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 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).
My meaning is ((Glaciers)), which contains links to part of this template.--Tom (LT) (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, glacial forms of sediment transport will obviously be mentioned in both templates, but besides this there's no overlap between the two. – Uanfala (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was unused at the time of the nomination, but the reasons for deletion require that it is unlikely to be used. It needed a little trimming, but in its present form it links to pages that do discuss sediment transport, so this template could be useful for navigation and no one is likely to object if it is added to those pages. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2019 (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:SJFA West Division One
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).
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:40, 21 March 2019 (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:QMJHL trophies
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).
Merge. I fail to understand the nominator's rationale that it is unused, when transcluded to 20+ articles. It also has a parent article at the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. It should merged into ((QMJHL)), as the league does not need multiple navboxes. Flibirigit (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Flibirigit:[1] actually it is transcluded on ZERO articles. Links are not transclusions and the parent article would be Quebec Major Junior Hockey League trophies which does not exist... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My vote to merge has not changed. The parent article the league. Consensus at WikiProject Ice Hockey when these articles were created was not have separate articles. Flibirigit (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Flibirigit: thats fine, but your statement I fail to understand the nominator's rationale that it is unused, when transcluded to 20+ articles. is just false... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not used, but there are 20+ articles where it easily and reasonably could be used. I'm perfectly fine with a merger, too, as removing "trophy" from each link would reduce the needed space by a significant amount. Wikiproject consensus notwithstanding, these articles exist, so there's no good reason to say that they mustn't be linked by a template; the only reason we should refuse to link them (as opposed to removing them from a template where they don't fit, or deleting a poorly made template) is if they get deleted in the future. Nyttend (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above, the guidelines for deletion says (emphasis theirs) "The template is not used [...] and has no likelihood of being used". I believe this template is likely to be used though I would support a merge as well. BLAIXX 15:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:40, 21 March 2019 (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 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).
Not a useful template. Also not used in any article. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: I should mention that the only article that used this template was Ron Wyden. This template contains two things: his political positions, which already appears in the same article, and his Senate elections. There's nothing special about any of his elections. We have no idea what he has accomplished as a Senator, let alone as a Representative. Unless there are true highlights we can include in this template, this template will remain useless. Other series templates like Template:Bernie Sanders and Template:Rick Perry have way more important information than just their elections or political positions, so that WP:OTHER argument is not a good reason to keep this template. We do not have to create a sidebar for every single politician. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I love how you refuse to elaborate on how the template isn't useful and claim it's not being used in any article after removing it from the article it was being used in. It is very common among templates of political figures to contain their elections as well as for there to be a link to their political positions, whether it is a seperate article or part of the main article for the political figure, but Wikipedia isn't known for common sense in every edit. 05:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: LOL. If you bother to look at the template now, you can see a multitude of legislation with separate pages that he's sponsored. Wyden is not the average senator, and no one said anything about creating "a sidebar for every single politician". You now have a multitude of ideas of what he's accomplished as a senator, but continue to go on a crusade against this template. Informant16 (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's back on the page. Let's all watch as you retain the same position even if it's no longer true. Informant16 (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Informant16, well apart from the fact that you are blatantly violating WP:AGF you are also trying to game the TFD by changing the templates status in the middle of the discussion. