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--Maxim_(talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NHLretired (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There already exists Template:Infobox Ice Hockey Player which covers both active and retired players, so no need for a retired-only template. Also, template creator ignored the consensus they received (seen here) as well as previous consensus (seen here) against the use of this style of template in ice hockey articles. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Overwhelming consensus. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No there was no consensus for Retired players they were against the one for Active players as seen in both examples that Nurmsook gave. All of the other major sports (NBA, NFL and MLB) have a active players infobox, however they all use the same infobox for retired players and the NHL should be no exception, the NHLretired infobox can hold much more information then the current Ice Hockey Player including the years they played for that team, their stats, the college they played for (If Any) and the year they were drafted, the round they were drafted in and the pick that they were and if the flag is something that you want, you can add that as well. This infobox is so better then the current one, its not even funny, just look at the articles that have this infobox. Beast from da East (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. The current hockey player infobox is capable of reflecting retired players' status, while any suggestions Beast from da East has regarding its layout can be discussed at the relevant talk page. What the NFL, NBA and MLB project do with their infoboxes is completely irrelevant. Resolute 01:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Apparently we already have a template that combines the best of both worlds; Active, and retired. There is no need for a template that has just retired players. VandalismDestroyer | Talk to me 03:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with you people, do you not see that the NHLretired has so much more info then the boring current one, which has little info at all? Beast from da East (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, we can certainly discuss changes to the template, either at it's talk page or at WT:HOCKEY. In my opinion, however, we have articles for the stating of a ton of information. I personally like the current hockey player template because it is compact. It shows key information about the individual's personal life and career. All the extra stats, borders and colours that other projects use just clutter the page. More is not always better, and the KISS principle would apply here, imo. Resolute 03:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redundant as the current template already does retired and active players. If you want to make changes to the template discuss them on the template talk page or the project talk page. Infoboxes are only to summarize information not give you all of the information. Stats should be found in the article as they are simply too detailed for a quick summary. Unfortunately searching old tfd is difficult, but I am pretty positive we have also already merged an old retired infobox with the active infobox via tfd so this is pretty much a recreation.-Djsasso (talk) 18:16, 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 keep. Deletion withdrawn by nominator --Oren0 (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rock Band series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This Navbox template doesn't serve any purpose for navigation that isn't already taken care of by the Rock Band article. It serves no purpose at all, since all the pages this links to already have links on the Rock Band main article. Dromioofephesus (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This could be said about pretty much every navigation template on Wikipedia. Have a look at any of the templates at Category:Video_game_templates_by_series where the series has an article like this one does (Rock Band (series)). The series article will always link to all of the other games. Same is true in non-video game nav templates as well (say, for example, Template:US Presidents or Template:Solar System). If you were to delete every nav template where all of the links could be found on one page, Wikipedia would have no more nav templates. Oren0 (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This nomination appears to be in response to the nomination I placed on the user's Template:Songs in Guitar Hero (TFD is here]), and thus may not be in good faith. Regardless of the reasoning, this is a standard navigation help for the Rock Band series between the games and various song lists, similar to most navboxes. The "Songs in Guitar Hero" list, on the other hand, is a very different approach and must be considered differently. --MASEM 22:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Oh, of course. I apologize. I just figured that since a user would have to do a separate search in order to find a song in the same group that it might be worthwhile to have a link. I understand now how a navbox that relates to something that already has links is much more important than a navbox that provides original information, categorization, and navigation. I figured that if a navbox that has a threefold purpose is worthless, a navbox that is purely for the sake of having a navbox would not be suitable for inclusion. I'll talk with more people on a talk page. --Dromioofephesus (talk) 23:05, 12 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 keep --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Preacher (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The main article only has on relevant sub-article (List of characters in Preacher). There is nothing else that needs to be linked to through a template. TTN (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Over-doing Navboxes. We recently deleted Template:Joker et al, for similar reasons. - jc37 17:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Until the bold redirecting of the individual articles (which the nominator then pruned from the navbox) is discussed and resolved. - jc37 04:33, 15 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 Merged — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Lunar orbiter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox Spacecraft)). GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, substitute the one for the other. Urhixidur (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now; the templates in question have different attribute syntax and evidently aren't "redundant" insomuch as that dropping one for the other would lead to attributes going missing. I'll manually merge these myself. Recommend withdrawal of TfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Close as merged. Work complete. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:28, 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 Merged — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Earth satellite (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((infobox spacecraft)). GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now; the templates in question have different attribute syntax and evidently aren't "redundant" insomuch as that dropping one for the other would lead to attributes going missing. I'll manually merge these myself. Recommend withdrawal of TfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Close as merged. Work complete. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:28, 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--Maxim_(talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Windstream (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless template populated with redlinks, used in only two articles. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. --Kleinzach 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. ☺ Spiby ☻ 13:46, 15 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--Maxim_(talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NHLTeamCaptain (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

For pretty much the same reasons as this recently completed TfD. This is just template clutter, as the captains of other teams are not important or relevant to any player on that list. It is indiscriminate information on player articles with no historical value. Resolute 16:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete You beat me to it Resolute. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 17:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom, template clutter. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, I don't wanna keep coming back there to hide diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 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 WP:CSD#G4.--Otterathome (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikidirect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template linking articles to Uncyclopedia (an external wiki featuring satirically themed articles). This template serves no encyclopedic value whatsoever, other than to promote uncyclopedia (which is disassociated from the wikimedia foundation). A possible spin-off from this template: Template:Commons Flewis^(talk) 09:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both, no encyclopedic value and inappropriate use of the sisterlinks styling for an unaffiliated site. Author appears to be a single-purpose account aimed at getting traffic to Uncyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete a re-incarnation of Template:Uncyclopedia which has been deleted and discussed multiple times (WP:CSD#G4).--Otterathome (talk) 11:41, 12 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.