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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hurricane season bar gap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

pointless additional markup with a dubious aesthetic gain and a negative impact to output readability and accessibility. If additional whitespace is necessary it should be added automatically by CSS rather than manually with junk HTML. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. That's a completely nonsensical argument. The template is there to save on markup (and thus reduce clutter) and increase accessibility. Writing

...
((Hurricane season bar button
 |intensity=storm
 |stormname=Jose
 |strength=Tropical Storm
 |linkname=Tropical Storm Jose (2005)
 |storminitial=J
))
</tr><tr>
((Hurricane season bar button
 |intensity=cat5
 |stormname=Katrina
 |strength=Category 5
 |linkname=Hurricane Katrina
 |storminitial=K
))
...

(which can happen in multiple times per template for active seasons) instead of

...
((Hurricane season bar button
 |intensity=storm
 |stormname=Jose
 |strength=Tropical Storm
 |linkname=Tropical Storm Jose (2005)
 |storminitial=J
))
((hurricane season bar gap))
((Hurricane season bar button
 |intensity=cat5
 |stormname=Katrina
 |strength=Category 5
 |linkname=Hurricane Katrina
 |storminitial=K
))
...

Is neither cleaner, nor more user-friendly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:SK criterion 2a (frivolous nomination). It's part of a template system, and this sort of thing (e.g. ((collapse bottom)), ((refend)), ((glossend)), etc.) is completely normal. Wikipedia editors should not have to learn HTML, much less learn how to interpret MediaWiki template code so well that they can figure out what HTML is missing in order to use templates. It's everyday WP practice to provide template "wrappers" for HTML geekery like this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • D'oh, I misread the output. I'd somehow assumed it simply output a blank line, rather than being a new row marker. Happy to withdraw. Erm, but less of the accusations of the nom being "unquestionably vandalism or disruption", thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:SK 2, not WP:SK 2a. It's unfortunate that they're nested that way, but I didn't write that page. No implication of vandalism implied. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 11:30, 21 February 2012 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grey's Anatomy Season 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost Allall the episodes of this template have been redirected.Curb Chain (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, not the way we usually do things. the succession links in the infobox are enough. Frietjes (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2012 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:McGuinness Flint (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

almost all redlinks. Frietjes (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless articles are made for the redlinks, and given the article's shortness this seems unlikely. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:08, 24 February 2012 (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; deleted as G6 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

no parent article, and almost all redlinks or redirects. Frietjes (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2012 (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 page'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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recent creation, no reason why a single link needs to be a template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix up article and delete as test edit. The only transclusion in article space (see Born to Die (Lana Del Rey album)#Critical reception) has the following: <ref name="independent">((independent |class=album | label=Lana Del Rey – ''Born to Die'' > Review |last=Gill |first=Andy |accessdate=Feb 20, 2012))</ref> which seems to be the debris left behind following this series of GF edits. Unfortunately it's hidden a valid pre-existing ref which is also named <ref name="independent">.

