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; no objections Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox SBTVD standard (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (8 transclusions)

Template:Infobox technology standard (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (33 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox SBTVD standard with Template:Infobox technology standard.
Similar templates. No need for a specific SBTVD variant.

(See also proposal to merge Infobox W3C standard) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: My preference would be to drop the Spanish and Portuguese titles, but I'm happy to hear alternative suggestions. If kept, the merged temate could use a single, generic, |native_name= parameter, with the titles for SBTDV standards entered using ((Lang-pt))/((Lang-es)) within ((Plainlist)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Hi. These two template seem to have very little in common. But I am asking myself: Is it bad to have author, organization and other technology data in SBTVD pages? A little consistency isn't bad at all; it enables better machine readability for infoboxes. Still, all these seem to have no immediate ROI. But again, is it bad? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:38, 12 February 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). 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 G8 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox South Korean musician awards/music show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, may be a subtemplate of template:Infobox South Korean musician awards, but cannot confirm since that template is deleted. Frietjes (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:54, 8 February 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). 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 in favour of the current roster template Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canberra Capitals 2014/15 Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Canberra Capitals 2013/14 Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Canberra Capitals 2012/13 Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Canberra Capitals 2011/12 Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Canberra Capitals 2010/11 Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox has been determined to be redundant to Template:Canberra Capitals current roster per previous TfM discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 12#Template:Canberra Capitals current roster. The standard practice of the major league sports WikiProjects is to maintain current roster templates, not year-by-year annual roster templates. Apart from the current team navboxes, the only annual roster navboxes should be those for teams that win major national or international championships; in this case the 2014/15 team navbox needs to go. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Please note that the second through fifth templates were added to this TfD discussion on 9 February 2015 in response to Rikster2's comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)][reply]

• delete, better to just keep Template:Canberra Capitals current roster current. Frietjes (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous TfM discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 12#Template:Canberra Capitals current roster. I doubt that the current roster will be kept up to date though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous discussion. Can we also delete the 2010/11 through 2013/14 Canberra Capitals templates as well? Also, if someone is creating a new template every year, why wouldn't that person just use those energies to update the current roster template? Rikster2 (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rikster2: Sorry, Rik, I missed these because the 2014/15 roster navbox was not categorized. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Frietjes:@Hawkeye7: Please clarify if you think we should delete all five of these annual rosters. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but, in the event that per-season articles are created, it would be good to either (a) merge the content with the talk page, (b) merge the content with the article, (c) merge the content into the edit history of Template:Canberra Capitals current roster, or (d) move them all to article space as "20XX-YY Canberra Capitals season" , and redirect them to the various sections of the main article. basically anything that preserves this information for use later. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 9 February 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). 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 to ((colorbox)) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

appears this never caught on, and just fixed at least one place where it was confused with ((colour box)). if this is really needed, it should be merged with ((league icon)). suggest deleting and redirecting to ((color box)) or ((colorbox)). Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/ redirect per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there must be a better way to name ((color box)) and ((colorbox)) than the existence of a space. Can those be merged? -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• If deleted redirect to template:colorbox per matching non-spaced version -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete per 70.51.200.101; it's quite clearly a plausible redirect for ((colorbox)) if its present condition be deemed unnecessary, and there's no problematic content that needs to be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 14 February 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). 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 ((Infobox Deutsche Bahn station)) into Infobox station, taking care the wrapper at ((Infobox Bahnhof)) doesn't break Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Deutsche Bahn station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox Deutsche Bahn station with Template:Infobox station.
As with ((Infobox China station)), is redundant to ((Infobox station)). No features that aren't already in Infobox station, and aside from locale, ds100 and exits could probably be substituted. Should be merged first using wrapper and then substitution and cleanup.

