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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grammy Award for Album of the Year footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Grammy Award for Record of the Year footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Grammy Award for Song of the Year footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't understand the need to link to other templates within a template. If I am looking through articles, I'm going to use the navbox to navigate to other albums within the list. I can then link to the main article or list to view other decades and the full template. Linking just to the template seems more like an editor's tool rather than a reader's tool. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very standard format for award template systems. See Academy Award, Tony Award, Pulitzer Prize, Nobel Prize and Emmy Award templates to name a few. There is actually a major reorganization of these types of templates that is resulting in hlist formatting, but not removal of the footers. One of the major editors in this overhaul is WOSlinker (talk · contribs). I will ping him/her regarding this nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that the nominator has spent time editing Template:Academy Award Best Foreign Language Film and not had a problem with this format for Academy Award templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do have a problem with all of them. And to call something a very standard format for award template systems, when you created the system all under a year ago, is misleading. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create the award template systems. I just cleaned them up so that instead of having code in 5 or 6 different places, it would be in a centralized footer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. This issue remains that the footers only link to other templates rather than articles or lists that would be of more value to readers. The link to the full list already exists in the main title of the "parent" templates (ie. Grammy Award for Album of the Year, etc.). Similar reasoning applied to the deletion of Template:MLB roster footer. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, it has been fairly standard for award templates for years to interlink the templates. Some sports leagues have demonstrated a preference for stacking templates to form a list article. I prefer the interlinking templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep At the minute these footer templates serve a useful purpose to navigate around the templates for the different decades. A bigger question which could be asked, not just of the Grammy templates but of all awards templates, is whether it is desireable to split them up into decades at all or whether just the single template for each award would be better. There are currently nearly 200 film/tv/theatre awards footer templates. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason that they are split is that wikipedia pages have a limit on interwikilinks. Rather than put 100 links on a page with a template, it is better to put 20 on a page. It means fewer pages reach their upper bound. Also the pages load faster.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:57, 8 December 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roscoe Dash (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article on the artist was deleted as non-notable - no need for this anymore. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not needed. Probably should be considered a variant of WP:A9. Robofish (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed to Keep based on the artist's article being created. Looks like he is notable after all, my apologies. Robofish (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've recently restarted the article on this artist. Upon searching him up on Billboard, he's actually had 5 Billboard Hot 100 hits, including 3 which hit the Top 40. This therefore means he satisfies the criteria for notability based on notability criteria for musicians and ensembles. I'd also say that his discography is large enough for him to get his own infobox. Holiday56 (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until such point as the articles for the individual releases are well-maintained enough that puerile vandalism does not persist in them for five-month periods they should be merged into a single article. Having a series of skeletal articles navigated by a skeletal navbox does not help our project. The navbox can be recreated when the discography is worth splitting out again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Technical note The artist's article has been restored due to improper deletion - I'm not sure if the closer has any other concerns, because the article being deleted is no longer a valid one. m.o.p 07:10, 6 December 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) 17:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary template, redundant to ((uw-error1))/((uw-vandalism4)). HurricaneFan25 18:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems too specific to be useful. Robofish (talk) 22:37, 4 December 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 02:51, 26 November 2011 (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) 17:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - As of 4 December 2011, it is used on one page, due to a pending use of that image on the main page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This template is linked to from many pages, typically as part of instructions (often in instructions in categories) for copying Geograph photos for use on Wikipedia. All photos on Geograph are CC BY-SA 2.0.[1] These photos are typically moved to Commons where they are tagged with commons:Template:Geograph. It is rarely necessary to have such images on English Wikipedia but it also seems unnecessarily obstructive to impede people uploading here. The template is helpful in specifically stating that a move to Commons is permissible and provides a link for uploading directly to Commons. Thincat (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely any editor with sufficient savvy to be aware of ((Geograph)) would not waste his time uploading here instead of just going straight to Commons? As for the transclusions, the only significant inbound link is the one on ((UK image sources)). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your first question and do not know the answer, Someone (or some wikiproject), thought it was a good idea to link to this template from no end of places, I think for instructional purposes. Just a thought, many people in the real (UK) world have a greater awareness of ENWiki than Commons. A Geograph regular, wanting to embed an image in a Wikipedia article, would naturally think to upload it here. How they would approach doing that and where they'd get to, I'm not at all sure. (I rather worry their image would get deleted at FFD and they'd get permabanned, but I hope I am wrong). As for your second observation, since there are so many links, why does the small number of transclusions matter? Are you suggesting this should be moved to project space? Would that improve the encyclopedia? Maybe. Thincat (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How and why does it happen that this template gets onto main page images temporarily copied from commons? Thincat (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (I commented earlier). The nomination is mistaken. The template is not orphaned but it sometimes has no transclusions. I believe that this template possibly could be made obsolete but this would require reorganising of a number of pages and could not be achieved by subst. If this work were done the template could usefully be deleted. As for it not being a standard licence template, it refers to and transcludes a standard template. It is in current use. Thincat (talk) 19:36, 9 December 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 rename Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Agência Brasil (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, no transclusions, not a standard license template, unlikely to be used, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 02:31, 26 November 2011 (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) 17:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - As of 4 December 2011, it is used on one page, due to a pending use of that image on the main page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As a valid free software license, the obvious solution is moving this to ((cc-by-sa-2.5-br)), in line with our multiple existing CC templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:20, 5 December 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) 20:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Birla Institute of Technology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

After removing links which were to locality articles rather than to institutes this template was left with only three actual institutes, and some very general admission links. I don't really see how it helps navigation with so few relevant wikilinks. Muhandes (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The third row is indeed totally superfluous, and the remaining three articles are sufficiently interlinked as to obviate the need for a navbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:21, 5 December 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.