someone knows of a song but doesn't know that what GH it's in (even in the series at all)? Plus, why should a person have to keep going back to a list to move from one song to the next? I know the frustration with that was one of the things that prompted me to create this template. I don't know all of the Manual of Style guidelines for song navboxes, but I figured something was better than nothing. Even considering having to create the template, it has already saved me a great deal of time. If someone can think of a better way to navigate from one song to another without having to search for a list, feel free to do so. I would rather not have to deal with creating a template (which I suppose is not very pretty anyway). I am utilitarian, and I created this template to help (1) identify which GH game a particular song is in from its page, (2) to easily recognize GH songs from the song's respective article, (3) to avoid having to go into every song's article and add "This song is in GH(#)", (4) to avoid having to manually add every song into its category, (5) to easily navigate from song to song. If someone can find another way to fulfill those five purposes, I will vote in favor of deletion of this template. --Dromioofephesus (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have another question. If this template does get deleted, will the articles remain in the category or will I have to re-categorize manually? --Dromioofephesus (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• NavBoxes are meant as quick navigation links between articles that are highly related to each other. The problem is that for Guitar Hero, these songs aren't - they are simply licensed works that are used in the game. Most songs which have their own article which appear in GH do not have mention of the fact they are in game, and for good reason - songs get licensed for games all the time and thus it's nothing special that navigation makes any sense with. Only a few songs I believe are noted this way (Anarchy in the UK is one because it was notable to be rerecorded for GH3.) On the other hand, a person that is a US President is going to have significant focus on that, and thus providing a navbox to other US presidents (as significant discussion of it has been in the article) makes sense. Same with a planet and the like. We also had previously considered making categories for GH songs but this is not appropriate per WP:CAT - again, same reasoning, that songs get licensed all the time for video games, and GH is nothing special and thus does not need song categories. --MASEM 00:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. What a dumb idea for a template. Why do we need a template listing every song in every Guitar Hero game? Isn't that what the GH series template with links to the song articles is for? What happens to to this template when Activision releases its planned 12 Guitar Hero titles for 2009? Do we put all 12 games in there? What about now, are we only putting console games in the template and not handheld games? Are we excluding bonus songs? This seems like a very arbitrary, but needless way to display the series' songs. For example, let's say I'm reading about "Sweet Child O' Mine". Why do we need an infobox listing 100+ other rock songs whose only connection to "Sweet Child O'Mine" is that they were licensed for use in a series of video games? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and convert to a category. The listing is more fitted for a category, so that it doesn't change the subject of the song's article or give Guitar Hero undue weight of the subject. --w^{L<speak·check>} 08:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Categorize The link between these songs may not be relevant to the song itself, but I could see a need for users to navigate between them; wheras a template is not appropriate, a category would be. bahamut0013♠♣ 18:55, 22 November 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NSW Waratahs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of ((NSW Waratahs squad)) Bob (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to remove colours. One user has moved players away to a new MOS. Holding off until resolution reached.Londo06 08:01, 11 November 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wales Under-20 Squad - 2008 IRB Junior World Championships (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Cruft. Most of the players in the squad don't have articles. Bob (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - excessively specific template for a not particularly notable team. Terraxos (talk) 04:09, 22 November 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Warcraft deletion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WikiProject Warcraft is no longer a wikiproject, but rather a task force, which means it uses the administrative power of WikiProject Video games. Izno (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if it's not needed, then it can be removed. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:44, 17 November 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.