In addition, if Infobox Deutsche Bahn station is merged, ((Infobox Bahnhof)) should be modified to fit Infobox station. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use ((ping|Jc86035)) to reply to me 14:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. No need for a separate, near-identical template for one country. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 8 February 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). 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 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Paris metro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox Paris metro with Template:Infobox station.
As with ((Infobox China station)), is redundant to ((Infobox station)). No features that aren't already in Infobox station, although the use of subtitle is unclear, as there is a complete lack of useful documentation. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use ((ping|Jc86035)) to reply to me 14:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. No need for a separate, near-identical template for one city. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Should the link to List of stations of the Paris Métro at the end of the template be removed? I don't think it needs to be there Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use ((ping|Jc86035)) to reply to me 12:54, 12 February 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). 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. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox China station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox China station with Template:Infobox station.
((Infobox China station)) is quite similar to ((Infobox station)) and contains no parameters specific to Chinese railway or subway stations. [EDIT: Except station-code (pinyin), which could be added in a new section for "Chinese name", similar to the "Korean name" section. Some other parameters, such as bus and airport, could be transferred into existing parameters in Infobox station, such as connections. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use ((ping|Jc86035)) to reply to me 10:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)][reply]

There would be issues with the logos, but checks could be performed for all of the common combinations using a parser function (replacing with symbols in ((Rail-interchange))) and the rest could be dealt with manually. Merging should be performed by first changing the template to a wrapper for Infobox station and then substituting all instances and replacing any parser functions. The template could be retained as just a modified wrapper (e.g. replacing the logos with the symbol implementation), if preferable, as there are over 1,600 transclusions. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use ((ping|Jc86035)) to reply to me 10:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. No need for a separate, near-identical template for one country. I see no need to keep as a wrapper, but would keep the title as a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. I would much rather see general "transliteration" parameters that supersede the "Korean name" parameters and could be used for this templates station-code parameter as well. For me, having three different transliterations in an infobox is overkill, and IMO a single one should suffice, but I can live with having three different ones if we must. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:54, 16 February 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). 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 remove external links using this template, substitute other uses, and delete. This is a difficult discussion to close, because very few arguments are brought forward on why to delete or to keep the template. There is consensus in this discussion that GameFAQs should not be used as an external link. But TfD doesn't traditionally concern itself with whether or not something should be used as an external link, and is the wrong venue to hold that discussion - consensus found locally at TfD about the issue could normally be easily brushed aside by anyone on procedural grounds. That said, during this discussion, changes have been made to our external links policy, which seem to have found consensus and is the correct venue, and the discussion here reaffirms that consensus.
There is a clear numerical majority that says we should delete the template, so the outcome of this discussion is delete. The large number (1000+) of current transclusions have to be either substituted or removed before deletion. With the consensus that GameFAQs is not suitable as an external link, substituting the templates when used to create an external link would be unhelpful and against the spirit of the discussion here, and the only reasonable action is to remove all external links that use this template. When this template is used for anything other than an external link - which probably only comes down to references, if anything - This discussion doesn't show consensus, and the safe thing to do is to substitute the template in those cases. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per this discussion. GameFAQs is a website that mainly provides walkthroughs, which fails WP:VG/EL: "external links should not be added to include material that explicitly defines the gameplay on certain aspects of the video game", which is exactly what walkthroughs provide. Knowing how to finish a game, where to find all collectables or what cheats there are isn't "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", failing WP:ELYES no. 3. GameFAQs isn't a "[site] that contain[s] neutral and accurate material". It also fails WP:ELMAYBE no. 4: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

GameFAQs itself isn't considered a WP:VG/RS. There are countless other websites that also provide walkthroughs, so favoring GameFAQs (and having it in a template, no less) is WP:LINKSPAM (or maybe giving it undue weight, but not sure if that applies to EL). The template has been around for a long time, but that not a reason to keep it. Soetermans. T / C 10:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - In any good video game article, every piece of useful information provided by GameFAQs (release dates, developer info, explanatory screenshots, and a compilation of notable reviews) should be included anyway, and with reliable sources to back them up. So there's no reason for GameFAQs to ever be included as an external link, much less have its own template.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This template generates a link that is not sanctioned by WP:EL. Once in blue moon, GameFAQs can be used as a source for something very trivial. But this template doesn't help that case either. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:VG/EL is wrong in assuming that external links must abide by WP:ISNOT. That assumption would preclude Wikimedia sister project links. GameFAQs includes a lot of information that Wikipedia deems minutiae such as release and ratings data, credits, yet are still useful for comprehensive coverage and further study. I'd treat GameFAQs links the same way as imdb or MobyGames links. - hahnchen 12:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: GameFAQs isn't used as a WP:VG/RS on Wikipedia, because the information provided is user-submitted without any oversight. If we would add release dates, credits or ratings to articles we have to look elsewhere, so why link to GameFAQs for that kind of information when we've decided for ourselves that we can't use it? Besides, WP:ELYES no. 3 reads: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" and WP:ELMAYBE no. 4 reads: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." GameFAQs is solely user-submitted and we can't check if the material provided is accurate. --Soetermans. T / C 13:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

