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. Appears to be a content dispute better resolved somewhere with more participation than obscure TfDs. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dubrovnik nobility2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Dubrovnik nobility sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails TFD reasons 2 and 4. Both are replaced with Template:Republic of Ragusa topics. The two templates fail NPOV as representing noble families of the Republic of Ragusa as "Dubrovnik noble families", also using Croatian, and not Latin/Italian names for these. The city of Dubrovnik ≠ Republic of Ragusa. Zoupan 22:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nonsense. Zoupan created what is essentially a duplicate template (with all Italian names pointedly) and wants to delete the old ones, that have served just fine for years and years. As for "NPOV", the user doesn't seem to grasp the fact that the city of Dubrovnik, and the nobility thereof, did not evaporate with the Republic of Ragusa: they continued on as nobles (usually counts) of Austria-Hungary. In fact, believe it or not Zoupan, the majority of those families exist today as well (you're talking with a relative).

In short: strong keep. I'm afraid this is a bad-faith, POV-pushing proposal, intended to advance a particular historiographic point of view. -- Director (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem in deleting obsolete templates? The notability of every single article listed is their Ragusan nobility status. There is no dispute over their importance and part in legacy of Dubrovnik, but using the term "nobility of Dubrovnik" for Ragusan nobility, and then using only Croatian names for these, is not suitable. It is anachronistic. Dubrovnik does not have nobility since long ago. Yes, when parts of the Ragusan nobility entered Austria-Hungary, they became part of that system. Descendants may exist today, but that does not mean that they are "Dubrovnik nobility". One should indeed be proud of his heritage, but not take these kind of things personal. These templates should be scrapped.--Zoupan 12:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the template isn't "obsolete", but is instead being attacked because you disagree with the name forms used in it. You're deliberately attempting to render it "obsolete", by way of a duplicate template, so as not to have to actually push the changes you want to see. This is about your disagreeing with Wikipedia's use of perceived "neologisms".

Furthermore, it doesn't seem like you thought this through: your template "Republic of Ragusa topics" deals with subjects relating solely to the Republic of Ragusa (1358-1808), whereas the majority of these families have histories since as early as the 12th century, and continued to exist (in one form or another) for 200 years after the fall of the Republic. I.e. its scope appears to be about half the time these families existed. -- Director (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Zoupan's duplicate templates or redirects show his particular POV. As for the language, the official language in the Republic of Dubrovnik/Republic of Ragusa was Latin, and both Italian and Croatian were commonly spoken, hence both are at least equal. --Silverije (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove. Long-standing discussion. Everyone agrees that both Italian and Croatian were spoken in Ragusa, but for some reasons this nobility of Ragusa (Dubrovnik?) is presented mainly using the Slavic variant of the name, which is indeed a neologism. Side note: sources are in favor or using the romance version of the name when referring to those noble Houses. However, the articles do not meet IMHO the minimum requirements of notability and should be removed. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be because Dubrovnik (Ragusa) is a Croatian town? But this illustrates my point from above: what's at issue here are the name forms used in the template, not the template itself. This is an attempt to deliberately try and make the template "obsolete", so as not to have to properly discuss its content, i.e. the said noble surnames (presumably due to lack of relevant arguments: all I've heard is "they're neologisms", which, even if accepted - doesn't matter per policy). -- Director (talk) 11:29, 23 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 delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Talk-vandal1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Talk-vandal2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Talk-vandal3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Talk-vandal4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Talk-vandal4im (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A four-level series addressing vandalism to own talk page. Judging from an old discussion found on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User warnings/Archive 1 this series created in 2007 was supposedly meant to deal with cases where users removed e.g. warning templates from their own user talk page. Judging from Previous revision of Wikipedia:User pages the templates would have seen very little meaningful use then, and likely even less now, were they to be promoted. They have never been part of the Uw series, and I can't see a reason for why they should be. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding ((Talk-vandal4im)) belonging to the series. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Outdated and obscure warning templates. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Users are permitted to remove most kinds of warnings, per WP:BLANKING. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 21 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 5. Primefac (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Chicago Outfit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only used in one article. Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frietjes So are most of the templates for most crime families. What difference does it make for it? --Donovan Ellis (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donovan Ellis, which other ones are used in only one article? I would like to nominate those as well. Frietjes (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frietjes Idky you're doing this because either mine or the other crime family templates have violated any rules but its all the five families and some of the other crime families--Donovan Ellis (talk) 02:53, 21 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#T2. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Quackers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

violates WP:SIGNT. Frietjes (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Doesn't violate nothin'— Preceding unsigned comment added by QuackersClocks (talk • contribs) 18:27, November 20, 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - lol. Randy Kryn 21:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Really, it doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuackersClocks (talk • contribs) 21:50, November 20, 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. A clear violation of WP:SIGNT. If that was policy, this would be a CSD T2 deletion. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:41, 21 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 to Dec 7. Primefac (talk) 04:12, 7 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).

