Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 20

< January 19	January 21 >

January 20 edit

Template:CN Current collaboration edit

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The result of the discussion was Delete as unused, the creator is no longer active and the one user who might be able to find some use for it says delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CN Current collaboration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template which appears to be from an inactive project since Wikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon Network/Collaboration/Current has not been updated since 2008. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the single active member of said inactive project, this template has no use to the project and hasn't really since it was created. baa! _radda 23:38, 20 January 2010 (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:BDInDecade edit

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old, orphaned template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This template was subst'd into Template:BirthsInCentury and Template:DeathsInCentury by user:Netoholic in early 2006 in order to avoid "meta templates" (per WP:AUM). These two templates are now pretty much completely unreadable and virtually unmaintainable as a result. I think perhaps rather than delete this template we might want to consider unsubst'ing it back into the two templates that used it so their source is readable. In the grand scheme of things, using this template unsubst'd in the relevant century templates is a much more appropriate implementation (i.e. subst'ing it was kind of misguided in the first place). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in case Rick Block or somebody else wants to unsubst it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2010 (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:CHICOTW GAonhold edit

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. RL0919 (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CHICOTW GAonhold (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, per prior discussion it appears this project is no longer active. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration is in fact inactive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:06, 21 January 2010 (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:CUR-CHICOTW edit

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. RL0919 (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CUR-CHICOTW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, per prior discussion it appears this project is no longer active. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration is in fact inactive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:06, 21 January 2010 (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:Museum key edit

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. RL0919 (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Museum key (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:16, 20 January 2010 (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:RITZ edit

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 Speedy delete per T3. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Artist's page was just deleted, therefore no use for this template. I don't think any speedy criteria satisfies this. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:06, 20 January 2010 (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:Structure under construction edit

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. RL0919 (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Structure under construction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Based on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates, many similar templates were removed. Nominating this for deletion for consistency. Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template is unnecessary per earlier precedent. Rettetast (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete..... provided there is a suitable replacement! Wiki ian 22:24, 28 January 2010 (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:BranchesofVisualArt edit

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 withdrawn by nom Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned navigation template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a fundamental template. I don't know why it wasn't in use, but I've just added it to the 9 articles linked on it. Can you now withdraw the nom? Ty 19:27, 20 January 2010 (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:Logo rationale edit

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 Speedy delete per G7 and T3 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Logo rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in File space, Redundant to {{Logo fur}} to which entries have been migrated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - and I'm the creator! It's unused. Sorry, I should have nominated it myself. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2010 (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:ExpertContribution edit

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Credits lists are not appropriate uses for talk header banners. The template also qualifies the inclusion by linking to a failed guideline. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - tend to agree. There is already an "editor familiar with article" template thingy. I tend to see this as unnecessary but could be persuaded otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect: to {{Maintained}}, Maintained provides the same context and is more actively used. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 07:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{maintained}} implies that the user in question is still active in that article; this template does not, simply acknowledging a previous contribution. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:51, 21 January 2010 (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:Press edit

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 Move {{pressmulti}} over {{press}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{pressmulti}} is backward-compatible with this template, produces identical output in the case of only one press link and includes additional functionality. Recommend that {{pressmulti}} be moved over {{press}}.

Also note that this makes {{press/row}} obsolete; it can be deleted once the merge is complete. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to pressmulti if it is totally backwards compatible. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move pressmulti over press per nom, but don;t need to come here to do that. Rich Farmbrough, 10:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Move {{pressmulti}} over {{press}} as recommended in the nom. No reason not to have the shorter and more widely used name as the primary page name, as long as there is no loss of functionality. --RL0919 (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2010 (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:American mythos edit