I've seen something like this before - new editor, unfamiliar with wikicode, sees that many refs are of the form <ref name=something>((cite ...))</ref> and thinks that the name and double braces are both mandatory parts of the ref. They wish to cite from The Independent, so put <ref name=Independent>((Independent))</ref>. Usually this is the end of the story: but they may look at the refs section and wonder why it's come up red, so click on it and find that they "need" to create a page. In goes the URL, job done. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2012 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fukushima I nuclear accidents/about (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, hardcoded hatnote. Frietjes (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst into Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, where it was used. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  why would we substitute it into an article that already has a hatnote? Frietjes (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it should replace the existing hatnote. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete hardcoded instance of ((about)) that was specifically designed for use on a single page, which no longer exists. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment page was moved, look at the move log for the base name Fukushima I nuclear accidents 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2012 (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) 15:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:CompactTOCrefs2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:CompactTOC7body (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CompactTOC2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CompactTOC4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CompactTOC5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hardcoded instances of ((compactTOC8)). Recommend that these be substituted, as the code is simple enough to be included directly in the relevant articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subst Replace and delete per nom. I created CompactTOC8 to be flexible specifically so this kind of junk would stop being created. This !vote applies also to all the others of this sort nominated below. (Actually, CompactTOC8 was intended to replace all the other compacttoc templates, too, and eventually reside at Template:CompactTOC, and this was decided at TfD several years ago as what to do, but no one ever did it, and not being an admin, I can't do it, because most of them are full-protected). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely what I'm aiming to do once this batch of nominations is complete. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Finally! (It's been just short of 5 years.) NB: Just to be clear, I'm talking about replacement of ((CompactTOC2)), etc., too, not just the weird ones you're TfDing here. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. I'd prefer if the existing templates were replaced with the new one rather than substed, but that may be too much hassle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Completely redundant, as long as all the instances get replaced. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2012 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lockheed Constellation production list TOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, and isn't a TOC anyway: it's a proto-sidebar for content which really doesn't need it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused and replaceable with standardized templates even if it were. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

single-use hardcoded horizontal TOC. The sole transclusion would not be adversely affected by using a standard TOC layout or ((TOClimit)) instead. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: One-transclusion templates serve no purpose, and this is replaceable with standardized templates even if it were used. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (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) 15:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TOCDecades50 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TOC decades 1930s to now (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TOCDecades40 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TOCDecades60 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TOCDecades20 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Extremely short horizontal hardcoded TOCs. Even if they weren't redundant to ((horizontaltoc)), articles will not be adversely affected by having a vertical TOC for such a short list. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Easily replaceable with standardized templates; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hard-coded, single-use TOC template which simply duplicates the section headers in a horizontal format. Redundant to ((horizontaltoc)). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CompactTOC8CYM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused minor variant of ((compactTOC8)), which already has a gazillion options. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Easily replaceable with standardized templates even if it were used; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GeoTemplate/TOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused minor TOC variant (contrary to the documentation, it isn't used at ((GeoTemplate))). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Easily replaceable with standardized template even if it were used; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (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) 15:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Single-use TOC template which is probably too detailed for its own good, with per-paragraph links. Deleting this and using something like ((TOClimit)) to keep the TOC length sane would not adversely affect the browseability of the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning behind the complicated TOC is that the article's intended browseability is for the reader to get immediately to the keyword they're interested in. The TOC condenses the list of keywords into one list, whereas TOC limit|3 splits them up by category (and occupies a lot of vertical space), and TOC limit|2 has no keywords in it at all. I'll look into ((CompactTOC8)) later, as it looks roughly like what I want, aside from that I don't want A...Z links. But I do believe that removing the keyword links would adversely affect the browseability of the article. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. The A...Z links are killable if you want to kill them. That said, the idea that every single keyword in this glossary should individually appear in the ToC is highly questionable. I can't think of any other article like that on the entire system, including very rich glossary articles like Glossary of cue sports terms. The MOS:GLOSSARIES draft guideline leans strongly away from this sort of thing, and in fact Template:CompactTOC8 was developed (by me, so I should know :-) specifically for alphabetic list/glossary articles of this sort. There is nothing magically (no pun intended) special about MTG that would require a ToC so bloated no one will actually read it. Readers can get immediately to the keyword they are interested in by clicking on "D" or "M" or whatever, and finding the entry there. If this problematic and cleanup-tagged-to-death article ever had such an overwhelming number of "D"- or "M"-initial entries that it was actually difficult to find an entry, the template supports more arbitrary usage, such as "Da–Dn" and "Do–Dz". It's a short article as such lists go, so this will never arise anyway. If CompactTOC8 is good enough for a big glossary page like the one I just linked to, then it's perfectly fine for this MTG page full of WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE violations, while it still exists, which might not be long, since I doubt I'm the only one who's noticed it's non-encyclopedic trivia. PS: Even if what this erstwhile template is doing were ideal, it would still be subst'd and deleted, since it's a single-transclusion template and thus serves no purpose as its own page in the template namespace. Dang, I need a nap now. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The keywords aren't listed in alphabetical order entirely, since we've grouped them into categories. It may be a good idea to reconsider that, of course, and I may do that.