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 delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pitch Perfect film series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Two films, no series article. Can easily be dealt with through normal linking. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:25, 20 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 relisted to Nov 28. Consensus has not been reached, and thus the premature merger has been undone. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Scottish dogs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Welsh dogs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:English dogs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Welsh dogs with Template:English dogs.
I propose changing the name of Template:English dogs to Template:British Isles dogs and merging Template:Welsh dogs, Template:Scottish dogs and Template:Irish dogs into it, in a similar manner to Template:Horse breeds of the British Isles. The histories of these countries and their dogs are intertwined, many of the breeds covered are shown in two or more of these templates and it will allow the separation of the Scottish, Welsh & Irish dogs into categories by role / type. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support - As it is part of the United Kingdom, but I'd suggest "Template:United Kingdom dogs" or "Template:Great Britain dogs" as the name of the template.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose instead create a new template called Template:British dogs and a redirect from Template:British Isles dogs ; and merge all three templates into the new template, and redirect the source template names. There is no reason to promote the history of the English template instead of giving equal consideration. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. Merged to Template:British dogs. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsure about the proposal. The list just gets longer and longer. Also, United Kingdom or not, the countries of the UK remain quite distinct in traditions, and dog breeding is a tradition there. A number of dog breeds have "English", "Scottish", "Welsh" or "Irish" in the name, while there is no British Terrier, Setter, or Wolfhound. See also the remark under #Template:Irish Dogs. Next time please wait until a consensus is reached. PanchoS (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed my above support to weak per your points.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:24, 28 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 to Nov 28. The merger has been undone until consensus can be reached (it was headed towards delete but could swing towards merge, hence the relist). Primefac (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:English dogs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Irish dogs with Template:English dogs.
I propose changing the name of Template:English dogs to Template:British Isles dogs and merging Template:Welsh dogs, Template:Scottish dogs and Template:Irish dogs into it, in a similar manner to Template:Horse breeds of the British Isles. The histories of these countries and their dogs are intertwined, many of the breeds covered are shown in two or more of these templates and it will allow the separation of the Scottish, Welsh & Irish dogs into categories by role / type. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - A distinction between the dogs of Great Britain and Ireland is perhaps due.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose instead create a new template called Template:British dogs and a redirect from Template:British Isles dogs ; and merge all three templates into the new template, and redirect the source template names. There is no reason to promote the history of the English template instead of giving equal consideration. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. Merged to Template:British dogs. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cavalryman V31: Why was this done? The discussion is not closed. Consensus doesn't exist, especially in regard to the Irish portion of the dogs, for the merger. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unsure, see my comment under #Template:Scottish dogs. However, the naming Template:British dogs outright unacceptable. If combined with Irish dogs, it has to be Template:Dog breeds of the British Isles or Template:British Isles dog breeds. PanchoS (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. While Ireland is part of the geographic grouping called the British Isles, it is erroneous to call Irish dogs "British".—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gentlemen, I sincerely apologise. @Godsy:, I was genuinely unaware of the time requirements, as to consensus the language used in your opposition to the inclusion of Irish dogs seemed restrained. @PanchoS:, I am very happy to change the name to Template:British Isles dogs, it is simply behind the scenes coding that is in no way reflected in the title that as seen on any breed pages. As to the national traditions, my reasoning for merging the templates is, in the world of dogs it was a regional tradition across Great Britain, Ireland and the various small isles that surround the both, the dog breeds from all four countries are inextricably linked. The English Foxhound is the most common packhound in all four countries and whilst its genesis was in Northern England, the development occurred concurrently (and continues) in all four countries, in fact the inclusion of the word English is applied by our American friends to distinguish it from their own variety. The English Cocker Spaniel again is only so named in the USA to distinguish it from the American Cocker Spaniel and in reality the article should be renamed to remove the word English. The Harrier, Otterhound and Beagle are common to all four counties, the national exceptions to the commonality of packhounds are the Kerry Beagle (which is only a Beagle in name) and the Dumfriesshire Hound, which is actually a variety of Foxhound. The separation