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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Waves of cold and warm historical (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

entries all redlinks, doubtful whether any of them will ever be created. NSH002 (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wall of text, not suitable as a navigation template, it'd need to be shrunk, and no reason to combine coldwaves and heatwaves together -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WALLOFRED (why is that not a thing?). —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 07:09, 30 October 2015 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Relist at Nov 6. Primefac (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:GBLinks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete or re-code and re-scope: This template adds the following note the top of a "References", "Sources", "Footnotes", or "Further reading" section:

It is not possible to guarantee that all books cited in any section full of reference/citations will consist exclusively of public-domain (or open-licensed) works freely available in full text as described by this template. Any of billions of people in the world can add any new source at any time. The vast majority of available sources, even for topics pre-dating the copyright cutoff year, are not free, full-text sources in such archives. Generally only primary sources are available in this manner, and WP articles should not rely heavily upon these, as a matter of the policy I just linked to.

If a template like this is needed, it needs to be made more concise, site-specific (((GB link)), ((IA link)), etc., or perhaps ((Via|GB)), etc. ), and used inline in singular, specific citations, e.g.: <ref>((cite book ...)) ((GB link))</ref>. An output of "(Full text via Google Books.)" would be entirely sufficient.

I actually agree something like that would be useful (Google Books, for one, requests such attribution in return for the amount of resources it has thrown into its digitization project). It should be meta-templated so that it can be used for other forms of "via" attribution of this sort – many of the paywall keys we're given via WP:LIBRARY are granted with the expectation that the databases we're using to find these sources will be credited, but this is presently a hassle to do manually. It would be nice to be able to do ((Via|OxSch)) and to generate something like "(Subscription required. Access provided to Wikipedia editors by Oxford Scholarship Online.)", or whatever is needed for the case at hand; the WP:LIBRARY people can just update a #switch list of what the output should be.

That said, I'm not sure saving and reworking this simplistic template is the best way to do that. Given that it's already been deployed at the top of various refs sections, it may be better to simply delete it and then create a new inline meta template for this. I'll be happy to do that myself. No code in the extant template needs to be salvaged. My quote of it's output above is all it does.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace with an inline template per nom. I would suggest deprecating it to make the change, but it's only used on 20 pages right now, which should be a small enough number to fix manually. I don't think it really matters whether it's done via editing the template to work differently and then moving it, or creating a new template and deleting the old one; this is going to go to the holding cell if people agree with the nom, and whoever ends up doing the work can figure out the best way to fix it. --ais523 21:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Listify if such a list passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mayors of the largest 50 US cities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox is arbitrary. Navboxes are intended to allow quick navigation between pages that are closely related, but I cannot imagine a situation where one would want to navigate from the page of the mayor of Omaha, Nebraska to the page of the mayor of Oakland, California. Fifty is an arbitrary cutoff to the navbox, and the cities that make up this navbox will constantly change as populations shift. This seems like an attempt to include the fact that so-and-so is the mayor of the Xth largest city in an article, but that can and should be done in article text. ~ Rob^Talk 20:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 50 is a cutoff that keeps the template to a useful size. The fact that the census updates every ten years is not that big of an issue. It is as useful as many political templates that span a cross-section of similar individuals.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Shrink this template is overly large. It should be top 10, which while arbitrary, is a widely used cut-off, so we are not introducing a new or rare practice. Or Delete as being too large -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Arbitrary. Fails WP:NAVBOX. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominated - Nabla (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This isn't as bad as some navboxes I see here, but thinking about it, a category (or better a list, sorted by city population) would work much better for this than a navbox would. So this is a reasonable idea but a suboptimal implementation of it. --ais523 21:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete fails to meet the standards outlined in # 2-5 of WP:NAVBOX. There is not a wikipedia article on the subject of this template, nor is the subject of being a mayor of one of the "50 largest cities" discussed in all of the linked articles let alone one of them. As much as I hate to disagree with my friend Tony, deletion is the best course action. Astuishin (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This navbox should be at the bottom of List of United States cities by population and at the bottom of such entries as List of mayors of Baltimore, List of mayors of Dallas or List of mayors of Sacramento, California. Another useful 50-entry navbox, Template:Mayors of US State Capitals (obviously, limited to only 50), may be considered its sister/brother compilation. Also, mayors of many major US cities already have their own navboxes (e.g. Template:LosAngelesMayor or Template:HonoluluMayors). All of these are convenient and helpful tools for students of governance on the top local level and provide easily navigable and accessible information which cannot be readily found anywhere else. These are very specific navboxes which are meant to be judicitously appended to appropriate entries and should not be accused of contributing to random proliferation of navboxes. The deletion of this template would deprive us all of a study (or even, simply, browsing) tool without gaining much of anything in return. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:23, 21 October 2015 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Relist at Nov 6. Primefac (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:AnarionHeirs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This no longer serves the purpose of navigation post-merge of a number of the articles listed here. I have subsequently merged the links on this template to Template:Middle-earth. Izno (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2015 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Relist at Nov 6. Primefac (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:IsildurHeirs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This no longer serves the purpose of navigation post-merge of a number of the articles listed here. I have subsequently merged the links on this template to Template:Middle-earth. Izno (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2015 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Keep. No replacements have been indicated, and as a temporary-use template/category it's not surprising that it is currently not used/empty (respectively). NPASR provided that a replacement is specified. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Too small (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Category:Images that are too small (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. This template's function seems to have been superseded by cleanup templates that provide more detailed explanations of what about an image is "too small". Steel1943 (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Which templates specifically supersede these? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional keep as no replacement template has been indicated. There is no reason for these to have transclusions at any given time, as the thing needing fixing may have happened, so are waiting for the next instance. An image being too small would seem like a case that should have a cleanup template. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: No superseding template cited. As mentioned above, it is possible for a cleanup category to be emptied over time. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:34, 3 November 2015 (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).