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zackmann08, have something you made to better navigate the site be called "useless" and see how well you take it. Better yet, have something you did months ago without any controversy at all suddenly rebuked repeatedly via nominating numerous ones you made for deletion. I am gaming the TFD discussion by addressing the concerns of the person who nominated it? I have to wait until the template is deleted before it can be improved to suit his critiques? I find it ironic that you accuse me of trying to "game" a discussion by addressing the concerns of the persons in opposition while calling me the one not assuming good faith. If I try to improve the template during discussion, I'm the bad guy. If I tell you how perfectly fine it is and that it should be left alone, I'm the bad guy. No winning on here. Informant16 (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Informant16, sorry you don't like the way things work around here, but thems the rules my friend. Making statements like Let's all watch as you retain the same position even if it's no longer true is a clear violation of WP:AGF. As for having stuff I created deleted, it happens ALL THE TIME!!! If you are going to take it personally, then you aren't going to last here. Discuss the merits of the template, not the motivation of those nominating it. Engaging in personal attacks and questioning the motives of those who disagree with you is absurd. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zackmann08, we've established you believe I engaged in personal attacks, but this wasn't? you are also trying to game the TFD by changing the templates status in the middle of the discussion. That wasn't a personal attack? Me changing the template to accommodate the wants of the person who nominated it for deletion and having my motives probed was not in good faith. This was a personal attack and questioned my motive. Informant16 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Informant16, That was actually stating a fact. If you want to take it personally that is your call bud. Take care! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was fact that I changed the template around after it was nominated. It was opinion that I tried to "game" the discussion. Informant16 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm personally not a big fan of these series templates and prefer ((Navbox)) templates. That being said, there is a long standing process of creating sidebar templates about politicians. If this is to be deleted, I think a broader discussion is needed. For this particular template, it is now used on multiple pages so I think it is worth keeping. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; I think it's potentially useful. I don't think these templates clutter up the page that much (if at all). Ethanbas(talk) 00:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it doesn't make sense to claim the template is useless when it has over a dozen pieces of legislation that he cosponsored or was responsible for. Crazyzaku(talk) 0922 March 14, 2019 (UTC)
Keep As I've commented elsewhere, there are no policy reasons behind these deletion nominations. Our purpose is to benefit the readers, and a template which may be helpful whilst not going against any policies ought not to be deleted. As was noted in the first reply, you can't remove the template from the articles in and proceed to argue "it's not used in any articles." It's hard to defend that as good-faith behavior; I've seen people remove all the citations from articles and then proceed to flag an article as lacking sources and propose deletion, and that's not an acceptable practice. Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨ 20:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as this template is more meaningful now. Will do the same for other navigational boxes that went through a major change after their TFD. Also, the two templates I mentioned on top were supposed to be Template:Bernie Sanders series and Template:Rick Perry series. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike some other sidebar series navigation templates, the contents of this one aren't a series of articles about the subject. Rather, they're a set of related topics. So the template is misleading. But also, it would be misplaced if included in these articles. --Bsherr (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is misleading to include the legislation of a senator in their template? Even the deletion nominator admitted this format was what exempted the Template:Bernie Sanders from meeting the same fate. His legislation is what defines his positions as a senator and thereby fundamental to one's understanding of what he's accomplished while in office. Informant16 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When the template describes itself as listing a series of articles about Wyden, then yes, one would expect the contents to be articles about Wyden's campaigns, Wyden's positions, Wyden's scandals, etc. To say an article about, e.g., the Internet Tax Freedom Act, is part of a series about Ron Wyden is, yes, misleading, because nobody would say the article is about Ron Wyden. --Bsherr (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the goalposts have moved. The template was initially rebuked for just containing Wyden elections that were, by definition of being multiple articles, a series of articles about Wyden. The complaint was addressed by adding legislation that Wyden either authored or cosponsored, so much so that the deletion nominator Walk Like An Egyptian withdrew the nomination. Would you change your vote if I reinstated his elections or would that still be "misleading"? --Informant16 (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The goalposts are the same: The question is, can it be concluded that the included article is actually about the subject of the sidebar template or not? Concerning articles about the elections, it depends. 2016 United States presidential election contains several "part of a series" sidebars concerning the candidates. However, the sidebars appear in sections of the article that include extensive coverage of the subject candidates. In that sense the those sections can be said to be about those candidates, and the sidebars work okay. Contrast that with 2010 United States Senate election in Oregon, in which there is really very little substantive content about Ron Wyden. See the issue? --Bsherr (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:36, 21 March 2019 (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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (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:WWIIUSAircraft
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).
