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 with a 'attention=yes' or equivalent parameter in the corresponding WikiProject banner on the talk page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expert-subject (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Expert-subject-multiple (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Back in 2009, a user posted on the talk page: "Anyone adding an expert-whatever template in good faith perceives some content problem in the article but finds it beyond his expertise to fix it. But if the editor adding the expert tag knows where to look for experts, e.g. wikiprojects, he/she can just post a question/request there instead of adding the name of the wikiproect to a template. Adding the name of some wikiprojects to a template doesn't automatically trigger any alarm bells at those wikiprojects."

I'm finding untouched transclusions dating from 2007, suggesting that this template is only building up a backlog that is not decreasing in any way. I have used it several times dating back to 2008 (e.g. FoxTrot), but never seen it work — because again, the template doesn't notify the WikiProjects. This template is beyond useless, and does nothing but add template creep. If an article needs attention from a WikiProject, how about just asking the WikiProject on their talk page instead of cluttering up the article with another template? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ETA: Including ((Expert-subject-multiple)) since it's the same thing but DOUBLED! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Less than helpful template; non-specific and of little help to both readers and editors. henrik•talk 00:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment sounds like a bot should be created for informing wikiprojects... 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I remember this template well, having been one of the people who helped merge and redirect the then-deprecated ((expert)) into it. The template's documentation advises explaining why the template has been added on the talk page, and removing it if no explanation is given. I've seen a lot of uses of this template but very few explanations for why (too many were just drive-by tags by AWB users), so if this template isn't deleted I'd strongly recommend going over existing uses and taking out those that have been added with no apparent reason. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not useful, portals are not a group of editors, and is not responded to. Not useful. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 02:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with conditions, the template does add articles to "Foo articles needing expert attention", which are usually watched/categorized by the various WikiProjects. However, it is a duplication of the "attention" parameter in the Template:WPBannerMeta. I'm wondering if these templates are deleted, then there should be a bot that would add to the article's talk page the relevant Project banner and the parameter "attention=yes". Otherwise, you're going to lose a whole bunch of articles that were tagged for help. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless conditions like what Funandtrvl are implemented. Just because it isn't used appropriately doesn't mean it can't have a function. Why not just have it notify wikiprojects? Aslbsl (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This should be orphaned, rather than just merely deleted, per the comments above. However, I agree that it's current set up needs to be changed. Most of these big unchecked categories are just that, unchecked. They typically only get used is if used by a not or someone uses them to make a list for AWB, or some other tools. - jc37 00:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point. One could use AWB to add the WikiProject banner to the talk pages. This template shouldn't be deleted unless that is part of the conditions--to wait until the bot or AWB work is done. --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the nominator mainly objects to it failing to notify wikiprojects, it seems the issue is more with that aspect of the template, rather than the nature of the template itself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But fixing the template does nothing to fix years of prior drive-by transclusions which did not notify the wikiprojects. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not? Those transclusions could be replaced by talk page project banners, correcting the error and making use of this little "database" of existing transclusions, most of which were likely done in good faith and, I can only presume, in most instances with good reasons. Or am I missing something here? --195.14.221.106 (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix: per Devil's Advocate Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:57, 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) 06:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Golden Threads F.C. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all red links. Frietjes (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A useful navbox would, you know, actually navigate somewhere. Resolute 04:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It would work fine if there were articles there. Aslbsl (talk) 03:33, 2 March 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) 06:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dalek video games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant. Everything listed in this is also in Template:Doctor Who video games. Digifiend (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subset of ((Doctor Who video games)). — Edokter (talk) — 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since even if it should exist separately from ((Doctor Who video games)), only two of the games are directly about Daleks (by title at least). I believe one of them (City of the Daleks) is not featured on the main template, so it should be added. Aslbsl (talk) 03:37, 2 March 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 after either creating a (a) category, (b) section in the article, or (c) stand alone article which contains the information. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Minnesota Lynx first round draft picks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox clutter. This information would be much better served on the Minnesota Lynx article in a section titled "All-time first round draft picks" Jrcla2 (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Before anyone jumps in and says that these types of navboxes exist for the Major League Baseball and National Football League WikiProjects, I want to mention (1) I don't think those should exist either but haven't gotten around to nominating them, and (2) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per many discussions in the past that these sort of navboxes should not exist. WP:NAVBOX specifically mentions this sort of thing is better served by being a succession box. And WP:EMBED suggest that in nav lists only links that would expect to already be found in an article (if it were "complete") should be in a nav list. You can't assume that players drafted in every year would appear in each players page. Thus its just a mess links of no direct relation. -DJSasso (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Without getting into whether this should be kept or deleted, I note that there seemed to be a weak consensus to generally use navboxes over succession boxes at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_90#Using_navboxes_where_succession_boxes_would_suffice.—Bagumba (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I currently dont have a strong opinion either way as far as first round picks of an individual team. I hope whatever the outcome is here that it is not used as a precedent for MLB or NFL. Those projects have more participation, and a broader consensus would be gained from a TfD on a similar template in those projects.—Bagumba (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have left notices at WikiProject Baseball and WikiProject National Football League.—Bagumba (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would you invite completely unrelated projects to this discussion? Especially ones who clearly use this type of template. That is stacking the deck for one side of the argument. Some projects like them others don't. While I am sure it was unintentional you just totally canvassed one side of a heated debate. -DJSasso (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The concept of a draft and the significance attributed to a first round pick seemed related. Perhaps there is something about women's basketball that is unrelated that I missed? If it is a heated debate, input from a wider community seems relevant to make an informed decision. Note that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." If there are other similar projects that I missed, please invite them. I invited these because I was aware of them, not to add to "one side of a heated debate." Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the projects canvassed were the exact ones mentioned by the nominator.—Bagumba (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Right...and that is the reason I commented. You invited the exact ones he mentioned thus one side of an issue which is exactly what canvass says not to do. By inviting ones known to use it you biased any neutral discussion that will take place by people not necessarily involved in any project. Like I said I am sure it was an accident but inviting the two he specifically mentioned sure seems like you are stacking the vote now from those two projects which will swamp any independent discussion that could have happened between people not in any project. In essence by inviting two groups that have created a local consensus you have possibly insured that that local consenus might overwhelm this discussion where we might have had discussion by the wider community. -DJSasso (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Templates could exist in a project for a valid reason, or nobody has gotten around to deleting them, or there could be unreasonable reasons. You seem to think the latter; I'm not aware if that is the case, so accept my apologies for assuming good faith if they are misguided. If I really wanted to canvas in the truest sense, I wouldn't have provided notification here.—Bagumba (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Like I indicated I am sure it wasn't meant with any malice and that it was done in good faith. Just get touchy as one of the smaller sport projects when we constantly have to hear. "Baseball does it so you have to do it." Well no we don't have to do it, they can decide to use them and we can decide not to use them. So when you invited them it raised my ire a bit. Especially since they are often so militant about their way is the right way. -DJSasso (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets several of the characteristics under "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines..." of WP:NAVBOX, at least #1 and #2. Possibly #4, since even though the article does not currently seem to exist, it can certainly be created; deleting the navbox based on the current article status would just be WP:OTHERSTUFF. And to some extent, even #3 applies. Rlendog (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I call attention to the two-step analysis required here: (1) is the underlying concept that is the subject of this navbox notable per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS guidelines; and (2) does the navbox satisfy the guidelines of WP:NAVBOX? Notability requires significant, recurring media coverage, separate and apart from routine game coverage or passing mention elsewhere. One or more significant stand-alone articles or other publications are required, independent of the subject—no media guides or other team publications are sufficient to establish notability because they are not independent of the subject. Among other things, the navbox guidelines require a supporting Wikipedia article. This particular honor fails both steps of the analysis. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not an expert on WNBA, but other sports regularly have coverage on past 1st round draft picks to satisfy WP:LISTN. It seems reasonable to require the same to be demonstrated here.—Bagumba (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NENAN. Navboxes like these are simply clutter designed to spam irrelevant links across multiple articles. They also tend to needlessly multiply like a virus. Resolute 04:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whether or not this particular template is kept, about which I'm neutral, should not be considered a decision on the other sports. There is no List of Minnesota Lynx first round draft picks, which makes me lean towards delete, but for the baseball project, all 30 franchises have that page at FL status, and I have on my to do list to get the overarching page to FL so we can have a FT. Navboxes in that case are appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. The problem is that people misplace the navbox. In your case, a navbox that links each team's list of draft picks article is appropriate. A navbox that links first round picks is not. In my view, the former is a closed loop (good) navbox and the latter is an open loop (bad) navbox. Resolute 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  While it's useful to be able to navigate from one team to another if I have a general interest in a sport, it also seems useful to be able to navigate from one player to another if I have a general interest in a team. Can you elaborate on your rationale for limiting navboxes at the team level?—Bagumba (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to speak for him, but a link between team articles are higher value links because they are more directly related to each other and answer the question where is a reader of the article most likely going to want to go to next. If they are on a team draft pick page its likely they are probably going to want to look at another team draft pick page. Whereas having this template on all the players pages who are on it fails the idea that every link on the template should be expected to be included in the article that template on. For example a player drafted in say 1962 is very very remotely related to the guy who was drafted in 2010 and isn't likely to be included in the page of the 2010 player. This makes the link a low value link because a reader reading the page of the 2010 draftee's page isn't likely to go to the 1962 page. Instead a See Also link to just the draftee page would be much more high value and would avoid clutter instead of including all the links of all the players. In essence that they were both drafted by the same team doesn't really define each other. -DJSasso (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see another scenario being a reader who knows about a specific player, and then wants to find out about other 1st round draft picks of that team. A lot of readers start off only caring/knowing about a specific player, and then wanting to branch off on that player's team's history, perhaps without having much interest in other teams in the league. Sure a player from 2010 is not closely related to one from 1962, but I could also argue a team in one division is not that closely related to a team from a different division or even a different conference.—Bagumba (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Right which is why I specifically said you would link to the teams draft pick page in the See Also section. Then anyone who wants to look at the other draft pics of the team can. This way there is one single high value link that can contribute more context than what can be found in a navbox. The problem with navboxes that just throw a lot of links out is that you lose all context. Generally its more helpful in situations like this just to link directly to the page that already covers this information in the See Also section. This solves both the ability see the other players if someone does actually choose to and prevents link clutter which often causes the high value relevant links to be hidden in a see of less relevant links. -DJSasso (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Generally most navboxes have a link to the article on the subject of the template to provide the context that you speak of. In the specific case of Minnesota Lynx first round draft picks, it needs to be demonstrated is such as article could be created and pass WP:LISTN. However, in the general case of a specific team's first round picks (e.g. in baseball project), I fail to see why a template of "Team X first round picks" is guilty of "just throw a lot of links out" if it has a link to Team X first round picks. By that measure, all navboxes "throw a lot of links out" when a "See also" is always an option.—Bagumba (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Which is exactly the reason that navboxes are supposed to only include links that would already be found on the page if the page were in a "completed" state. Yes many if not most navboxes are misused. Yes the navbox has a link to that page, but what I am saying is only that link should be on the page. Cluttering the page with low value links hides the important ones and hurts the article. Especially for those who are not experts on the topic. -DJSasso (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  What makes this "open" instead of "closed"? I'm not sure I follow your meaning. Do you mean that "closed" loops will have no more additions, while "open" loops will add new members to the loop? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  To reply to both you and Bagumba - that is one aspect of my definition of closed vs. open loop, yes. In my view the more links you add to a navbox, the less useful it becomes. So yes, a navbox that contains the 30 lists will not expand and is closed. One with players is always expanding, and each new addition carries only marginal relevance to the existing names. Some open loops are unavoidable, however, such as a navbox for each season a team plays.

