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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1996 Florida Marlins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1993 Florida Marlins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1994 Florida Marlins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1995 Florida Marlins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1997 Florida Marlins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1998 Florida Marlins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1999 Florida Marlins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2000 Florida Marlins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2001 Florida Marlins roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1975 Boston Red Sox roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1995 Cleveland Indians roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneccessary templates. These rosters are already included in the team season pages. Separate templates are not needed or used. Spanneraol (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The information is centrally located in the team season page, as is appropriate, and the templates do not have any need for transclusion onto any other pages, thus negating the need for a template. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to what is already available on team season pages. - Masonpatriot (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and following votes. Even were they still transcluded on their page, guidelines dictate that templates designed only for use on a single page should be avoided. -Dewelar (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant. -- œ^™ 04:37, 25 August 2009 (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 Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#T2

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

Not in use. Tied to defunct, rejected Wikiproject. (Full disclosure: I am the one who marked the project as rejected, but it is clearly rejected.) Violates NODISCLAIMERS and arguably NPOV. Mike R (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete T2. --RL0919 (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or speedy delete. It's only transclusion is on the resoundingly rejected policy proposal, where I wouldn't object to it being substituted first. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, This template is now unused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as misinterpretation of policy. The T2 criterion even has "disclaimer templates intended to be used in articles" as an example. Jafeluv (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete this abomination. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:13, 25 August 2009 (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 keep. JPG-GR (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bangladeshi cricket seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sri Lankan cricket seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox contains one link and eight redirects, all of which link to the same article. It is pointless to have navbox that only links to one article, so I propose that this navbox template be deleted. ((Sri Lankan cricket seasons)) is in a similar situation, only with more redirects. – PeeJay 22:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC) See update below.[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Francium12 (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I should point out that, should articles on individual seasons in Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan cricket ever be created, I would not be opposed to the recreation of these templates. – PeeJay 23:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep – the whole point of these templates is that it is the intention of WP:CRIC to create individual first-class season articles on a worldwide basis in due course. Rome was not built in a day. The templates are quite harmless, especially compared with some of the utter rubbish you see on the site generally and within the cricket project itself, and will be useful when one of us does get around to splitting the main Bangladesh and Sri Lanka articles into individual seasons. Deleting them now to recreate them later is illogical and serves no good purpose whatsoever. This nomination serves to emphasise the complete lack of vision, direction and common sense that has always been evident in these deletion processes (especially the categories one). --Jack | ^{talk page} 06:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What serves no good purpose is for users to click on a supposed navigation link that just takes them back to the top of the article they are already reading. To have an entire box of such links is ridiculous. "Rome was not built in a day" is a bit of a thin argument considering that this template has existed for over two and half years. --RL0919 (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Re the Bangladesh template, all eight of its entries now link directly to individual articles which I have very easily set up within the last hour. I will do exactly the same for the Sri Lankan articles next time I'm on the site. I would suggest that some people need to think about actually doing something to help the users rather than sitting in one of these ridiculous deletion sessions and pontificating about supposed navigation links. There is nothing to prevent RL0919 from getting involved and doing something to remedy the situation, as I have done. All of which serves good purpose for the users. --Jack | ^{talk page} 17:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. The Sri Lanka template now links directly to ten individual articles and I have deliberately redlinked the other nine, which I will set up tomorrow. It seems that this nomination is dead in the water. All that was needed was a bit of effort and furthermore the concerns should have been discussed first at WT:CRIC. This whole episode shows exactly what is wrong with these bureaucratic deletion processes, especially when you get the inhabitants of these pages wittering about good purpose instead of actually doing something positive for a change. --Jack | ^{talk page} 20:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The concern that prompted the TfD has been addressed, so I'm changing my !vote. With actual articles, this seems to be an ordinary and helpful navigation box. By the way, I think the TfD process worked quite nicely: it prompted an editor with relevant knowledge to address something that had apparently been left on the shelf for years. --RL0919 (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn - I'm disappointed that it took a TfD to inspire the creation of those articles, but at least they got done. Not that this nomination was intended for that purpose, but I believe the ends have justified the means. Btw, Jack, instead of creating pre-emptive navboxes, wouldn't it have been more prudent to create an article in someone's userspace with a list of all the articles that need creating. That way you can keep track of the redlinks as they gradually become bluelinks. – PeeJay 23:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The articles were created originally ahead of the templates, about three years ago, but they were bare stubs and no one was prepared to do the necessary to expand them. It was decided that the two history articles should be expanded to incorporate seasonal summaries, the stubs all being redirected, and I suppose no one even bothered to look at the templates. The same thing happened across most of the other Test playing countries except England where the seasonal articles had been developed. However, some work has been done since then to expand seasonal reviews of the other countries. My last word is that it is always best to refer any problems with cricket articles to WT:CRIC first, not to one of these processes and certainly not to the categories one. --Jack | ^{talk page} 05:02, 26 August 2009 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Two years old with no apparent use. --RL0919 (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:11, 30 August 2009 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:East Asians in the UK (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not required given the existence of Template:AsiansinUK, which covers these groups perfectly adequately. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I suppose it may have been created to ease navigation, but it is having the opposite effect --- some of these articles have three or four largely-redundant footer nav-templates, which just makes things even more confusing. cab (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant to the other, more widely used template. --RL0919 (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:20, 30 August 2009 (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 speedy delete NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:18 Candles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is not used and never will be used. Generated by a user to advertise his own band. User has been warned regarding creation of unsuitable pages such as this. Not sure if any speedy criteria apply so using TfD instead. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the band doesn't even have a presence on Wikipedia which the template could be used for. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as spam.--Otterathome (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G11. --RL0919 (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2009 (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 speedy keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Start date (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Consensus has it that date auto-formatting is depreciated. -- User:Docu at 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previously dates were wikilinked which provided standarized (CSS) markup for all dates, including autoformatting to display dates in whatever format one prefers.