imdb and MobyGames relies on user submissions and are not reliable sources. Wikipedia is better with links to them. - hahnchen 16:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but they're not the same, are they? As far as I know, those two provide content unlike any other websites. There are hundreds of websites that offer the same content as GameFAQs. --Soetermans. T / C 17:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm inclined to agree with User:Hahnchen. That a website is created with user-submitted content shouldn't be related to usefulness as an external link. For example, the user-generated IMDb is one of the most popular film-related websites, and nearly every film or actor page you will find on Wikipedia lists their IMDb page as an external link (and FYI, someone did once propose Template:IMDB for deletion at here. Why should Wikipedia's video game articles and popular video game websites be any different? Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 05:33, February 2, 2015 (UTC)

Note: Again, they're not the same. As far as I know, IMDb provides content unlike any other website. The film industry uses IMDb too, so that's another reason. I have cited several Wikipedia guidelines, I'll summarize them thematically.

• GameFAQs is a website that mainly provides gameguide material. WP:VG/EL states: "external links should not be added to include material that explicitly defines the gameplay on certain aspects of the video game". That's just what GameFAQs provides, cheatcodes, walkthroughs, maps of collectables, you name it. That fails WP:ELYES no. 3: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". To understand Halo 3 you don't have to know about Achievements, enemies, vehicles or what cheats there are. Other stuff, the board, answers, images and videos, are all easy to find elsewhere. It shows a Metacritic summary, developer, publisher and releasedate. All the stuff we as an encyclopedia also try to provide, only with reliable sources.
• GameFAQs isn't reliable source because it depends on user-submitted material which cannot be checked, even for other content besides gameguide-like material. That fails WP:ELYES no. 3: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", because we can't check if it is accurate, let alone well-written or understandable. It doesn't pass WP:ELMAYBE no. 4: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources and WP:ELNO no. 2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." We cannot be sure that the content provided is the least bit true.
• GameFAQs isn't unique. There are hunderds of video game websites out there, so favoring GameFAQs is giving it a bigger spot than it deserves in the External links section. --Soetermans. T / C 10:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The information GameFAQs provides isn't in the interest for a general reader of Wikipedia. So to argue that it is reasonable to link to GameFAQs for the other information it occassionally offers besides gameguides doesn't make sense: if we Wikipedians say it isn't reliable, why should the general reader use it? --Soetermans. T / C 15:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Both this discussion and the one originally cited are founded on extremely bad information, and therefore I think it'd be best to summarily dismiss this proposition of deletion. It's blatantly false that GameFAQs has no editorial oversight; unlike even Wikipedia, all content on GameFAQs undergoes editorial review and ratification (not the message boards, obviously). Additionally, one would be quite mistaken in presuming GameFAQs is not a unique resource. Comparing it to MobyGames -- the template of which is not currently being discussed for deletion -- there is similarity insofar as they both offer fundamentally the same types of information; assuming the same game is documented on both sites, neither provide data that can't be found or submitted on the other. Moving past that, it is true that they're not the same, but the distinction of exceptionalism lies with GameFAQs, not any other that incidentally offers the same type of content. The simple fact of the matter is that GameFAQs is the single most complete and comprehensive games database in the world. You might as well nominate IMDB's template for deletion because both IMDB and Star Wars fansites bear cast, release and trivia information for Star Wars films. The point is IMDB's by far the most comprehensive site of its kind in the medium of film, and the same goes for GameFAQs vis-à-vis video games. GameFAQs' data may not be critically necessary for many known and modern games, but there are many thousands of games for which GameFAQs may be the only resource, hence the utility of the template. And again, there is no particular reason to doubt them as a resource since there is an effective and reasonable editorial oversight in place. ZZanimar (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Could you provide a reliable source that would prove "GameFAQs is the single most complete and comprehensive games database in the world"? How is it the "most complete"? Or can you show that it does in fact have editorial oversight? Can you explain how it is unique? What does GameFAQs provide what others do not? I'm sorry, but you say a lot of things without backing any claim up with a valid source or argument. GameFAQs provides "how-to" guides to play (and finish) video games. I have to repeat myself yet again to say that the information provided in the first place simply isn't notable to link to. WP:ELYES no. 3: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". I looked up Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) on GameFAQs, to see what other information it provides. Release dates, which are user-submitted, FAQs (walkthroughs, passwords, boss guide, map images), cheats, reviews (the user-submitted aren't notable), the critical reception is copied from GameRankings. Images, videos, a Q&A forum and the board. Nothing substantial that would provide a greater understanding, there is no background information, no character sketches, no developer logs, no cultural impact. --Soetermans. T / C 13:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - gives the website undue weight (there are dozens of them); the website should at least instead be used as a source; and even as an external link, should be substituted. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use ((ping|Jc86035)) to reply to me 10:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, doesn't add much, and there are already so many sites like this. Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Game-based wikias are fine - in which the knowlodge of the masses does help to assure the details are approach, but GameFAQs is not a wiki - it is a collection of text files and forums, and lack the knowledge of the commons that we'd like to see. I would delete, not so much that it fails ELNO, but simply that nowadays, wikis offered by Wikia or from a site like IGN or Giant Bomb are better maintained. --MASEM (t) 04:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm in favor of liberal external link laws anyway, but GameFAQs is useful for finding release detail-type stuff that other sites don't, particularly for older games. It'd be nice if they were more transparent about their methodology, if indeed they're not just pulling it out of their butts, but maybe there's just no standardized way to cite your sources there so they don't bother. Either way, it's better than nothing. Tezero (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I'd like to point that we can't use GameFAQs for release dates and such because these are user-submitted. --Soetermans. T / C 13:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Soetermans' sentiments. Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just to note, nom edited the VG MOS to remove GameFAQs from acceptable templates and added the site to inappropriate links after nominating template for deletion. I assume good faith - indeed Soetermans was involved in a WP:VG discussion and asked if editing the MOS was acceptable (neither a yes nor a no was received). But it's worth noting for anyone weighing in on this topic by referring to the MOS as I was. I'm also puzzled by the bit "Additionally, Wikipedia is not a game guide - external links should not be added to include material that explicitly defines the gameplay on certain aspects of the video game." It's vague and can be used to justify inclusion of virtually any link as any external link would inevitably talk about how a game plays. It also refers to WP:NOT, which defines content on Wikipedia, not external links, so it is flawed in that respect. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Hi Jtalledo, thanks for your input. As you can see here, I changed the WP:VG/MOS on Feb 5, while I proposed the deletion on Jan 28. I actually did ask if editing the MOS was okay, to which I didn't got a reply. The 'opposed' arguments were WP:DOESNTHURT, WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:LONGTIME. Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, I exhaustively have been citing Wikipedia's guidelines on why having GameFAQs in a template is not okay and that a couple of experienced editors agreed with me, eventually I just boldly changed the MOS. That paragraph could use some work, thanks for pointing that out. --Soetermans. T / C 18:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. Thanks for clarifying. That MOS reads that is is permissible to link to the IMDb, MobyGames and Wikia on a case by case basis, all of which rely on user submissions. Is there is any difference between GameFAQs and those sites GF should be verboten but the others okay? --Jtalledo (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we have to make a comparison, the film industry itself also uses IMDb and as far as I know, that actually is the most well-known film-related website. MobyGames solely collects information for its database. I'm not saying that MobyGames should stay, but it does provide basic information about games, even if it is user-submitted. In the reply to Zzanimar I looked up Sonic the Hedgehog on GameFAQs. On MobyGames, it shows credits, a trivia section, other titles, that kind of stuff. So for the argument that GameFAQs can be used for credits and release dates, we already have MobyGames (which, unlike GameFAQs, doesn't provide walkthroughs). Dedicated wikias often provide more information besides gameplay. Take for instance the Fallout wiki, which also functions as a gameguide, but also provides additional in-universe information and behind-the-scenes stuff. In the original discussion at WT:VG, I made a comparison with IGN, which also provides gameguide material. If I were to add IGN to video game articles, you'd be right to cite WP:LINKSPAM. My reaction then would be "Yeah, but what about GameFAQs?" You'd be right to cite WP:OTHERSPAM, which just proves that GameFAQs itself is also not an appropriate link to have. --Soetermans. T / C 13:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've never linked to GameFAQs because I prefer Mobygames. If an editor in good faith believes that IGN is the best external link for an article, then they can link to that, and they can use a template. The presence of a template is not an endorsement, it's just there for convenience so that if ever the target databases change, we don't have to go through every instance of the link. With GameFAQs, and in your Sonic example, one might prefer its compilation appearances data which may not feature elsewhere. To lobby for deletion of the template is essentially saying it is never appropriate to link there. As I said, my personal preference is for Mobygames, but I'm not seeking to enforce my personal preference onto others. - hahnchen 19:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Personally, I don't see anything wrong with MobyGames, because it has more background information and doesn't provide walkthroughs. Thing is, the Sonic the Hedgehog article itself has a section on alternate versions and ports, of which one subsection also links to the article Compilations in the Sonic series. For argument's sake, let's imagine that we don't have that section and article: should we link to general page of Sonic the Hedgehog, just so that the general reader of Wikipedia might know about which compilations the game also appeared? I don't think so.