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 User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 09:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American mythos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stevertigo added this one around mid-May 2009 and I commented it out of its articles at the beginning of June. I felt at the time that the redlinks to American mythos and American ethos might soon be articles, but as more time passed, and as I became more aware of the author's penchant for writing articles without a single reference, I saw little hope for the template's future. Nevertheless, well-written and scholarly versions of each of the template's component articles could form a useful navigation bar. Binksternet (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused, and the broader {{United States topics}} can probably accommodate anything that would go into this. --RL0919 (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2010 (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:Obama cabinet infobox center edit

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. Jafeluv (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Obama cabinet infobox center (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template which is redundant to Template:Obama cabinet Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another Obama cabinet template? Unused, redundant, and seemingly abandoned, with no talk, no backlinks and no edits since the day it was created in February 2009. --RL0919 (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2010 (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:OK Computer edit

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. Jafeluv (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OK Computer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template which is redundant to Template:Radiohead Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and redundant to an in-use template. --RL0919 (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2010 (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:Nash edit

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, note there are a few more in Category:Home and Away templates, though. –xeno^talk 19:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Orphaned navigation template, which is redundant to the "relationships" section in each individual character's infobox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when I saw Nash, I thought it was about the automobile company, then I looked at the template. 70.29.211.138 (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. It is doubtful that most of these characters even need separate articles, and even if they do, the infobox is adequate for the related navigation in these cases. --RL0919 (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2010 (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:Sharda Group Of Institutions edit

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. Jafeluv (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sharda Group Of Institutions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned navigation template. Not particularly useful for navigation as the links are not tightly related. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused collection of barely-related links. Just because a school has a campus in a particular city does not mean that the city should be linked through a navigation template for the college. Similarly, we don't link general entrance exams with navigation templates for all the colleges that use that exam. If we did this sort of thing, the articles on the exams would consist mostly of nav templates! --RL0919 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2010 (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:SexRelated edit

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. Jafeluv (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and seemingly abandoned, with no talk, no backlinks and no edits since it was created in May 2009. However, I did get a good laugh seeing Authorship of the Pauline epistles and similar articles included in this template. Perhaps Paul used a Valmont-style writing desk? --RL0919 (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2010 (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:Vegeta family edit

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. Jafeluv (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vegeta family (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and seemingly abandoned, with no talk, no backlinks and no edits since 2008. More generally, fictional family trees are of dubious encyclopedic value in most cases, and often contain original research. --RL0919 (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2010 (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:CanadianTerrorism edit

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 for now Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am nominating this for deletion on the grounds that it does not honour the spirit of the biographies of living persons policy and is irredeemable. This is a template whose declared scope is "Canadians allegedly associated with terrorism". There are two problems with this.

Firstly, I think any template of the scope "Living people associated with [negative phenomenon]" is in dangerous territory, and there are few forms of human activity that inspire as much revulsion as terrorism. This template lists dozens of terrorist-associates, and there is no obvious means of responsibly verifying which articles belong; the use of "allegedly" in the scope admits defeat on this point.

The second issue is vagueness. What constitutes an association with terrorism? Is there any way to answer that question definitively without indulging in WP:OR? Why list Chechen/Irish/Iraqi nationalist militants and not environmentalist militants? Why are we indulging in the age-old and unencyclopaedic terrorist/freedom fighter debate in a navigational template? Unless there has been a widely accepted definitive study of alleged Canadian terrorist-associates, these are not questions an encyclopaedia ought to be deciding a house stance on.

