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) 22:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Konkani Transliteration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A link to ISO 15919 before the transliteration works fine. — Lfdder (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2013 (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. delete. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Crash Canyon season 1 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

None of these episodes are notable, so this template will probably never be used. Beerest355 Talk 19:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The episode list for season 1 (and subsequent) already exists at Crash Canyon. -- Whpq (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:46, 8 August 2013 (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 relisted on WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 17. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Interwiki translation templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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; deleted as G5 by Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mathematics-General (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is unused, and has no clear purpose. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (speedy) delete it. — Lfdder (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's would be a reason for a speedy? Has it been created before or so? L.tak (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a real template, it only shows an image -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It should go without saying: mathematics is an absolutely enormous subject. So what would be in this template? Specialized templates like Template:Calculus and Template:Group theory sidebar are OK with a clear purpose, but what do we have here? A nice image, but one pretty picture is not much use as a template for making access to articles easier. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 20:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If this had a clear purpose, I'd say keep. Does "General" mean something that doesn't apply to a specific field? or what? Its intended purpose should be documented, if it has one. The image itself looks well done, but it is not up for deletion, here. -PC-XT+ 02:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as even more useless than the one below. At least I can see why someone would use that (though they would be wrong to do so). There is no imaginable use for this. All it does is add an image but that can be done directly, using the normal methods so it's easily edited. Adding the image directly is also far more stable; this could be changed at any point by any editor with their own idea what "mathematics-general" is.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:21, 9 August 2013 (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. Consensus is that there are better ways of expressing such a need. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Not-technical-enough (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete: Where will this template be used? It doesn't take much for an expert to add content when he/she has the time and inclination. The real problem on WP is the exact opposite: WP:Technical. This was raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Template. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 06:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete indeed. Of all places, this was used on String theory. As if that article needs to be even more technical than it already is. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does! Do you see a drop of math in it ? Dimension10 (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If all we mean by insufficiently technical is insufficiently mathematical, my vote will become a very strong delete. Wikipedia is aimed at general readers. If it's a coverage issue, that's different, but string theory looks plenty technical too me. Corvus coronoides _talk 17:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP needs to be more technical? I don't think so. I can't see a good case for ever using this, or any article existing that would need it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I guess what the template is for is when more in-depth details are required? IRWolfie- (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Articles lacking detail are stub-class or start-class. Corvus coronoides _talk 11:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete use ((incomplete)) instead, if it's lacking in information, this obviously conflicts with ((too technical)) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• VERY VERY STRONG KEEP Articles like Fuzzball (string theory) need it, AND IT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH ((TECHNICAL)). Because, adding the ((TECHNICAL)) Template, only means that it should be understandable to others *without* removing the technical details . Aalmost all articles on wikipedia are NOT technical enough . It's a terrible problem . Dimension10 (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep – There may be articles that need attention drawn to them being pitched too low to communicate the topic adequately. And no, this does not mean a start-class article or stub (although these would often qualify, but one would obviously not generally bother with the template). And it is not the same thing as "expert attention needed". While its use might be limited, it conceptually makes a valid point. I also disagree with the idea that ((incomplete)) suffices in its place: the meaning is different, since something can be too technical and simutaneously incomplete. I see no motivation to actually delete the template. — Quondum 15:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  IMHO I think if an article is pitched too low to communicate the topic adequately, we have accuracy issues. Either that or coverage issues, which I believe both have their own kinds of templates. The main use of this template seems to be to say "there is not as much technical detail as I would like to see". Corvus coronoides _talk 17:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The motivation for deletion is that by saying an article is 'not technical enough' it suggests that accessible, non-technical content should be replaced by less-accessible technical content. Which should IMHO never happen. If there isn't enough in-depth coverage then add it, or add a ((Incomplete)) or ((Expert-subject)), with a note on the talk page to say what needs adding. But existing accessible content shouldn't be removed simply as it's not technical enough.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Withdrawing my vote: the shaky background of the template and the subsequent discussion... A template should be mainly aimed at readers and not at editors. — Quondum 02:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Methinks this is a trolling template, and the "VERY VERY STRONG KEEP" !vote above seems to strengthen this conclusion. —Wasell^(T) 17:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to those with cases for keeping: you can add a "to do list" on the article talk page with a list of things to add to the article, which is what talk pages are for. There is no reason to clutter the top of pages (which may already have notices) with this one. This template is as pointless as "template:empty section" (although nominations for deleting that template have clearly not progressed...) M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 20:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. But: it applies equally to any number of related templates. This would suggest that many other templates such as ((too technical)) and ((incomplete)) should be deleted or replaced by templates intended for talk page use (a perspective that I could support: a lot of template clutter on the main page could be moved to the talk page). — Quondum 23:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think those templates are also rather pointless, create clutter, and encourage laziness. Some editors go around tagging articles as "too technical" or having "multiple issues" instead of improving the article themselves (if possible), or sometimes without even lifting a finger to provide the reason. Talk pages exist for a reason. This silly business of tagging and assessing articles instead of improving them is not progress... M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 07:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Quondum - I understand the desire for more descriptive information in certain articles, especially when people will be trying to apply that information. That's basically what external links and references are for, but sometimes it can still be hard to find the relevant information. Some readers like to see that a request is