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 page.

The result of the debate was to keep. Although consensus here is to delete, this debates is superceded by the August 11 World Cup debates, where the consensus is to keep such templates. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC) As everyone is aware, we have to delete old World Cup templates, so I've decided to put some up for deletion. Bobbran19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Guinnog 14:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. --Ssbohio 01:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Andymarczak 12:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and the others.... You can use one TFD for more then one template you know... :) ---J.S (t|c) 04:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Philc _T^E_C^I 15:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BlueValour 23:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They are useful. Please refer to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_11#All_FIFA_World_Cup_squad_templates for a more convenient votation. Mxcatania 14:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Pal 18:32, 14 August 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was to keep. Although consensus here is to delete, this debates is superceded by the August 11 World Cup debates, where the consensus is to keep such templates. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC) As everyone is aware, we have to delete old World Cup templates, so I've decided to put some up for deletion. Bobbran @ 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Guinnog 14:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. --Ssbohio 01:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Andymarczak 12:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Philc _T^E_C^I 15:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BlueValour 23:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They are useful. Please refer to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_11#All_FIFA_World_Cup_squad_templates for a more convenient votation. Mxcatania 14:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Pal 18:32, 14 August 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was to keep. Although consensus here is to delete, this debates is superceded by the August 11 World Cup debates, where the consensus is to keep such templates. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC) As everyone is aware, we have to delete old World Cup templates, so I've decided to put some up for deletion. Bobbran @ 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Guinnog 14:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. --Ssbohio 01:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Andymarczak 12:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Philc _T^E_C^I 15:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BlueValour 23:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They are useful. Please refer to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_11#All_FIFA_World_Cup_squad_templates for a more convenient votation. Mxcatania 14:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Pal 18:32, 14 August 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nintendo franchises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Does absolutely nothing to aid in navigation; all of listed franchises are so flung apart, transcending so many genres, and are only linked together by a single company. Hbdragon88 18:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are other templates that list the games a company makes (for example the Bungie Template). SNS 06:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If there's a perceived lack of usefulness on the part of this template, perhaps it can be refactored to be more informative. The concept of tying together games put out by a single maufacturer for ease of navigation seems sound, however. --Ssbohio 01:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't understand how so; the first keep vote simply points to the Bungie template as evidence of other precedents. The Bungie template appears to serve a slightly different purpose; Bungie only has 3-4 franchises, and the template is being used in place of the usual series templates. It lists and links the games together. I'm still opposed to it, but it at least serves some purpose. This Nintendo template merely links the franchises together. And there are so many games that a series of sub-templates already serves the same exact purpose that the Bungie template serves. We have Template:Mario Kart series, Template:Nintendo Wars series, Template:Mario series, Template:Wario series, and Template:Puzzle League series that already link all of those games together. i don't find it necessary to link those franchises altogether under one company. Hbdragon88 19:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The template is useful, but the color is awful. If kept, I'm going to change it. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 18:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This template is for the purpose of navigating across Nintendo franchise articles.Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 04:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see anyting wrong with it. I also believe that a list of franchises from a well known video game company should exist. It could also help people if they are looking for infomation on Nintedndo's eariler games. --Edgelord 18:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This template is gratuitous and overkill; it clutters articles (many of which already have one or more of their own templates) and does not add anything of value to the articles it's listed on. The franchises stand alone and do not require this interconnecting tool. Also, the subject of this template is already a subheading in the Nintendo#Notable software and franchises article (a much more relevant place, in my opinion). Guermantes 23:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Navbox creep in extremis. Almost none of these articles are significantly related, and like HBD88 points out, the Bungie box is going to be much narrower and more compact (as all of Bungie's games save Myth and a few outliers are thematically linked and inter-referential). I found this on Golden Sun, which has almost nothing to do with any of the other games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For reasons already stated. Xubelox 06:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I wouldn't mind this getting deleted (most Nintendo franchises can be accessed though Smash Bros. anyway) but does help show Nintendo's history (as stated above). Toomai Glittershine 20:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep First of all, this navigational template between relevant subarticles of Nintendo is by definition relevant. I do not believe that "are only linked together by a single company" is valid rationale for removal because sub-articles are linked by only article, as are every single category and every article linked by a navigational template. This is a feature of Wikipedia, not a bug that needs eradication. (And since this template looks so innocent, I fear deletion of this template (or similar templates) will lead to en-mass deletion of navigational templates, citing tfd's like this out-of-context as a precedent, and leading to a situation similar to that userbox debacle.) My vote is keep, partly because good-faith contributors shouldn't have to worry about their submissions being removed, and partly because the rationale for deletion just isn't serious enough for it to be worth the time to delete it. --DavidHOzAu 01:21, 15 August 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Usc-clause2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete this because it's unused and unnecessary (as ((usc3)) does the same thing). —Markles 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. --Ssbohio 01:56, 10 August 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Frontier Brains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All the pages this links to have been merged with List of Frontier Brains. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 08:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. --Ssbohio 01:56, 10 August 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was subst, then delete. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic sandboxing template. BigDT 01:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. It is so random it has no discernible meaning whatsoever. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I agree, although if you look in the history, at least one person did not. BigDT 03:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are refering to my removal of the speedy tag, at that time[1], it was much, much more succinct and the speedy tag given was not applicable. -- JLaTondre 12:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh man, delete -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It looks like it's being used only on User pages in the manner of a "bookmark" collection. -- JLaTondre 12:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete...or at least move into the userspace seeing as how it is only transcluded on userpages. JLaTondre's right. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not used in articles, so I'm not sure how patent nonsense or WP:ENC make enough difference to delete. Seems like a potentially pointless, but harmless template. --Ssbohio 01:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I've cleaned it up some to make it atleast usefull. It realy should be renamed however... ---J.S (t|c) 04:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above —Minun ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 10:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm ... can anyone who wants to keep this thing actually come up with any purpose for it? It is used exactly three places. One of the uses predates the creation of the template and presumably, that person was using an older now-deleted template. The other two uses are the creator of the template and another user who is probably the same person. They have nothing but sandboxing edits between them and spent the bulk of their time on their own userpages, which are just giant sandboxes. Is there any real reason to keep this template around where it can serve no useful purpose other than to confuse someone? BigDT 15:39, 11 August 2006 (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 page.