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 deleted under G5 (non-admin closure)—Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBC New Mexico (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of these stations are semi-satellites of Albuquerque's KOB-TV. This template is therefore redundant. Blueboy96 23:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't you know--this template was created by a sock of banned user Dingbat2007. This is therefore a G5 candidate, and has been tagged accordingly. Blueboy96 23:58, 14 August 2010 (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) 06:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Liberia County (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox settlement)). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Airplaneman ✈ 16:42, 16 August 2010 (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) 20:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SAFA Vodacom Promotional League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template only has one link. A18919 (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A template with only one link is useless as it cannot be used to navigate to anything. WilliamF1two (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a navigation template with one link doesn't really help navigation. Airplaneman ✈ 16:41, 16 August 2010 (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) 20:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indian expressways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Indian highways routebox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Indian state highways routebox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Indian expressways routebox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All are redundant to ((infobox road)) and the display output can be handled by that single template. Doing so will unite the appearance with the four types of highway articles. As well, some of the Indian highway articles can't use one of these templates because they don't support segmented routes, but infobox road does. The third benefit would be a consistent appearance with the majority of highway articles on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 08:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)))[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Currently Infobox road is used in all countries that use an infobox, with the exception of Australia, India, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. --Rschen7754 08:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as redundant and to encourage standardisation. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : Can be supplemented by existing infoboxes.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2010 (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) 20:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why do we need this template while we can have ((Asia in topic|Wildlife of)). Farjad0322 (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - ((Asia in topic|Wildlife of)) brings out the following:

I could not find a wildlife template other than the one listed for deletion here. Airplaneman ✈ 16:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about this one: Template:WildlifeofAsia. Farjad0322 (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The template isn't needed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, looks like I was confused :). Nevertheless, as it is orphaned and redundant, I will say delete. Airplaneman ✈ 19:05, 19 August 2010 (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 withdrawn. JPG-GR (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:City Terminal Zone LIRR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too wide to fit in an infobox, duplicative with the pseudo-route map in City Terminal Zone (the gray bars on the side). Also, this is really a collection of rail lines lumped together solely for customer identification by the railroad. Each line operations-wise has its own RDT. Train2104 (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The grey bars on the latter are nowhere near as clear. This seems like a regular rail map, as used on thousands of articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Query what article used this template? I can't fully comment without knowing the context in which it was used since it's not redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 03:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• City Terminal Zone was supposed to use this template, but it was never put into the article. —Train2104 (talk · contribs) 10:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, it was put into City Terminal Zone on February 5, 2010, but was removed by User:Oknazevad, who is now arguing for deletion of this template. --Bsherr (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided - Just for an experiment, I decided to add the template to the article it was intended for. It's not as wide as you might think, but it does create a huge gap for the station listings. Train2014 does have a valid argument about what the City Terminal Zone really is, but Andy is also right about the need for a map. ----DanTD (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the City Terminal Zone is not a rail line, it is a collective term for services on portions of three separate, distinct lines, each of which already have separate articles with their own diagrams. This diagram is duplicative of those, has numerous quality issues (though it has gotten better), and doesn't really physically fit the page layout. It's pretty much unneeded. oknazevad (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2010 (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) 02:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I adjusted the template to center it instead of align it to the right, and I actually think it looks quite good on the article. It's certainly much more instructive and visual than the pseudomap. Now that it's been added to the article and better formatted for it, I think it surely ought to be kept. --Bsherr (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a conversation with User:Oknazevad on Talk:City Terminal Zone. Since the presence of the template on the article page is referred to in this TfD, I reverted Oknazevad's removal of the template from the article until this TfD is resolved. I think this is the fairest solution. Oknazevad asserts that the template is redundant with the maps on the other line pages. I asked whether perhaps the entire article is redundant to the line articles, but Oknazevad explained that City Terminal Zone is worthy of being a separate article. If so, the template is actually less redundant than the pseudo line map table. I would suggest that the template be kept and the table actually be deleted from the article. --Bsherr (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't presume to speak for me. I can speak for myself, thank you. And others can read what I have written at the other conversation which you've linked. I've given my reasons I believe this template is unneeded. If I felt the need to say more here I would have. oknazevad (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oknazevad, I didn't intend to speak for you. Our discussion was formative in my thoughts on the template, and I couldn't completely explain my own thoughts without putting them in the context of our discussion. That's all I meant to do. If I misrepresented you, I am sorry, and please feel free to correct me. --Bsherr (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I've added an image which serves the same or better purpose than the template. --Bsherr (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have decided to withdraw this nomination. This argument over deletion and the potential merging of City Terminal Zone into other articles is getting a bit out of hand. I will make some changes to the template, such as removing the subway and collapsing it. —Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't call it an argument at all. We've had a very good discussion about, well, everything on the article. As it stands, we've come up with a solution that seems pretty solid. And that solution doesn't need this template.oknazevad (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2010 (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.