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) 03:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2012 (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) 03:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest municipalities of the Philippines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Largest cities of the Philippines)) which covers both cities and towns(municipalities) as indicated in the template title. --RioHondo (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no redundancy, this template is the counterpart ranking of ((Largest cities of the Philippines)), it is the ranking of Philippine municipalities, the other one only shows Philippine city ranking. -Othanwiki2009 (T/C)

That is why the template is named Largest CITIES of the Philippines because it ONLY covers Philippine cities, though the template title is Largest cities OR towns of Philippines. Cities and municipalities are two different types of Philippine division, each one should have a different ranking in terms of population. See ((Largest towns of Slovenia)), ((Largest municipalities of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina)) and ((25 largest municipalities of Norway)). --Othanwiki2009 (T/C)

• This template uses the convention for Category:City population templates. Both cities and towns or municipalities are covered for each largest city template per country. Hence, there is no need for a separate template, as even ((Largest cities of Slovenia)), ((Largest cities of Norway)) and ((Largest towns of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina)) are a combination of both cities and municipalities.--RioHondo (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with RioHondo. ((Largest cities of the Philippines)) covers both cities and municipalities. It just so happens to be that the largest places are all cities. What we really need is an article with all the cities and municipalities along with their areas and populations, all in a sortable table. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as redundant, more detailed sortable information can be presented in an article. Frietjes (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2012 (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) 03:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Western Sahara-airport-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Malformed stub template. Also, for structures and geographical locations, the stub project only sorts by officially recognized countries. Dawynn (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2012 (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) 03:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest Cities in Luzon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Largest cities in Mindanao (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Largest cities of the Philippines)) and ((Philippine cities)). This is template overkill, just look at Davao City. We don't need to split up "largest cities" more than the existing templates. What's next? Largest cities per region, per province? ((Largest Cities in Luzon)) doesn't even make sense because all the cities of Metro Manila are left out! -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So true. I Agree with deleting these useless templates created by the same guy behind ((Largest Income Earner Municipalities of the Philippines)) which i also think is useless, pointless, reeks of "trapo-ness" and therefore must also be deleted. Another template: ((Largest municipalities of the Philippines)) also does not make any sense to me at all. --RioHondo (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see nothing wrong with these templates. It just indicates the ranking of Cities in the Philippines per Island (Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao). ((Largest cities of the Philippines)) is a broad ranking of Philippine Cities, it just shows the ranking of only twenty cities out from a total of 143 cities in the country. These groups of islands have their own several cities, these templates will be useful to show the population ranking of the cities in their group of islands. -Othanwiki2009 (T/C)

Delete still. We don't need this level of specificity. And as stated, the Luzon template is very misleading as it excludes the cities of Metro Manila. --RioHondo (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It excludes the cities of Metro Manila, because it is the National Capital Region which can be separated from Luzon. -Othanwiki2009 (T/C)

• Separated on what grounds? Is Metro Manila not in Luzon? Seems very arbitrary! This proves that this template is pure overkill, it exists only to add another template to more articles. In fact, an article with a sortable list of cities/municipalities with their populations would be sufficient. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the US, some states have their own templates of their largest cities, see ((Largest cities of Arkansas)), ((Largest cities of Nebraska)), Massachusetts, etc. or even a small state like Maine. Here in the Philippines, these three Island Groups should at least have these templates, instead of having templates per Region or Provinces, that's the overkilling that you're always mentioning. -Othanwiki2009 (T/C)

• Last time I checked, the Philippines was a unitary, centralized state. And the three island groups do not even constitute a level of government or political subdivision like the U.S. states. A country the size of just one U.S. state with far fewer cities does not need this many layers. --RioHondo (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as arbitrary and too fine-grained. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2012 (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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NFL coach (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I propose merging to ((Infobox NFL player)) after adding additional parameters to the latter to support extra parameters. Then rename to ((Infobox NFL biography)) the same way we did for footballers, volleyball players, etc. (Almost?) all coaches were players during their life. Magioladitis (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I agree. Thanks ~ --Phbasketball6 (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Sounds like a good idea. AutomaticStrikeout 01:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The statement "(Almost?) all coaches were players during their life." is a little inaccurate. I checked the pages for all 32 current head coaches, and found that only 9 had played in the NFL (Jim Harbaugh, Gary Kubiak, Mike Mularkey, Dennis Allen, Jason Garrett, Leslie Frazier, Ron Rivera, Ken Whisenhunt and Jeff Fisher). I am not saying this to oppose the motion, but to clarify. --rogerd (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, all 33 (inc. Aaron Kromer) did play at the college level. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 05:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, yea, but that is besides the point. --rogerd (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - The NFL shouldn't be left out, should it? ZappaOMati 01:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Corn cheese (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2012 (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) 04:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Robin's Reign (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Such navboxes, unless there are articles for every song on the album, are typically redundant to the artist's navbox - in this case, ((Robin Gibb)). Much recent precendent with templates such as ((Rated R (Rihanna album))) and ((Born This Way)) being deleted per TfD. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as redundant. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2012 (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) 04:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disney value infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

per this recently closed discussion. A while ago, I merged this infobox with the others in the previous discussion to make Template:Infobox Disney resort. There is no need for this template now. Themeparkgc  Talk  06:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Arguably a T3 candidate as redundant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2012 (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) 03:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simple timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to standard wikitable markup. for example, why not just do this, which is no more complicated, and has no limitation on the number of rows. Frietjes (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per this, which is complex wiki markup, error prone and hugely unfriendly to new editors. Just because Frietjes has the wiki expertise to use wikitable markup directly should not exclude other less knowledgeable editors from being assisted to achieve the same. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, then it's redundant to ((table))? Frietjes (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There are only seven transclusions, all of which are just two-column tables with some unnecessary styling. The cognitive burden of remembering the syntax for the template is arguably as great as that of remembering how to create wikitables, which have the significant advantages of flexibility, extensibility and ubiquity (and the invisible and yet not entirely discountable advantage of not adding another 4k of mostly-unused parser functions to an article for no good reason). I could understand if this were some very widely-used system, but it doesn't appear to ever have taken off. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2012 (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.