asking for the same thing they are wanting, but otherwise, I prefer using the talk page, myself, even without templates, just typing what I'm thinking. -PC-XT+ 03:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed my !vote after Quondum. As for how technical an article should be, I think lower portions of articles can be more technical, but the lead and early parts should definitely be less technical, for easy reading. I still think the most technical information should be left in external sources and talk page discussion. I guess readers who would like to see this template are not part of Wikipedia's intended audience, but hopefully will find a link to a source which specifically goes deeper into the subject. Two great things about Wikipedia: there is always room for improvement, but it is working well before we improve it, as well. -PC-XT+ 06:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seriously? We're debating this? Wikipedia is not a technical manual, it is a general interest encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh-oh. I've evidently had it wrong all the time. In this case, it seems like a whole slew of technical articles, including most of the articles on abstract algebra and particle physics, should also be deleted or replaced with articles aimed at the general-interest reader. — Quondum 16:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can dip into technical issues, but yeah, do we have a wiki for technical information? Links to say, Wikiversity, (like those we have for Wiktionary,) would be much better than this template, if they are acceptable. -PC-XT+ 06:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete per User:Maschen -- I was going to say weak keep, but the comment about the to-do list is a valid one, and the potential for trolling is very high. If we do keep it let's all agree to never use it on string theory pages, kthanks a13ean (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If there's any doubt about trolling, this user admitted to being the indef blocked User:PsiEpsilon. The SPI has some additional examples of trolling from his old account [1]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like trolling. That aside, there are existing templates for indicating more detail is needed. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment***: As this will be perhaps closed tomorrow, let me make a final remark . "It was not trolling. The string theory articles, among many others, are not technical enougbh." . Dimension10 (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Template:FCW Divas Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) As per WP:NENAN, template is for a championship in FCW, (a former developmental territory/system of WWE), as such the titles are minor for professional wrestling. The list of respective champs is in the article anyway and there are only six champions for the retired title. Starship.paint (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Classic WP:NENAN. oknazevad (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Queen of FCW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per WP:NENAN, template is for a championship in FCW, (a former developmental territory/system of WWE), as such the titles are minor for professional wrestling. The list of respective champs is in the article anyway and there are only six champions for the retired title. Starship.paint (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. oknazevad (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NXT Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per WP:NENAN, template is for a championship in NXT, (a developmental territory/system of WWE), as such the titles are minor for professional wrestling. The list of respective champs is in the article anyway and there are only three champions. Starship.paint (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom oknazevad (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Languages used on the Internet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems promotional. Lfdder (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what is it supposed to promote? I don't see a product attached, unless you mean all references are promotional? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference; there's only one. Who are W3Techs and why do we have a sidebar for their rankings? — Lfdder (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not seem to be based on a reliable source and transclusion in any article would be contrary to WP:RS. L.tak (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My impression is that all languages that exist in a written form are also used on the Internet, proportionally to their respective numbers of speakers. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:53, 7 August 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yugoslavia squad 1978 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Yugoslavia squad 1980 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Yugoslavia squad 1990 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ukraine Squad 2006 Euro under-21 Cup (finalists) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is youth football competition only so its navboxes is unnecessary. Three navboxes below must be deleted speedy per numerous previous discussions, such as here and here. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; seems to have no reasonable purpose. I see no reasons for a speedy deletion though… L.tak (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per the nominator. Sawol (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – another discussion confimed to delete two remaining Euro U21 navboxes. Banhtrung1 (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, no need for youth squad templates. Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - overwhelming consensus from numerous recent discussions that youth football squad templates are not notable. GiantSnowman 11:37, 11 August 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Argentina FHW U21 Squad 2012 Pan Am Junior (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Argentina FHW U17 Squad 2010 Summer Youth Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

They are youth field hockey tournament only. This navbox must be deleted speedy per this discussion. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per the nominator. Sawol (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, no need for youth squad templates. Frietjes (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012 Eastern Province Kings Under-19 Currie Cup squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2012 Eastern Province Kings Under-21 Currie Cup squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Annonymous, movement and youth rugby union tournament. It should be deleted. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: do you mean with Annonymous i) not well known/obscure? or ii) made by an ip address or iii) with players not identifying themselves (using fake names?)? L.tak (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per the nominator. Sawol (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, no need for youth squad templates. Frietjes (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Czech Republic U–18 Squad 1996 Quarée–Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Poland U–19 Squad 1998 Quarée–Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete speedy because it's an annonymous and youth tournament. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nominator. Sawol (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Banhtrung1 (talk · contribs), any reason why you nominated ((Poland U–19 Squad 1998 Quarée–Cup)) but didn't actually tag the corresponding template? GiantSnowman 12:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited this page [2], because of templates with the same attribute. Am I in the wrong process of adding one more? Sawol (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both - hoax tournament. GiantSnowman 12:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, no need for youth squad templates. Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2013 (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. --BDD (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a football club competition squad only. It is unnecessary. Squad navboxes should be created only for senior international and continental national team tournaments only. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Galatasaray SK 1999-2000 UEFA Cup Champion Squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Galatasaray SK 2000 UEFA Super Cup Champion Squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - we do not keep 'historical' squads for clubs. GiantSnowman 11:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both above. – PeeJay 22:31, 11 August 2013 (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.