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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Template:Cuba Squad 2012 Caribbean Cup has been retained, because three out of seven participants herein stated that championship-winning squads should be retained. While deletion discussion closures are not based upon a vote count, there is no consensus herein for Template:Cuba Squad 2012 Caribbean Cup to be deleted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Upon further consideration, Template:Cuba squad 2012 Caribbean Cup has been deleted, per the fact that one user stated that they were "and indifferent for the rest" regarding the championship winning squads, and per another user stating "Delete non-champion roster templates per Frietjes' comment above", which implies, but does not directly state that the "per" !vote is also indifferent toward the championship winning squads. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cuba Squad 2012 Caribbean Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Jamaica Squad 2014 Caribbean Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Jamaica squad 2010 Caribbean Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Jamaica Squad 2008 Caribbean Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Trinidad and Tobago Squad 2012 Caribbean Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Trinidad and Tobago Squad 2010 Caribbean Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Trinidad and Tobago Squad 1994 Caribbean Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Trinidad and Tobago Squad 1992 Caribbean Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Consensus is that we should only create squad templates for major tournaments like the World Cup, Confederations Cup, UEFA Euro, Gold Cup, etc. The Caribbean Cup is not a major tournament. – Michael (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A second tier continental competition, which now forms part of the qualifying tournament for the Gold Cup. Not required per consensus, an element of which can be seen here. Fenix down (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Technically third tier as the continental competitions act as qualifying tournaments for the FIFA Confederations Cup! :). I don't care if most are deleted but I would prefer to see those templates belong to the team that won the competition kept. TheBigJagielka (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete the ones for non-championship winning squads, and indifferent for the rest. Frietjes (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-champion roster templates per Frietjes' comment above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as above. GiantSnowman 17:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete immediately as above. JackHoang (talk) 13:02, 29 July 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. Nakon 23:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:RfA closed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, deprecated template. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – replaced by ((Rfap)) and ((Rfaf)), so never used now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:16, 26 July 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Lancashire County Palatine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This could be interpreted as a WP:POVFORK, attempting to treat "historic Lancashire" as a separate, parallel entity to "Lancashire", which is against WP:UKCOUNTIES guidelines. The template is somewhat confusing in that it is mixing modern-day elements within the ceremonial county boundaries with elements within the historic county boundaries. And it is cherry-picking Lancashire-related topics to support a particular POV. We already have a ((Lancashire)) template. There has been a brief discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography § County Palatine of Lancaster.  Dr Greg  talk  19:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the linked section at ukgeo. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given by the nominator and in the discussion at ukgeo.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per discussion at ukgeo, serves no useful purpose. J3Mrs (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Lancashire is a separate, parallel entity to ceremonial Lancashire in the UK. If the WP:UKCOUNTIES guidelines recognizes both as being the same, the guidelines are incorrect with need for a review.2.217.52.199 (talk) 13:28, 29 July 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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propose merging Template:Infobox SMS station with Template:Infobox station.
The first template seems to be redundant as the second one can be used to represent the same information. It can also be used to improve the representation of the information and also creates a uniformity between different transit systems in South Korea (ie with Korail stations and metro systems in other cities) and overall globally, thus makes it easier for readers to track information down. Examples as such can be seen in the following links:

• Seoul Station
• Soyosan Station
• Hoeryong Station
• Chang-dong Station

Nima Farid (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete (not too sure what's being proposed here). This template served a purpose when I first created it, but I've got no problem with consolidating infoboxes. PC78 (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is there to merge? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ask the nom, not me. PC78 (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with embedding functionality for multiple stations. Alakzi (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• merge Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with embedding functionality. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 07:48, 17 July 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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Xfce (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:LXDE (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Also brought up at Template talk:Xfce, Template talk:LXDE, these two templates doesn't seem on navbox purpose and listing would be more appropriate IMO. Otherwise we should create navbox for Gnome, KDE and every DE available Category:Desktop environments and why we limit to DEs? So it would be possible to make such thing for distros using systemd or udev or other low level or high level software which leads to a mess. –ebraminio^talk 17:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The reasons for the nomination. ویرایشگر-1 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)ps that[reply]

• Keep This nav box provides a much neater and more concise means of listing distros that offer this desktop, as described on the talk page. It also allows the use of this nav box on the listed distros pages, thus allowing readers to find similar distros that offer this desktop. A list on the article page would not offer this functionality. The fact that other non-existent nav boxes could be created but haven't, is not relevant to this discussion. The nominator has not indicated any Wikipedia policy that this nav box offends and so this nom is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. WP:NAVBOX, 2 (not *every*, Arch Linux and there are other ones), 3 (it is about what level of the relation you see this should be, if you see distros offering X DE need a navbox, relatively big amount of each page will be occupied with navboxes. If the template was about distros offering X DE as default DE it could make more sense on this case and for 5) and 5 (which is not, linking FreeBSD to Arch Linux was unlikely just because they both offering X DE) and also WP:OR, is X DE community level provided (like AUR or FreeBSD Ports) or is also supported by distro maintainers or the package developers? You may know that but I don't know and this as its sensitively needs to WP:VERIFY-able which easily can be done on a list WP:AOAL if someone mark the part for being ((citation needed)). –ebraminio^talk 10:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the idea that just because we have nav boxes on distros that offer LXDE and Xfce that we have to therefore have nav boxes on distros that offer every other desktop is fundamentally a fallacious argument. No where does Wikipedia policy require that if we have "X" navbox, we have to therefore also have "Y" nav box. The number of distros that offer LXDE and Xfce are quite limited and so this makes these particularly well adapted to this sort of small nav box. Are the boxes complete at present? Probably not, but a lack of them being complete is not a valid reason to delete them. Which distros to include or exclude from the nav box should be sorted out on the template talk page, not in a deletion discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you seem doing straw man fallacy by commenting just about one of the reasons mentioned. –ebraminio^talk 15:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is hardly a "straw man" argument when you listed it as one of the reasons you nominated the templates for deletion. Because you did so, it requires addressing. You put forward a hypothetical problem of requiring other more cumbersome boxes based on these two, but those boxes have not been created, let alone nominated for deletion and thus not up for discussion here. - Ahunt (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom, navbox creep. Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Arbitrary lists of distros not otherwise related. —Keφr 18:35, 21 July 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.