It might be feasible to have a list of Canadians convicted under anti-terrorism legislation, or a navigational template linking articles on Canadians who have been held at Guantanamo. These would be both clear in scope and responsibly verifiable. This template is neither. Skomorokh 02:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concur with Skomorokh's analysis. It is particularly concerning that there are "allegations" associated with red links representing real people, and I will be removing them forthwith if I can figure out how to edit a template. Risker (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, " the use of "allegedly" in the scope admits defeat on this point" is assuming the exact opposite of its actual purpose. All living people listed on the template are either listed under their known/convicted terrorist connection, or else listed as "other" if their court cases are still moving through the system, or "wrongly accused" if that is the case. I have no idea how "I think we should only list Canadians held at Guantanamo" is even close to an acceptable replacement for a template that documents forty years of terrorism cases. The template lists Sikhs convicted of blowing up airplanes, Muslims convicted of blowing up temples, Catholics convicted of attempting to purchase SAMs, anti-capitalists convicted of blowing up munitions plants, Quebeckers convicted of hostagetakings to support seccession...all verifiably sourced with their connection to the "cause" and its common verbiage as "terrorism" in the courtroom if they saw one, in the newspapers if they died first, etc. Indeed, your quote "Why list Chechen/Irish/Iraqi nationalist militants and not environmentalist militants?" is similarly unfounded or disingenuous since the Squamish Five are listed on the template. Similarly you have Thomas Bernard Brigham, an American war veteran who moved to Canada and blew up a bus terminal, killing three people.

Terrorism covers a lot more than "the post-9/11 world", and I can't imagine how you'd fit Abderraouf Jdey (as one of dozens of examples) into a template/navbox on "Canadians in Guantanamo and/or charged under the ATA". But he is the poster child of a "Canadian allegedly involved with terrorism". Same with Amer el-Maati, the United States government issued warnings to the American public three times to be on the outlook for this Canadian citizen to fly planes into their buildings...his article is unbiased and presents the evidence (and lack thereof); him being listed on this template is hardly a BLP concern, he is a "Canadian allegedly associated with terrorism". Canada has seen dozens of instances of dealing with terrorism over the past forty years - and the FLQ, the Littleton Bombing, the Air India Bombing, and the attempted bombing of Toronto landmarks all belong on a common template.

Per the misguided accusation that there is "no obvious means of responsibly verifying which articles belong"; templates do not contain footnotes/references - if anybody believes somebody doesn't belong on that template - they would bring it up on the template's talkpage - or the individual's talkpage, and they would be removed as soon as consensus indicated there was any reasonable doubt. This is how all templates work, it is the rule, not the exception.

Similarly we have {{AmericanTerrorism}}, {{AzeriTerrorism}}, {{SudaneseTerrorism}}, {{BelgianTerrorism}}, {{GermanTerrorism}}, {{FrenchTerrorism}}, {{AlgerianTerrorism}} and {{YemeniTerrorism}}. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must concur as well that there is no need for deletion. The template takes significant steps to make it clear that not all in the template are guilty and it shows many different groups not just Islamic ones. Also I have added Wiebo Ludwig an accused “environmental terrorist”.-- jfry3 (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scoping and size may eventually become issues, but they are not currently unmanageable, and keep rationales are persuasive on the BLP points. Ray^Talk 20:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we routinely deal with this problem by normal editing. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I am always puzzled when a nomination says an article, or template in this case, is "irredeemable" -- but the talk page is a red-link. I see this as an indication that the concerns weren't raised for discussion, prior to the nomination, to see if they were really irredeemable. It seems to me that when a contributor sees an someone or something included in a category or template, that they don't think belongs, it would be less disruptive to initiate a discussion about removing that particular person or thing from the category or template -- not initiating a nomination to delete the whole category or template. Geo Swan (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Skomorokh raises a legitimate concern about possible BLP issues, but if the scope of the template can be clarified through editing and talk page discussion, then that should be attempted first. If those efforts end up demonstrating that there is no agreement on objective criteria for inclusion, then the template can be renominated with the failed editing efforts as evidence in favor of its deletion. (If possible inclusion criteria have already been discussed someplace other than the template talk page, such as on a WikiProject page, then that discussion should be linked here. Otherwise, my assumption is that it hasn't been discussed and thus the nomination is premature.) --RL0919 (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2010 (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:Boxvaluesuk edit

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 .עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and unnecessary. Was placed briefly on Deal or No Deal (UK game show), but was removed after just over an hour. Has no other apparent use, so if it isn't wanted there, it doesn't need to exist, and in any case a table with only one use is better handled within the body of the article rather than as a template. --RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2010 (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:Bihar State Highways Network edit