  The major aspect of my view of open vs. closed loop is the number of theoretical navboxes for a topic. A draft picks article really has only two reasonable navboxe uses available: One that links to other lists of the set, and one that links to the team navbox. Player articles have a nearly unlimited potential if you let it happen. I always like to pull out this image in these discussions as an example of what I am talking about. You create a navbox for draft location. You create another for being on a championship team (and frankly, that is arbitrary, if one team deserves a navbox, all do, whether they win or not), another for an award. Another for a more abstract (POV) concept like relation to a "rivalry". Instead of a few links to the most relevant related articles, player bios can become this open loop of literally thousands of links all mashed together. And it is always growing. Individually, I find that navboxes such as the one under discussion is of negligible value. Once you combine them all, I consider them to be of negative value. Resolute 17:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Derek Jeter has five high-level navboxes, with other navboxes enclosed. By default, they are all collapsed. Still, clutter is a valid concern. My proposed solution has always been to put a cap on number of naxboxes in an article; it's only the highly accomplished athlete where this is a problem, which is a small percentage of articles. I don't believe the solution is to stifle the many useful navboxes due to the clutter in a few articles.—Bagumba (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That is where you and I ultimately disagree. I do not consider these navboxes to be useful at all. Putting a link to List of Minnesota Lynx first round draft picks on each article is useful. Putting links to 20 other players with no real relationship to the article subject is not. Think of what WP:NBFILL says: "a navbox serves the function of a see also section, but does so more efficiently" - but if you wouldn't put those 20 names into the see also section of an article, why would you put it in a navbox? Resolute 20:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I would not say I completely disagree with you, but I think this is evidence that there are beliefs for navbox usage for which there is no consensus yet. Regarding the essay WP:NBFILL, more links are possible in a navbox because they are collapsible, which is the efficiency and added value navboxes provide over "see alsos". I think there is agreement that notability of List of Minnesota Lynx first round draft picks should be demonstrated.—Bagumba (talk) 20:48, 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) 19:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Official statistics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used on only one page (official statistics) and is an odd combination of links that have only only tangential relevance to the template topic. Decstop (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is. If it is profoundly restructured, then it might be useful, because official statistics is an important area of statistical practice.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:17, 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.

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) 19:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1983-84 Stanley Cup Champions navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

link farm - project consensus not to use templates like this. Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 18:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Recreation of previously deleted template. Its come to TFD and been deleted a number of times. Had it not already been put up for TFD would have speedied it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per project consensus. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clutter, WP:NENAN. Resolute 23:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - useless clutter. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:55, 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) 06:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Richard Petty Milestone Wins (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't think we need a template for this. we don't have articles titled 'Richard Petty's XXth win'. it would be better to just list these milestones in an article, rather than have this as a navigation box. are we going to seriously do this for every driver? Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This can be/is in the article. No other driver has it, no matter how many wins they earned. -- Nascar1996^{(Talk • Contribs)} 20:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - belongs in the prose of the article, not in a template. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Isshin-ryū organizations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is un-used and is a link farm in disguise. jmcw (talk) 16:13, 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 after replacement Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Italian cheeses TOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

hardcoded instance of ((alphanumeric TOC)). Code is simple enough to be substituted into the one article that uses it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of roads in Toronto/eastwestTOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:List of roads in Toronto/northsouthTOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hard-coded TOCs which include every section heading: can easily be replaced with ((horizontal TOC)). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I've already switched over the templates as a test just to verify, and yes, the standard template works a bit better in this case. Imzadi 1979 → 11:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm guessing this is a fairly new template, I certainly never found it when I made this. Delete if this new TOC format works all the same. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Is it possibe to hide the numbers in the TOC that now replaces it? Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That'll require changes to the site's CSS, but it's planned. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this template must be replaced by a horizontal TOC on the two articles in question before it is deleted. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:30, 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Glossary of boiler terminology/TOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Glossary of boiler terminology already has its section headers in an alphabetic range format, so a normal TOC works fine here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Working version of the page, with table formatting, this (quite minor) template, and references.
