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 wrong forum Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Please see - the rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Core content policies and Wikipedia:No original research. These rules are not subordinated for consensus of some users. This box violated the rules of Wikipedia. It invents the numbers taken from space, nonsense percentage numbers and establishes the rights inconsistent with the principles of Wikipedia. User (co-author) makes use incomplete sources - not presenting the complete data. Template for delete. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep, this page is for nominating templates, delete the talk page anyway under WP:CSD#G8. (already tagged) mabdul 14:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • removed speedy notice since I don't recognized that it is a suppage. mabdul 14:10, 17 June 2012 (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) 00:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TopicTOC-Mathematics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an unused template that has replaced by template:MathTopicTOC Illia Connell (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks more like it was forked and never used. Delete, either way. --Izno (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2012 (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) 00:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NENAN: Only 1 article linked. Izno (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2012 (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) 22:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pokémon cards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, only linked in userspace on top of that. Izno (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2012 (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) 00:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kane & Lynch series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN: Only 2 articles linked. Izno (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and replace with a link in the see also section. Frietjes (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2012 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox country deforestation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. (See Deforestation in Democratic Republic of the Congo to understand its apparent purpose as a single-use infobox.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Congo isn't the only country with deforestation problems, Brazil and Haiti are other examples, and we should have these templates to encourage further "deforestation in" articles. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As much as my guy reaction is "urgh, not every type of article needs its own infobox class", the information in this one does seem like a sensible set of factlets to place in a prominent position in articles, and we do have a number of said articles over which is could be deployed. Maybe it just needs to be more widely advertised? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2012 (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 non-administrative closure nominator requested that this be converted to a wrapper template, which it already is. Imzadi 1979 → 06:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Texas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded, unused. Can this be converted into some kind of wrapper or redirect? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for know - It is a wrapper template which redirects to WPUS. I only finished migrating the articles in the last couple weeks and a lot of folks still use the template so I recommend keeping it for a while. In general I recommend keeping all the state templates for now. I am ok with deleting most of the rest. Kumioko (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2012 (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 for now, but feel free to perform the conversions and renominate later. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Pennsylvania State University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded. Can this be converted into some kind of wrapper or redirect? Note that there are 172 transclusions, which can be converted with AWB relatively easily (I'll do it if no one else will.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now - Not all of the articls have been migrated yet. It is a wrapper template that redirects to WPUS. Kumioko (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2012 (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) 00:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Columbia University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded, unused. Can this be converted into some kind of wrapper or redirect? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one should be ok to delete. Kumioko (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2012 (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) 00:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject iPhone OS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded, unused. Can this be converted into some kind of wrapper or redirect? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:19, 16 June 2012 (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 for now. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBA player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded. Several transclusions will require ((beingdeleted)) and some effort. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for now. The vast majority of articles still use this one, and I don't think we should rush to start replacing things. There are other things to worry about. (Heck, there are still things that need to be manually fixed because the basketball infoboxes were merged a few months ago.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is still used in many articles and ((Infobox NBA biography)). I don't think this template is deprecated.—Chris!_c/t 04:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This template is used in allot of articles and replacing them would be a complete waste of time. By the way, it looks much better than the other medals template. Especially when the article is short (for example: Kęstutis Kemzūra) Pofka 03:30PM, 21 June 2012 (UTC+2)
• Keep - Very informative. ⁂†Poison the Well†⁂ (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Very useful and one of the best templates on Wiki. UpendraSamaranayake (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The supports above confuse me. The template says that it is deprecated and that the other template should be used. The first 'keep' isn't even a factor, since a template like this can be botted very easily. Delete, per deprecation. --Izno (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think you could get a bot to do the work that easily. The new template actually requires a bit of work to use; you have to fill in which fields you want, and you have to know something about the URLs for each external link you want displayed. Also, note that Template NBA player is used in many basketball infoboxes, so the infobox might need to be redsigned, as well. The new template generates a long string of text (even if you tell it to only include one of the external links). We don't want that in the infoboxes we have now. Honestly, I don't think these older templates should have been marked as deprecated in the first place; I thought the new one was simply meant as an alternative. Zagalejo^^^ 22:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I could probably do it by hand using AWB and some simple find/replaces. I have no doubt that a bot could make the conversions pretty trivially.

  As for infoboxes, one could remove the links completely as being somewhat inappropriate (usual external links in infoboxes are official links...). I would hazard a guess that most uses in the infobox are duplicated in the external links section, as with Kobe Bryant, so it might be simple to simply remove it. Again, something a bot could do easily.

