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 after adding the "Australia=yes" parameter. Plastikspork (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Association Football in Australia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Association Football in Australia has been absorbed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Football as a task force; it therefore no longer carries out its own article assessments and has no need for a talk page banner. Furthermore, the A-League player project has been subsumed by the new task force. If this template is deleted, all instances of it should be replaced by ((WikiProject Football)) with the parameter "australia=yes". – PeeJay 23:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Makes sense although we could also deprecate the banner as was done on ((WikiProject Arizona)) just in case its accidentally used or becomes a project again in the future. --Kumioko (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems reasonable. A redirect might also be advisable. – PeeJay 01:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 23:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The functionality of this template has now been completely taken over by Template:WikiProject Football. All we need now is for someone to replace all instances of ((WikiProject Association Football in Australia)) with ((WikiProject Football|australia=yes)). Cheers. – PeeJay 19:54, 29 August 2011 (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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 18:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Batsmen with a Test batting average above 50 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are already sub-national versions of this template (see ((Australian batsmen with a Test batting average above 50)), ((Sri Lankan batsmen with a Test batting average above 50)) etc.), making this redundant. Mattinbgn (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fancruft, very quickly out of date and pointless. Mtking ^(edits) 04:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is something like Bradman's average of 99.94 "very quickly out of date"? Same goes for every retired player on there. Jenks24 (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Consensus at WT:CRIC appears to be that we should instead redirect all the sub-national versions to this multi-national one. Jenks24 (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and redirect others per Jenks. My only beef with it is its scope, which is an editing, not deleting issue. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and redirect as above: I think this template is more valuable than the individual national ones. It should be noted though that the links shouldn't be solely emboldened to signify that the player is still active, per WP:ACCESS: maybe put an asterisk or a † too? Harrias ^talk 17:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This template is useful, while I'm not too fussed if the individual national ones go. I'm not sure how these can become "very quickly out of date" though :/ AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I hate templates like this. Attempts to link unrelated people based on a statistical anomoly. This is exactly the type of thing that is useful in a list, but worthless as a template. Resolute 04:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. When reading in the biography of one of the participants that they were part of an elite group, it is very useful to have a way to navigate the other members of the group, with far more intuitive visual functionality than a Cat listing or link to a list article. --Dweller (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2011 (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) 00:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:University College Opera (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

hardcoded infobox, now replaced in the article. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2011 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Links four articles (though it's only actually used on two of them). WP:NENAN applies. Even if an article was created for 'DEMISE:Rise of the Ku'Tan', a navbox isn't really needed here. Robofish (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2011 (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) 00:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Polish heraldry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and no clear purpose. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The purpose is clear, but the links are not related enough to warrant a template. Thus, deleteCurb Chain (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2011 (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) 00:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Serb heraldry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and no clear purpose. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The purpose is clear, but it links to 2 articles which should already be linked on the main article. Also considering that it is not used, this should be deleted.Curb Chain (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2011 (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) 00:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template doesn't seem to have any meaningful purpose. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently created because the old page Help:Navigational image referred to it. Delete --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2011 (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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 18:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

four transclusions, all copied and pasted from the same bit of code in ((infobox school)). Long since superseded by the #ifexist: parser function. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This template serves a different purpose than #ifexist:: it returns whether the string could be a valid page title, regardless of whether the page actually exists. As such, it's a useful, efficient way of detecting already linked parameters. I've corrected the documentation. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 19:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mxn, now that its purpose has been clarified. jcgoble3 (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2011 (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 after replacing transclusions with ((Infobox school)) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Singapore school (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

largely redundant to ((infobox school)). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:CONTENTFORK of ((infobox school)) Curb Chain (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:44, 23 August 2011 (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) 00:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:To SVG & Commons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Convert to SVG and copy to Wikimedia Commons, very few transclusions. Acather96 (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:46, 23 August 2011 (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) 04:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Continents navmap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on Earth, and of questionable utility as an image map: there's little that makes clear that the continents are independently clickable. With limited reuse value, the best solution may simply be to include the image directly without the image map. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:01, 23 August 2011 (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) 00:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prominent Nairs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The sole image for which this template existed has been deleted. For reasons related to WP:UNDUE, it is highly unlikely that any subsequent collage of images will pass muster, which is a point that has been discussed at Talk:Nair and in the image deletion discussion. Sitush (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Apparently, this was a bunch of images patched into a collage, all of the pictures which now are deleted. There is likely no future use for this template, and the inclusion criteria for adding images to this template will probably violate WP:NPOV.Curb Chain (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2011 (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.