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 Speedy delete per author request. --RL0919 (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not necessary; redundant to ((EP)) and ((ESp)) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from author: ((EP)) and ((ESp)) are used to put standard images and text in the response to the requester, below the request. This template is used to replace the ((edit protected)) and ((edit semi-protected)) templates (as noted on this template's documentation page). For example, this diff contains both the use of reqa and ESp: Talk:Jon Jones (fighter). If it's redundant to anything, that would be the ((tlf)) or ((tld)) templates, which the edit request template currently says to use like reqa. While those simply create text versions of the template call, reqa leaves instructions for the requester on how to reopen their request, as most declined requests are due to needing something further from the requester. — Bility (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like a rather convoluted way to implement the desired function. It would be more logical to add |done=yes to the individual request templates IMO. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, I like that better as well. I'll see if I can get support for doing that, then speedy this one. — Bility (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, good idea. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems like a useful idea, and not redundant to ((EP)) and ((ESp)). The functionality could possibly be added to those templates, although it is more natural for the response to appear below the request rather than as a header which this template will do. Cymru.lass: I'm disappointed that you nominate this template for deletion apparently without even discussing its purpose with the author or bothering to see what it does. If twinkle makes it too easy to create these drive-by nominations, perhaps you need to slow down a bit? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, I don't intend for this to replace the response below the request; it's just an alternate, hopefully more useful way to un-transclude the request templates. — Bility (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: Made the change to ((edit semi-protected)) as suggested above, feel free to delete this template and its doc page. Thanks, — Bility (talk) 20:58, 27 March 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) 23:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kesha singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant template. Nav template for Kesha already exists and isnt very big. This Nav temp isnt needed. Should be deleted. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redundant to other Kesha navbox — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:23, 20 March 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) 22:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United Nations Asia map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, originally intended for the article on Asian Americans but the code could be easily incorporated without need for a template Green Giant (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 16:38, 27 March 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) 22:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Different conceptions of Asia maps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that could be easily coded into an article Green Giant (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 16:37, 27 March 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, now that it has been modified. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ben Affleck (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navboxes about Ben Affleck have been deleted at TFD twice before (December 2010 and October 2009). In both those cases, the template was only for movies he directed. This navbox also contains movies he wrote and produced, and some other links. Since this box is significantly different from the previous two, I don't believe speedy deletion applies. However, given the results of the two previous discussions, I thought it appropriate to bring here for the community's input about whether the expanded version should also be deleted. RL0919 (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created this after discovering the previous deletions and assuming that they had only been for movies directed. I modeled this after ((James Cameron films)). As the creator, I obviously feel we should Keep this template. I have not read his bio closely enough to know if additional lines should be added. I saw on his imdb page that he has performed on some soundtracks and am aware that most singers also have their songs in templates. I am fairly certain that he should not have "Jenny from the Block" in his template, but he may well have some other musical credits worth mentioning.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it just me, or is it a tad misleading for this navbox, ostensibly a collection of links regarding the titlular subject, not to contain any links to films he's actually acted in, given that he is primarily notable for his acting career? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a consensus against "actor" navboxes due to the large number of boxes that would end up on the articles about some films (among other reasons). --RL0919 (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's as may be, but the point stands that having a navbox entitled "Ben Affleck" which doesn't include the thing he's most famous for (acting) is outright confusing to our readers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that is common for people who work on both sides of the lens. E.g., ((Warren Beatty)), ((Robert Redford)), ((Jennifer Love Hewitt)) (actually the latter needs to be beefed up to include her author, director, producer credits).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't doubt that there are other examples of such confusion on Wikipedia. I do question the decision to introduce yet another one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • So if a person is known for one thing, he should not be allowed to have a template for another?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • If an actor has a navbox at the foot of his page, I would not expect readers to have to know that the reason it doesn't contain any of his acting roles is because somewhere on some talk page we all agreed that acting roles were to be excluded from the navbox system. A simple fix would be altering the template's label (and possibly title) to make it clear this covers his non-acting life and career. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Are you saying that Any actor who has a template regarding various roles in film should have it thusly labeled. Here are some examples of prominent actors who have templates that are more extensive than just directing roles: ((John Wayne)), ((Sylvester Stallone)), ((Kevin Costner)), ((Jon Favreau)), ((Dennis Hopper)), ((Jennifer Love Hewitt)); which do you think is most optimally formatted?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • P.S. Maybe we should discuss the associates line. Although I modeled this after ((James Cameron films)), I don't see that line in many other places. I can not find an actor/director who has it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • For the first question, John Wayne's is perfect. For the second, I find it difficult to seriously argue for an "associates" line considering that "associates" is being taken to mean "girlfriends, siblings and frequent acting partners", which in my mind is a pretty trivial thing to add to a navbox. That applies to Cameron's as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Given your opinion that Wayne's is perfect, please clarify your opinion on modifications needed for this template. Also, my opinion on associates is not based on the type of relationships, but on the fact that if each actor has a half dozen associates on average, the more highly associated actors will be templated reciprocally by a lot of other peoples' templates. That is why I am considering removing the line. I await your feedback on this issue and if I am going to remove it from Cameron's and others I find, I would need some consensus from other people. I am going to notify the leading editors of the bio article of this discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The problem is that Wayne has articles devoted to his filmography while Affleck does not. This leaves us with two less-than-perfect options: link twice to Ben Affleck, the latter given as Filmography on a line by itself (in the manner of the Stallone box) until a separate filmography article is created; or alternatively, leave it to the reader to deduce that the lack of a films link means that it can be found in a section of the main article. I think the former is preferable because it adds convenience to readers (which is the whole point of navboxen). Regarding associates, given that such a category is always going to be an editorial decision (Affleck has definitely appeared in a certain number of films. He does not have a definite number of associates) I feel it's best leaving such material to the article prose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I have replaced the associates line with a filmography line. I have not done anything about the Cameron template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Looks like an ideal navbox according to WP:CLN and WP:NAV, and the nominator's only rationale is because it was deleted twice before (when there was less content in the navbox). — Bility (talk) 16:16, 22 March 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) 22:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Composition of internal energy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used. Concerns were raised on the talk page about original research and unsourcedness of the information. It seems that this is not needed any more. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 16:37, 27 March 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) 22:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Olympic Gold Medalists From Latrobe Valley & Gippsland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Olympic Silver Medalists From Latrobe Valley & Gippsland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Olympic Bronze Medalists From Latrobe Valley & Gippsland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary - has only one link in it. Serves no purpose and has no sources. Laboulaye (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom, as useless. Acather96 (talk) 16:35, 27 March 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.