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).

The result of the discussion was relist at Dec 16. Primefac (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Miss Turkey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

connects only two articles. Frietjes (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not helpful. I've just sent Miss Turkey 2010 to AfD as it seems to be the only stand alone article for a specific year. All the important stuff about the event is already at Miss Turkey. Legacypac (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2015 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 16:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Chris Haw (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Don't need a template for two books Legacypac (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep, connects 4 articles. Frietjes (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2015 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 16:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Shane Claiborne (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Don't need a template for two books Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, connects 5 articles. Frietjes (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2015 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was relist at Dec 16. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Zoos footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template seems to be added to every zoo navbox, which is not appropriate use, as the toplcs listed here are too broad to be linked in a geography specific navbox such as ((Zoos of California)). Fails WP:NAVBOX. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, which I partly support, but then logically, the other links maybe also should be removed? Before I express any opionion, which links at the footer would you suggest as alternative? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the topics covered here are "too broad". They are essentially the same topics as are in the left column headings (zoos, aquariums, etc.), and they replace items that would otherwise probably be in the See Also section. Looking at the "Zoos of" templates now, I realize that the footer is actually redundant, since the categories at the left are linked. So if we retain the links on the left, I think this template becomes unnecessary. Don Lammers (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Are your serious Rob? You know there is a discussion ongoing, you are involved in that discussion, and you can see there is no consensus that items on a list which is listed on a template can't have this template. In fact this zoo template is the prime template focused on at the discussion. I put the templates on every zoo article, it is entirely appropriate and immensely useful for the Zoos project and for Wikipedia readers interested in particular zoos, and you once again are taking away weeks of my work for no reason other than you think something is policy when it is not only not a policy, not a guideline, but by ongoing discussion consensus seems perfectly fine. And Dan Koehl is taking your word as template-gospel? Please, Rob or Dan, put the templates back. Thanks.EDIT: strike, it's not the ((Zoos)) template, my mistake and apologies. Randy Kryn 18:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)/ 16:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we have ((Zoos)) why do we need this? We can just have two footers at each article, one like ((Zoos of California)) and the generic ((Zoos)) together -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point, the template Zoos footer isn't the same as template zoos. And yes, the ((Zoos)) template seems to me appropriate for each article. Randy Kryn 14:33, 21 November, 2015 (UTC)

  Not sure how to interpret this, are you suggesting a fusion of the two templates, e.g. that the template "Zoos of X-region" should in its footer incorporate the template ((Zoos))?Dan Koehl (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I am not suggesting a merger. I am suggesting we use template as other articles uses templates, that is, when appropriate, have more than one template as the footer templates on an article. There is no reason for a regional template to include generic information, when there is a generic template to provide those links. Just use a second template. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I created this template because I thought these items would be handy to have in individual zoo articles, and I had the same experience as Dan K. (see User talk:Dan Koehl#Zoos navbox, where my zoo article edits were removed on the basis of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. I'm lazy, so rather than inserting these entries manually in every single "Zoos of" template, I created this template. I would personally prefer to use the two templates as 70.51.44.60 suggests. Randy K above says this bidirectional rule does not have consensus, but on at least two occasions in the past years, individual zoo articles have gotten modified to remove the second template, based on this rule. Putting at least some of that information "in the same template" (by using the footer) seemed like a better solution than not having any of the information. If we can keep people from editing out the Zoos template, there is no need for this template. Don Lammers (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have gone back before I posted and looked up the original, which was back in 2012. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Zoo/Archive 3#Zoos template. Don Lammers (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for whenever there is consensus that an article is improved by transcluding this template. Thincat (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2015 (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).