• Broken, after Thumperward's edit, with formatting and references gone. Which of these is a better article? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Also it's considered usual to notify the major editors of templates you're seeking to delete. I've notified user:Kerdek on your behalf. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In answer to your question, the second is by far the better article as long as the refs are fixed up. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The work done on the article is orthogonal to the deletion rationale, which stands even with the old revision of the page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chris, by "orthogonal", did you mean irrelevant and not pertinent? If so, I suggest that would be a much more understandable point. Regards, mbeychok (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see no reason why a standard TOC and standard references can't be used here They have to be done right, of course, which may require some repairs if the template is deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for exactly the same reasons as those expressed by The Rambling Man. Regards, mbeychok (talk) 07:16, 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TOC Philippine regions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused hardcoded TOC variant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and quite, quite insane hardcoded TOC template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant; possibly speedy as patent nonsense/ snowball. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused hardcoded TOC variant with no obvious use case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what definition of "unused" you're working to, but it's used on two pages. Its purpose is to display a navigable table of contents without having to list every last section on the page, which is helpful when you have a page divided into a few large sections each of which has a zillion tiny ones that you don't want in the contents. Gurch (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops: missed the non-article transclusions. I believe that ((TOC limit|2)) fulfils the requested need on the existing transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep you can use this to link to anchors instead of section heaadings, especially if you use HRs to separate sections. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Can" != "should". TOCs which don't act as they should are confusing to readers. The existing transclusions just link to headers, as they should. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way is this alternative not adequate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have noticed that some articles have significant paragraphs that should be indicated in the TOC, but with the flow of the article, wouldn't fit with building section headers/flow... since it would make alot of section headers, unless you have very small sections following it with "miscellaneous" as a title. This template would be a good way around that. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please provide examples. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Such as a tabular list article with sortable. If you build a table, there are no sections in it, but the base sort is ordered in a particular way, where you can add anchors, and then have this TOC template be used to jump to portions of the list (like entries 100-200) . 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is counterproductive to invent new uses for a redundant template simply too keep it around for the sole purpose of introducing even more inconsistency to our handling of TOCs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 18:30, 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 deleted after the February 17 discussion concluded. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Human Rights Abuses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

User:Frietjes "added" the tfd template on the 17 February 2012 but missed to do the last steps. This template was discussed at Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Human_Rights_Abuses but there is no progress since the beginning. This is only a completion of the last nominating - my vote is neutral! mabdul 09:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm worried about neutrality here. What's the use case for this template? "Human rights abuses" is really an extremely wide subject to stick in an infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment why exactly do we have two discussions open? see here. which steps did I miss? Frietjes (talk) 17:42, 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.

Template:Infobox Pro Football retired (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The result of the discussion was delete. Magioladitis (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC) less than a dozen uses, and can be replaced by template:infobox pro football player, which has over 700 transclusions. Frietjes (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Could these not both be merged somewhere? 700 transclusions for a sport biography infobox is very low. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, I would do the merge... mabdul 09:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing to merge, all parameters are in the template:infobox pro football player and the retired template is bad coded (html table) and has no doc! mabdul 10:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I did some work in renaming parameters. I think now both Infoboxes use the same names for their parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:29, 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; deleted as G7 by Fang Aili (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Canadian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Does not appear to serve a useful purpose anymore. Looks like the author tried to blank it, and then an IP cam along and finished the job. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - totally useless. mabdul 09:54, 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.