Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 18

< October 17	October 19 >

October 18

History & Populations

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 Histpop and Historical populations, but keep USCensusPop Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Histpop and Template:USCensusPop with Template:Historical populations.

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

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

Template:Historical populations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in June 2008. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on Template talk:Historical populations#Merger proposal. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep USCensusPop, but delete Histpop. The USCensusPop template has separate value from the generic template; being specific to the US Census data series, it helps the user insert appropriate data in an appropriate format with a minimum of errors. The generic template requires more sophistication on the part of the user.
The Histpop template, on the other hand, is basically an incomplete version of the generic Historical populations template and it is used in only a handful of articles; I don't see a need for two generic templates for the same purpose. --Orlady (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2009 (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.

Template:Infobox cadet college (Pakistan)

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox cadet college (Pakistan) with Template:Infobox cadet college.

Template:Infobox cadet college (Pakistan) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox cadet college (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in August 2009. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on Template talk:Infobox cadet college. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger, since they appear to be the same type of content, but do the editors of the relevant pages have any preference for which one to keep? --RL0919 (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2009 (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.

Template:Wireless 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge into whatever template name makes the most sense. However, it appears no one is willing to actually perform the merger. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Wireless systems with Template:Mobile telecommunications standards.

Template:Wireless systems (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mobile telecommunications standards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found this nomination in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. The original nomination was made in April 2009. There has been discussion about this merge proposal on Template talk:Wireless systems. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge with {{Mobile telecommunications standards}} as the target, since it is more widely used. There appears to be just a few links in the other template that would need to be added. --RL0919 (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Template:Mobile telephony standards "Wireless" makes little sense as the title for the template, it doesn't cover wireless systems, it covers wireless telephony systems, some with data capability. There are other wireless datacom standards that aren't covered by either template, some of those are also mobile. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2009 (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.

Template:Substantial 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Garion96 (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Substantial sources (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template was created to support editor's position that sources used to support notability on AfDs/DRVs were insufficient, despite vast majority of editors disagreeing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Also, I fail to see how this template adds utility beyond the already existing options to tag articles for potential problems.--Milowent (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep an author making use of a template isn't a reason for deletion. For the same reason you wouldn't list Template:Advert for deletion if somebody tagged your article with it.--Otterathome (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but an author creating a template specifically to try to win an argument that's been rejected multiple times may indeed be a reason for deletion -- that's why I brought it here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, when you moved it to mainspace, you said "per discussion at "... Assuming you meant Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 53#New template, it looks to me like consensus there was against the use of the template. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't see any major problems raised in the discussion, and it was archived while I wasn't editing. And how can a template possibly be used to win an argument? Assume bad faith why don't you. If a nomination is solely based around assuming bad faith and the nominator hasn't attempted to discuss the issue with the editor before listing it, it all points to a bad faith nomination. So I still stand by my speedy close.--Otterathome (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I participated in the brief discussion, and there was never consensus to use the template. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You never explained how it would confuse users, so of course I was unable to fix it.--Otterathome (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a new, unnecessary fork of the widely used {{Notability}} template. If there is a concern that the "non-trivial" requirement for sourcing needs more emphasis, I would suggest raising the matter at Template Talk:Notability as a possible adjustment to the language of that template. --RL0919 (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't in the nomination but anyway. You could also say that Template:Primary sources, Template:Unreferenced and Template:One source are also forks. Or does the fact this template links to WP:N qualify it as a fork? Because in that case I could simply remove the link to it and it would be under the same category as those.--Otterathome (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to WP:N is not the concern. The concern is that this template covers the exact same issue as {{Notability}}, with an extra clause added to focus on the need for non-triviality of the references. There is no situation in which this tag would be appropriate that could not already be tagged with {{Notability}}. That is not true of, for example, {{Primary sources}} or {{Unreferenced}}, which describe citation issues that may apply even when a subject is obviously notable. (And even if it were true that those templates were unnecessary forks, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) --RL0919 (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Primary sources}} or {{Unreferenced}} also cover the exact same thing that WP:N does, except they don't specifically link to WP:N or mention it. Articles with only primary sources don't pass WP:N, in the same way articles with only sources with trivial mentions pass WP:N. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a completely valid argument in this case, as I am showing other maintenance templates which are being used for exactly the same the same purpose. So it seems my previous belief about the WP:N mention still holds true.--Otterathome (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary fork of the Notability template, which is more than sufficient. Billbowery (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nominator, User:Milowent and User:Billbowery are competing on my list. Milowent is in the lead.--Otterathome (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one can touch me. BTW, you need to update the poor paul afd, that closed as keep as well.--Milowent (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2009 (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.

