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 at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 20#Template:Microsoft Windows typefaces. BethNaught (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Microsoft Windows typefaces (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NAVBOX 1, 2, 3 and 5. The list and categories are sufficient. Alakzi (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Many of these were commissioned by Microsoft specifically for Windows (Verdana, Georgia, Tahoma, Calibri, Segoe, Trebuchet, etc.) so providing a single navbox to group them in to make readers aware of other articles makes sense. Blythwood (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could limit its scope then. We don't need typefaces like Franklin Gothic in the mix. Alakzi (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the better approach is to limit the number of pages it appears on. I've created a similar navbox for Mac OS X typefaces (hence my support for keeping this one) and I took the view that it should appear on the pages of articles best known for being included on OS X, but not others on which including it might just be a distraction (Eurostile, say, or Franklin Gothic). But I don't think that's a reason for purging the content on the infobox itself. I think someone wondering what the fonts on Windows are and where they came from could find a complete list on the navbox useful starting from (say) the Arial article. Blythwood (talk) 16:53, 13 September 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. ~ Rob^Talk 17:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since this template's previous deletion discussion over seven years ago, the amount of transclusions of this template hasn't changed: one. (This template is not intended to be substituted.) Also, the amount of edits that have been made to this edit since, not counting my discussion notice tag: zero. Besides not being used, there are reasons why this template could be seen as unhelpful by being disruptive. For one, this template is built on one editor's interpretation of a discussion. Also, a major point of a consensus-based discussion-closing process is so that the discussion closer can form their own idea of what consensus is based on their interpretation of the course of the discussion: placing one of these templates in a discussion muddies that a bit since the closer may or may not be influenced by statements in this template. So, I'd say substitute the sole transclusion, and delete. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've informed XfD, AfD, TfD, RfD, CfD of this nomination on their talk pages, since it seems to impact them -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not in use, and could be misused. Jusdafax 05:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete best to get rid of these legacy templates, and not used. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:03, 12 September 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. No rationale presented for ignoring the policy-based arguments presented by those favoring delete. ~ Rob^Talk 17:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Basketball's triple crown (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." As far as I can tell, this term is a WP:NEO, and that article would not meet WP:GNG, nor is it used frequently enough in reliable sources to ever warrant a list per WP:LISTN. —Bagumba (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This isn't a particularly common phrase for this achievement. Rikster2 (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The reason I put this in is because for each page of the seven players the subject of 'Triple Crown' is indicated and I felt there should be a link from one page to each of the others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkbngr (talk • contribs) 21:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't given any indication why the grouping should be considered notable, nor why WP:NAVBOX should be ignored.—Bagumba (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article Basketball's Triple Crown was deleted per CSD A3: "Article has no meaningful, substantive content" on September 11, 2015, the same day this template was created.—Bagumba (talk) 11:16, 19 September 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. While Northamerica1000 trimmed this template, the criteria for apparent inclusion in this template (being an Italian brand) remains the same, and concerns that those criteria are indiscriminate have not been addressed. ~ Rob^Talk 18:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Italian brands (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

very large, and already covered by both a list article and a category. Frietjes (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

notify Northamerica1000 . Frietjes (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Split into separate navigation bars by topic, which will significantly reduce its size. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. A category or list article (both in this case) are much easier to navigate than a huge string of items in a single navbox group. --NSH002 (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is essentially unusable and indiscriminate, like ((Everyone from Wisconsin)).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I have shortened the template, but it may not matter at this point per the delete !votes already in place above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Star Wars character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost an exact copy of ((Infobox character)) with a low transclusion count (only 64). ~ Rob^Talk 14:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought Andy had already whacked all of these characters-for-particular-series infoboxes. If so, this one should be treated no differently. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep, plenty of transclusions, and does add some consistency to avoid using the blank parameter fields directly in the articles. Frietjes (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Im not seeing any convincing argument that goes against the consensus back in 2010, the template provides useful information to help better understand the articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'd agree that the argument to delete is unconvincing. Since new Star Wars movies are coming, I'm sure the template will be used in coming months and years. Jusdafax 05:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 13 September 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. Unopposed after 17 days and almost unused. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Starbox multi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used widely (only 8 transclusions). It has already been replaced by the templates at ((Starboxes)), which has the necessary functionality. Nothing to really merge here. ~ Rob^Talk 14:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, remaining transclusions appear to be via ((Starbox 2)), which I've been merging into ((Starboxes)). This has no transclusions not via Starbox 2, I believe. ~ Rob^Talk 20:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it appears that the only article that needs cleaning up is Polaris. Praemonitus (talk) 14:58, 14 September 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. While a couple users did not explicitly vote delete, it appears everyone involved agrees that this navbox should not exist unless additional articles/content is created. We can't count on this happening any time soon, so the immediate consensus is to delete without prejudice against restoration if the red-linked articles are created. ~ Rob^Talk 19:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC) ~ Rob^Talk 19:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Real estate development (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, not updated since 2009. NSH002 (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, a bit of a "grab bag" of items. Frietjes (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Speaking as a commercial real estate lawyer who specializes in development, this is not a "grab bag" or topics, but a properly structured overview of the major sub-topics related to real estate development. It's a shame it's not being used. The template creator has not been active in the past year; do we have a WikiProject for real estate? If so, the WikiProject should be made aware of this template and its potential usefulness. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • so you want to add this to Architect, Lawyer, and Engineer? if not, then it violates WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • F, I've never treated BIDIRECTIONAL as an absolute, and I'm willing to make limited exceptions when they make sense. That said, after reviewing all of the redirects, etc., embedded in this navbox, it becomes obvious that this is a well-designed template in search of a purpose. Most of the linked development-specific real estate content does not exist, there is no prospect of anyone creating the development-specific content in the near term, and the template is not in current use. So, I suppose it needs to go. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that we've also got a ((Real estate)) navbox. Alakzi (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Dirtlawyer1: do we have a WikiProject for real estate? - not that I can see; the closest appear to be WP:FINANCE and WP:INVESTMENT. Note also that most of the headers and list items are either redlinks or redirects to non-development articles. This template would need a lot of work if it were to be of any use, in addition to creating/finding relevant articles. --NSH002 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NSH002, please see my comments to Frietjes above. Good template, but the linked development-specific content does not exist. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:38, 13 September 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 after either creating tables or merging information into the ((Starboxes)) infobox. ~ Rob^Talk 19:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Μt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Μx (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Μp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Μs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Μe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not only is this set of templates a jumble of incredibly convoluted and overly complicated coding with no descriptions (making proofing almost impossible), it encourages listcruft by simply listing a bunch of statistics. The most accurate measurement is the only one that is necessary, and should be already in the starbox templates. Everything else is just noise. Primefac (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• note in order to not break the coding, I have not placed the TfD notices on the templates other than Mt. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unmaintainable templatecruft created by an unresponsive user without sufficient documentation to maintain or understand the use of the templates, without consultation of the maintainers of the articles these go on, so they can maintain the data contained. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete using a standard wikitable is much clearer and easier to edit than these unclear templates. --JorisvS (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - impossible to use without any documentation. Maybe we should have a guideline that any templates without documentation (or implied documentation in the case of navboxes and similar, where extensive documentation is already provided in the relevant meta-template) should be automatically deleted? --NSH002 (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unusable templates which can be easily substituted with standard wikitable markup with a list of historical proper motion estimates of the star in question. --201.53.53.216 (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unusable and (almost) unused. No-brainer. 90.205.107.87 (talk) 14:30, 12 September 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 and replace with a wikitable or merge info into ((Starboxes)). ~ Rob^Talk 20:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Πt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Πs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Πc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Πd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Πp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Πe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This set of templates encourages listcruft. There is no reason to have every parallax measurement other than for the sake of having every measurement. The most accurate and/or the most recent are really the only ones that are necessary, the rest is just noise. Primefac (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• note I have not put the TfD notice on the templates other than Πt because it would break the functionality. Primefac (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hint: <noinclude>TfD notice here</noinclude>Template starts here ....  