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 to the sandbox it's used on. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It appears to be an article placed in Template space. It should be possible to speedy delete this but I couldn't find an appropriate criteria. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is fictional prose content, not a proper template. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:21, 5 March 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 relist to Mar 12. Primefac (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Akron Zips bowl game navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with just two links. It could get more in the future but this is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 29 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) 05:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WikiProject Political parties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WikiProject Politics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Political parties with Template:WikiProject Politics.
This template is actually just a hard-coded instance of Template:WikiProject Politics. However it actually doesn't work properly as it doesn't actually pass-through the main importance listing for WikiProject Politics so every talk page is always tagged into Category:Unknown-importance politics articles. See this version versus merging it together. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Can't it simply be redirected?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the template parameters would pass through as this template's "importance" is the political-parties-importance without the politics project importance. It would have to be done by bot or AWB or manually. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• support Oppose - I don’t understand what is being proposed here. It seems like you are asking to dissolve a task force of WikiProject Politics. I would think the place to start this discussion would be on the WikiProject talk page. Maybe I’m missing something. giso6150 (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Giso6150:, I'm asking to dissolve the Political parties template. The main WikiProject Politics template is fine. The political parties template is inadequate as everything that it uses has a parameter for the political-parties-importance section but is unknown for the main politics section (which can't be changed). The parties template should be replaced with the politics template and then people can clean out the Unknown politics articles category. I'm presuming that things that are low priority for political parties is also low priority for politics overall which is separate from being unknown for politics overall. This version has the page in Category:Unknown-importance politics articles (and in mid-importance) because (1) the Politics template says "mid-importance" (2) but the political parties template has no way to fill in the politics articles importance. Merging the template removes it from the unknown category. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. I have changed my vote to support. The examples helped a lot. I know that the set-up can be tricky for these task force templates and this one is rather wonky as it is now. I was just concerned that the ability to mark articles for the task force itself would go away. Sorry for my confusion. giso6150 (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 16:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This sounds like a strong idea and a great way to fix the category problem. - tucoxn\^talk 20:15, 8 March 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 into ((correct title)). There are a few notes regarding this merge. 1) hash sign is a redirect to number sign, making the actual link of # immaterial. 2) I've made it so |reason=hash adds the page to Category:Hashtags. 3) I will update all uses of correct title which refer to hashtags to reflect point 2. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Somewhat redundant to ((Correct title)) for a specific use case that is already possible with the current template. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, as the creator. "Somewhat redundant" does not equal "redundant". These days, more and more issues are primarily identified by their hashtags. Automatically replacing the "♯" (sharp) sign by the proper "#" (hash) sign improves consistency and allow ((Hashtag title)) to be simply placed at the top of an article without giving additional parameters. It also categorizes the articles in the Category:Hashtags. The template therefore helps streamlining the case of hashtags as page names. Also, ((Correct title)) refers to the # sign as the "number sign" which in the case of hashtags simply isn't correct.
  If the nominator aimed to merge the functionality into the ((Correct title)) template without degrading usage and presentation, then I'd be obviously fine with it. I however oppose a deletion based on the argumentation that the specifics wouldn't matter. They do. --PanchoS (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to ((Correct title)). We only need one template for this purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to T:Correct title per the nom and SMC. --Izno (talk) 15:00, 9 March 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).