Template:Ents

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) 15:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The links are no longer useful because most of the named Ent characters were merged into Ent, except for Treebeard. It is transcluded in only two pages: Ent (which is where most of the links lead) and Treebeard. This has been discussed at Template talk:Ents and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Template:Ents where the opinion has been unanimous. —Mrwojo (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no need for a template that would only serve two or so articles. De728631 (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto. Elphion (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough distinct articles linked to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems unnecessary. Aiken ♫ 10:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retire - if consensus is unanimous, it is simpler to just remove it from the articles it is used in, and to mark it as historical. By deleting, you end up with previous versions of articles having a redlink in them, rather than showing people what the page looked like back then. Of course, the same happens when templates are re-purposed, but I would still favour marking templates that were once in use as historical, and removing them from articles, rather than deleting them. Carcharoth (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can understand the point (sometimes) in tagging old projects, guidelines etc as historical. But keeping old templates just to mark as historical is just keeping old junk around. Garion96 (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retire or Delete - I did not know about the retire option before now, and it seems like a good idea—it will keep future editors from recreating the template by mistake. I am fine either way though. –The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 20:32, 23 October 2009 (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.

Template:Infobox Battle of Košare

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. Garion96 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Battle of Košare (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has a long history of unsourced changes as part of the Battle of Košare article, itself a battlegound in a long-running propaganda war, and its current content is (allegedly) supported only by partisan and non-english sources. The template is not used by any article at present and is only ever likely to be used in one article (Battle of Košare) therefore it is not required. Having part of the article embedded in a single-purpose template serves no purpose other than to make it harder to patrol unsourced claims. Timberframe (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this could be speedy deleted (T3) as an unused, hardcoded instance of {{Infobox Military Conflict}}. —Mrwojo (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A fictious unsourced armed conflict, nothing more.Alexikoua (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An infobox for just one article doesn't seem sensible to me. Aiken ♫ 10:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Used for the sole purpose of inflaming nationalist tensions and creating a battleground. --Athenean (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2009 (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.

Template:Blpwatch

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. Garion96 (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template for an abandoned proposal. PC78 (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The proposal has been tagged as historical since February 2009, and the associated bot hasn't run since November 2008. Associated category was deleted in April 2009. --RL0919 (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RL0919, unused. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused/historical. Aiken ♫ 10:14, 20 October 2009 (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.

Template:Trent Willmon

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. Garion96 (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trent Willmon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too few articles for a template. None of the singles is notable enough for its own article, and there're only three articles to link among, each of which is already interlinked to the other. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough article to justify a navbox. Could re-create in the future if/when he has more notable albums or hit singles. --RL0919 (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since only three articles are linked. Aiken ♫ 10:14, 20 October 2009 (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.

Template:Integral economics1

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 subst and delete. Garion96 (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Integral economics1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was created during the earlier TfD for Template:Integral economics. It is not the same content as that earlier template (which was deleted). However, it only has a single use, on the article for Integral economics. The articles it links to are all either about economics subjects that do not discuss Integral theory, or about Integral theory subjects with little or no mention of economics, which are interlinked via the {{Integral thought}} template. So it seems unlikely that this template would be useful on any other page. Templatespace should not be used to create single-use tables. Therefore, I recommend that it be substituted into the article and the template deleted. RL0919 (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it's only used in one article, it isn't needed as a template. Aiken ♫ 10:15, 20 October 2009 (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.

Template:Andrew Howard Films

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Andrew Howard Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per previous consensus, a summary of which can be referenced from WT:ACTOR#Guidelines directive, actor filmography templates are not used. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, individual actor templates lead to excessive template usage. Garion96 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As discussed in several recent TfDs and elsewhere, actor navboxes would create tremendous clutter on articles about movies/shows due to the large casts of notable actors in many productions. This one isn't even used outside the actor's own article, so it is unnecessary in its current usage and harmful in its potential usage. --RL0919 (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having these would clutter up articles, at the bottom. Aiken ♫ 10:16, 20 October 2009 (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.

