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) 23:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Spokane Shock roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This team does not play anymore, so a team roster isn't needed anymore. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, WP:NTEMP, the template is still useful for historical record.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, this historical record is in Spokane Shock not in a "current roster" template, since a "current roster" doesn't exist for a defunct team. there is nothing particularly notable about the final roster for a team, and we don't have a template for the roster for every season. Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 31 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:User knowledge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and non-functional userbox template to populate categories that do (and should) not exist. Self-contradictory purpose, too: its content indicates knowledge of a subject, but its would-be categorization is as students (i.e., those seeking, not possessing, the knowledge).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & per experience here; those who claim to know something usually have a strong viewpoint on it, not really knowing it because we're all anonymous you need to see what people have done not what they claim to know. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah there's that, too. Our present user templates and categories indicating interests (and all but the most obscure are already covered) should surely be sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Related CfD notice: The all-but empty Category:Knowledge user templates this template is in is also up for CfD, here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 31 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Meg Ryan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per long-standing precedent (Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, as far as I can tell, she has only directed one film, so if we were to make this a director template, it would have one entry. Frietjes (talk) 17:22, 31 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to Wikipedia:RFCAUTO and unused after I replaced the only two transclusions with the former technique. Also unused for linking to specific pages or sections of RfCs, which is mentioned in its documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a WP:REDUNDANTFORK per nom.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:00, 25 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Twelve transclusions. All of the books to which this links are also available in Guttenburg, Internet Archive and LibriVox, and probably WikiSource. Accordingly, it should be deleted without substitution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete promotional. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Delete No objection from myself (as creator). It comes from a time when we had links to dozens of such sites, we've obviously tightened things up in the intervening decade. I don't know if there are other templates in need of similar nomination and deletion but I'd guess there could be (I'll check my own contribs and add any I find). Nick (talk) 10:00, 31 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:The Real Housewives of Orange County (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:The Real Housewives of Atlanta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:The Real Housewives of New Jersey (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates are no longer needed as all information can be found on the primary template for the franchise.. Kelege (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under WP:CSD#T3. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as redundant. anemoneprojectors 09:40, 26 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Single-use external link template, hard-coding a full URL, with no parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, I replaced it in Ethyl acetate (data page). Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 31 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Umslarchives stl photodb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use. No other links to the target site on Wikipedia Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• replace and delete Frietjes (talk) 17:24, 31 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dancing on Ice (Greece) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough active links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not aid navigation. anemoneprojectors 09:42, 26 August 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 on 2016 September 2 (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Family Feud (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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) 23:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Stn lst ldb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, unused frontend for two other templates. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 31 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Technical manual (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I see no foreseeable use. In fact, it seems its code is broken. It uses ((title)) instead of (({title))}, incorrectly invoking Template:Title. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the code. Now, editors can see what it does. Which is, nothing. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: useless and unused.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:56, 29 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only two uses. Links are 404. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-functional.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:39, 28 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:The Crystal Maze (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

None of these links are suitable for inclusion. Cast and crew per longstanding consensus, the others are too tangential or unrelated. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - tangential or unrelated links should be removed, as should cast and crew which would leave an empty template. anemoneprojectors 09:48, 26 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Longstanding consensus not to include cast and crew in navboxes. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per precendent/prior consensus. anemoneprojectors 09:49, 26 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Brubeck space (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The successor to the Brubeck site is the "𝜋-Base" at http://topology.jdabbs.com/. Let's assume there's some demand for a successor template, ((pi-Base)), that points to the new site. If so, it may be better to start the new template as a Move of this old template with a redirect, rather than deleting this template and creating a new one. However, the URLs in the new site look different, so even if that was done, pages like Old revision of Knaster–Kuratowski_fan would still be broken. So the redirect would mostly serve as documentation.