This isn't really the place to discuss the four cleanup tags Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) added to that page, nor whether it satisfies or violates WP:NOT. Please redirect such discussion to its talk page. --Temporarily Insane (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2012 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TOCMonths3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused minor TOC variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused minor TOC variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:C20YearTOCship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:C20YearTOCawards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:C20YearTOCright (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:C20YearTOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and overwrought TOC layout variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TOC US states 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused minor TOC variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TOC US 48 states 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I've added a 48states=yes flag to ((TOC US states 2)), which eliminates the need for a new template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused minor TOC variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (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 Merge. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFC Challenge Cup squads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AFC Challenge Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:AFC Challenge Cup squads with Template:AFC Challenge Cup.
Both are related and would be easier/better to have just one template in the same manner as Template:Africa Cup of Nations. Banana Fingers (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. No reason to have redundant templates, and the "Africa Cup of Nations" template seems like a good model. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator, though it seems that the information is already duplicated. Aslbsl (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2012 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and superfluous alternative TOC layout. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CompactTOC8/Dev1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and overwrought variant of a template which already has enough features to do nearly anything. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't need unused templates, and even if it were used, it is easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (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) 15:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CONMEBOL TOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:UEFA TOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CAF TOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hugely overwrought manual TOCs which do nothing but lay out the present contents (hard-coded) in a horizontal rather than vertical list. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete CONMEBOL on the grounds that the list is not long enough to justify the level of bloat in the template. Keep UEFA and CAF: There is good reason to avoid a vertical TOC when you're talking about 50+ entries. —WFC— 15:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that it's hard-coded. I've flung up an absurdly quick example of a way to do this automatically at ((horizontaltoc)) which is already about 80% of the way to obviating the need for this sort of TOC. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Easily replaceable with standardized template; no reason for hardcoded instances like this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, as shown alternatives can be found. GiantSnowman 12:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete CONMEBOL and UEFA under CSD G7, per demonstration that more economical alternatives exist. I didn't create the CAF template though. —WFC— 20:04, 25 February 2012 (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 speedy keep, non-admin closure (nominator has retracted the nomination). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FGC stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

