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) 04:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Complete article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia articles will never be "complete and up-to-date". There will always be room for improvement, and information about subjects are changing all the time. The template can also lead to potential conflicts about what would be considered "complete and up-to-date". We already have featured-article topicons that give more-or-less the same message, and FAs are based off of a rigorous review process. This template is not used in any articles. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, I can see a 'last updated' for a table of statistics, but this is overkill. Frietjes (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is deleted Template:Incomplete must be deleted. Saying an article which "will never be 'complete and up-to-date'" is incomplete is either "overkill" and horribly misleading, or a horrible mistake (that has gone on for years). Hyacinth (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia strives to cover all areas of a subject. When an article is obviously missing important areas, ((incomplete)) may be applied. However, we have no way of ensuring that an article is in fact "complete and up-to-date". Information about subjects is changing all the time. Wikipedia already identifies articles that show the best of what we have to offer, and those articles are indicated with a featured article star at the top of the page. By saying that an article is complete, we are essentially saying that there is no longer a need to edit the page anymore, when in reality all pages, regardless of their status, can be improved in any number of different ways. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By marking an article as incomplete, we are essentially saying that every unmarked article is complete and doesn't need editing. Hyacinth (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if the article was complete and up-to-date ask for that revision to become a stable revision (ie. the CD version) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Stable versions is "currently inactive". Are you saying ((Stable)) makes this template redundant? Hyacinth (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The CD version, Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection, uses a specific revision of an article. Mark that revision as the candidate version for the CD/DVD/print edition. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone notice that a date is used in the template, which implies that after that date the article may need revision? Hyacinth (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the implication (ie. new facts can make complete versions incomplete) -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused in mainspace.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:11, 5 September 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baltic states (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Countries of Europe)). Don't need a navbox for every country grouping there is, esp. when there's just three of them. — Lfdder (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, navbox overkill. Frietjes (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Usefull for actually navigating between the relevant articles. Dimadick (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Baltic states share a common history and cultural significance not shared with the rest of Europe. USchick (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge ((Baltic Assembly)) into this template, and expand it to navigate Baltic States topics. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. USchick (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Frietjes. Really template overkill. Garion96 (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a valuable distinction within the superset of European nations, per USchick. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:36, 11 September 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries bordering the Black Sea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. List can be added to the article. — Lfdder (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, navbox overkill. Frietjes (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• comment, which article? Presumably you mean Black Sea. But this template is also used in other articles too, e.g. Turkey, where the list is not otherwise present. Bazonka (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:CLN a list does not preclude a navbox. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose, navbox should stay. A list does not preclude a navbox! Lifeglider (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all navboxes for which the inclusion criteria is just that all included countries border on the same sea. Often those countries have little or nothing in common with each other, and there is little reason why someone would want to see the respective articles in succession.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful geographic template. Dimadick (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep countries that "have little or nothing in common with each other" are bound by the geography of the Black Sea which for centuries served as a trade route, among other things. Perhaps the nominator doesn't see a significance, but history shows otherwise. USchick (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per USchick. Bazonka (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given the inherent relationship between the countries mentioned in the infobox. They share common economic, geographic, and cultural attributes. Whether such commonalities are defining is not really the question; as long as the countries in this grouping can be seen to be connected in a meaningful way, I see purpose for this template. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per USchick . Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:18, 20 September 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries bordering the Red Sea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. List is included in the article. — Lfdder (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, navbox overkill. Frietjes (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• comment, which article? Presumably you mean Red Sea. But this template is also used in other articles too, e.g. Saudi Arabia, where the list is not otherwise present. Bazonka (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:CLN a list does not preclude a navbox; and I'm surprised, considering the way you treated other templates, you didn't say this was redundant with the Indian Ocean one... (which it isn't) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, the Red Sea states are a not uncommon grouping to be found. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all navboxes for which the inclusion criteria is just that all included countries border on the same sea. Often those countries have little or nothing in common with each other, and there is little reason why someone would want to see the respective articles in succession.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful geographic template. Dimadick (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's ridiculous to claim that countries located around a sea are not directly tied to the sea and to each other. This is an important geographical, historical and ecological designation. USchick (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • so what? Why do we need a navbox for it? — Lfdder (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't need it, you don't have to use it. Just like people navigate the sea to get from one country to another, they can use the navbox to get from one seemingly unrelated country (in your opinion) to another country across the sea. Any time there's a significant event, the navbox becomes useful and necessary to explain the parties involved. A war, a contamination spill, an earthquake, are just a few examples. USchick (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your rationale to keep is patently absurd in this case, Red Sea countries have as little in common with each other as a random group of any 10 countries.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • By that logic, the palm of your hand is unnecessary and should be deleted because it serves no purpose for the fingers attached to it. USchick (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • My palm served a purpose the moment I read your meaningless comment. If that's the best reason you can come up with to keep this navbox, your !vote should be disregarded.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per USchick. Bazonka (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given the inherent relationship between the countries mentioned in the infobox. They share common economic, geographic, and cultural attributes. Whether such commonalities are defining is not really the question; as long as the countries in this grouping can be seen to be connected in a meaningful way, I see purpose for this template. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:38, 11 September 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries bordering the Arabian Sea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. List is included in the article. — Lfdder (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, navbox overkill. Frietjes (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• comment, which article? Presumably you mean Arabian Sea. But this template is also used in other articles too, e.g. Yemen, where the list is not otherwise present. Bazonka (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:CLN a list does not preclude a navbox; and I'm surprised, considering the way you treated other templates, you didn't say this was redundant with the Indian Ocean one... (which it isn't) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all navboxes for which the inclusion criteria is just that all included countries border on the same sea. Often those countries have little or nothing in common with each other, and there is little reason why someone would want to see the respective articles in succession.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful geographic template. Dimadick (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all countries around a body of water are interconnected and co-depend on that water for their economy, trade, security, etc. USchick (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that justifies linking their country articles on Wikipedia because...? We don't create navboxes based solely on trading partners or security, otherwise we would have a huge navbox linking every country in the world to China or the US.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Geography of the Arabian Sea is what links these countries. A navbox is a reasonable expectation in an encyclopedia for people who consult an Encyclopedia in search of this information. USchick (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per USchick. Bazonka (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given the inherent relationship between the countries mentioned in the infobox. They share common economic, geographic, and cultural attributes. Whether such commonalities are defining is not really the question; as long as the countries in this grouping can be seen to be connected in a meaningful way, I see purpose for this template. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:38, 11 September 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries and territories bordering the Indian Ocean (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. List is included in the article. — Lfdder (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, navbox overkill. Frietjes (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• comment, which article? Presumably you mean Indian Ocean. But this template is also used in other articles too, e.g. Maldives, where the list is not otherwise present. Bazonka (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this has been previously nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_22#Template:Countries_and_territories_bordering_the_Indian_Ocean - 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:CLN a list does not preclude a navbox. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, navboxes are supposed to help navigation, but in practice navboxes for countries are always hidden away in collapsible templates because there are so many of them, so they serve no purpose other than to clutter the bottom of the screen. We should pick them carefully and leave only a handful.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful geographic template. Dimadick (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is this navbox useful? It lists so many countries, from Australia to Yemen, how does it improve navigation?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. It allows users to locate and navigate though all these many articles at minimal time, instead of trying to remember or guess the articles relevant to his search. Whenever I am searching for geographic info, I usually use these kind of templates. Dimadick (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a better way to do that is with Indian Ocean#Bordering countries and territories. "trying to remember or guess the articles relevant to his search" is easy, you just type in the name of the ocean, and you have the list. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all countries around a body of water are interconnected and co-depend on that water for their economy, trade, security, etc. USchick (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a useless navbox: virtually no-one is going to want to navigate between these countries on this basis. There is no political or economic grouping of countries which border the Indian Ocean, and relations between countries on the African and Asian sides of this huge Ocean are generally not strong. Nick-D (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Predicting how people will want to navigate through information is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Not everyone has advanced degrees, and people come to WP for information precisely such as this. USchick (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Indian Ocean studies has in fact been a specific academic topic in the past, and as a consequence any form of linking the specific entities that are bound by the water is useul - and the perspective is useful for the geographically and information challenged - not perhaps the better geographically oriented enquirer. sats 08:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per USchick and sats. Bazonka (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are topics which relate to the land masses around the Indian Ocean, and, honestly, as SatuSuro said above, not everybody who might seek such sometimes geographical information will necessarily know all the relevant countries and territories. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given the inherent relationship between the countries mentioned in the infobox. They share common economic, geographic, and cultural attributes. Whether such commonalities are defining is not really the question; as long as the countries in this grouping can be seen to be connected in a meaningful way, I see purpose for this template. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find it useful for navigation. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:33, 20 September 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries bordering the Persian Gulf (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. List is included in the article. — Lfdder (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, navbox overkill. Frietjes (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• comment, which article? Presumably you mean Persian Gulf. But this template is also used in other articles too, e.g. Saudi Arabia, where the list is not otherwise present. Bazonka (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • where does it end? do we need ((Countries bordering Jordan)), ((Countries bordering Iraq)), ((Countries bordering Kuwait)), ((Countries bordering Yeman)), ((Countries bordering Oman))? and what about ((Countries bordering the Pacific Ocean))? Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, a body of water is a unifying characteristic for a set of countries; a body of water is "bigger" in the sense of geographic and economic significance than an individual country, because a body of water helps dictate the trading patterns and movement patterns within many countries. Yes, if the body of water were a small lake, that would be different, but we're talking about massive and influential bodies of water here. The Persian Gulf is perhaps the strongest example, given its unifying nature. No single country (with, perhaps, the exception of Saudi Arabia has as much unifying influence as the Persian Gulf. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:CLN a list does not preclude a navbox; and I'm surprised, considering the way you treated other templates, you didn't say this was redundant with the Indian Ocean one... (which it isn't) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, the Gulf countries is a very common grouping in real life (life outside of Wikipedia) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all navboxes for which the inclusion criteria is just that all included countries border on the same sea. Often those countries have little or nothing in common with each other, and there is little reason why someone would want to see the respective articles in succession. To answer 76.65.etc, the real-world definition of Gulf states is not the same that is used in the template, and even if it was more restrictive, they are part of the middle east anyway.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful geographic template. Dimadick (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In this case, the Gulf defines the history and economy of each bordering country and has a direct influence on International relations of the entire world. USchick (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per USchick. Bazonka (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given the inherent relationship between the countries mentioned in the infobox. They share common economic, geographic, and cultural attributes. Whether such commonalities are defining is not really the question; as long as the countries in this grouping can be seen to be connected in a meaningful way, I see purpose for this template. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:39, 11 September 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries and territories of the Mediterranean Sea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. List is included in the article. — Lfdder (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, navbox overkill. Frietjes (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• comment, which article? Presumably you mean Mediterranean Sea. But this template is also used in other articles too, e.g. Egypt, where the list is not otherwise present. Bazonka (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Check the Talk page - we had this discussion in 2005 :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:CLN a list does not preclude a navbox. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, the Mediterranean countries is a very common grouping in real life (life outside of Wikipedia) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all navboxes for which the inclusion criteria is just that all included countries border on the same sea. Often those countries have little or nothing in common with each other, and there is little reason why someone would want to see the respective articles in succession. And in real life, the term is never used to define that many countries..--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful geographic template. Dimadick (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all countries around a body of water are interconnected and co-depend on that water for their economy, trade, security, etc. To treat a body of water as insignificant to the countries that border it is a mistake. USchick (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relations of "economy, trade, security" between the Mediterranean countries? Spain for example, has more important ties to England than to Morocco. This is undeniable.