Comment - I created this as an aviation analog to the various WW2 military equipment template such as those for ships, infantry weapons, fighting vehicles, etc. It's probably fairly complete, and I'd like to create/use more of the same for the other nations involved, but the problem is that most aircraft articles seem to already suffer from template-spam, with some having six or more navboxes.
I personally think it and similar templates could be a useful addition, but I've been hesitant to add yet another navbox to these pages without having some discussion first. If there are no objections to doing so, however, I'll be happy to add this navbox to the appropriate pages and begin creating similar ones for other nations. Russ3Z (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlikely that it adds any value and would not be used in aircraft articles so it should be deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (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).
Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Tim Kaine. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x11) Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x12) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - ((Donald Trump series)), ((John Kasich series)), ((Jeb Bush series)), ((Rand Paul series)) and ((Rick Perry series)), with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate ((George Washington series)), ((Abraham Lincoln series)), and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited (((George Washington series)) could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In general, sidebars like these are beneficial to navigation. And although a separate Tim Kaine category exists, this is still not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE. However, this sidebar reads more like a Table of Contents for the main article on Kaine. I do not support Delete here because there are enough articles on Kaine to improve this sidebar. I do not support Keep because the sidebar is currently very weak. Let's WP:IMPROVEIT. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:33, 21 March 2019 (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 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).
Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Mitch McConnell. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; I think it's potentially useful. Ethanbas(talk) 00:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x6) Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x7) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as this template is a bit more meaningful now. Will do the same for other navigational boxes that went through a major change after their TFD. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - ((Donald Trump series)), ((John Kasich series)), ((Jeb Bush series)), ((Rand Paul series)) and ((Rick Perry series)), with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate ((George Washington series)), ((Abraham Lincoln series)), and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited (((George Washington series)) could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. It is especially beneficial because there is no Category:Mitch McConnell and because the sidebar's content is strong. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In this instance, I don't think the articles contained in the template can properly be described as a series about Mitch McConnell. Rather, they are merely topics related to him. So this doesn't perform the function of this type of navigational template. --Bsherr (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The most recent comment by Bsherr is trying to create a new standard where articles relating to a politician must either be named after them or speak exclusively about them. If you look at the sidebars of presidents, oftentimes you see laws that came into effect during their tenure, and they in the sidebar as they make up what that person did in office. This is why Walk Like an Egyptian withdrew the deletion, because the template now also consists of laws and bills that McConnell sponsored or played some role in constructing. Informant16 (talk) 9:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
It is misleading to call most of these articles "part of a series about Mitch McConnell". Because it stretches rationality to say an article about an act of Congress is an article about Mitch McConnell, such that it would be part of a series of articles about Mitch McConnell. And since this is a Category:"Part of a series on" sidebar templates, it's reasonable to question whether this template should exist. We don't, or shouldn't, employ this type of sidebar for articles "relating" to a subject. That's what navboxes are for. --Bsherr (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK#1 as the nominator has withdrawn the deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2019 (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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Jill Stein. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion - No policy basis. WP:NENAN is not a policy. (x2) It's an essay, and one I disagree with. It is of no benefit to the readers to delete, but it is of benefit to the readers to provide these templates. You mass-proposed deletion of templates with no policy basis. Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨ 20:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - ((Donald Trump series)), ((John Kasich series)), ((Jeb Bush series)), ((Rand Paul series)) and ((Rick Perry series)), with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate ((George Washington series)), ((Abraham Lincoln series)), and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited (((George Washington series)) could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I see no reason why this template should be treated any differently than the others nominated. SashiRolls t · c 21:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This series is beneficial to navigation and is especially helpful because it does not appear that there is another template, list, category, etc. that organizes Stein-related articles. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:32, 21 March 2019 (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 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:Gretna 2008 F.C.
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).
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:40, 25 March 2019 (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:Guangdong Sunray Cave F.C. squad
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).
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the club is defunct, so there is no 'current' squad and no need for this template. GiantSnowman 13:44, 25 March 2019 (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:Guatemala squad 2012 FIFA Futsal World Championship
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).