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 userfied to User:Naveenpf/Bihar State Highways Network without redirect, for future use. –xeno^talk 19:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bihar State Highways Network (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigation template with (currently) no working links. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is on developmental state by WP:INR--naveenpf (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The usual procedure is articles first, navigation second. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Since there are no articles assosicated with the template. Dear naveenpf, I am appreciating your good work and effort. Please go ahead with the construction in your Sandbox; and once articles are created you can create this template. Delete for the time being. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 06:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy as a navbox with no active links is not useful in template space, but if Naveenpf is working on building the articles then I see no problem with having a userspace version. --RL0919 (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2010 (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:Bairnsdale Line edit

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bairnsdale Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, which appears to be out of date. There is already a different route map on Bairnsdale railway line, Victoria. It's not clear if this is still of any use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: out of date and replaced in inline content in Orbost_railway_line,_Victoria. Wongm (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Served a purpose at one time, but it now outdated and unused. --RL0919 (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2010 (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:Texas state highways edit

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 and restrict use Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Texas state highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to the links in the infobox on articles such as Texas State Highway 119. Rs chen 7754 08:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Redundant. Imzadi1979 (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This template serves as a useful navbox between the list articles. However, it should be removed from articles about state highways as it is redundant in use there. ---Dough 48 72 16:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a good navigation tool for articles about all texas state highways and should be included on all highway articles within Texas. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But it already is. Look at the infobox. --Rs chen 7754 00:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I say delete as redundant.~~ If kept, it should only be used on the list articles describing the various systems. Use on articles about specific highway articles, such as Texas State Highway 119 is redundant to the links automatically generated by the infobox template. --LJ (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant or restrict use to only those articles which are linked in the template. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 01:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but restrict use to only the articles listed in the navbox. The articles on individual highways already have links to the list articles provided though {{Infobox TX State Highway}}. Since the infobox isn't used on the list articles themselves, this navbox will be helpful for them, but it does not need to appear at the bottom of every article for individual highways. If restricted to that use, this is actually a helpful navbox, since the lists articles are not well-connected. --RL0919 (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2010 (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) 00:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with restricted use - Reconsidering my original position above. This may be useful for navigation between the general Texas highway list articles. This template should be removed from all Texas Highway articles, as its links are already present in the infobox. --LJ (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but restrict its use per LJ. – T M F 19:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question of whether an infobox should contain navbox like stuff. Rich Farmbrough, 10:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: Infoboxes for each U.S. state's highway articles has links to the state's highway list(s). Not sure why exactly, but it's automatically included when {{infobox road}} is used with the state= parameter. Some states have specialized navboxes of highways in a county or region that are used at the bottom of articles, but I haven't seen any other instance of a list page navbox on the main route articles as is the case here. --LJ (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the Ljthefro manner. Texas has many types of highways and this helps unify navigation between them. Not useful on every single highway page, but when restricted to just the listed pages, it is. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:09, 29 January 2010 (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:Goetic demons edit

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 Relisted at today's TfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Goetic demons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navigation template is an effective content fork of The Lesser Key of Solomon#The_72_Demons. There may be an argument to split the list from The Lesser Key of Solomon into a list article but this is a pointless template when category:Goetic demons is already used on every page that forms the navigation template. Ash (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As discussed in WP:CLN, categories, lists and navigation templates should not be considered content forks of one another. I don't see anything about this template that makes it unworkable as a navbox. The items are all related in an objective and relevant way; there is a fixed number of possible entries that is not excessively large; and there does not appear to be a problem with demon-related template clutter. If anything, this template could do some good by bringing more eyes to the articles about less well-known demons, many of which are stubs with only a few incoming links. --RL0919 (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2010 (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) 00:54, 20 January 2010 (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.