  All that said, this template was never popular, so it's not a big deal. Melchoir (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after any needed substing and repair of URLs to use the new formatting. If someone cares, they can create the new-site template now, and preserve the documentation. If someone cares next year, they can ask an admin to undelete the /doc page to their userspace for them to use in developing it. Either way, no need to keep.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:41, 28 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Brgys.Taytay (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:18, 16 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Boy Scouts of America Membership (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Figures are clearly wrong. There's not 100,000,000 boy scouts in the US. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:09, 25 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Boston Celtics Depth Chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

old and unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:22, 16 August 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 on 2016 September 2 (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:BTS line links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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) 00:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:30, 16 August 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 on 2016 September 2 (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:German law section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 2016 September 2 (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, but feel free to add a JOI feature to ((doi)) as suggested. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only three transcluions. Redundant to ((Doi)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, @Pigsonthewing: How is it redundant? I just put the sample JOI from the template's documentation into ((DOI)), and it spat out a huge red error message. Is there a simple conversion of JOI to DOI of which I'm unaware? Sources don't need to be in English, so citing a Japanese article is fine. If this template facilitates citing one that isn't citable through the DOI template, I'd be inclined to keep this. "Not used much yet" != "will never be used much". If it, somehow, could not be used for any other purpose than to redundantly cite something in Japanese also available in English, I'd be inclined to delete it, but that seems very unlikely. If the JOI and DOI resolve to the same ultimate place, but not everything that provides a JOI also provides a DOI, and the DOI template cannot auto convert JOIs to DOIs, then this template should be merged into the DOI template as a parameter (no one should have to have special knowledge about how to convert a JOI to a DOI). If we want to keep the DOI template as "pure" DOI, then the JOI template needs to remain separate. We should not take away tools that make citing sources easier, and the WP:Systemic bias problem can be chipped away at by making it easier, not harder, to cite non-English sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All JOIs can be expressed as DOIs. For example, the JOI in the template's documentation:

((JOI|JST.JSTAGE/johokanri/42.126))

JOI:JST.JSTAGE/johokanri/42.126

links to a page including the DOI:

((doi|10.1241/johokanri.42.126))

doi:10.1241/johokanri.42.126

In two of the three uses of the nominated template, the JOI is shown alongside a DOI.

Please try to avoid overly-verbose responses. Your comments about English vs. Japanese language sources, for example, is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. There is absolutely no need for a merge in this case, and JOIs offer us no advantage over DOIs, since it is the latter which help to combat systematic bias, by enabling our readers to find a source in their local library, globally, rather than in just one country. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to avoid starting crap with other editors whose writing style you don't like and because your patience is short. :-) Note also that your reply took up more space than my "overly-verbose" post did. I wrote exactly what I needed to. It is now clear that JOIs can be converted (to some extent, anyway), and it is also clear that language issues aren't relevant to this issue, neither of which were clear from your "do it because I say so" nomination that provided too little information for TfD respondents to assess the template adequately.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is a way of converting a joi into a doi, then make ((JOI)) a wrapper for ((Doi)), otherwise keep as is. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Per Rich Farmbrough. If the conversion can be automated (which looks unlikely), provide a tool to do so. If it can't, then keep the template, and someone who hates JOIs can manually convert them to DOIs and a DOI template at their leisure. We are not in a position to delete a template that helps non-experts at DOI/JOI matters cite sources, especially since the template actually provides other readers/editors what they need to track down the source, the reason we provide identifiers in cites (or cites at all).
  An alternative would be, as I suggested already, merging the JOI feature into the DOI template. Pigsonthewing's redundancy complaint would be easily resolved by suppressing display of a JOI if a DOI is also provided. This stuff is easy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of the instances of this template, which I recently removed, involved markup like ((Doi|10.1016/j.coi.2004.08.001)) ((JOI|JST.Journalarchive/zisin1948/52.369)) Please explain how hiding the latter, given the presence of the former, would be "easily resolved". Also, please fix the mismatched emboldening marks in your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest merging the JOI template into the DOI template, as a |joi= parameter, removing individual instances of the JOI template, and using an ((#if:...)) to suppress display of the JOI when a DOI is also provided. Formatting: Fixed, and you can fix it yourself per WP:REFACTOR.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note the JOI in the last remaining transclusion of this template was invalid, so I removed it. The template is now orphanded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 1 September 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:U.S. government agencies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

