June 2
- 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The result of the discussion was keep - Nominator withdrawn . (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better suited by a category and local navboxes, there are hundreds if not thousands of transit system articles on Wikipedia. – Train2104 (t • c) 22:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Template is linking a finite number of articles relating to a company named Transit Systems, rather than the general concept of transit systems, of which there would be thousands. Veinelaine (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While this is indeed about just the systems operated under contract by the company Transit Systems, there is no way that that article (and the header of this navbox) shouldn't have a suffix (per WP:NCCORP) to avoid the ambiguity that lead to this discussion in the first place.
I also wonder if this navbox and the others created today are necessary, though. Grouping transport systems by contract operators when those operators are transitory (as the public agencies that own them does shop around when the contract is up for renewal) is not particularly defining. And even if these are kept, they most certainly should not be placed above the actual systems' navboxes, as they have been since they were created and placed. oknazevad (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to withdraw my nomination in light of the above, but I concur with User:oknazevad's suggestion that the company article and the template both should be moved. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:00, 3 June 2017 (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).
Template:AuntyJackEps
- 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 relisted on 2017 June 10. (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2017 (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 relisted on 2017 June 10. (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2017 (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).
Template:Villages in Manopad Mandal
- 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) Yashovardhan (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This template containing villages from a single mandal may not be much helpful IM3847 (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete, appears to connect 4 articles, and it's not typical to have a mandal level navbox. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2017 (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).