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) ~ Rob^Talk 01:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Most links lead to the sections of the only article that uses this template. Sixth of March 23:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there appears to be two articles about CLSU, one general article, and a whole bunch of external links. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2016 (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 here. Izkala (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cite pmid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite pmid/11027440 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (example subpage)
• remaining subpages

Per an RFC to deprecate the cite pmid template structure (similar to a related cite doi structure that has already been TFD'd), ((cite pmid)) has been deprecated. There still remain about 7100 template subpages that are due for deletion. If this TFD is approved, we have access to an admin bot that can do the deletions. -- Netoholic @ 22:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support subpage deletion, oppose deletion of actual template. Given the extensive history of the template itself and links to it, I think we can mark template:cite pmid as template:historical rather than deleting it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only way to guarantee editors don't attempt to keep using this (and cite doi) is to delete them. Looking at the page, there's no significant value in keeping it, even as historical value. Most of the incoming links are just from user talk pages. Not sure a few red links are much to worry about. Category:Deprecated templates kept for historical reasons only has 11 entries, and 3 of them are the cite templates. We usually only keep templates when removing them would seriously break archives or other valuable historical pages in the Wikipedia: space. This doesn't seem to be the case here. --Netoholic @ 23:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can remove the guts of it which is just a cite journal wrapper anyways and make sure the historical mark is included. Besides, they aren't actually adding more uses, it's just cleanup on the current ones which are largely orphaned and thus a waste of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as it's just a way to turn Wikipedia into a database of PubMed citations, contravening WP:NOT so should have been deleted when it was first created, instead of being deprecated recently -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. There's been repeated consensus at large-scale RfCs against hiding away references in subpages. I'm indifferent about whether the main template goes the way of the dodo, but if it is kept, all functionality should be removed. ~ Rob^Talk 13:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support subpage deletion, oppose deletion of actual template. This way when viewing page histories we can still have the link to PMID. I'll !vote the same way for the other cite {id} templates. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support subpage deletion, oppose deletion of actual template to preserve links to ((cite pmid)) on talk pages. The main attraction to using these templates was that the the citation data was automatically added by a bot. This functionality has since been removed. Very few if any of the underlying data templates were manually created by editors. Hence the risk that these templates will be continued to be used is very low. Boghog (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2016 (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 here. Izkala (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Barisal Burners Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Dhaka Gladiators Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Duronto Rajshahi Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Khulna Royal Bengal Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Sylhet Royals Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These cricket teams disbanded in 2013, so a roster template is not needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are they still in use like at Barisal Burners? If the article wants to template the final team (seems like a poor idea but it's been done) then the template is somewhat usuable. Else, it's not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2016 (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) ~ Rob^Talk 01:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox paranormal term (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely unnecessary template. Terms are defined in article text. jps (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No function other than duplication of article text or addition of unsourced commentary. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pretty much just duplicates what's already being said on most pages. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 22:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Where necessary, terms should be defined in the body of an article, as normal. Consider Telepathy which is correctly described by its lead as the "purported transmission of information", while the template provides a conflicting definition with a false sense of authority that is not based on reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2016 (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 HCCD, condense WestVi. Izkala (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:HCCD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WestVi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete both. No useful navigation. Sixth of March 09:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment HCCD navigates 2 articles -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete HCCD since there are only two articles -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WestVi navigates 4 articles --- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to ((West Visayas State University)) and strip to just the campus links, since that's the only navigation content in the template. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about listifying it to West Visayas State University? Sixth of March 07:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not a nav footer. There's already "#Campuses" list there anyways. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete futile Daniel Kenneth (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2016 (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 WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 23:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Panama Papers leak (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I see no purpose for this as a navbox. All the articles in it are clearly linked in the main article at Panama Papers. I'm not sure someone reading about Mauricio Macri is going to see an obvious link to Salman. Jolly Ω Janner 08:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This affair of the Panama Papers has exploded all of a sudden, upcoming events are happening very quickly, so I propose to keep this template in existence, at least up to the moment when it can be said that the affair is a "fait accompli". --Fadesga (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The main article will inevitably get split due to bloating, and this is still all about a fresh event. Ceosad (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per the above. I'm very sure that the template is useful, and as the number of articles linked by this leak grows, it'll become even more useful. APerson (talk!) 03:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE. that is not how templates should be used. there is only one link in it that is specifically about the Panama Papers. All the rest of the links are just articles about involved parties. 203.118.164.184 (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with the above, that more related articles may be added. Perhaps after a couple of weeks, this can be revisited if necessary. - Paul2520 (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A template is just an editing convenience – a bit of boilerplate which will naturally evolve over time as this fresh topic develops. Deletion should not be used in a heavy-handed way in such circumstances as this would be disruptive. Better to focus on the content of the template and its usage using ordinary editing, as with the rest of the content. Andrew D. (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andrew D. At best, a poor nomination. Jusdafax 10:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It needs to be cleaned up and renamed but the navbox's scope is already sufficient and it will only grow. czar 02:26, 11 April 2016 (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). ~ Rob^Talk 02:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template has been cluttering up talk pages with a note about "current candidate" for a long time (e.g. it's been on Talk:Lake Tahoe since 2009). Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive has been inactive for many years - it now redirects to WP:TAFI. DexDor ^(talk) 05:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm currently working on a bot request (permalink) that aims to fold this template (and a bunch of other ones) into ((article history)). It may be useful to run the bot and convert all of these transclusions into article history transclusions before deleting. APerson (talk!) 03:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but (IMO) that an article was (years ago) a candidate for an improvement drive is so unimportant that it doesn't need to be added to ((article history)). DexDor ^(talk) 06:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, never mind. I thought you were talking about a template indicating that the article was selected as the ACID article; I agree with you that a template showing that the article was a candidate is pretty useless. APerson (talk!) 13:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a template only useful for a defunct process. APerson (talk!) 13:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Another piece of ancient, useless talk page clutter. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2016 (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 WP:SNOW keep (non-admin closure). ~ Rob^Talk 22:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I feel like this gives admin's too much power. Autoconfirmed users have been given the technical ability to move pages, therefore I don't think there should have to be a "special declaration" for a user to determine consensus and move a page at requested moves. — Music1201 ^talk 00:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep being trusted with the technical ability to move pages and being experienced enough to determine consensus are two very different things. The template is simply used because it provides clarification that the closer is not an admin. It doesn't prevent non-admins from closing discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 11:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Like ((nac)), this is a good way for a non-admin closer to indicate that he or she is familiar with NAC standards, hence the link, when he or she makes a close. Use of the template is not mandatory, though I think it's fair to say it's considered good practice. Either way, it does nothing to give anyone more or less power. --BDD (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no problem with this template. The use of an admin is to determine consensus, hence extra powers. A non-admin closing a consensus discussion should be marked, since they haven't been vetted to be able to determine consensus, which is one of the duties of admins. If it is unmarked, people might think an admin closed the discussion. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this template serves as a gateway to becoming an administrator. Those who use it frequently and without stirring up drama (i.e. successfully) build up a track record that enhances their chances for a successful run for administrator privileges. wbm1058 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Use of this template is good practice. It increases transparency, and provides all a small helpful link to the relevant guidelines for NACs of RM discussions. Disagree with the nominators feelings. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2016 (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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 02:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wisconsin Wolfpack seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with just two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:07, 7 April 2016 (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).