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, but rename. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

External link template, created in 2011. Only three transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and include these. Caorongjin (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with cleanup. This is a specific-source citation template that was not categorized as such. It needs to be converted into a ((Cite web)) wrapper (as I did for ((UEFA coach)), below – it takes about 5 minutes or less). It should also be renamed to ((BCEWT)) to match the full acronym of the work, to stop incorrectly downcasing part of an acronym, and to avoid confusion with BCE in the date sense. Probably the majority of what appears in Category:Encyclopedia external link templates needs this conversion (other than things like ((EB1911)) for public domain encyclopedias we've directly borrowed content from; those are attribution templates). Categorize them (by topic, not by being "an encyclopedia", a categorization with no actual inclusion criteria) under Category:Specific-source templates and its subcats thereof (even if also kept in this EL template category) so people can find them. Usually these works are being cited as sources, not given as external links (or at least that should be the case, and we should help make it the case). Every time I see a good source (including high-quality tertiary ones) just dumped in the "External links" section like barely relevant junk, I want to bite someone. Something should only be in that section if a) it is genuinely useful for readers but b) we can't use it directly as a source.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:15, 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 keep. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:UEFA coach (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep and add to these articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, or replace with sandbox version and keep. This is essentially a specific-source citation template that wasn't categorized as such, which may be why it is low-use so far, despite the fairly large number of articles that could be using it. While the editor utility isn't high (one still has to get the coach ID from the URL to use it), it has the benefit of consistent formatting. Unfortunately, it's using poor formatting, and needs to be changed to output something that's a proper citation. These coach articles are not named "Coaching record" as the template implies, but are named "Profile" with a breadcrumbs title that precedes this with the subject's name, giving us an obvious title to use. I've made a more WP:CITE-friendly version of this template, as ((Cite web)) wrapper, at ((UEFA coach/sandbox)). The added |date= and |access-date= (AKA |accessdate=) parameters would need to be added to the documentation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw per Fritjes. @SMcCandlish: Once again, you comment is verbose and off at tangent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, you need to give up the idea that are the Official Wikipedia Word-count Enforcement Officer. There is nothing "off at tangent" about my post, which says precisely what it was intended to, for the exact reasons I had in mind, all of which are relevant to the question what to do with/about/to this template.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:18, 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 no consensus. It's not entirely clear why this template was nominated, and all but the nominator don't seem convinced deletion is an obvious outcome. There's no consensus to delete at this time. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

External link template, with an optional parameter which, if used, must be a full URL; and the remaining content from [[Bibliothèque_nationale_de_France#Gallica|Gallica]]. Only 54 14 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment, I am unsure about this one. I fixed the code, which was clearly supposed to be imported from the FR-wiki, and uses like Louis Lemercier de Neuville seem valid, but there are many uses with no input args, which I have been cleaning up. if there are really only a few articles with valid uses, then I suppose deleting it is no great loss. Frietjes (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Inclined to keep. It's a benefit to readers to link to free content like this; there's no need for the images to be a Commons. We have various other templates of this sort, e.g. for Google Books, Project Gutenberg, etc. The fact that they're just dumped into Category:External link templates (or sometimes more obscure categories) probably has much to do with low use and some suspicion about their existence here. They should be subcategorized as a group, something I've started at Category:Free content external link templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template was not nominated because of "suspicion about [its] existence here" nor Category:External link templates. It was nominated because it is an "External link template, with an optional parameter which, if used, must be a full URL". Please do not try to second-guess my motivations, nor those of others who comment here. And if the template is being used to link to open-licensed, or out-of-copyright images then yes, they should be copied to Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note amended transclusion count - presumably a typo in my original. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:UK trademark (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