I think you're exaggerating a bit when saying that deleting the template is the same as saying linking to GameFAQs is never okay. We can still link there, without having it in a template form. I'd be happy to go through all the article on which the GameFAQs template is used and check whether or not it actually worth having as an EL. --Soetermans. T / C 16:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's OK to link to GameFAQs, then you should keep the template. The template is not an endorsement. You can go through the ELs right now with the template still in place. An editor can in good faith link to GameFAQs, the Sonic page doesn't just show the compilation data, it shows the release data and credits. An editor in good faith could choose that combination; Mobygames might not have the corresponding data for other games. I argue to discourage the use of Gamerankings when a Metacritic score already exists, but I don't argue for the deletion of Gamerankings altogether. - hahnchen 18:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it is inherently wrong to link to GameFAQs, what I'm saying again and again is that:

1) The content that GameFAQs generally provides, walkthroughs and cheats, is clearly not for the general reader of Wikipedia. I don't think anyone would disagree with me there: gameguides shouldn't be linked, right? Then we have the rest of the information that GameFAQs provides.

2) GameFAQs isn't a reliable website, because the information is user-submitted. We can't check if it's factual. If we want to add release dates and credits we have to look elsewhere, so why should we direct readers to an entry on GameFAQs, not knowing whether or not it's true? About the credits, Wikipedia usually shows the most important people working on a game. A long list of credits doesn't seem like "relevant to the encyclopedic understanding" of a video game to me. And because it relies on submission by users, not every entry there has a credits listing. Rage, a relatively new game, has no credits for instance, while Skyrim mentions director Todd Howard. For articles about older games that use the template, the classic Castle Wolfenstein was released in 1981, GameFAQs says it was released in 1983. It mentions a total of three people working on the game. Adventure (1979 video game), a game I've never heard of, has a pretty decent article. The designer is mentioned, and the release dates, just as Wikipedia. I'm not going to be a dick about it and removes those two, just to make a point though.

