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) Primefac (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Maryville Saints bowl game navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with just one link. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:28, 11 February 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 after subst'ing and ensuring all pages are listed on the Project page. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Valued pictures was closed in 2010 so this (and other templates in Category:Valued picture templates) is just cluttering the place up. If not deleted it should be marked as historical/deprecated (and the categorization commented out). DexDor ^(talk) 07:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. we don't need this any more. Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and listify and delete subst into the file page, listify into the historical page to indicate what waa considered a possible valued picture, and then delete -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove cats, subst, listify and delete per .39, as this template doesn't have very much in it, so keeping it as a separate page doesn't seem as practical as just saving the information it conveys —PC-XT+ 07:18, 25 February 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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:First (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Second (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Third (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Fourth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Fifth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Sixth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per MOS:ORDINAL, ordinals should not be superscripted. Thus, these templates are unnecessary (they only have three article-space transclusions between them anyway). Primefac (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. these do not conform with MOS:ORDINAL. Frietjes (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as against MOS —PC-XT+ 00:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as against MOS. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:47, 14 February 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 concerns about purpose, content, navigation, categorisation, and OR. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This nav box is very in-universe in that it is based on the appearances of fictional concept(s) (Jedi, Sith and The Force) in the Star Wars franchise. All of its character, media and topic links are, or can be, covered in one or more of the many existing Star Wars navigation boxes (((Star Wars)), ((Star Wars characters)) and multiple others), which are already more appropriately arranged from a real world perspective. — TAnthony^Talk 01:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I created the original, much smaller, version of this following support for it at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_13#Category:Jedi_religion. The "All of" comment above seems incorrect; Jediism is not in any other Star Wars templates. Add it into the main one, and I would have no objection. – Fayenatic London 06:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Jediism is a notable topic that definitely should have been previously included in ((Star Wars)).— TAnthony^Talk 06:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as it fails WP:NAVBOX and the arbitrary distinction between what is current canon and past canon is confusing. Jedi and Sith are linked in the template title, so those two must be the subject. But what in the fictional universe of Star Wars is not connected to the Force, Jedi or Sith? It lists four video games, but what about every game in which a Jedi or Sith appears? It could be an error, but why is Darth Maul listed twice, once as Sith Lord with a C behind his name, indicating "Canon" and once in the, I guess, other group? I agree with TAnthony that everything in this template can easily be put into other Star Wars templates. --Soetermans. T / C 08:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but delete the entire section on "Franchise media", which is just an arbitrary selection of stuff already covered in Template:Star Wars and remove the L and C distinction. Wikipedia cares about notability, not canonicity. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well then that would leave only the "Canon", "Force-sensitive users" and "Cultural impact sections", and all of those links are already included in either ((Star Wars)) or ((Star Wars characters)).— TAnthony^Talk 19:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's ok. As Jedi and Sith are both notable concepts, I think this is a notable subset/redivision of those two templates with a useful organizational spin on it. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but keep franchise media. This is the only Star Wars template that properly provides distinction between what is and isn't canonical in one place. For the typical reader (like myself), a template like this is necessary. @Sotermans: The Darth Maul being listed twice thing was not there yesterday. The mistake has now been fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.236.211 (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate your desire for information about canonocity, but a navbox is not the place for that, at least not in this way. There are other Star Wars nav boxes listing works that could perhaps be separated by Canon vs Legends if they are not already, but this nav box is flawed in that it is based on what works Jedis appear in, and that is in-universe (and redundant).— TAnthony^Talk 19:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It's Soetermans :) Now Darth Maul is mentioned in the 'other group'. Isn't he a Sith also? Further issues: right now, there are a lot of redlinks in the template. Navboxes are for exisiting articles only, not for general listings. Oh, and the Rebels comics redirects to the CGI TV series. Star Wars Land is an upcoming theme area, and from what I can tell from its article, it isn't clear what is has to do with Jedi or Sith. --Soetermans. T / C 09:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There are sufficient other templates which provide navigation between these topics without diving into (what can be) controversial "canonicity" discussions. --Izno (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This template is the epitome of in-universe, with various subsets that someone unfamiliar with Star Wars could not even scratch the surface of for making sense of. As the Characters template covers the vast majority of this one's content, it's fitting that this is deleted and we rely on the more encyclopedic templates to manage the information. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: LISTEN. Why not split the page? The franchise media is extensive enough to be in its own box. The rest can remain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.191.146 (talk) 2:50, February 1, 2016‎