External link template with only two transclusions. No other links to target site on this Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment, I fixed it so it actually works now, and it looks like it could have more uses. Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a single-source citation template, not really an external-links section template in intent (though, as always, any such template can be used either way). We keep (and have a large number of) single-source citation templates if there's much potential for reuse, and I have a half-formulated plan for making them cleanly subst'able into standard CS1 citations, after converting them to CS1 wrappers (in the cases where they aren't already).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether it is used in external link sections or in references; it links to an external site. It has only two tarnslcusions. There are no other links to target site on this Wikipedia. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is clearly not a reason to keep this template. As I have pointed out to you previously, templates like this which do have significant use should not be substituted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral: Seems it is a nice concept but not ready for prime time. I could be swayed by evidence of "much potential for reuse," but I'm noticing that even the US Trademark template has about 67 transclusions, which seems light. How many more articles —in WP now— could this be added to? Montanabw^(talk) 20:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see value in having a consistency of UK trademark citation. TJRC (talk) 21:45, 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 ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template has been functionally replaced by ((div col)). I replaced it in E2 (TV channel) (where it was introducing list gaps and preventing the infobox from properly floating next to the list, Electric Circus (where the transclusion was completely broken), House of Representatives of Puerto Rico (where it was introducing list gaps, University of Maine (where it was introducing list gaps), and Steve Harris (musician) (where it was better to use floating columns). It was very useful before ((div col)), but now we have far better ways to create multicolumn lists. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant/obsolete and malfunctional, after replacement. Even if it could be fixed, there would be no reason to do so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Template:Autocol is not redundant because it provides features that {div col} does not, such as auto-numbering of items, or working on any web browser, not just CSS3 browsers. Also, {autocol} is not "malfunctional" because it specifically formats a set of items as a multi-column table (not an HTML list with "list gaps") and so screen readers would handle the text as with any wikitable, such as an infobox. We do not delete infobox templates merely because they have could have wp:LISTGAPS. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, obsolete. Frietjes (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Template:Autocol is not obsolete because it provides features that {div col} does not, such as auto-numbering of items, or working on any web browser, not just CSS3 browsers. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:03, 6 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 alter template to remove redundancy ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Country Rugby League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The content of this template is entirely duplicated in Template:Rugby League in New South Wales and in most cases both templates are in articles. As a result, this template seems to be redundant. Mattlore (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say if it can be updated by those with the knowledge of the subject area then it would be beneficial to keep, especially in a historical context where country rugby league was significant in Australia.Theanonymousentry (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the template was created before the subject matter was moved/duplicated to NSWRL (from my recollection). To be honest, I dont think the 'teams info' should exist in the NSW. In my opinion I think we should keep the CRL template and remove info from NSW template. I would be happy to make these changes once consensus is reached. Eccy89 (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Resolve it as Eccy89 suggests.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done As there was no other input to this matter, I went ahead and resolved as suggested by SMcCandlish. Eccy89 (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eccy89: I don't think that did it. The sections at [((Rugby League in New South Wales)) no longer match. Aside from the CRL section, they all provide teams/clubs and competitions as subjections of links, but the CRL one provides totally different things. The "Representative team" thing doesn't seem to make sense in the context, the "Governing body" link is redundant (CRL itself is already linked as such in the left column), and the region stuff is drilling-down-too-far trivia that belongs in the ((Country Rugby League)) template. Anyway, we're supposed to wait for the TfD to end before acting to implement major changes some have suggested in the course of it, if they'd be liable to affect or moot the discussion (though we regularly repair faults, like "the link in this template doesn't work", etc.). I would suggest a self-revert pending the TfD closure, then (assuming to concludes in the predictable directly) redrafting the CRL section of the NSW template to be consistent with the others in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 05:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

