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) 03:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SG-1000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As a single-use template whose information should all be covered in the article itself, this fails as a navbox. BDD (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is the original name of the Sega Master System, so the template can be built out from Category:Sega Master System -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a rebuilt template for five articles can be created. (sample rebuild: Template talk:SG-1000/sandbox ) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — As unnecessary. --Izno (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Absolution (album) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Origin of Symmetry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Showbiz (album) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

None of these three navboxes are being used, probably out of preference to the existing navbox for ((Muse)). Many of the links for the individual tracks just redirect back to its album, really making the band's navbox the better option overall anyway. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Templates not in use; the primary Muse navbox already contains these links. Holiday56 (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, unused, and not needed. Frietjes (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2013 (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 consensus is that these duplicate more widely used citation/referencing templates, without significant added benefit. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Srs Rtr duplicates function of sfn or harvnb, Rtr Srs duplicates function of wikicite. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's the other way around: ((srs)) does the same job as ((wikicite)), and ((rtr)) largely duplicates ((harvnb)) (but not ((sfn)) which is not used in the same manner). Apart from that, there is no need to create more templates to make referencing links when we have plenty already. Both are used in only one article, Gym; it should be a simple matter to alter that to an established technique. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My templates are easier to use than the others. Their names are shorter to what they do, so they don't take up so much space in the source code. People do not need to fill out a form to write author and book sources. My template shoudld be available for people who want to use them such as myself. The idea of the templates is that they are shorter than wikimarkup thus making the source code easier to read. The other templates are longer than wikimarkup and are based on the assumption that Wikipedians don't know how or can't learn to write Bibliographic entries. The information when my templates are used is easier to read. To use the other templates, I need to copy and paste. With mine, I simply write them down as I write. They are as easy as ref tags. Obviously Rtr reminds one of "writer" and Srs of "Source publication". See? Easier to use. I want to use them, therefore I should have that privilege. Srs is shorter, and easier to remember how to spell, than Template: Anchor [ank-ker] and makes the source code easier to read. Also, deletion templates should not be put in the sourse code of templates, for obvious reasons. Please remove the templates from my templates.Chicagoghosttown (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to "fill out a form" with ((wikicite)) - it takes three parameters, but you never need to use more than two. ((harvnb)) takes six parameters, but can be used with just one. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per Redrose64, we already have enough of these templates, no need for more with differing syntax. if you want something easy to type, try a redirect, no need to make a new template. Frietjes (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as nominator. I have provided an example of how the same thing can be accomplished with existing templates at Template talk:Rtr, together with an explanation of why I think any slight saving in the number of characters in the template names are outweighed by the confusion created by even more citation templates. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does your example make sense to you:

Plant has many branches....((sfn|Carter|2005|p=1))

((reflist-talk|close=1|title=Notes))

===Bibliography===
((wikicite | ref = ((sfnRef|Carter|2005)) | reference = Carter, K. (2005). ''Wildflowers of 

Vermont'' (2nd ed.) Waterbury Center VT: Cotton Brook Publications ))

Not to me. I will not use that. -- Chicagoghosttown (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable workaround. We can't do magic with wikicode and ((wikicite)) has the added benefit of highlighting the whole line. Also, what happens when you have 2 (or more) books by the same author? ((sfn)) is equally compact as ((srs)), if not more. — Lfdder (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I don't see any real advantage over existing Shortened footnotes methods, and these templates have far fewer features. ((sfn)) actually is shorter as it includes the <ref> tags. --  Gadget850 ^talk 22:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or delete all citation templates, since with wiki markup the same can be done: all you need to do is highlight and click.Kgarson (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Oh help, we already have too many citation styles. No more please! — This, that and the other (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2013 (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) 03:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary template as there is already a Malaysian ethnic groups template. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 19:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The only difference seems to be the layout. While ((Malaysians)) is a vertical navbar, the other one is a full-scale horizontal navbox for use at the bottom of an article. De728631 (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a switch can be used to select sidebar or footer, and the choice should be the editor's. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2013 (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; deleted as T2 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Anti some of Iranian people (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

While Wikipedia is generally not censored, this userbox violates the content restrictions of Wikipedia:Userboxes: Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive, Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces. De728631 (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• wrong venue see Wikipedia:TFD#What not to propose for discussion here. but, rather than take it to MFD, you should be able to have it speedily deleted per WP:CSD#T2. Frietjes (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2013 (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) 04:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jann Browne (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, only four relevant articles, zero chance of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, has enough links. Frietjes (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Since when is four equal to five? The head article doesn't count towards WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, four links is just as fine. NENND (not every navbox needs deletion). De728631 (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• since when is the essay you wrote part of WP policy? links four articles plus the main article, which is enough. Frietjes (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not policy, but that doesn't make it invalid. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:16, 21 August 2013 (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) 03:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb rbr pos header 2011-12 La Liga (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb rbr pos header 2012-13 La Liga (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb rbr pos header 2013 K League Classic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb rbr pos header 2012 K-League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb rbr pos header 2011 Úrvalsdeild (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb rbr pos header 2012 Úrvalsdeild (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb rbr pos header 2013 Úrvalsdeild (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb rbr pos header 2013 1 deild karla (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no need to fork the header template for a single article. Frietjes (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per the nominator. Sawol (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tulane Green Wave baseball roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

out of date, and unnecessarily split from main article. Frietjes (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 12:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nominator. Sawol (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2013 (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) 03:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deleted once before when it only had a link to one other article, this template has been recreated with only 2 additional links. This navigation is already adequately served by ((30 Seconds to Mars)) and if a user is truly interested in knowing that "Northern Lights" is the 11th track on the album, they would be better served linking to the album article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, duplicate navigation. Frietjes (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Again, nothing to do with what's at the bottom of the article. Stop relating it to the navbox. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 22:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does it have to do with? It's even more useless if navigation isn't important. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Only links to four articles, all of which are already linked to in the artist template. Holiday56 (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, this tamplate is completely useless. The tracklist can be easily found in the album's article and looks much clearer there. — Mayast (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2013 (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) 03:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate of Template:SourceFed. Alizaa2 (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2013 (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) 03:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC) relisted on WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 31. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:09, 31 August 2013 (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. Feel free to propose adding a "bare option" on the talk page for the main template if you think it is important. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Authority control divonly (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Little-used (14 9 transclusions) style-only fork of ((Authority control)), which has well over a quarter of a million uses. Redundant and unnecessary, and unhelpful to any readers looking for the visual cue of the more common template. We wouldn't fork a navbox like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made this template in response to criticism on the template's appearance. See Template talk:Authority control/Archive 1#Visibility and Template talk:Authority control/Archive 2#Template:Authority control divonly. (FWIW, I support it being kept visible whatever the formatting.) Seeing the original template has now changed to use a Lua module, it would be good if a "bare" option could be added to the module, and make this version a redirect (or invoke, however it is done). Do we really want the original template (now a module) to combine both data and formatting in this way? The German wikipedia version is slightly cleaner in this respect, despite including an ugly dotted line. -84user (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think 264,362 transclusions vs 9 (the 14 mentioned initially included some duplicates, which I've now merged or removed) shows a consensus for the styled version. Any suggestions for improvements to its appearance can be made on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, add this feature to ((Authority control)) if there is a need for optional styling. Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such need. See above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and add option to ((Authority control)) to return just the links w/out a navbox. — Lfdder (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such need. See above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge add the bare option -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, add bare option to AC -PC-XT+ 07:53, 22 August 2013 (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.