3) There are dozens of other websites just like GameFAQs that have the same information. You say it is not an endorsement, but I do think it encourages people to use it, otherwise why would have it? --Soetermans. T / C 19:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There may be situations where linking to a FAQ is useful. Some may provide detailed plot synopses; in Forza Motorsport 5, our stupid application of WP:GAMEGUIDE means we list the tracks on the soundtrack, but omit the tracks that are actually part of the game. Credits, cast lists, release data is absolutely "relevant to th encyclopedic understanding". It's why we link to imdb and MobyGames, how we you know they are correct? Clearly there are other sites like GameFAQs - I've stated my preference for MobyGames, yet I'm not arguing for the removal of all link templates aside from Mobygames. - hahnchen 20:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody would stumble upon a GameFAQs entry that has a better plot summary than Wikipedia, that would mean we, the editors, haven't done a very good job. We'll have to work on the article, not to link to another website! Again, Wikipedia does show release dates and the most important people working on a game and I also said "A long list of credits doesn't seem like "relevant to the encyclopedic understanding" of a video game to me." Ken Levine is an important figure, but BioShock programmer Jake Etgeton has no other credits as far as GameFAQs is concerned. So even if some games have a credits list, even if they're factual, how is that "encyclopedic"? Person X worked on Game X. I'm a gamer myself, and I haven't gained any better understanding of one of my all-time favorite video games, knowing that Jake Etgeton programmed it. So how would that help Jane and John Wikipedia-Reader to understand BioShock better? Again, WP:OTHERSTUFF that we aren't discussing like MobyGames and IMDb is brought up. So, again, as far as I know, the film industry itself uses IMDb as a way of communication and actually is the most well-known film website. About MobyGames, its sole purpose is to collect and categorize games for its database. That's it. No walkthroughs, no cheats, no collectables finding guide. --Soetermans. T / C 21:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not opposed to deleting this, but I think deleting this template is the wrong approach. What WP:VG needs is a standard, consistent policy regarding these kinds of sites. All these arguments - favoritism, accuracy, reliability, reliance on user contributions etc could apply to most of the templates in Category:Video game external link templates. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm glad that you agee with me, Jtalledo, but that's a bit WP:ALLORNOTHING or WP:WHATABOUTX. I think getting rid of a couple of those (for instance, the GameSpot, IGN or Metacritic templates) might be a good idea, in the mean time we could get rid of this one as a kind of jurisprudence. --Soetermans. T / C 16:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is clearly WP:ELNO. And WP:VG/MOS says don't link to that website. I applaud WP:VG/MOS for banning it. Fleet Command (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the two posts directly above - the changes to the MOS were only made recently. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtalledo: Are we good now? Fleet Command (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we were never bad. ;) --Jtalledo (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per my comments in the original WP:VG discussion. I can't see any reason to keep it. I can't see why we allow this external link carte blanche to be added to the bottom of an article regardless of quality, yet links to in depth articles on Edge or Eurogamer for example have to pass the external link tests. Its a left-over from a by-gone era of WP:VG, it should have gone at the same time as the links to MobiGame. - X201 (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If anyone has access, they might be interested in checking out Issue 2, Volume 6 of International Journal of Digital Curation (pages 109-127). It's all about how fan-created gameguide documents (of which GameFAQs - which is covered in the paper - is arguably the best known host) are as important to historians as the code of the games themselves. I'm torn on the question myself. -Thibbs (talk) 23:51, 12 February 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). 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 to delete. Nobody has opposed a rename to basilicas, so that can be done. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Churches in the City of Rome (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I consolidated my arguments:

1. This template does not add anything that is not found in either the category Category:Churches in Rome or Category:Roman Catholic Churches in Rome or Category:Basilica Churches in Rome.
2. There is also an entry for churches in Rome with over 200 churches arranged in chronologic order
3. There is a template Landmarks of Rome that already includes many of the landmark entries.
4. There are likely over 700 consecrated and deconsecrated churches in Rome (the Churches of Rome list in Italian has over 650). I have read some sources stating that there were likely over 900 churches in Rome before the 19th century. The navbox will become larger than many articles in the list.
5. With this navbox The What Links Here tool becomes utterly useless when finding relevant related articles.