erhm? Who are you? (Mattlore?) The TfD had already ended once on account of the fact that "the broader community" is not discussing it for probably various reasons. I made the necessary changes on account that everyone involved seemed to be on the same page so that this issue could be finally put to bed. However, I have gone and done a self-revert. Your point about the rep team doesn't make sense as you want everything to be uniform, yet you don't want it in the CRL section (unless, I am missing something?). Re: governing body, fair point - I didn't notice it was already linked. I can see your point about club names in the NSWRL template, however it seems that you are of the belief clubs should be in the template. I do not agree with this point. If we continue with the clubs for the CRL section than clubs in NSWRL competitions must also be listed, however this is not the case. The clubs in the remaining two sections (Womens and Tertiary) do not add any value what-so-ever to the template as only five of 31 are blue-linked. Remember that templates are suppose to be used as an ease of access point, with all articles linked. Anyway, this is a discussion for the NSWRL template (not the CRL one). Realistically, I believe that the changes to be made are remove all club names from the NSWRL template and add Women's and Tertiary leagues to an other competitions section. I might make a sandbox and show it to you? —Eccy89 (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the above comment wasn't me. I was happy with your changes and have only noticed this due to your self-revert. Mattlore (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattlore: Hmmm, well whoever it was has got me thinking about all the info listed and that the templates of ((Rugby League in New South Wales)) and ((Rugby League in Queensland)) should look similar. I have been creating an alternative. —Eccy89 (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattlore: Hey man, what do you think? It's much less clunky :-) User:Eccy89/Template:New South Wales Rugby League (ps. i know the name is wrong!) —Eccy89 (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good - At first I wondered if we should include former NRL clubs, but I think that might be a bit too much clutter. Also, I would prefer the order is slightly changed, instead of alphabetically, put the NSWRL first in the federations and the NSW Blues first in the rep teams. Mattlore (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattlore: yep, comment about order change seems OK (it will be consistent with how Competitions is listed). I think the NRL clubs is necessary because they such an important part of rugby league in NSW. Without them, there isn't really rugby league in NSW... From grassroots footy, major stakeholders of the districts they represent to promotion of the game...really list is endless. Note ((Rugby League in Queensland)) has a section for NRL clubs also. Realistically, the new one I made is still less cluttered than the current one :-P How long should we wait before changing it over? —Eccy89 (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• fix redundancy as suggested by Eccy89. the proposed new version of Rugby league in New South Wales is less bloated. Frietjes (talk) 13:44, 4 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 Relisted on 2016 September 4 ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Le Mans FC squad (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) 04:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Audrina Patridge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Longstanding consensus not to have filmographies in navboxes. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per long-standing consensus that the rationale of WP:PERFCAT also applies to navboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per prior consensus for these kinds of navboxes. anemoneprojectors 21:12, 30 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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:SJSD schools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apart from the high schools and Robert Browning School, the navbox is composed entirely of redirects to the article about the school division and red links for likely non-notable schools. The five other school articles can easily be linked to one another through see also sections. Graham (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The isn't serving a navigation function, just a confusion one, implying that there are more notable schools in the district, and more articles on them, than there are or ever likely will be.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep after removing all the redlinks and redirects. connects five articles. Frietjes (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove redirects and redlinked articles. This links more than four articles, which makes it useful navigation in my opinion (and given past TfD precedent). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:25, 4 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) 00:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:RC-diocese-AICA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

External link template. Created 2006. Only two transclusions. Only one other link to the target sub-site, on the whole of Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is useless clutter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:12, 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 relisted on 2016 September 4. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:52, 4 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 (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:UniProt2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 3 transclusions. Apparently redundant to ((Uniprot)), the latter using a more up-to-date URL, and having over 11000 transclsuions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not redundant. ((UniProt)) renders as Q8WYK2 (without wikilink). ((UniProt2)) renders as UniProt: Q8WYK2 (with wikilink). Most of the transclusions of ((UniProt)) are in ((Infobox gene)) which already has a wiki link to UniProt. The purpose of ((UniProt2)) is to use outside of ((Infobox gene)) where a wikilink would still be desirable. Finally the url is trivial to update which I have done in this edit. Boghog (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for clarifying this undocumented difference, however, the nominated template still has only three transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now it has 12 transclusions which could easily be increased further. Boghog (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant with just using ((UniProt)) and a link to the name UniProt. It's taken more effort to argue about whether to delete the template than will be spent in probably another 9 years to add [[UniProt]]: in front of a few inline calls to ((UniProt)). If this needed to be done frequently, I would suggest keeping it (cf. ((lang|es)) and ((lang-es)), which have the same kind of distinction), but it doesn't appear to be the case since this has only been used three times since 2007. Besides, you can just add a parameter so that ((UniProt|label=y|foo)) does what ((UniProt2|foo)) does. A large number of templates already take this approach to label-generation, for good reason.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is wrong with having special purpose templates? "For good reason"? You haven't given any. One of the potential benefit of templates is they can be (although often are not) more compact. Not having to type out (([[UniProt]])) is exactly why ((UniProt2)) was created in the first place. So you first suggestion makes no sense. Your second suggestion of adding ((UniProt|label=y|foo)) parameter makes more sense, but again, requires more characters. Boghog (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing wrong with having special purpose templates. It is not, however, sensible to have them when they are only used three times, and simply replace [[UniProt]]: ((Uniprot|Q8WYK2)) with ((UniProt2|Q8WYK2)) in those three articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or we could replace "[[UniProt]] ((UniProt|PXXXXX))" with the more compact "((UniProt2|PXXXXX))" in these articles to increase the transclusion count. ((UniProt2)) is now transcluded in 12 articles. Boghog (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Given the small transclusion count, it doesn't appear there's an appetite for this special use template. We could possibly make a bunch of edits to add transclusions, but the purpose of a special use template is to make life easier for editors in the applicable content area. None of them seem to want to use this, so it's not making their life easier to force this template into articles. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to use it. Isn't that reason enough? I will add a lot more transclusions, but am holding off while this template is under discussion. Boghog (talk) 16:45, 4 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 Relisted on 2016 September 5 (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Genukiary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) = 3 transclusions
• Template:Genukiery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) = 4 transclusions
• Template:Genukinry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) = 4 transclusions
• Template:Genukiwry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) = 57 transclusions

