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. The Helpful One 22:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox baseball stadium firsts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan template, don't think this is really the best way to present this information. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2011 (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.

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. The Helpful One 22:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2011 (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.

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. The Helpful One 22:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cut and past copy of Template:Big Brother endgame. No transclusions. Frietjes (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2011 (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.

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. The Helpful One 22:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Cardiff Bus route (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overly specific template. Was used on three articles, and I replaced it with Template:Infobox bus line, which is a better solution. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2011 (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.

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. The Helpful One 22:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox LPP Bus lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overly specific template. Was used on three articles, and I replaced it with Template:Infobox bus line, which is a better solution. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2011 (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.

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. The Helpful One 22:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox West Midlands Buses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overly specific template. Was used on one article, and I replaced it with Template:Infobox bus line, which is a better solution.= Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2011 (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.

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. The Helpful One 22:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox SPT Bus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan, overly specific template. Not sure which bus routes used to use this infobox and whether those articles still exist or have been merged.... Anyways, we have Template:Infobox bus line that does everything this template does and more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2011 (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.

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. The Helpful One 22:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Glasgow Citybus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan template, all Glasgow Citybus lines now merged into main Glasgow Citybus article, if we need a similar template we have Template:Infobox bus line. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2011 (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.

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. The Helpful One 22:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox First Bus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan, overly specific template. Not sure which bus routes used to use this infobox and whether those articles still exist or have been merged.... Anyways, we have Template:Infobox bus line that does everything this template does and more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2011 (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.

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. The Helpful One 22:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MLB Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary pipelink, violates the guidelines for use of pipelinks. Prone to misuse. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's useful when used appropriately, and the idea that it's "prone to misuse" isn't reason to delete the thing. Anything can be misused, that doesn't make it invalid in itself. --Coemgenus 19:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Coemgenus. Prone to misuse is not a justification and this is wildly useful in writing complex and/or long baseball lists and articles. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - All the points above say all that needs to be said. It's not an unnecessary pipelink if used in the appropriate context (when it's specifically spelled out to be used) and I could misuse an infobox or a navbox just as easily as an inline template. — KV5 • Talk • 21:10, 28 April 2011 (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.

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. The Helpful One 22:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baseball year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary pipelink, violates the guidelines for use of pipelinks. Prone to misuse. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's useful when used appropriately, and the idea that it's "prone to misuse" isn't reason to delete the thing. Anything can be misused, that doesn't make it invalid in itself. --Coemgenus 19:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Coemgenus. Prone to misuse is not a justification and this is wildly useful in writing complex and/or long baseball lists and articles. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - All the points above say all that needs to be said. It's not an unnecessary pipelink if used in the appropriate context (when it's specifically spelled out to be used) and I could misuse an infobox or a navbox just as easily as an inline template. — KV5 • Talk • 21:10, 28 April 2011 (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.

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 both.. The Helpful One 22:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox TransLink (SEQ) train station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan template, overly-specific/non-standard, all TransLink stations already use Template:Infobox station which is working just fine. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also the clone Template:Infobox QR Northcoastline station, which is only used by a few articles. Sw2nd (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. I agree. Lightmouse (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2011 (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.

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. The Helpful One 22:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brisbaneferries Wharf (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan template, overly-specific/non-standard, all Brisbane ferry wharves already use Template:Infobox station which is working just fine. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2011 (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.

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. The Helpful One 22:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Governorate of Tunisia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan template, overly-specific/non-standard, all governorates of Tunisia already use Template:Infobox settlement which is working just fine. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2011 (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.

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. The Helpful One 22:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Maldives uninhabited island (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-standard, overly-specific infobox. Was only used on about a dozen articles, and I replaced these uses with Template:Infobox Island. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2011 (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.

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) 00:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:El Salvador Squad 2011 Copa Centroamericana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is not a notable tournament such as the FIFA World Cup, UEFA Euro, CONCACAF Gold Cup or FIFA Confederations Cup GoPurple'nGold₂₄ 04:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2011 (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.

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 all per T3 and G6, G8 does apply in this case. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Southern Gospel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WikiProject Dinotopia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WikiProject Jam bands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WikiProject Jam bands Invite (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I recently submitted this for speedy deletion but it was declined on the grounds it was a freestanding template. Sooo. There is no need for this template. It is an Invite to a project that has been deleted. Hence no need for the template. Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2011 (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.

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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NFL Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Template:NFL playoff year
• Template:Cardinals NFL season
• Template:Steelers season
• Template:Rams season

The template turns a year's link to a link to the corresponding year's NFL season in articles (e.g. [[2000 NFL season|2000]]). Doing so violates our policies on pipe links. Such a template might be useful in a table, but making it a template like this gives the potential for pipelink abuse — I removed two egregious misuses from Monday Night Football and I'm sure I'm not alone. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no opinion in this debate, but I should mention that similar templates for baseball (Template:by and Template:mlby) exist.--Giants27(T|C) 01:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These templates are consistently misused. FWIW I would also support the deletion of the baseball templates (they're even more misused than the NFL ones). Jenks24 (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though it appears these templates have been misused a few times, I think the other 90% of the time it is used is helpful. This template has been transcluded 8151 times, and I have to imagine about 8000 transclusions are used correctly. Every NFL player infobox uses the NFL Year template, (and, if it means anything, this discussion is disrupting every NFL player article with the notification) and I'm not sure misuse is a valid reason for deletion if it only occurs a select number of times. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the thing. This template shouldn't be used in the player infoboxes. There is just no reason for to wikilink to the NFL season when the infobox is simply stating that the player was in a certain team from year X to year Y. Jenks24 (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that isn't always misuse of a pipelink per WP:PIPELINK, as the IP says below. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Personally, I find it quite useful to be able to link to the NFL season from that info box. It's always been one of my favorite parts about Wikipedia player pages. I know I'm not the only one who looks at what year the player's played in and wants to see more about that year. It would be even better if the year would link to that specific teams year. On top of that, it doesn't necessarily violate the pipe link rule (based on my understanding of the rule). The year links are very clear that they're taking you to the NFL related year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.42.100 (talk) — 76.215.42.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • It may be "useful" but it violates the precedent that we don't use such pipelinks in articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there is nothing in the piped link rules against it. In this scenario, it's simple, and pretty much always leads to the expected destination. When looking at an NFL players page, neither I, nor anyone I know, would expect a link saying 2006 to take me to the general year 2006. I can speak for most people when I say it would be expected to bring us to the 2006 NFL season. That's just part of the genius ideas that Wikipedia's built on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SethB93 (talk • contribs) — SethB93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • We don't link dates at all anymore, so why should we pipelink them which is doubly wrong? It's confusing: someone who remembers when we used to link dates might expect to be linked to 2006, but then gets more confused when they're at 2006 in baseball instead. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that these templates are quite useful and a few instances of misuse should not be grounds for their deletion. Particularly in the case of the individual team articles they can be quite helpful because they contain logic that directs you to the correct page for that year's article. This is significant for teams which have moved or have gone through name changes, in that the editor doesn't have to remember that, for example, prior to 1941 the Steelers were known as the Pirates (and thus the season article is "19XX Pittsburgh Pirates (NFL) season"). I don't see any specific prohibition to the use of these types of links in the policies or guidelines governing piping links.— DeeJayK (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2011 (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.