of the English Springer Spaniel and the Welsh Springer Spaniel is a modern creation of the dog show world, they were and remain one working breed that also occurs in Scotland and Ireland, the variations on the type are theClumber Spaniel, and Sussex Spaniel, the Field Spaniel being another variation created by the show breeder fraternity. The extinct English Water Spaniel in reality lives on in the Irish Water Spaniel, as does the English Deerhound in the Scottish Deerhound.All varieties of the Collie are regional variations on a common breed, something very similar can be said for the various Setters and also the Terriers, many local breeds (usually with a regionally identifying name) are genetically almost identical, the possible exception being some of the long-legged Irish breeds, although the Airedale fills the same niche. Again, I genuinely apologise if my actions have caused grievances, they were not intended to do so, simply to better link regionally common breeds with historical and links. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:56, 28 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 delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Portimonense S.C. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links only to two stadia. Two blue links, not a useful aid to navigation Fenix down (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. User:Omgosh30 also split the Portimonense S.C. article into a Portimonense S.C. (football team), without a reason. Portimonense is primarily known for its football team, its amateur sections are not notable. Besides a move like this should have been discussed.--Threeohsix (talk) 15:39, 30 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 delete. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dil Dosti Dance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is meant to be for the characters of the fictional show Dil Dosti Dance, but has piped links to the actors and not characters unlike maybe how Template:Desperate Housewives has links to characters. And I don't think we make templates of actors who have worked in a TV show. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, weak connection. Frietjes (talk) 16:05, 3 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 delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-imagepermission (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Less effective than and redundant to ((di-no permission-notice)). If an image is tagged with a free license but with no proof of permission by the copyright holder, it should be tagged for speedy deletion criterion F11 (((Npd))), which uses ((di-no permission-notice)) to notify users. Steel1943 (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if the file is listed through another process, such as WP:PUF or WP:FFD, then the di-notice is inappropriate, as it wouldn't be a CSD. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, that is not correct since the CSD criterion would still apply; the file would still have no proof of permission. Also, this nominated template is not part of the notification process for either forum just mentioned (FFD or PUF); those templates are ((Fdw)) and ((Fdw-puf)), respectively. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This would be an additional template to the FFD and PUF notification templates, indicating why it showed up at FFD or PUF. And if the file is not templated with the CSD, then the user should not have a CSD warning issued, since it is incorrectly warning about the wrong process. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, redundant. Frietjes (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant with what? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a bad template, but it is certainly redundant to ((di-no permission-notice)) (in the case of DI deletions) and a clear explanation of the problem by the FFD or PUF nominator (in the far less common case of nominating a file lacking permission at those venues). What's more, it has barely been used in 6+ years. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:46, 22 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 relisted on December 9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Wikipedia talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template namespace page has been blanked, the corresponding edit summary read "remove for now per WP:BRD". Pinging the user who performed the aforementioned action for their input. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see any advantage in deleting because a blank notice is treated the same as a deleted notice by the editnotice system. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: Well, the software probably skips a few steps, including fetching the edit notice, if there's no edit notice, if that's significant. Alakzi (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, no point in keeping it. Frietjes (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MSGJ and the fact that it is listed by a link at Template:Editnotices/Namespace. Might as well keep the list intact. Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Steel1943: That's a good point. Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main, Template:Editnotices/Namespace/User, and Template:Editnotices/Namespace/User talk from that list are visibly empty but contain content. Should this page contain something similar? It had content at one time [1].—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:13, 19 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 delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bentley Falcons football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:EXISTING -- It is used in only one article, Hal Kopp, making it hard to navigate. Also fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template", and there isn't an article for the Bentley Falcons football or its coaches. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 02:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:44, 20 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).