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) 03:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Valve technology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant because of ((Valve Corporation)). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Far as I can tell, this was unilaterally split from the main template and then used on a single page. The original template was fine as it was. -- ferret (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Struck my vote above. Was mis-remembering, apologies. ((Valve Corporation)) was unilaterally created from ((Valve games)) and ((Valve technology)). It was then used on the single page Valve Corporation (Now used on 2-3 other pages). No one has made any real efforts to replace usage of ((Valve games)) or ((Valve technology)) with the new template ((Valve Corporation)). -- ferret (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant, and redirect to newer, merged ((Valve Corporation)) template relevant articles are not left without any Valve navbox.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. I believe doing so should reduce redundancy. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:56, 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) 00:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Valve games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant because of ((Valve Corporation)). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Far as I can tell, this was unilaterally split from the main template and then used on a single page. The original template was fine as it was. -- ferret (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and have all mentions of this in articles replaced with a bot with ((Valve Corporation)). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The edit history (300+ revisions) predominantly resides with ((Valve games)), which gives me pause about simply replacing it with Valve Co. --Izno (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Struck my vote above. Was mis-remembering, apologies. ((Valve Corporation)) was unilaterally created from ((Valve games)) and ((Valve technology)). It was then used on the single page Valve Corporation (Now used on 2-3 other pages). No one has made any real efforts to replace usage of ((Valve games)) or ((Valve technology)) with the new template ((Valve Corporation)). -- ferret (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant, and redirect to newer, merged ((Valve Corporation)) template relevant articles are not left without any Valve navbox.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This looks like a plain case of reducing redundancy. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:55, 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox software/updates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Looks like a pointless list, given that we have Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Latest stable software release/ and Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Latest preview software release/. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I was tempted to suggest projectspacing this to WP:WikiProject Software as it's obviously a maintenance list, not a template, but she's right that it's better to just generate a fresh list when this is needed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:40, 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; deleted as G6 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox software/Test cases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not to be confused by ((Infobox software/testcases))

Test code created and only edited by one blocked user. It is of no use to anyone now. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:06, 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; deleted as G6 by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox software/Sandbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not to be confused by ((Infobox software/sandbox))

Test code created and only edited by one blocked user. It is of no use to anyone now. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:06, 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) 00:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox software/repository (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Looks like an offshoot of ((Infobox software)). Unused. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; we have no need of micro-forking of infoboxes by exact type/genre of software. If something about repos isn't adequately covered by the current ((Infobox software)), seek consensus to add one or more parameters to resolve to the problem or just do it if the idea is well-thought-out and unlikely to raise objections.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC) I mistook the intent of this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is just a sandbox showing addition of external links to the software repository of the subject of the article on which the infobox is placed. We don't need multiple, lingering sandboxes for templates. This particular proposed parameter addition is something that should be discussed on the template's talk page (and would likely be controversial).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:44, 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 merge/delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Newcastle upon Tyne weatherbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Potters Bar weatherbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only used in one article, should be moved be merged with the article and moved to an article-space redirect for attribution (see, for example, here, here for precedent). Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace in the articles with the standard ((Infobox weather)). I couldn't really follow what the nom's actual suggestion is. We do not need to preserve editorial attribution for statistical data, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:37, 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) 00:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Politics of Kashmir (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template appears to have been created in good faith, but I'd like to discuss what this template has that can't already be added into the existing (and relevant) Template:Kashmir conflict. As far as the "politics of Kashmir" is concerned, the region is divided into units among the 3 countries, and each unit has its own political system. Thus, the concept itself is nonexistent from a holistic point of view. Mar4d (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace in the article with ((Kashmir conflict)), per nom.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:51, 2 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).