Rococo1700 (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Rococo1700 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rococo1700 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Don't delete the information Rococo1700, before the discussion! That is vandalism! Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The author does not have a talk page. It would not be easy to inform him about this discussion without making a major change in the template. Without this we could have even greater proliferation, and he would likely feel worse about the process. As it is, we have still not heard from the author. Any suggestions?Rococo1700 (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notified him on his home Italian Wikipedia. —PC-XT+ 06:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's a little crowded, but still seems useful as a navbox. Some organisation might help (grouped by initial letter of the name, or municipo), but that could be done on the talk page. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And rename, to balsilica, per below. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Delete, crowded and not much organization per Martijn Hoekstra. It appears to only include Basilica; should this be renamed to Basilica in the City of Rome? I count two more entries in the template than in the category. Maintenance will be a problem. Are there basilica for which there are no articles? The template could be helpful in identifying what's missing. Basilica of Saint Lawrence outside the Walls is listed here as Minor; however, it:Template:Basiliche patriarcali lists it as Major; is there a definitive answer?
  SBaker43 (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: unorganized and lacks defined inclusion criteria Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use ((ping|Jc86035)) to reply to me 11:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, with ~900 churches in Rome, this is better served by a category and list article. Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Roman basilicas" or "Basilicas in Rome". If this isn't all of the basilicas, it's most of them and could easily be expanded to being complete. Nothing wrong with having a navbox for all of the city's basilicas. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for Basilicas —PC-XT+ 12:23, 18 February 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). 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. No consensus as to whether this navbox is a useful navigation aid. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:A.R. Kane (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Only three links, one of which is a collaborative single under a different name. No chance for expansion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as template creator - five links, not including the one back to the band article. Plenty of scope for expansion, should articles on singles be created. GiantSnowman 12:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @GiantSnowman: A. R. Kane article itself, two albums, and Pump Up the Volume. That's four counting the parent article. The links to MARRS And Colourbox do not count toward WP:NENAN, because those articles do not (and should not) use this template. And explain to me how the singles have potential, as none of them appear to have even charted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NENAN is an essay, not policy - and the other links are valid. GiantSnowman 10:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The other links do not aid in navigation, as the MARRS and Colourbox articles do not use the template. So in your opinion, the template would grow more valid if I larded it out with more links to tangentially connected acts and articles? Why not link an article on Arcanine since it's a Pokémon whose name sounds like the band's name while we're at it? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Three links does not make for a useful navigational aide, and being a useful navigational aide is the reason navboxes exist - though I'd like to see research on how much our navboxes are actually used. I doubt it's much, but that's a different thing altogether. These links are easily presented in the article proper, and the redlinks are very unlikely to ever turn blue. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, seems fine, and nothing has changed since the last two times it was nominated for deletion. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 8 February 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). 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 into a combined template, and rename the combination to ((Olympic opening and closing ceremonies)) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Olympic Games opening ceremonies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Olympic Games closing ceremonies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Olympic Games opening ceremonies with Template:Olympic Games closing ceremonies.
It's easy to navigate from the opening ceremony page of specific games to the closing ceremony. There is no need for 2 seperate templates. Title of the template can be Olympic Games ceremony, like the article name. All other languages, except one, also have the links in one template: fr:Modèle:Palette Cérémonies d'ouverture des Jeux olympiques, pt:Predefinição:Cerimônias de Jogos Olímpicos. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 14:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If merged, a new template would be created at ((Olympic Games opening and closing ceremonies)) to indicate the new edit history, with the two old names redirecting to the new name. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I edit Olympic athlete bios frequently, so I am familiar with the structure of our Olympic Games articles and I understand the logic of merging the navbox templates for the opening and closing ceremonies. Having said that, I see a much bigger problem with these templates: 75% or more of the linked ceremonies are red links to non-existing articles, and to my way of thinking, that should never happen. Furthermore, some of these red-linked articles are never going to be created -- does anyone believe that the 1896 opening and closing ceremonies require a stand-alone article? And I'm sure that is true for many, if not most other Olympiads, too. The phenomena of Olympic opening and closing ceremonies as major spectacles/events, notable separate and apart from the Games themselves, is a relatively modern thing. This requires greater discussion, and quite probably should involve a larger discussion of whether we are fragmenting our Olympic articles into too many separate pieces. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Couldn't these titles be redirected to the associated games' article? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Frankly, Salvidrim, I think it would be entirely appropriate to condense, merge and redirect the separate articles for opening and closing ceremonies into the parent articles for the given Olympiads. But take a look at the 2012 opening ceremonies article: it's a Good Article, literally with minute-by-minute coverage of the opening ceremonies in excruciating detail. Personally, I believe it's overkill beyond reason; no newspaper, magazine or other encyclopedia would ever publish something like it, but Wikipedia lacks independent editorial control and so these articles grow to almost absurd proportions with no checks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! The Telegraph did just that near enough after the opening ceremony to London 2012. Having said taht if you look at teh sources near enough all of the major newpapers/news agencies were doing it. 21:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.241.163 (talk)