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:40, 25 March 2019 (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:Guinea squad - 2011 FIBA Africa Championship for Women
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 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:Guizhou Renhe F.C. squad
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 redirect to Template:Beijing Renhe F.C. squad. Obvious copy-paste move. Histmerge is done now. If redirect is improper, please go to WP:RfD(non-admin closure)Hhkohh (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
merge with ((Beijing Renhe F.C. squad)) which is current name of the club. GiantSnowman 13:45, 25 March 2019 (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:Górnik Zabrze
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).
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:40, 25 March 2019 (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:Hong Kong Legislative Council constituencies 2016–2020
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 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 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 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 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:Railways in Jalpaiguri
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 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:Hadith Sources
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 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).
Keep Now used and the Hammond Pros were an NFL team so they weren't minor. I've linked some pages it should be a part of.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2019 (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:Hamo Beknazarian
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).
Unused navbox with no parent article (I.E. an article about the films directed by Hamo, actor page is not parent article). Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:49, 21 March 2019 (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:Handball teams in England
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).
Comment: I reformatted the template to a more standard design. BLAIXX 17:58, 27 March 2019 (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 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:Hawaii Rainbow Warriors 2013
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).
Delete WP:CBBALL only sanctions year specific navboxes for those that win a national championship. Hawaii obviously didn't.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2019 (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:Heads of State of Bulgaria
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 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:Heirs to the Qajar Throne
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 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).
Keep - The box is used now. Seems like a useful enough navbox connecting these articles. Including them in a huge 'See also' section would be unwieldly. --Nessie (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By reason of the above, unless there's a compelling WP:NENAN argument. @Zackmann08: Check it out now? --Bsherr (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2019 (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:Higher education by region
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 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:History of Gan
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).
Delete - 2 links do not need a navbox. --Gonnym (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2019 (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).
Delete - two links do not need a navbox. --Gonnym (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2019 (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).
It's now in use on five WP articles. Headhitter (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2019 (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:House of Glücksburg
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 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:Lists of Marilyns
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is only one list of marilyns page now. All links on the template are redirects to List of Marilyns in the British Isles, and a 'See also' link would work just as well. Nessie (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The breaking up of Marilyns into separate regional WP articles (which prompted the creation of this template) was a misguided action. Marilyns, because of the complexity of measuring their topographical prominence, which is how they are defined, are subject to major ongoing revisions. We now have one central WP List of Marilyns in the British Isles article, that will need to be updated from year to year. Thus, we thus have no further need for this template (or separate Marilyn articles). Britishfinance (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe I created this template originally. I've long since retired from Wikipedia and have only returned to comment here because someone contacted me outside Wikipedia. Personally, I think it was a mistake to combine the lists of Marilyns into a single list which is now far too large and unwieldy, not least because a wiki is a poor way of presenting big tables of data like this. But I wasn't involved in the decision to merge the lists and am not planning to come out of retirement to contribute or comment further on the issue; in any case, there are other database-driven websites which present this data far better. However if the lists are to remain merged, this template is now pretty pointless. ras52 (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The new combined list is a direct download from the most authoritative online database (there are lots of other online sources that have old/wrong information), the DoBIH. The format that it is now in (e.g. a single large page), is deliberate, as it can be downloaded in 15 mins from the DoBIH and pasted into WP while preserving the "blue links" and other WP formats. (including sort-ability, which no other online database gives). Thus WP will have a large "blue linked" accurate Marilyn article that is only a few months out of date. The Marilyn table always needed the "Find" function to navigate under all past versions. Britishfinance (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2019 (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:Houses descended from King Mongkut
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 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:Hudson Valley geography
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 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:Hun Chanyus
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 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:Hungarian computer systems
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 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 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:IK Sävehof squad (women's handball)
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 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 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).
Module:Headless TOC
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).