It was decided wikilinking dates was too much overhead and depreciated.

The CSS formatting could have been kept without providing autoformatting or (blue displayed) links, but consensus has it that there was no consensus for such a solution. By using a specific template such as ((start date)), this type of formatting is re-introduced. -- User:Docu at 03:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC), edited 03:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: template does not do auto formatting as far as I know, it only adds the microformat hidden CSS stuff, and considering a bot was recently approved to go through and implement this template in hundreds of film articles and episode lists, its function seems to have consensus. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was this Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot XV ? -- User:Docu at 03:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is one of the templates used for adding microformats to thousands of articles. The auto-formatting links were removed last year.[1]. And with the "df" parameter, one can specify whether to display the date with the Month before day or the day before the month. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I have again verified it using the Special:ExpandTemplates tool and changing the options of the date format on my Special:Preferences - The template currently does not display any autoformatting or (blue displayed) links. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. The Flash ^{talk} 02:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what purpose does it really serve? just as simple to enter the dates. Most edittors don't even know the template exists. Just one mroe thing to cause arguements between edittors over 'style' Alan KC 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  As stated in my previous comment, the template is being used to help add microformats to articles. In other words, it will enable other software to easily extract specific data from the pages for indexing purposes. It has nothing to do with style. It is a more maintenance/cleanup type of feature that several dedicated editors are adding. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This template is not for auto-formatting (which I myself removed a year ago). — RockMFR 02:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Template:Start date#Usage explains what the template is for and it isn't for "date auto-formatting" (as explained above). - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Microformats are the future. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Aside from the issues already discussed, the nominator obviously has a flawed understanding of the history behind "date auto-formatting".
  — Ω (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and WP:SNOW. The nominator misunderstood the purpose and effect of the template. —EncMstr (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep template is not used for auto formatting, but is used to add microformats. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep Heavily used template, proposed for deletion on palpably false grounds, presumably as WP:POINT because Docu dislikes its us in ((Infobox Lake)). Aside: good to see so much support for microformats; please see WP:UF for details of how to help deploy them ion Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep per multiple parties above. --RL0919 (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2009 (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 redirect to Template:CharR to list entry. JPG-GR (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R from character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to older and more widely used Template:CharR to list entry -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created this template, not being aware of the other one, however being the creator doesn't affect my argument. We only need one of these certainly, but this one is a much more logical title. Nearly every other redirect classification template is in the form "((R from XXX)) (or ((R to XXX)". Furthermore, not every character that is redirected goes to a list. As such, I think the best course of action would be to redirect the other template to this one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other template is more well used, more specific, and more useful in that it auto categories items by series. It also is more specific. Most characters are redirected to a list entry, either a standalone list or a character list in a main article. Otherwise, the more general R from merge should be used. I see no valid reason to rename the other, which was created after extensive discussion, per consensus, and following several similar other templates for episodes and other fictional elements. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

((R from merge)) should be used when ever a merge is performed, in addition to whatever other R templates apply. Not every redirect is the result of a merge though, and the merge template shouldn't be used if a merger didn't take place.

