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) 00:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:48, 19 February 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) 00:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vb res 6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Vb res start 6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:46, 19 February 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) 00:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vasilios Maganas M50 Record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:45, 19 February 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) 00:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vallance-HR-4th (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Vallance-HR-5th (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 19 February 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) 00:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

fork of infobox in Republic of Vietnam. Frietjes (talk) 23:41, 19 February 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) 00:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VG entry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:40, 19 February 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) 00:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VFA/VFL/AFL seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the concept of extending the history back beyond the currently accepted 1897 VFL start date had been suggested in various quarters, but hasn't been officially adopted, so this template is effectively OR or just a proposed merger of league histories. The-Pope (talk) 14:40, 23 February 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) 00:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VMI Keydets Ice Hockey Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and out of date. Frietjes (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even if it was up to date, it could never be anything more than a single-use template. Resolute 00:43, 24 February 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) 00:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused and redundant to a simple <source>...</source> with lang=VBNET set. Frietjes (talk) 23:36, 19 February 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) 00:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Utoronto Scarborough (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

navigates very little and unused. Frietjes (talk) 23:27, 19 February 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) 00:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Utenos Juventus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and out of date. Frietjes (talk) 23:26, 19 February 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 article, then delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RSPCA rank table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

should not be in content categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is a discussion not a deletion request. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've not seen any reason why this was removed from the RSPCA article. Its removal has left that article without any significant information about the RSPCA inspectorate, despite this being the most high-profile part of the organisation. Template should be kept, and restored to use in the RSPCA article. Timothy Titus (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• merge with RSPCA, then delete the template? why do we need this in more than one article? Frietjes (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a reasonable option. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst into the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals article -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply merge it? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - 172.130.1.112 (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and then delete (as nominator). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:45, 27 February 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, and problems with the discussion being expanded midway without the additional templates being tagged. Feel free to restart the discussion with the entire set tagged, or a logical subset tagged, or continuing the discussion elsewhere. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Massachusetts cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Whatever potential usefulness this navbar is thought to have for a narrow local readership, I think is far outweighed by its negative effect for all readers of spamming articles with trivial see also type links. Mayors are elected locally, and there needs to be no link whatsoever within an arbitrarily defined narrow category of cities (population threshold, present tense, particular state). ELEKHH^T 03:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: also consider related navboxes (50+2 possible), which include:

• Template:Alabama cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:California cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Connecticut cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Florida cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Georgia (US state) cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Kentucky cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Louisiana cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Minnesota cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Montana cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Nevada cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:New Jersey cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:New Mexico cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:North Carolina cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:North Dakota cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ohio cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Oklahoma cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Oregon cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Pennsylvania cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Texas cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Utah cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Virginia cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Washington cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Wisconsin cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Puerto Rico cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are navboxes of 50 U.S. states + Puerto Rico & D.C. to consider. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:47, 18 February, extended 22:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the Record this discussion was had last year at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_24#Template:New_York_cities_and_mayors_of_100.2C000_population. Although there were 4 delete & 3 keep, the initial decision was to delete. That decision was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_February_27#Template:New_York_cities_and_mayors_of_100.2C000_population.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are only half of these templates nominated? AL, CT, IA, KY, MA, MN, NV, NC, OK, OR, PA, UT, WA, and WI are missing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, the full list can be found in the footer template. it looks like the discussion was started with only one template, but Wikid77 joined more, but not all of them. I agree that we should consider all of them, unless there is a specific reason why the others are not nominated as well. Frietjes (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the list, but it uses state names as renamed from state postal abbreviations in 2011. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all similar mayors navboxes. The practice of having 50 navboxes for the temporary officials of cities in 50 U.S. states has created a maintenance nightmare of 50 templates which need to be checked weekly/daily for the status of 300 mayors, in case a mayor has resigned or become too sick and has been replaced in office. Also the populations of hundreds of cities must be considered, if any cross at the 100,000 threshold. Those navboxes also pose a problem of wp:UNDUE weight to cross-mention city mayors, as compared to the chief of police, as another major temporary official in many U.S. cities, but not listed in those navboxes. All (50?) similar navboxes should be deleted, but perhaps have a category (to be updated live) as "Category:Mayors of U.S. cities of 100,000 population" which could dynamically list both the prior mayors and newly elected mayors of each city, allowing for sudden resignations in any week, for the 300 cities. All similar navboxes (50+2?) should be deleted. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2013 (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) 02:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

As I stated in the Jan 2012 TFD, Keep Mayors from the same state lobby the state for resource allocation and influence. For any statewide issue, the leaders of the largest municipalities are relevant actors.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Arbitrary and of limited encyclopedic value. We should endeavour to avoid navbox boilerplate where possible, especially where the contents are contrived. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I find these templates as useful as I did before. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Listed more to tag talk-pages as also considered: For future discussions, all (most) of the related template-talk pages should be edited to note the outcome of this TfD. I think there could be 47 navboxes (exclude Delaware, Vermont, West Virginia) but some have not been created yet. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, useful template IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Links unrelated people and places using an arbitrary standard (100,000 population). This is just template spam with long-term maintenance issues that Wikid notes, and no real navigational value. The cities themselves are already cross-linked via the state templates. Resolute 00:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Given the history stated above on the issue, I believe they should be kept. This action had come before an administrator before. Besides, I agree with RightCowLeftCoast, they are useful. If you're worried about them being spammed to pages, delete them when they happen. If you think they take up too much space, change them to collapsed. I thought it was great that when I went to Buddy Dyer's page, I was able to be directed to a whole bunch of other Florida mayors I could read about today. Frank0051 (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cross-linking could be done by a category with 51 subcategories:

• Category:Mayors of U.S. cities of 100,000 population
• Category:Mayors of Florida U.S. cities of 100,000 population
• Category:Mayors of Georgia U.S. cities of 100,000 population
• Category:Mayors of Puerto Rico U.S. cities of 100,000 population

When a reader clicked to see a category, then all the related mayor names would be listed, regardless if a new mayor were added into a navbox. Then if West Virginia gains larger cities, there would be entries in its category (same for Vermont & Wyoming). Always create a category page first, before expanding complexity into navboxes tacked onto numerous pages. In fact, at this point, I think we should start creating those 51 categories because some editors think the mayor-interlinks are valuable. After that, start editing the related 285 mayor articles to link their categories. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:59, 24 February 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.