Unnecessary Lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template was converted to Lua to allow for unlimited heading levels. The original only had a fixed/limited number of available heading levels. Only Lua can accomplish indefinite levels. —CodeHydro 15:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would like an example of how this is proposed to be replaced. --Gonnym (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete, assuming the sandbox version works. Frietjes (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete@Pppery: I originally said keep but decided to modify the last version before it was converted to Lua. In contrast to Pppery's version, uses Module:Ustring instead and skips Template:simple recursion which makes it more efficient. It drops the error message of the Lua version but I don't think the error message is necessary anymore since the template version will not glitch out in the same manner as the Lua did without the error message. Since we're all delete now, I'm just going to go ahead and put version that does not use Module:Headless TOC online. Feel free to —CodeHydro 21:53, 13 May 2019 (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:Our Peak
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).
Use. Has a set of linked articles that don't have a current navbox. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I set this up as a personal nav box, designed not to be published but just used in my sandbox. I'd forgotten it existed. No good to anyone else. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zackmann08, you can't use G7 (or most other speedy criteria) if the page is under discussion and someone has expressed an opinion against deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if to delete or use - author says it doesn't help anyone else, and I don't know anything about that area. If the links actually belong to the same subject and are useful then it should be used, but if not, then deleted. --Gonnym (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per author approval and because it is incomplete. if someone wants to recreate this, it could be easily recreated using the contents of Category:Peak District and in a template named ((Peak District)). Frietjes (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2019 (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:Ælfgifu theories
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 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).
Unused Category template. Appears to have been used for categories at some point but is currently unused. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand that diff. Why did the bot create a category with one template then a few seconds later updated it with the other template? Am I missing something? --Gonnym (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is so the gallery version link can be clicked to show the files in a gallery while just being a list by default. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2019 (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:Infobox D&D creature
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 merge to Template:Infobox fictional race. Additionally, make sure any extant uses that go against style guidelines are removed. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Infobox D&D creature with Template:Infobox fictional race.
D&D creatures are not specific characters, but a race or species which ((Infobox fictional race)) is setup to handle. |collapsible= and |state= should not be added as the infobox information shouldn't be hidden and shouldn't be long that it needs hiding. |mythical= and |based= are both used for the same thing - and |based_on= is already available in ((Infobox fictional race)). |wizards_image_URL= should not be included in the infobox and instead should be available in an External links section. |source= should also not be included and should only include the first/last appearance as is done with ((Infobox fictional race)) and |infobox character= - listing every appearance of something can turn into a giant list. If a complete list is needed, it should be done in the article body. Gonnym (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox video game also allows for collapsing. There, as here, it is implemented here (good or bad) because many of these races end up on list pages and have infoboxes in each section. Without collapsing, these infoboxes take up much more space than they should. (I don't think I personally support that use case, but it does exist.) --Izno (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Won't speak for the video game infobox as this isn't its TfD, but MOS:DONTHIDE says that auto hiding content should not be done. After checking what articles use this feature - there are 3 articles using |collapsible= (and none using |state=). Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters has the infoboxes placed inside a column of another table. List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters has it placed inside another table, which it itself is also hidden. List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76) is it again placed inside a cell of another table, but this time it is also besides running text. None of these are valid uses. I also strongly believe that "Lists of" shouldn't have an infobox for every entry as the list entry itself is supposed to be short summary so there is no reason for the infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2019 (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).