As to why the older template used to redirected/renamed, it is because the name is inconsistent with virtually other R template and is not anyway intuitive. What is the reasoning for not having it be in the normal R from/R to naming scheme? (Incidentally, it isn't listed at the list of redirect templates which is why I had no idea it existed. That will obviously need fixed at the conclusion of this discussion.)

I do see that it provides some additional functionality (automatic sub-categorization). Given that, the CharR template should either be renamed and made to include the possibility of not pointing to a list, or a separate template should be retained for characters that don't point to a list. I don't what to use a template that says it points to a list when it doesn't, nor do I want to use a template that says it was merged if it wasn't. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need to rename the existing template nor to try and merge a more well used template into a lesser used ones. As this one lacks CharR's functionality, what purpose does it actually serve that is not already met by existing templates. Also, that list is far from complete. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fairly complete to me, which others are missing? -- œ^™ 02:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 158 redirect templates. I'd estimate that list has maybe 30 or so. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I believe the list has most of the actual ones, with the other being redirects to redirect templates, but I could be wrong. In any case, the list should be made complete as otherwise it is very difficult to find out a give R template exists. This, of course, is not a matter for discussion here though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I also had no idea the CharR template existed and agree that there should only be one, so I'm fine with deleting just as long as all the redirects get consolidated into one category under one template. But I also agree with ThaddeusB that it should conform with the usual R from/R to naming scheme. -- œ^™ 02:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are three Templates for redirects relating to fiction, that are part of the set of templates for redirects to articles. They were created in January 08 in response to the desire to categorize and more clearly mark characters/episodes/etc that were merged per consensus from individual articles to lists after a lot of discussion between the Anime/Manga and Television projects where the bulk of these were being handled. I can see the argument for renaming those three to match other R templates, though the existing names were done at the time to differentiate them from one another. I'd guess they could be renamed to something like R character to list entry or something similar. However, it seems like ThaddeusB feels this template serves a different purposes and should be kept in conjunction with the CharR now that he knows about it as it is for general character redirects rather than redirects to lists. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My ideal solution would be to have one template that incorporates the functionality of CharR but doesn't say "to a list". Instead of categorizing to Category:XXX character redirects to lists it would categorize to Category:XXX character redirects or Category:redirects from characters of XXX. Is there any reason knowing it points to a list is important? If not I fail to see any problem with this change. The CharR template could be moved over the top of ((R from character)) and the auto-categorization changed. The same could be done for other fictional elements: "R from fictional element" and "R from episode". --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure this TfD is the place to discussion renaming the existing templates, versus the whether this template should be deleted. However, as it seems like this discussion will occur here, I've notified the three projects involved in their creation (forgot the video game project in my note above). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Redundant to the already established template ((CharR to list entry)). May be useful as a redirect of ((CharR to list entry)), but we definitely don't need two templates performing the same function. --Farix (Talk) 22:08, 24 August 2009 (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 wos title and relist the rest for further discussion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Playstation.com (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Wos title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Xbox achievements (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Xbox.com (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per this discussion, these templates fail WP:EL in that they don't provide sufficient information to warrant including the link in the first place. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete some, neutral on the others. The Playstaytion.com and Xbox.com templates link to pages that sell the games, which is clearly out per WP:ELNO, and the Xbox achievements site apparently requires registration, which is also discouraged for linking. So I endorse deleting those three for sure. The other two go to gaming sites that I don't know enough about to pass judgment on their appropriateness. I'm neutral on those two. --RL0919 (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ((Playstation.com)), ((Wos title)), and ((Xbox achievements)); keep ((Ttg)) and ((Xbox.com)). For the first three I mentioned, users will be unable to view playstation.com at all if scripting is disabled. For World of Spectrum, we don't link to search results, so I cannot see the need to facilitate a template used for linking. For Xbox achievements, you need to have an account and sign in to access anything, which clearly goes against WP:ELNO. For the other two, they look like valid usage of external links in that they can be included. MuZemike 06:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Playstation.com, Xbox.com, Xbox achievements, Neutral on the rest. I fail to see what the issue is for listing a game's official Sony or Microsoft page for it's respective platform. Yes, you can buy it there, but you can also buy it from the site the developer sets up as well. It's not as if PlayStation.com or Xbox.com are 3rd party sites operated by people unrelated to PlayStation and Xbox consoles. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An addendum: It's only natural for PlayStation Network and Xbox Live Arcade titles to be for sale on their official websites. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 20:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Xbox achievements since it requires a login and Wos title since it links to search results. — RockMFR 20:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oy, judging from the WT:VG discussion I linked, I didn't think individual ones would be so contentious. Would it be better if I withdrew this and nominated them individually? Axem Titanium (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2009 (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.