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, but can be userfied upon request for conversion into an article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Open golf tournaments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Intended to be a navbox, this malformed template serves no real purpose, simply listing completely unrelated golf tournaments on the basis that they contain the word "Open", regardless of whether they are in fact open (although founded as open, some no longer are). It was created after a similar indiscriminate list was removed from the Open golf tournaments article. _wjemather^bigissue 15:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Tewapack (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it if you want. I created the template because I wanted to set up a list of "open" golf tournaments (some past and some present). Some people, such as myself, are interested in the history of golf and the world of golf. Tewapack wanted to keep the Open golf tournaments page limited to current national golf tournaments, and I wanted to respect that by leaving the page's format as is, except for this template at the bottom of the page to provide people the option to have the Wikileaks available to them. If people don't want that wealth of information available to them when they go to the page, then be my guest and delete the template. InforManiac (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "list of..." article would serve that purpose, but there would be major inclusion criteria issues with that as mentioned above. That discussion is for another venue though, and we should proceed with deletion of this navbox given that is now requested by its creator. _wjemather^bigissue 16:38, 14 October 2010 (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.

Template:Infobox power station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox power station (temp) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox power station with Template:Infobox power station (temp).

The temp template was created with the intention of being history merged into Template:Infobox power station once all bugs were cleaned and all errors addressed. The local discussion started exactly a month ago, and so far there were no direct objections to the merge. Currently, that discussion has sort of stalled and we need more comments to see if its ready to be merged, as the template will be used in a large number of articles.