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it important to describe a country's borders, but not the bordering countries of a sea? For people who don't want to use it, no one is making them, please leave it for the people who find it valuable like marine scientists, anthropologists, and historians: Battle of the Mediterranean, Naval warfare in the Mediterranean during World War I. USchick (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • And how does this template help them navigate to Battle of the Mediterranean and Naval warfare in the Mediterranean during World War I? Do you understand that navboxes are for navigation? — Lfdder (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As soon as an international event breaks out on the Mediterranean, everyone will be wishing for this template. This is geographical information that belongs in an Encyclopedia. People go to the Encyclopedia precisely to look up this kind of information. USchick (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • As soon as "an international event breaks out on the Mediterranean," everyone will want to navigate between countries of the Mediterranean using this navbox? This isnt "geographical information"; it's a navbox. A navbox is not content. — Lfdder (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's right, it allows for quick navigation in an unfamiliar region like in this article for example History of the Mediterranean region. I don't understand the need to delete encyclopedic content from an encyclopedia. If you don't find the template useful, don't use it. USchick (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I can't understand why people disregard the sea as a non entity, like nothing happens there. It serves as a major transportation hub and as a home to migrating marine life. Perhaps the people trying to delete this template should use it to learn about the region. [1] USchick (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • USchick, you don't seem to understand the purpose of navboxes. They're not created to explain matters of any kind or have any encyclopedic content; there are articles for that. Navboxes are just a convenient way to jump from one article to another. But if there are too many of them, they just become clutter, as in this case, and should be deleted.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, that didn't take long, an international event is happening as we speak. USchick (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per USchick. Bazonka (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given the inherent relationship between the countries mentioned in the infobox. They share common economic, geographic, and cultural attributes. Whether such commonalities are defining is not really the question; as long as the countries in this grouping can be seen to be connected in a meaningful way, I see purpose for this template. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Frankly I don't see why there are so many deletion proposals about countries sharing a see. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:24, 20 September 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) 04:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EmmyAward ComedySupportingActress footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:EmmyAward DramaSupportingActress footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:BritishAcademyTelevision ComedySeries footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:OlivierAward Comedy footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:BAFTAAwardBestAdaptedScreenplay footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 19:12, 29 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 merge with ((Antarctic Protected Area row)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Antarctic Protected Area row 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary fork of ((Antarctic Protected Area row)); better to put a switch in the original template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I created this template to make it easier for Erfgoedbot to differentiate between those monuments taking part on Wiki Loves Monuments Antarctica and those that are not. Using a switch doesn't allow that distinction. --B1mbo (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any bot should be able to recognise a |foo=yes switch. We don't need to fork templates just to accommodate bots, nor projects like even the very worthwhile WLM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• merge, I added the |type= parameter to the main template. Frietjes (talk) 18:12, 15 September 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) 04:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Almost" unused. There is Cymru Terrane which has it substituted. I would say we delete it unless there is some better idea. Magioladitis (talk) 12:47, 29 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) 04:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FK Sloboda Užice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three links not really a significant aid to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not navigate between enough articles to have a real purpose. GiantSnowman 12:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough links to provide useful navigation between related articles. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:09, 3 September 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries and territories of North Africa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Countries of Asia)) and ((Countries of North Africa)). — Lfdder (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, no need to navigate by every possible subgrouping. Frietjes (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with ((Countries of North Africa)) (merge both to here) North Africa is a defined Geographic, UN and cultural region. It is not redundant with ((Countries of Africa)) since that template has no indication of what's in North Africa, therefore cannot be redundant with it since it doesn't have that information. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See frietjes' response above. It is redundant in that the same links are present. — Lfdder (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't every possible subgrouping, this is a very reasonable grouping. Having the same links does not make it redundant if it does not do the same navigation; which it does not, because the Africa template does not group North Africa. And if you're going to argue that a grouping such as North Africa is unreasonable, then why not argue that all continental templates are unreasonable, and we should only have a world template? Where's the limit to your drive to delete all possible regions of the world? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Continents is the most common grouping. I don't think we need to put countries in any other grouping for navboxes. — Lfdder (talk)