used in one article about a non-US government agency. Frietjes (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant with (and should be replaced in situ with) ((Infobox organization)), etc..  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Revision: Info in it that is not in the more general infobox above it, at the article it's used in, should be integrated into the more general one, if applicable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would we want to have to infoboxes on that article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, good catch.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant, without replacement or substitution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 29 August 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 keep. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks like a subst-ed template. --Izno (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and mark as substitute only. This seems to almost certainly be a substitute-only template. Additionally, the creator of this template (pinging Neddyseagoon) doesn't appear to have been notified, so they had no means to tell us it was a substitute only template. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and document as "should always be susbsted" because we do not allow content cats in templates. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Keep, but install a substitution test to throw an error if not substituted, and safesubst code so it substitutes cleanly. I've already documented it, but not sure of the absolute best approach to the rest; I'm guessing Template:TFD itself is a good model for the subst features.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:43, 29 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Criticism title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't believe this template falls in line with general Wikipedia practices. Usage of the term "criticism" in article titles is not inherently non-neutral; criticism happens, and sometimes it is notable. Simply saying something has been criticized or has gotten criticism is not non-neutral. Articles about criticism received by something aren't inherently non-neutral or negative either, and there are plenty of them. This template is barely used on Wikipedia; I only noticed it because an editor who started a failing move request for Criticism of Walmart also added this template to the page - although consensus seems to be the title is appropriate. As far as I can tell, it's the only use of the template on Wikipedia. So, as a barely-used template that goes contrary to several articles on Wiki with no good reason, I say delete. There's a neutrality template that works much better and doesn't imply "criticism" by itself is a non-neutral term. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, with which I concur. Keri (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The issue this template is trying to address isn't super-rare, but is already covered by more general neutrality templates. If we had a custom neutrality template for every known kind of neutrality problem on WP, we would have a 1000 of these. As the nom noted, it is not always a PoV problem for this word to appear in articles, since we do have articles on criticism of things where the criticism itself has become notable, so the template is going to be prone to misapplication. "Criticism" also has other meanings; e.g. it means "in-depth academic study of literature or other creative or textual materials", e.g. Literary criticism, Art criticism, etc., much of which is actually positive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:49, 27 August 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Fly fishing waters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No clear criteria for including articles in this navigation template. There are thousands of streams that can be fly fished. Plantdrew (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably more than thousands.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as indiscriminate and overinclusive. Any stream with any fish that like insects would qualify.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:55, 28 August 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 for multiple reasons:

• 2013: Delete; deleted as G6 by Jinian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• 2011, 2014, 2015: Delete; deleted as G6 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• 2010, 2012: Delete; deleted by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2012 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2013 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2014 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2015 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It is now 2016, and thus these old year templates have no purpose. Pppery (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedy tagged the two I created g7, and the rest g6. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 25 August 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 speedy keep. No argument made for deletion/merging/redirecting. I suggest starting a discussion at WT:CS1. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cite book (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

About WP:PAGELINK. The problem seems to have arisen nearly 6 years ago, when it was decided to link Google Books pages not adding pageurl to titleurl and chapterurl, but distorting the use of titleurl, which since then can also no longer be addressed to the front cover. Personally I solve by placing a link in the page or quote parameter, but some editors disagree and revert me. I mean, what do you think of updating the template ((cite book))? --Mauro Lanari (talk) 02:06, 25 August 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. Ruslik_Zero 20:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Souvenirs of Kermanshah province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a silly template, apparently designed to promote Kermanshah province. Many things could be "souvenirs" of many places, and what is a souvenir of a place is completely subjective. DELETE --Macrakis (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as indiscriminate, trivial, non-defining, subjective. It's also only about 1/3 in English. A template somewhat like this could be developed for notable products unique to the province, but India-wide things like ghee, or broader things like leather, do not qualify. This template fails the test that items in a navbox should also have the navbox; this navbox would not appear at articles like Leather or Ghee.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:27, 29 August 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).