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. Varying opinions, leading to a rewrite to which no one has objected; let's give it time and see if it proves any more useful than the original. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((Db-g4)). (If there is a concern that a page is a recreation, it should just be tagged for speedy deletion than have to go through this step first.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, entirely redundant and the talk page warning for G4 covers the education portion of this template. ~ Rob^Talk 23:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. But maybe we should have a special template for salting salt templates? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, maybe ironically salt per previous nom on this template and redundancy. --201.53.53.216 (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic Salt. That was the name of my band in high school. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This template was previously kept at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 21#Template:Salt. The nominator's argument is faulty because a page does not need to have been XfDd in order to be create protected. It would also be useful, say, if a COI editor repeatedly created Play Online Bingo at bingomania.com Today! under slightly various titles. Here you would have CSD G11 in play. BethNaught (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, then this proves that multiple speedy criteria exist that make this template seem redundant. I forgot about WP:G11, I realized that I also forgot to mention that this template is redundant to the functionality of WP:RFPP. Steel1943 (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be redundant to RFPP, but that's irrelevant when this template is more efficient than the often-backlogged RFPP: it's far simpler to have one admin delete the page and determine whether it needs salting than have one admin delete, then another have to investigate the history independently. In any case, it is not redundant to the CSD templates: this template asks for salting, they ask for deleting. Nothing in the CSD templates mentions salting. BethNaught (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - serves a slightly different purpose than ((db-g4)). Should be used more frequently where appropiate. --TL22 (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, simply not needed, and redundant to G4. Frietjes (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not redundant to G4 because pages can and do be salted if they are repeatedly recreated and deleted, not through an XFD, which is what G4 requires, but via CSD. BethNaught (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If this template is intended to speedily delete things, there should be a matching speedy delete criterion (otherwise it's outright asking admins to ignore the rules and delete the page anyway, which may be a valid course of action in some cases, but really shouldn't be happening often enough that we need a template for it). In many cases, G4 works, but you can just use ((db-g4)) for those. If G4 doesn't work, then either there's another legitimate speedy template you can use for that (G3 or G5, perhaps), or else the page is not speediable and you shouldn't be putting speedy deletion templates on it. --ais523 06:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  Please. It is meant to be used this way: add a speedy deletion tag, such as G4 or perhaps A7, A9 or G10, to show it needs to be deleted, and also add ((salt)) to alert to the deleting admin of the need for salting. The deleting admin can't be expected to check if the page is a recreation of a page protected at a different title. BethNaught (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I can buy that, actually, but in that case the template could perhaps do with a redesign to make its purpose clearer. The way it's worded at the moment, it's a bit unclear from the template itself how it's meant to be used. (Perhaps making it into a parameter of ((db-meta)) is the way to go, or perhaps not; I'd expect it to be smaller in order to serve its purpose, though, perhaps about the same size as a typical cleanup tag.)

  At the moment much of the content is redundant to ((uw-salt)) (something I hadn't noticed earlier), which should make it easier to trim down. (That template itself is a little dubious, too; not in concept but in wording.)

  All this said, this situation is one where you can probably just leave a little bolded handwritten note above the speedy template (something I've done in other cases), rather than needing a specific tag. So I'm still a bit conflicted on this. --ais523 08:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep I've now tried a bold rewrite to make the template better at its job (getting right to the heart of what it's for, rather than containing a lot of redundant information, in addition to not pushing the speedy template off the screen). I also removed the reference to ((uw-salt)), which seems to be talking about a different situation (due to its repeated mention of the title blacklist); notifying users of our standard policies is good, but suggesting that newpage patrollers use a complex and WP:BITEy warning template that doesn't really fit the situation doesn't really. I'm assuming that if an article gets salted and repeatedly recreated, the person recreating it will probably have realised why that's a bad idea by now; if not, the template might need some extra explanation. --ais523 08:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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 at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_28#Template:Eponymous medical signs. ~ Rob^Talk 04:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Eponymous medical signs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless. There is only one place where it makes sense to transclude this - List of eponymously named medical signs - where (if fulfilling its intended role) it simply duplicates the content in a less accessible way; and the list is tagged for notability. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:31, 9 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 Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_28#Template:Firefighting. ~ Rob^Talk 04:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Firefighting (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Wildland Firefighting (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Firefighting with Template:Wildland Firefighting.
The ((Wildland Firefighting)) template is a "part of a series" template that should be converted to a navbox. I am already in the process of doing that. While doing so, it seemed that it would also be appropriate to merge these two templates as there is a significant amount of overlap. There can easily be subsections made in the navbox for items specific to wildland but it seems that the two templates can and should be merged. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:58, 9 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. Unused, creator consented, permalink may illustrate past version. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Non-free use rationale album cover/old (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Album cover fur/old (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (redirect)

