< October 1	October 3 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group A standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is reproducing what could easily be produced in a wikitable. Serves no purpose other than to minimise space on the main article according to the page. There are several other templates like this and all should be deleted. NapHit (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created that template because we have to do 5 edit to update for the same table. The re-creation of that template is after of this discussion, and the description of the page was copy by the same template used for the 2012 Olympic Games (do you what to delete that too?). Stigni (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why the hell do you ask for this template to be removed, when there are 7 others that are doing a similar job? Also, I state the same reason as Stigni. If we deleted this template, then you had to waste a lot of time and bandwidth space on editing 5 articles that need that info. JDamanWP (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those templates save time and bandwidth as mentioned, they are used in 2 articles, so you don't have to update both of them. Just edit the template and it's done in both. 1 edit instead of 2! Kante4 (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason to delete the template and dozens of other templates like this. They do save space, time and efford. Asking for a deletion of this template seems like "I don't have anything else to do, so let's change the majority of sports tournaments-related articles in wikipedia and create a mess". Completely unintelligible. 94.67.110.239 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIf you delete this template that means taht you should also wipe Wikipedia for a lot of templates like this. You do not specify your reasoning for the deletion of this template (considering that it does not brake any rules in my opinion) that is very important to its main article.Critviz (talk) 5:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As much as the piling-on above and the general lack of solid arguments therein is distasteful, and even though so far as I know this isn't really a done thing on season articles, it doesn't seem especially inappropriate. What would be better is if these were refactored into some simpler meta-template (with view-edit links) quickly before they are used everywhere. I'll ping WT:FOOTY. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the users that state I did not specify a reason i clearly did. They are reproducing information that can easily be included in the article via a wikitable. This a short-term solution to a problem, as when the group stage is finished in December there will be no purpose to these templates, as they will no longer need updating. As this is one of the main reasons people are keen to keep them (as it saves time editing different articles, which is a lazy attitude), there is absolutely no point in keeping them s they will be obsolete come December. As for saving space, its hardly worth it, considering they only save around 1,000 bytes, which will equate to around 8,000-9,000 bytes, seems pointless to have templates to save that much space. NapHit (talk) 12:10, 4 October 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National Transitional Council (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As the National Transitional Council was dissolved on 8 August, this template (which lists the "current members" of the NTC) no longer serves it original purpose. I think it is obsolete, and should be deleted. See "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 24#Template:Lords of Appeal in Ordinary" for a similar example. Gabbe (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove redlinks, change the header and keep (at least until notability reviews make the number of linked articles shrink so that the box falls under WP:NENAN). To counter your example, should Template:Tony Blair Cabinet be deleted because its subject does not exist anymore? Keφr (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Implemented in this edit. Keφr (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite honest, I think ((Tony Blair Cabinet)) is even more of a candidate for deletion. Unlike this template, that one isn't even transcluded on any page. Gabbe (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should choose my examples more carefully. Or perhaps that template should be actually put somewhere. How about ((The Beatles))? My point was, that navbox can still be useful, even if the entity it refers to no longer exists. Keφr (talk) 06:06, 7 October 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category see also (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Performs the same function as ((See also)). Also, but I guess it could be edited, the style is potentially confusing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are a few functions that this template performs that the "see also" template does not:

Up to 40 pages can be used (vs. 15 with "see also");
The "label" function is used for changing "See also Category", instead of the target page (as in the "see also" tmp);
Categories on sister wikis can be linked also.
--So I would hate to lose that functionality, unless someone can update the see also template to do the above functions first, before this tmp would be deleted. Since there is also a "see also2" tmp, I'm not sure which one could be updated to include categories better. You may want to check at WP:VPT. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I would like to see it used with 40 pages!!! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I agree, but it does make sense as said below to keep the "see alsos" separate for each namespace, i.e., the ones for articles and this one for the category namespace. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Funandtrvl. These functions are not available n other templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Performs the same function, yes, but does not replace. This template is meant to perform the same function in a different area. Best Regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the well laid argument by Funandtrvl. Mar4d (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Funandtrvl. Unless and until the regular ((See also)) template is updated with comparable functionality, we should keep this one. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 09:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Funandtrvl. Note that for see also items that link to category pages, the principle of least astonishment suggests you make a distinction between the two types of see also links. That doesn't preclude any implementation optimizations under the cover. 72.244.206.81 (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Cheers, NYSMtalk page 11:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Funandtrvl. I've found this quite useful for cross-referencing in articles I've been working on.Raellerby (talk) 20:00, 3 October 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) 04:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kaufmann's history (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Also inaccurate, as only a handful of Hess's became Kaufmann's. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No comment on WP:NENAN, but this template is redundant. An embedded infobox should do it fine. Best Regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:06, 2 October 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) 03:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Windows Phone devices (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Replaced by ((Windows Phone)) Codename Lisa (talk) 16:12, 2 October 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) 03:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Windows Phone devices (NT based) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Replaced by ((Windows Phone)) Codename Lisa (talk) 16:12, 2 October 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 redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox arcade game/sandbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox video game/sandbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose ~~merging~~ redirecting Template:Infobox arcade game/sandbox ~~with~~ to Template:Infobox video game/sandbox.
This appears to be a malformed attempt to create a sandbox for Template:Infobox Arcade Game which was merged into "Template:Infobox video game" in March 2010‎. In the alternate, I wish to nominate this template for userfication because it is the result of a proposed template split by an inexperienced editor. His proposal has not received much commentary and he may wish to tweak it some more in his own sandbox before it is accepted/rejected. -Thibbs (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Zero transclusions. -Thibbs (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to merge this: it's a failed proposal by an editor who has retired. Just redirect it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, well played. I suppose the merge idea was really more of an afterthought to my original idea of userfication, and by merge I really did mean redirect. So I've changed the request above. It's an important distinction to make and your comment somewhat restores my faith in general RfD-originating merges, Chris. -Thibbs (talk) 15:29, 4 October 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) 03:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pakistan and state terrorism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Extremely POV template created by a now-blocked user. Most of the links on the template are not relevant, making this a poorly-attempted WP:SYNTHESIS. The links in the bottom half of the template almost entirely belong on Template:Terrorism in Pakistan instead. I propose deleting this as it serves no purpose other than pushing a single POV. Mar4d (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Clear POV; The template is really incomplete and a much better version can be created. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 04:55, 4 October 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.