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the templates. This will break every page that has a distance estimate of a star. It would be a mess to clean up and historical estimates will be completely lost. Providing less information for the readers. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davidbuddy9, I'm unsure how you came to that conclusion. These templates simply add a table onto the page - the most accurate estimate will/should be already contained in ((Starbox astrometry)). If a historical estimate is relevant or notable, it should have a sentence or two in the main text already (otherwise it's just another useless point of data). Primefac (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac:, I came to the conclusion by seeing that the template was being deleted on a table that was using it and this was just not on one page. You may find it as useless but some other people maybe doing a report or something may need data like this. You know what they say what is one man's trash is another man's treasure. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the data would not be completely lost since it was derived from other, more reliable sources. The fact that removing the tables would require some cleanup is not a reason to keep the tables. Praemonitus (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unmaintainable templatecruft created by an unresponsive user without sufficient documentation to maintain or understand the use of the templates, without consultation of the maintainers of the articles these go on, so they can maintain the data contained. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete using a standard wikitable is much clearer and easier to edit than these unclear templates. A table with historical distance values can simply be coded using normal wikitable syntax. No information need to be deleted. --JorisvS (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: my concern here is the context: the tables built with these templates are only intended to show the improvement in data measurement over time. But they don't actually tell you anything new about the target; that information is already available in the Star's Infobox. Hence, I believe the sole purpose of these templates fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The data would likely only be of interest in certain cases such as nearby stars that were one of the first to have their parallax measurements taken. In that case, you usually would probably only need to list the first and current measurements, or any special cases. Praemonitus (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are some misconceptions here regarding the purpose of tfd discussions. They are intended only to discuss templates, not content of the articles where these templates are used. So, no information will be removed even if the templates are deleted as they will be substituted. Ruslik_Zero 20:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. Praemonitus (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It's quite easy to create your own table with a list of historical distance estimates to the star in question. Since only about a couple hundred pages use these templates (((Πc)) is only used in the Ross 47 article) it would be quite easy to clean up and replace with standard wikitable markup and therefore I endorse deletion. --201.53.53.216 (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The information is useful, but could be better presented in an existing table template (although a chore to convert 250 articles using the template). The template is also scientifically dubious, presuming that the parallax with the smallest quoted margin of error is automatically the "best", which is rarely the case. The concept of maintaining references outside of article space has also been extensively discussed and rejected elsewhere (eg. cite doi). I'm leaning towards delete, but could perhaps be convinced that a well-documented and perhaps simpler templating system could be worthwhile. 90.205.107.87 (talk) 14:35, 12 September 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. No prejudice to recreation if articles for the individual tournaments are actually created. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Florence tournaments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template with zero links other than one to the parent article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Tennis tournaments usually have a navbox with this design. See Category:ATP Tour tournaments navigational boxes and Category:WTA Tour tournaments navigational boxes for numerous examples. In addition to providing navigation (when there are actually blue links), it shows which years the tournament was played and which of those years have articles. Even if that is currently no years, it does give useful information at the bottom of the main article. Tennis tournaments often change name for sponsorship reasons so it's sometimes difficult to figure out which editions have an article. As a tennis reader I'm so used to these systematic navboxes that it's annoying when an article doesn't have it. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A template that doesn't link to anything serves absolutely no purpose. The tournament articles need to be done first, then the template. This is a classic case of the cart before the horse....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete using a standard wikitable is much clearer and easier to edit than these unclear templates. A table with historical distance values can simply be coded using normal wikitable syntax. No information need to be deleted. --JorisvS (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JorisvS: Did you mean to comment here? Alakzi (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I have commented where I wanted to. @Alakzi: Why do think I might have misplaced a comment? --JorisvS (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Right. How did that get there? --JorisvS (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, pointless if its all redlinks. Frietjes (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A navbox with all redlinks is pointless. ~ Rob^Talk 20:08, 19 September 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).