None of the articles about FGC stations actually use this system of naming. Liam987 12:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because when ((s-line)) has |system=FGC, it relies on the existence of ((FGC stations)). If the generated station names are wrong, either (i) amend Template:FGC stations so that it does follow the appropriate system of naming; or (ii) create suitable redirects. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Liam987 13:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong to propose this deletion Liam987 13:14, 20 February 2012 (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 no consensus, suggest further discussion to determine the best way to reduce the redundancy (merge or split). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BC Lions seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Calgary Stampeders seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Edmonton Eskimos seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hamilton Tiger-Cats seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Montreal Alouettes seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ottawa Renegades seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ottawa Rough Riders seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Saskatchewan Roughriders seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Toronto Argonauts seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Winnipeg Blue Bombers seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only duplicates a section of their parent navboxes, (Template:BC Lions, Template:Calgary Stampeders, Template:Edmonton Eskimos, Template:Hamilton Tiger-Cats, Template:Montreal Alouettes, Template:Ottawa Renegades, Template:Ottawa Rough Riders, Template:Saskatchewan Roughriders, Template:Toronto Argonauts, Template:Winnipeg Blue Bombers). 117Avenue (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The "parent navboxes," for the most part, show only CFL seasons (since 1958) whereas the seasons navboxes show a much broader range. Some clubs go back as far as the 1870s, and to include all of those seasons in the "parent navbox" would just add clutter. Cmm3 (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think one big list would be more clutter than two boxes. I should have made this a merge request, not a deletion one. 117Avenue (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Having two navboxes when one would suffice is much worse clutter. -DJSasso (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Other North American professional sports teams have the same setup (National Football League, National Hockey League, National Basketball Association). Worse comes to worse, I would prefer taking out the "seasons" sections from the parent boxes and keeping the seasons boxes. Cmm3 (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing it in the NHL and NBA, but it looks like the NFL is just as bad. 117Avenue (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NHL example: Calgary Flames, NBA Example: Toronto Raptors. Cmm3 (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No vote. There is no reason for two navboxes to present the same information. However, I am inclined to keep, as the team navboxes are a complete joke, IMNSHO. POV sections ("Important people", redundant links, non-links. As with Cmm3, I personally would rather remove the seasons, division champs and Grey Cup wins) from the main team navboxes. I think two navboxes that are focused on related topics is far, far superior to a giant omnibus navbox that hinders navigation by being such a mess. Resolute 20:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cmm3's rationales. However if the unique information were merged into the parent box, then that may be a good way to reduce clutter. If other leagues currently employ the same strategy, it may be best to create a broader discussion, rather than just changing the Canadian navboxes. Aslbsl (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2012 (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) 15:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lumpkin County, Georgia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Textbook WP:NENAN. Navigates only two towns. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Every county in the United States has navboxes, and there's no reason to make this one different. Moreover, there are twenty-four populated places in the county per the GNIS, so we can write twenty-two more articles that could be placed here. Finally, we delete things based on policy or established guidelines, not based on essays. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Basically what Nyttend said. But I'd prefer more links in it—even if they were redlinks. Killiondude (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree with Nyttend-thank you-RFD (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - part of a scheme; and no doubt more places will attain articles in time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2012 (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) 15:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NDP Leaders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Included in Template:NDP, along with much more. 117Avenue (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment perhaps it should be expanded to include provincial leaders? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relation, would someone want to navigate from David Lewis (politician) to Lorne Calvert? 117Avenue (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we would need 12 NDP templates, one for each province, which contains provincial leaders, and a national one. Don't you think one would navigate from one provincial NDP leader to another for the same province? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is why each province has their own box. 117Avenue (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence of a Template:NDP New Brunswick, or similar. I don't see any template listing the past and present leaders of the provincial parties. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Brunswick NDP Leaders, see the other current leaders for the others. 117Avenue (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, those aren't used on the NDP New Brunswick or similar party articles... perhaps they should become party templates for the provincial party, like NDP is for the national party. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Redundant. As to expanding the template to include all leaders from all provinces, I don't see the value. As it is, I find that such templates are usually only used to spam low value links to the end of an article (the Wikipedia equivalent to a Google bomb). In my view, it is barely relevant to link the leader of the Alberta ND's in the 1970s to the current leader. It is completely irrelevant to link the leader of the Alberta ND's in the 1970s to that of the Manitoba ND's of the 1980s. The more links you add to a navbox, the less value it holds. Keep the provinces separated. Resolute 15:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Keep or Merge into the main template. Perhaps I'm missing it, but I don't see the past leaders in the main template. This seems to be standard practice in the others that I've come across (Template:UK Labour Party, Template:Democratic Party (United States)). Aslbsl (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Does your browser lack a find function? 117Avenue (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It does not. My comments are emended. Aslbsl (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2012 (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) 15:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rushden & Diamonds F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The club no longer exists so this template serves no purpose. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: That the entity has ceased to exist doesn't mean that articles about it won't. Are you certain that the template will never serve its intended purpose? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our guidelines on the use of playing squad navboxes suggest they should only be placed on current members of a squad (we don't have per-season versions). As the club no longer exists, it no longer has any players, and those players it did have have (hopefully) registered with other teams and thus been added to new navboxes. We've a long precedent of the same with other dissolved clubs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, obsolete. GiantSnowman 10:17, 24 February 2012 (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.