• merge, the notability of the individual articles can be debated at AfD. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, and then rename them to "Olympic opening and closing ceremonies" for length reasons; remember that we're dealing with a template here, which need not have a "full" name. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 14 February 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). 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 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Firefox release compatibility (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. I suggest to substitute to Firefox article. Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 10:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added it to History of Firefox. -Mardus (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Substitute and delete. I cannot foresee any further use other than on the article of its only transclusion, mentioned above. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. To be fair, this template could be used in both Firefox and History of Firefox, although it does need updating. - 72.182.60.18 (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, has two instances. Substituting the template on both articles would cause maintenance problems. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use ((ping|Jc86035)) to reply to me 11:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and consolidate with Firefox § OS support history. That'd increase the transclusion count to 2. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, as it does appear to have two appropriate uses, at present. —PC-XT+ 15:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It fits well into both Firefox and History of Firefox articles. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It has been updated and is used in Firefox and History of Firefox. --Claw of Slime (talk) 03:51, 13 February 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). 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 to delete while there are articles to navigate Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Political parties in Donetsk People's Republic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:Original research, none of the political entities could be verified as a political party. Purpose of the template is unclear. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Aleksandr's reasoning. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find this nomination bizarre as the articles linked to in the template are well sourced. The groups clearly exist and are covered by reliable sources. Is the nominator's real objection perhaps that he considers the organizations to be illegitimate? If so, that's not a valid rationale for deleting them or this template which aids in navigation among them. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, the template itself is not tagged for deletion. Aleksandr Grigoryev, you need to make a protected edit request in order to do this. Without this tag in place for several days, this discussion cannot be closed. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Psychonaut, the only really well referenced article is on the Donetsk Republic (political party) which in fact is a public movement rather than a political party. It is a technical term, I agree, but it only shows that whoever created the template his or her familiarization in politics of Ukraine. The reason for nomination is the fact that the article is created by a blocked user and the user whose expertise in politics of Ukraine are in question. Other parties like Communists and Novorossiya do not even exist as they were merged. It is clearly stated in their respective articles. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while there are articles to navigate, without restricting renomination in the future, if this changes. —PC-XT+ 05:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Creating a template that includes only two barely notable Parties does not make a lot of sense. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nominator. Jackninja5 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: only a few transclusions, one on a page which is going through the AFD process. Could be replaced with a "See also" section in all articles (with a proper portal link), as it contains just 7 blue links. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use ((ping|Jc86035)) to reply to me 11:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Jc86035, nom, and others ... can be replaced by "see also" links Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Issues of original research abound. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because right now it provides useful navigation. We can do a G8 speedy deletion if all of the navigated articles (the two parties, not the portal and the list at bottom) get deleted. Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator's concerns belong on discussions about the pages themselves, not this template. As long as the pages for the parties continue to exist, I don't see a good reason to delete the template. The template is also preferable to a "See also" section since it also provides at-a-glance information on the parties' comparative standing. —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:26, 14 February 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). 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 as too broad to be useful in navigating Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mental disorders as defined by the DSM and ICD (alphabetical list) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Having navboxes that provide alphabetical listings of large topics is not useful. I propose that this navbox, used on only four actual pages, be deleted. I cannot imagine that this sort of navbox helps readers... it should be replaced with more subject-specific navboxes on all pages. Tom (LT) (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, better served by a category. Frietjes (talk) 16:28, 8 February 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). 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 as unused and redundant Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:City localisation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant template JMHamo (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment template is broken, it's missing a helper template -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant to ((Geographic location)), which is basically identical to this template, only in English. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use ((ping|Jc86035)) to reply to me 10:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and/or redirect to ((geographic location)). Frietjes (talk) 16:28, 8 February 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). 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 per nom Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:42nd Street Shuttle map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant template JMHamo (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 8 February 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). No further edits should be made to this section.