        • Praytell, why are you saying that Europe or Asia is the redundancy instead of Eurasia then? The continent is Eurasia, Europe is a subcontinent, and Asia is the rump when you remove Europe. Continents are not the most common grouping. North Africa, East Asia, Southeast Asia are very common groupings. "Asia" grouping of countries is much less common than that for East and Southeast Asia. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • A Eurasia navbox would be too big. These smaller groupings vary too much and too often. — Lfdder (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't really see how that would be if you think Europe and Asia templates are not too big, then Eurasia wouldn't be much more. It gets rid of the artificial divide between Europe and Asia, since Europe is just a subcontinent, the same as South Asia, or Southeast Asia, or Southwest Asia. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep reason geo and politic sense Afrique du Nord in french --Great11 (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge per nom.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete duplication of ((Countries of North Africa)). There really isn't any useful additional content that could be merged. Bazonka (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. This template is more inclusive than Template:Countries of North Africa, because it includes SADR. I'm not sure what the Greater North Africa bit is about; let's improve or delete that bit. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:53, 11 September 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries and territories of Southeast Asia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Countries of Asia)). — Lfdder (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, no need to navigate by every possible subgrouping. Frietjes (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Frietjes: this isn't needed. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Southeast Asia =/= Asia, there's no distinction in the Asia template. This does a better job of navigation, being smaller and not crowded with too many entries, like a nav template should be, instead of too large like the Asia template. The Asia template should only be used on Asia-wide pages, and those countries that exist in multiple regions. Further, geographically, there's no clear reason why an Asia template should exist separately from a Europe template, so the larger template up from South Asia should be ((Countries of Eurasia)) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete SE Asia is a subgroup of Asia by definition, why should we keep a separate template for it?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When making decisions like this, it's important to consult with people who understand the region. I'm not the right person to ask, but is there any cultural or political significance in SE Asia that makes it separate from the rest of Asia, making people want to navigate SE Asia exclusively? Simply looking on a map is the absolute worst thing to do, since you won't see the map lines when you're standing on the ground. USchick (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is, it is the meeting place between the Indic world and the Sinic world, where the Sinitic sphere of influence mixed with the Indic sphere of influence, and thus has the history of cultural mixing of the two (of the three, except for the Mediterranean-Mesopotamian region) great cultural regions of the world. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asia is a subregion of the world, why bother with continental templates? Asia is a template that should be used sparingly since it is overly large, without being broken into sections. Asia isn't a proper breakdown region anyways, since it lacks unifying characteristics. It is a rump of a continent subtracting the subcontinent of Europe from Eurasia. The next step up should be a Eurasia template. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I never seen any problems regards to this, and of course, If someone depends only on Asia countries template, it may be adds a confusion to the readers. So its possible to separate the SEA Countries to avoid those conflicts. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 02:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - As per Hamham31's statement. Shanayujilover (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Asia is a very big region, so this is a more useful template for SEA countries to use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment would you say the same thing for the other regions of Asia nominated on Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_26, or is Southeast Asia the only region of Asia so stably defined? -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as one of the starters of the WP:Asia project, anything, by whatever means that separates components of the larger asia region is useful. Component parts of Asia need more separation and recognisito0n by any means sats 08:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ((Countries of Western Asia)) , ((States and territories of East Asia)) , ((Countries and territories of Central Asia)) , ((Countries and territories of South Asia)) have been deleted, per the 26 August 2013 discussions. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a more precise grouping than ((Countries of Asia)) and would be of value in articles pertaining to that part of the continent only. Bazonka (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a more specific grouping than the blanket ((Countries of Asia)). Southeast Asia is an important bloc and navigating the Asia-wide navbox can be daunting. Smaller, more specific templates like this make the reader's job easier, and cut down on navigation time. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:55, 11 September 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bill Medley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:The Righteous Brothers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Bill Medley with Template:The Righteous Brothers.
Medley has had only a handful of solo works. Suggest merging to the Righteous Brothers template: compare ((Brooks & Dunn)). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• do not merge, it's a perfectly valid navbox on it's own. Frietjes (talk) 18:08, 29 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) 04:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West Germany Squad 1980 Mundialito (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One-off tournament. Redundant to 1980 Mundialito squads. Sawol (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This template was considered for deletion on 9 January 2011. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 9#Template:West Germany Squad 1980 Mundialito.

• delete, not a sufficiently notable grouping. Frietjes (talk) 18:13, 29 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.