Unused. Originally created with rationale "Frozen snapshot, to illustrate specific reference transclusions in discussions", but I don't see any links from discussions, just maintenance lists. Any theoretical future use would be better served by a permalink specifying an oldid. – Wdchk (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wdchk: Good to delete. The discussions were back in 2007, when the album cover rationale template was first introduced, and people were amending it on the fly at the same time as it was being discussed, so at that time a frozen snapshot transcluded on a page was useful. That's all very ancient history now, so this is good to remove. Jheald (talk) 15:43, 9 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedily deleted per WP:G4 by RockMagnetist on request by BU Rob13. Alakzi (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Heroes for Hire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox cruft. These characters appear in tens of Marvel comic book series. Alakzi (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The navbox properly lists subjects related to Heroes for Hire. Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G4 since it applies and surpasses any opinion of mine. Steel1943 (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • The point is that these characters are not unique to HfH, and if we had a navbox for every comic book series they've appeared in, there would be nothing but navboxes in these articles. Alakzi (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete for the same reason it was deleted before. Frietjes (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:G4. I've nominated it as such. Thanks Frietjes. ~ Rob^Talk 21:30, 10 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). 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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_28#Template:Pace web. ~ Rob^Talk 04:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pace web (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I created this template a little under eight years ago. It creates a formatted link to an external web address for bus routes operated by Pace, a bus operator in the Chicago. The individual routes are not notable and don't have articles; the template is used on train station articles such as Joliet Union Station. This information is transient and probably not notable; Wikipedia is not a travel guide. The external link to the Metra site at the bottom of every article contains the same information. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose you're proposing to remove all the bus connection sections, essentially? Alakzi (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a separate conversation. Even if those sections are retained, this template really goes against our external link policies. Mackensen (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if we're keeping the sections, we'd want to reference them somehow, in which case the template could be converted for use in footnotes. Alakzi (talk) 17:00, 9 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 don't merge. ~ Rob^Talk 20:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Alum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Faculty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Alum with Template:Faculty.
Very similar templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose They are not similar and they have different purpose. Zenqueue (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The differ by just one parameter, and have the common purpose of populating lists of people associated with universities. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Looking at Fisk University (for example), they do appear to generate the same output, save for Class year instead of Department. This doesn't seem dissimilar to the various header and row templates which are used with s-start. I could see creating a base template which these wrapped. Mackensen (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. We don't need a third template; we need to reduce the number from two to one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Neither of these templates has been edited for itself since 2007 and since then only minor style changes and addition of /doc has happened. There is no maintenance work that anyone is burdened with so this nomination is just creating work for the sake of it. There is no "need" involved. Also merging the templates would prevent new features from being added to one but not the other, which may be thought desirable in the future. BethNaught (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((Faculty)) uses obsolete HTML style attributes; nobody's got around to updating it yet, as they have done with ((Alum)). ((Faculty)) also does not use microformat classes. So, yes, it does generate extra work keeping these separate. Alakzi (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears somebody has got around to updating it. BethNaught (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • So there was extra work, then. Thanks for demonstrating. BTW, I added microformat markup to ((Alum)) of the template in 2014; that's seven years more recent than 2007. Now which future features do you envisage being added? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see what you're getting at, but in this case the edits were so trivial that someone who has never heard of hCards and who has never used CSS was able to fix it quickly. In terms of feature changes, one may wish to add a column to ((Alum)) to indicate what diploma they received, for example. BethNaught (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, in any case, these templates are redundant to ((mem)) and its subtemplates. BethNaught (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I used this template to work on List of University of East Anglia alumni. It's a well referenced alumni list, and better than a lot of similar alumni lists on WP. Alumni and Faculty are two different things. Alumni have a graduating class year for instance but this is not relevant for faculty. Uhooep (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uhooep --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:46, 16 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 04:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Civil unions in Europe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Seems to have been replaced with Template:LGBT rights in Europe and Template:Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:11, 9 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 all. ~ Rob^Talk 20:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cite isbn/978140130237 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite isbn/978012397023 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite isbn/978081297381 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite isbn/978904819170 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite isbn/978041516962 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite isbn/978075464233 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite isbn/978019924603 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite isbn/978185856340 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite isbn/978019514805 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite isbn/978019517111 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite isbn/978041540448 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite isbn/978019514806 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite isbn/978038740080 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned ISBN templates. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, but there is a lot of these[1] and cite pmid, and cite doi too (a bot has subst them all). They should just be deleted imho. Christian75 (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't we orphan all of these and delete them in a single run? Nominating them in batches probably is a waste of everybody's time. Alakzi (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Cite isbn wasn't clear on consensus (with challenges and disputes all over the place) so I wasn't sure. I'll make a bot request. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 10 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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Legend of the Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is a navbox for a minor award with no article of its own on Wikipedia. The award is not a biographically defining element for its recipients, so this navbox is overkill. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a notable award. No reason for there to be a template for it.--Yankees10 06:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Minor, non-notable award. Contributes to bottom-of-the-page navbox cruft. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." Per nominator, the bigger issue is that this is not defining for its recipients.—Bagumba (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Legend of the Year is not a notable award and therefore it is not a useful template. Zenqueue (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Bagumba. ~ Rob^Talk 19:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree here that the award is minor, and non notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per everyone above. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 15 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 04:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unhelpful navigation template. All links directly relating to subtopics of Thebandwithnoname are redirects to itself, leaving the template to navigate nothing. Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete', pointless. BethNaught (talk) 08:15, 21 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).