Template:Vanessa L. Williams

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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vanessa L. Williams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are two of these templates. I'm not clear on which is being used, but there is no reason for there to be two of them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one is used, the duplicate below is not. --RL0919 (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have a sensible amount of links, and seems useful. Aiken ♫ 10:17, 20 October 2009 (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.

Template:Vanessa Williams

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vanessa Williams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are two of these templates for Vanessa Williams. I'm not sure which one is the one in use, but there is no reason for two of them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused duplicate of {{Vanessa L. Williams}} above. --RL0919 (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per RL0919. Aiken ♫ 10:17, 20 October 2009 (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.

Template:Arvind Swamy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arvind Swamy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per previous consensus, a summary of which can be referenced from WT:ACTOR#Guidelines directive, actor filmography templates are not used. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, individual actor templates lead to excessive template usage. Garion96 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As discussed on WT:ACTOR and in several recent TfDs, actor navboxes would create clutter on movie/show articles. For example, one of the articles that uses this template, Alaipayuthey, has at least nine actors in its cast who have WP articles. --RL0919 (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2009 (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.

Template:Josh Server

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Josh Server (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per previous consensus, a summary of which can be referenced from WT:ACTOR#Guidelines directive, actor filmography templates are not used. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, individual actor templates lead to excessive template usage. Garion96 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As discussed on WT:ACTOR and in several recent TfDs, actor navboxes would create clutter on movie/show articles. This particular template is currently used only on the actor's own article, but it includes shows where he appeared only as a guest in a single episode. Imagine an actor navbox appearing for every guest star on the article for a long-running show. There could be more navboxes than article content! --RL0919 (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2009 (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.

Template:Jolie movies

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jolie movies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is orphaned and unused. To my knowledge, it has not been used on an article at all. Beyond that, actor filmography templates are not used per consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, individual actor templates lead to excessive template usage. Garion96 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Orphaned and contrary to consensus formed in multiple previous deletion discussions about actor navboxes. --RL0919 (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2009 (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.

Template:Matthew Degnan

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. Garion96 (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Matthew Degnan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template for works of a non notable author - apparently created by that author. Unused. noq (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a navbox, but has no links (not even redlinks). --RL0919 (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G8 since author doesn't even have an article. I have never seen a null navbox before. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined the G8; I don't think that particular reason is captured under it. However, delete for previously-mentioned reasons. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator has WP:COI. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:41, 24 October 2009 (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.

Old ABA Templates

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 as redundant to {{ABA Teams}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ABA Blue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ABA Red (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ABA White Arenas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The current American Basketball Association no longer has a Red, White or Blue Conferences, they simply have divisions. Ergo, they are no longer needed. (Oops forgot to sign my post yesterday) Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wouldn't it be sensible to replace these with a single template for all ABA teams? --Orlady (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all conferences/divisions into one template 76.66.194.183 (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's already there as Template:ABA Teams. These are simply outdated templates. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Orphaned and already a new template in existence. Garion96 (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2009 (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.

Navboxes for cities by athletic conference

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SEC Cities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Big Ten Cities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Big 12 Cities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navboxes should be used to connect pages that have a meaningful relationship, but the cities where schools in a particular athletic conference are located do not have a meaningful relationship. These navboxes may be useful for students and alumni planning road trips to their school's "away" games, but usefulness is not a criterion for inclusion of content and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. NOTE: The Big East Cities template was nominated on 10 October; this nomination covers other templates of the same type. Orlady (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Big East Cities template was deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 10. --Orlady (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too unrelated to have this template. Garion96 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Similar concerns to those expressed in the Big East Cities TfD: this is just too tenuous a connection to justify a navigation box. --RL0919 (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too tenuous a relationship. Template proliferation for no good reason. "host" is automatically suspect because it is tenuous and informal language.Student7 (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2009 (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.

Template:Wing Commander character

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. Garion96 (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wing Commander character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan. Not needed anymore. Magioladitis (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From checking, I gather that all separate character articles for this franchise have been merged. If they are ever re-separated, the standard {{Infobox character}} should work for them. --RL0919 (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2009 (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.

Template:Infobox 2point4 Children

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. Garion96 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox 2point4 Children (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan, unused, we have Infobox episode for episodes. Seems more like a test page. Magioladitis (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Broken, unused and unnecessary. If/when separate articles are created for the episodes of this series, they should be able to use {{Infobox Television episode}}. --RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2009 (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.