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) 00:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Serbian SuperLiga seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It have the same data of Template:Serbian SuperLiga, so it is useless template. Stigni (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 'Comment. This template is widely used, so it should not be simply deleted. It may be appropriate to merge or redirect it to another template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If an article has it in translution has also the other that contains the same info. Stigni (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge the two aforementioned templates ('Serbian SuperLiga seasons' and 'Serbian SuperLiga') as having two serves no real purpose. GiantSnowman 12:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, completely redundant to ((Serbian SuperLiga)). Nothing unique to merge. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment the original purpose was a mock of Template:Serie A and Template:Serie A seasons Matthew_hk tc 03:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. we don't need two templates with the same content. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Unused and of dubious value (content which fell foul of this would by necessity fall foul of NPOV, for instance). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep It's an ambox. You can put it on articles, but not delete it. Just think. If you do that and this closes as "keep", it would be red-locked instantly. Did you forget you were Thumperward? Anna|talk 20:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Closed as snowball keep. Anna|talk 20:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Non-admin close reverted by me. --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No opinion on the template. Snowball close reverted as inappropriate. --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. This template is unused and will probably remain so. The problem of "strawman arguments" is highly specific, and is usually partof a larger problem, such as POV or substandard prose. szyslak (t) 10:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  How about replacing the default type=content image with the image from ((POV)), then? 96.50.22.205 (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I don't see how changing the image addresses the problems I pointed out above. szyslak (t) 05:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I already did it. 96.50.22.205 (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. This may be more useful as an inline template only, because it needs to identify the exact argument. Not useful in its current format. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  But if thousands of the inline tags were on a single page, wouldn't an ambox help? 96.50.22.205 (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• delete, not useful in its current form. Frietjes (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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) 04:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Fb mfs header 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Stigni (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Please Please Me tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:With The Beatles tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:A Hard Day's Night tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Beatles for Sale tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Help! tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rubber Soul tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Revolver tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Magical Mystery Tour tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:The Beatles tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Yellow Submarine tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Abbey Road tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Let It Be tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Whether intended to serve as informational or navigational templates, the list above is redundant to a corresponding navbox (((Please Please Me)), ((With The Beatles)), ((A Hard Day's Night)), etc.) with each containing links to full track listings of the album in the same order and transcluded in the same articles. There doesn't seem a need for both. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• delete as redundant to existing navigation. Frietjes (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to put in a word for track list templates. They are easier to read than navboxes because they are vertical lists, and they are also placed better for quick navigation near the top of each song's article, avoiding having to scroll down differing distances for each track to find the navbar. Beeflin (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep they're rather not redundant as they provide information not available in the navbox.Hoops gza (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • They provide the same exact information that is in the navbox. It is the navbox that provides additional information. There is absolutely no need for both of these types of templates. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The question isn't always to do with the content itself, but can relate to the readability of the content, display and formatting thereof. This also provides contextual information which is not otherwise delivered on a song's page, such as where a song is placed in the context of the album. Certain song sequences bear little or no relevant, such as the track listings of earlier albums, but of the later, particularly Sgt Peppers and Abbey Road, given their medleys and sequential importance, the position of a song in the scope of the album is at tomes critical. The prose does deliver on the information, but this acts in support and supplementary to the fact. Two examples from The Beatles (album) that come to mind are "Glass Onion" which references several songs by the band from prior albums, and latter the motif is delivered in "Savoy Truffle", in which Lennon sings "We all know Ob-la-di-bla-da", significant given that it was a song only just earlier on the album (just after Glass Onion). These kinds of references are fitting of observation (via extant sources) throughout each of the articles, and, as I said, their importance is amplified by the addition of the visual aid. Conversely, the description is more difficult to defend (in the sense of an apologetic argument) without such an aid. rm 'w avu 00:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Beeflin and Hoops gza are right, they're far more suitable than a horizontal listing. This should in fact become the accepted practice for longer album articles. --rm 'w avu 04:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per above. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 16:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The preference seems to be for the track list templates over the navboxes, which impart the same identical information at a more disadvantageous location within each article. I will nominate those for deletion once this CfD is closed. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• But they are not identical. That becomes clear at a closer look. Navboxes tie together all of the related articles for an album. Track templates provide the particular track's information.Hoops gza (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Which is why I nominated the track list templates over the navboxes. The track list templates offer nothing that the navbox doesn't already except for location. But it's so hard to scroll down to the bottom of the article where every navbox can be found in an article. Although most of the "related articles" are already listed in the other Beatles navboxes. There is just no need for both of these containing identical track listings on the same exact articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[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) 04:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Golden Silvers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox does not seem warranted at this time; navigates between few links (WP:NENAN).  Gongshow ^Talk 07:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. The 3 links should be covered in the main article. That's sufficient. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Only the album has a direct relationship to the main topic. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[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.