It looks like an experiment as people tried different things to see what would work for ((weather box)). Let's wait to hear from Erutuon who will know what should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? This is very different from Template:Weather box. It generates the basic table structure for the six tables in List of cities by average temperature: a table caption and set of table headers followed by rows, followed by the end-of-table syntax. It could be renamed if the name isn't clear. If it isn't kept, the basic table structure will have to be duplicated in the six tables in List of cities by average temperature, which is not ideal since it's laborious and prone to error. — Eru·tuon 23:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Erutuon. this is serving a purpose which is not served by ((weather box)). however, I could see a rewrite to make the number of subtemplates and the syntax more concise. Frietjes (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2019 (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 no consensus. NPASR if it's still unused after a few weeks. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning keep and use here. This is a small group with 5 blue links and 5 possible future links with a related scope. While a parent page would indeed be better for the subject "Polish radio during World War 2", I doubt we'd ever get that article. --Gonnym (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use has potential navigation benefit for readers, as per Gonnym. Keep and use. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still unused
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-links are effectively unsourced. I think these contents would be better suited for a Category or to be merged into Template:Radio stations in Poland. BLAIXX 13:55, 21 March 2019 (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 no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 11:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it wasn't used, but I (re)linked it. It is useful as a small navigator template between related polytopes. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Now has 5 transclusions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2019 (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 no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 11:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unused supplementary documentation as per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When is documentation "unused"? How would you know? It is there to provide a better understanding of the implementation. Nevertheless, if you really want to get rid of it then go ahead. Thayts••• 11:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thayts. Good find! Go to Template:Daylight saving active/doc and look for the phrase More details on the implementation All four appearances are links to this page. It's basically a WP:SPLIT in a different namespace, since all these details are necessary, but they take up a good deal of space. We shouldn't put all of its content onto the main doc page, and we shouldn't get rid of its content either. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should have pointed that out, thanks. Yes, this is the way I created it: to keep the less relevant info for template use from filling up the main documentation page, while still having it available as background information for development.
Keep per myself. Thayts••• 09:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the name should probably be changed to /doc/extended or something to make it more clear of its place and usage. --Gonnym (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2019 (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 no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 11:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also all three links pipe to the same article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Other templates link into this template; radio stations change formats all the time; deleting it would default the page to Spanish stations in Arkansas as the do with other “Other radio stations in x state” templates.Stereorock (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: There are more links now.Stereorock (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd like to point out that this has actually 2 radio station links - KLRG and KABF and the other links just duplicate these. A very useless template. --Gonnym (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More links were added. --Gonnym (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again - Since the creator insists on leaving this a horrible template with duplicate links and many red links (and even some dab links), this template should be deleted, as in its current state it should not be allowed to be placed on any article. To Stereorock, if you clean up the template, removing non-blue links and repeated links, I'll change my position. --Gonnym (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again as the above user is expressing their own opinions of how the template should look when it’s been explained that the template’s 3 tiers serve the function of sorting stations by city, by callsign, & by frequency. This toes in with most, if not all, all radio market templates in the United States. It has also been explained in a post further down how clunky this template would look otherwise. There are 19 stations, more than adequate for a template. That there are red links is a function of there not being articles for the stations, but there may be in the future.Stereorock (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: when a separate “Other radio stations in (state)” template is not in existence, the default is almost always “Spanish stations in (state), which is not relevant or useful at all.Stereorock (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 3 tiers: by frequency, by format, & community of license.Stereorock (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are now 19 stations listed. I still say keep.Stereorock (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The tiers don't matter and actually violate MOS:REPEATLINK. Also, there are not 19 LINKS, which is what counts, not the amount of red links you can add. But regardless, this does have enough links for a navbox - it just needs work done to actually make it follow guidelines. I'd suggest also merging it with the other Radio of Arkansas templates which would make this template much more relevant. --Gonnym (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reading MOS:REPEATLINK, it didn't mention templates. The tiers are there to help people as they are sorted 3 ways. What should be avoided is how most of these radio format templates are constructed ("WAAA - Anywhere" "WAAA-FM - Anywhere" "WAAB - Elsewhere" "WAAB-FM - Elsewhere").Stereorock (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2019 (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:Legacies
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).
Would love to speedy but there is no category that I can see for blanked templates. This was a very poor template, with red links and links which shouldn't have been added, so even before it was blanked, it had no use. Gonnym (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per this discussion. It's already been blanked by another editor for the same reasons as in the discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and previous discussion. As noted, even the "characters" are not articles about the characters. Nigej (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2019 (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).