The new template is also intended to replace ((Infobox nuclear power station)), of which will be discussed separately. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Also, please avoid posting suggestions here (post it here instead), as this discussion is basically to get a clear consensus that all errors are cleaned (test it by replacing ((Infobox power station in any article, with ((Infobox power station (temp); no field should disappear), and that the merge is good to go. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Some wind farms will have more than one type or manufacturer of wind turbines. --Aflafla1 (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that can be included using the <br> function. Adding a whole new field for that may seem useless as only a few farms use turbines with multiple manufacturers. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment why isn't the temp at Template:Infobox power station/sandbox ? 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - let's get it done then, I will work on changes afterwards. TGCP (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge complete -- Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Two links to the same page. Navboxes provide navigation between similar articles which isn't possible (as multiple articles don't exist). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A navigational template for a cup that isn't announced yet, so pure crystal balling anyway: the two links on the page link to two sections of thesame page anyway, so not really needed either. Fram (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Navbox not needed until a number of editions have been played (assuming each is notable enough to have a article of course). _wjemather^bigissue 17:21, 8 October 2010 (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. Too early: only one article really exists on topic so nothing to navigate between. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Galveston Pirate SC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigational template that only navigates to info on the only page it is placed on. It isn't useful to have a navigational template pointing upwards on the same page only. Basically, the team for which this template is created is a new, regional soccer team with so far one official game. Fram (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Navbox that doesn't navigate anywhere. _wjemather^bigissue 17:25, 8 October 2010 (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 and template has changed substantially since the initial nomination. No major objection to renomination in the future. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hunter Region places and items of interest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Huge navbox that is only transcluded in a single artice. This content may be better suited to a category or list article. PC78 (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Firstly, thanks for not notifying me that you'd nominated this for deletion. As the creator, I would have appreciated being notified. This template was created as the neatest, most compact method of listing the various relevant links, without forcing people to have to look in a separate article. A category structure has already been created and I don't see how this could be properly created as a category, which would probably be inappropriate anyway, as it would result in unnecessary overcategorisation. As you've indicated, it's huge, which is because the region, which is a significant area in Australia, covers an area of 29,116 km² (11,242 sq mi), explaining why there are so many articles. The template is now used in all of the related articles. This was always the intent but I just hadn't gotten around to it. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not obliged to notify you and you found the discussion quickly enough anyway, so let's not cry about it, eh? Size is still a problem, the template dwarfs some of the articles you've added it to (Kia-Ora stud, for example). If it cannot be trimmed or broken up, then I still think a list article is the best option here. PC78 (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may not be obliged to notify but it's the right thing to do. The template even suggests it, as do the instructions at WP:TFD. It doesn't hurt to be courteous. The template is the size it is because there are so many related articles. Why point people to a list article when you can place everything at the reader's fingertips? As editors we often forget that not every reader knows how to navigate as well as we do. And, as I already pointed out, the navbox is a much neater way of presenting the information. The physical size doesn't matter. Anything you add to a stub is likely to dwarf the article and in most articles it's collapsed because there are other templates present. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It wasn't my intention to be discourteous, but you found the discussion in good time so there's no need to get bent out of shape over it. Physical size does matter IMO, but I'd be open to a redesign if you were also agreeable. As for navigation, if a reader can use a navbox to navigate between articles, they can almost certainly follow a link to a list article and navigate from there. PC78 (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So what you're saying is (at least) two clicks is better than one? A link in the "see also" section is not as obvious and easy to navigate as a navbox. That's one reason we have them. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Quite clearly, I'm saying it's best not to have such a massive navbox. PC78 (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I know that but it's one thing to say that it's best not to have one, while it's another to give some good reasons why it's best. "It's too large" smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In any case, "megatemplates" seem all the rage these days. Just look at ((Infobox settlement)) which, without any fields filled in, is four times as large as this template. That it dwarfs some articles is not a good argument because a simple infobox can do that to any stub. Does it provide easy navigation between articles? Yes it does. Is the content organised to make navigation within the tempate easier? Yes it is. So what exactly is the reason for switching to a method that requires more clicking by readers? With the template, readers can click from article to article to article without too much trouble. With a list, readers have to keep switching back and forth. But you think this is better? Why? --AussieLegend (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:NAVBOX advises against having large navboxes, so this isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ((Infobox settlement)) is an infobox, so again you've come up with something that isn't remotely comparable. PC78 (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:NAVBOX also uses ((Johnny Cash)), a large navbox, in its examples of how to properly do something, so I've done what WP:NAVBOX has said to do. The ((Infobox settlement)) was to demonstrate how the community treats large templates, of any sort. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Split into subtemplates. This navigation box is far too large, and has enough content to be classified as an article. WP:NENAN. For example, split off the Education section into its own navigation box for education related topics. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a touch ironic that the navbox used by WP:NENAN is itself rather large, with 103 links and is transcluded to 116 articles.[1] One rule for some apparently. The result of splitting off into multiple templates is that Hunter Region would then have multiple small navboxes, something criticised by WP:NENAN, rather than one. It would certainly be possible to split off Education, Historical and Transport into larger templates, and others into smaller templates, (there are potentially at least eleven separate templates there) but what real benefit is there? Using the rule of thumb that there should be at least 5 links in any navbox, there's still going to be a "Stuff that couldn't fit into the other templates" template containing Defence, Hospitals, Industry, Media, Other, Religion and Water Supply, with duplication between that and the other templates (resulting in even more links!). While it may make sense to include these headings in a template titled "Hunter Region places and items of interest", there's no real excuse for creating the "other stuff" template so those twelve links would be lost, which doesn't seem productive. A single template seems like a much better idea than creating numerous templates and losing easy links to relevant information. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The navbox at WP:NENAN is considerably smaller than this one, but it's also not used in article space, so yes, the same rules don't apply in that case. PC78 (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It still has 103 links, which is more than half the size of this one. What does being used in article space have to do with anything? What is too large for a navbox? Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates states, "templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden" (emphasis added), so what exactly is wrong with this one? --AussieLegend (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So it's considerably smaller, yes? The difference between articlespace and other namespaces should be obvious; to suggest otherwise would seem rather obtuse. PC78 (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • And ((Johnny Cash)), which is not much smaller, is used as an example of how to properly do something. Let's pretend that the difference isn't obvious, so please explain to me what the difference is. It's impossible to address your problems if you won't specify what they are. You said you'd be open to a redesign,[2] the table has been redesigned significantly since the nomination,[3] and you haven't commented on that. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're an experienced enough editor to know what the difference is, so no, I won't humour you, and I don't see why you need to be difficult. I hadn't commented on the redesign because I hadn't seen it, so I shall do so now: it looks better, but you don't need a seperate section for "Hospital" where there is only one article. "Defense" and "Media" are also probably small enough to lump into "Other". PC78 (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Urgh. This is practically a table of contents. That's not what navboxes are for. In what I can only describe as an entirely unsurprising turn of events, most of these appear to be infobox-plus-one-paragraph stubs, and it would seem to be a good idea to start merging them into more concrete aggregate articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Navboxes provide quick navigation between related articles and that's exactly what this one does. As for those "infobox-plus-one-paragraph stubs", I don't see how any of those could be merged, given they deal with individual, yet related subjects. If you have any suggestions though, please elaborate. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As part of the ongoing development of this template I discovered ((Navbox with collapsible groups)) and have modified the template to use that to address the size within articles issue that was previously identified. This is used as an example in Wikipedia:Navigation templates, which links to this version of ((Johnny Cash)), which is a large template with 155 links that is transcluded to 157 articles. It is but one of many other large templates that the community seems to have no issue with. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While it is a very comprehensive and chunky template I see no reason for it to be deleted. Some people may find it useful and more convenient than using categories. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that it has been fixed. Agree with Shiftchange. One *possibility* is a conversion to a portal, but portals are basically ignored by the average reader, so this wouldn't really work either. I also note that other large templates are not problematic. Orderinchaos 15:19, 11 October 2010 (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. WOSlinker (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hetty Wainthropp Investigates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Three of the four links are now redirects to the TV show. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No-brainer. Provides zero navigation. _wjemather^bigissue 17:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough use for it. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2010 (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. Moved to userspace. WOSlinker (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010MLBPSMatchups (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

What is the purpose of this template? Where is it employed? Why should it exist? Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was used to keep track of potential postseason matchups as the regular season winded down. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Serves no purpose. _wjemather^bigissue 17:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thats true now, since the machups have long been finalized. –BuickCenturyDriver 20:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I am requesting this page be moved to User:BuickCenturyDriver/2010MLBPSMatchups since the article is likely to be deleted. However would it be possible to keep the history? –BuickCenturyDriver 21:45, 8 October 2010 (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 Redirect. Since parameters the same WOSlinker (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is made redundant by ((frac)). Also, has only one mainspace transclusion, and relatively few others. Template does nothing that simple typing doesn't do, and takes more time. For example, ((fract|1|2)) produces 1⁄2, which would be much less time consuming to write. Has none of special functions of ((frac)) and can only do improper fractions (i.e., can't do mixed numbers). cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace per nom. To be fair, this template did originally use sub and sup tags, but for some reason they were removed. But yes, ((frac)) can do the same job only much better, so there's no reason to keep. PC78 (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect since it takes two parameters to produce what frac does with two parameters, a simpled redirect will do. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close and redirect. This falls under the spirit of CSD T3, per the redundancy aspect. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect will do. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect the page history of this template should be kept available. It has been used in numerous old revisions. If it were deleted, the old revisions suddenly have a missing template problem, and that just causes all sorts of issues later on especially for non-admins trying to review or copy the damaged old revisions. 85.94.184.115 (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2010 (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.