To my knowledge, everything in this template is included in other nav boxes already.— TAnthony^Talk 23:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as navboxes are for existing articles only, a lot of redlinks should be removed at this point. No use to keep it around. --Soetermans. T / C 08:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all non-existing links. The video games section barely scratched the surface of every appearance of a Jedi or Sith. The templates ((Star Wars)) and ((Star Wars characters)) are more appropriate for listing the rest of the media. --Soetermans. T / C 08:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, to me it seems redundant to ((Star Wars)), ((Star Wars characters)) and others such as ((Star Wars Legends novels)). Additionally, a navigation template shouldn't give you information on what is canon and what isn't, it should just allow you to navigate between related Wikipedia articles. AnemoneProjectors 14:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well put.— TAnthony^Talk 22:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to invite some of the editors I see regularly participating in TfDs, like anyone on this discussion page, or AussieLegend (talk · contribs), Bgwhite (talk · contribs), Dirtlawyer1 (talk · contribs), Frietjes (talk · contribs), GiantSnowman (talk · contribs), Mamyles (talk · contribs), Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs), and Plastikspork (talk · contribs) and SMcCandlish (talk · contribs).— TAnthony^Talk 22:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm torn. On one hand, most of the info can be found in ((Star Wars)). On the other hand, ((Star Wars characters)) and ((Jedi)) do have unique features. One cannot make out who is a Jedi/Sith in the characters template, plus it has alot of non-Jedi related material. It is allowing one to navigate between non-Jedi/Sith articles. Confusing. One can see easily who is Jedi/Sith, with easier to navigate categories in the Jedi template. At the moment, I'm leaning towards ripping out anything in the Star Wars template and keeping the rest. Bgwhite (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, singling out Jedi/Sith-related characters from others is arbitrary and in-universe. Why not, then, separate templates for male and female Star Wars characters? Humans and non-humans? A navigation template is supposed to have a real-world context. A list of Jedi characters placed in the Jedi article would be more appropriate.— TAnthony^Talk 22:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pretty much redundant with Template:Star Wars characters--Prisencolin (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the redundancy factor, and the WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE / WP:ENC / MOS:FICTION concerns. It's not WP's job, at all, to sort things by in-universe fictional classifications or canonicity. That's what things like Wookiepedia are for (see WP:OUTLETS). This kind of categorization-in-template isn't appropriate here, because it doesn't relate to things WP cares about, like notability, public impact, critical response, etc., of the characters; it's a sorting that only makes sense to those who are already immersed in the fictional Star Wars world. That's a lot of people, but it's not everyone. It's also subject to WP:NPOV/WP:NOR problems. E.g., Anakin/Vader, among others, were both Jedi and Sith, and it's questionable whether Luke was a Jedi, because he did not finish his training, etc., etc. Don't go there on WP.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too much overlap with no significant navigational benefit. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 16 February 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) Primefac (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Baker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Fisher (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:HAHolden (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:HASmith (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Stewart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Sutherland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per 2 of WP:TFD#REASONS, WP:NENAN and WP:FANCRUFT. These are redundant to Template:Home and Away characters. JuneGloom07 Talk 01:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, redundant to the better Template:Home and Away characters. AnemoneProjectors 10:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as redundant. the Template:Home and Away characters provides the necessary navigation with less in-universe cruft. Frietjes (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per exact reasoning in the Star Wars-related one just above this; don't want to repeat it all here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - These templates are not needed. They are only useful to a fan of the show. There is a main template which has characters from the series in it. One main template is better than all these fancruft efforts that do not offer much.Rain the 1 13:21, 14 February 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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Abnormal clinical and laboratory findings for urine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Urine tests (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Abnormal clinical and laboratory findings for urine with Template:Urine tests.
These two templates should really be merged, in view of overlapping content areas and similar subject matter. It benefits editors by having concepts like what is tested for in urinalysis displayed in the same navbox template as what the results are. Tom (LT) (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• merge, seems sensible. Frietjes (talk) 17:43, 11 February 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).