  I understand there is a concern that there are other things that could be done. But the convenience of bots is that the owner doesn't have to spend an excessive amount of time (after coding). And I would suspect that a similar task has been done before. --Izno (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest, I don't know that much about the nitty gritty technical stuff, so if you think it's possible for a bot to do the work, I guess I'll have to take your word for it. I'm not sure if I understand you when you say "usual external links in infoboxes are official links"; the NBA.com links are the official ones. (The basketball-reference ones aren't, though.) Perhaps all the links could be removed from the infoboxes, but that's another discussion in itself. Many NBA.com links are indeed duplicated, but some are not. Anyway, I've left a note at WT:NBA, which I should have done a while ago. Zagalejo^^^ 01:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Still don't think this template should be marked as depreciated as it is widely used. Also it makes sense to have the NBA.com official link on the infobox. There is no rule against having external links on infobox as far as I know.—Chris!_c/t 05:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This template has been replaced, but is still currently in use, as allowed by the ((Deprecated template)) notice: this allows existing pages to continue use in the interim, but discourages new usage. The new template consciously did not include options to infer parameters, which was inaccurate in cases where the name was non-ambiguous (e.g. multiple players with same name, inconsistent use of nicknames. diacritics, etc.) Also, with the consolidated format of the new ((basketballstats)), not all the links supports implicit generation. Without further details, this does not seem like a straighforward replacement by hand or by bot.—Bagumba (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2012 (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 for now. Also, this uses the "search" feature of BBR to automatically link to the page in question, which may be more stable than the method used by ((basketballstats)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Basketball-reference (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded. Several transclusions will require ((beingdeleted)) and some effort. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for now. The vast majority of articles still use this one, and I don't think we should rush to start replacing things. There are other things to worry about. Zagalejo^^^ 05:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The support above confuse me. The template says that it is deprecated and that the other template should be used. The first 'keep' isn't a large consideration, since a template like this can be botted very easily. Delete, per deprecation. --Izno (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not actually that simple. Look at how the new template is intended to be used. You need to fill in what links you want to be displayed, and you have to know something about the URLs for each external link. Zagalejo^^^ 23:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This template has been replaced, but is still currently in use, as allowed by the ((Deprecated template)) notice: this allows existing pages to continue use in the interim, but discourages new usage. The new template consciously did not include options to infer parameters, which was inaccurate in cases where the name was non-ambiguous (e.g. multiple players with same name, inconsistent use of nicknames. diacritics, etc.) Also, with the consolidated format of the new ((basketballstats)), not all the links supports implicit generation. Without further details, this does not seem like a straighforward replacement by hand or by bot.—Bagumba (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2012 (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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBA historical player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded. Few transclusions can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for now. Many articles still use this one, and I don't think we should rush to start replacing things. There are other things to worry about. Zagalejo^^^ 05:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The support above confuse me. The template says that it is deprecated and that the other template should be used. The first 'keep' isn't a large consideration, since a template like this can be botted very easily. Delete, per deprecation. --Izno (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not actually that simple. Look at how the new template is intended to be used. You need to fill in what links you want to be displayed, and you have to know something about the URLs for each external link. Zagalejo^^^ 23:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This template has been replaced, but is still currently in use, as allowed by the ((Deprecated template)) notice: this allows existing pages to continue use in the interim, but discourages new usage. The new template consciously did not include options to infer parameters, which was inaccurate in cases where the name was non-ambiguous (e.g. multiple players with same name, inconsistent use of nicknames. diacritics, etc.) Also, with the consolidated format of the new ((basketballstats)), not all the links supports implicit generation. Without further details, this does not seem like a straighforward replacement by hand or by bot.—Bagumba (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2012 (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, the instability of links to ESPN is a strong argument for deletion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ESPN NBA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, superseded. Few transclusions can be easily replaced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for now. Not as used as often as the templates above, but I still don't see the point of getting rid of it right away. Such a project shouldn't be a priority for anyone. Zagalejo^^^ 05:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The support above confuse me. The template says that it is deprecated and that the other template should be used. The first 'keep' isn't a large consideration, since a template like this can be botted very easily. Delete, per deprecation. --Izno (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not actually that simple. Look at how the new template is intended to be used. You need to fill in what links you want to be displayed, and you have to know something about the URLs for each external link. Zagalejo^^^ 23:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC

• Comment As this is being replaced by ((basketballstats)), a new template that supports multiple external links, duplicate entries should be avoided by making this dependent on above discussions for Template:NBA_player, Template:Basketball-reference, and Template:NBA historical player.—Bagumba (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete, all transclusions of this template are completely broken sending you to the wrong page! check Scottie Pippen for example. 206.190.68.46 (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was just about to say something like that above, but got EC'd. I've noticed that a lot of old ESPN links no longer work correctly, because ESPN has moved things around on their site. The ESPN ID numbers are not permanently assigned to specific players; the same number may be used for different players over time. So anything we do with ESPN links should be done manually. This makes me wonder: is there any reason to believe the current ESPN IDs won't also go out of date eventually? We could have the same problems with the new template that we have with the old ESPN template. Zagalejo^^^ 18:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe I've removed all of the broken ESPN links. I didn't replace any of those links, because I think we need to discuss this issue first. I didn't do anything with the ESPN links that are still working correctly. Zagalejo^^^ 19:37, 24 June 2012 (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) 00:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TopicTOC-Sustainability (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an unused template and most of the links redirect to Index of sustainability articles. Illia Connell (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please see template creator's question and comment here: [1] Illia Connell (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2012 (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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free Philippines government (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

According to two discussions on Commons, Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippineGov and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippinesGov, this template is wrong. Stefan2 (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Both commons discussions are rather short and come to unverified conclusions. The reality is we don't know what the Philippines law means and won't until we get some caselaw.©Geni 12:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Geni, at the least. --Izno (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that Geni's comment was to "keep" the template, a vandal changed it to delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:49, 24 June 2012 (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.