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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Rfd-t (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Rfd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Rfd-t with Template:Rfd.
A late June 2014 edit made the ((rfd)) template work for template redirects, so a specific `use for template redirects` template is not necessary. Pppery (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to use Lua Also notifying WT:RfD —PC-XT+ 03:49, 14 July 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) 02:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Other people2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Other people (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Other people2 with Template:Other people.
((Other people2)) is very similar to one of the forms taken by ((other people)):

• ((other people||PAGE)) (note the double pipe) →
  For other people with the same name, see PAGE.
• ((other people2|PAGE)) →
  For other people of the same name, see PAGE.

Moreover, ((other people)) is implemented in Lua, meaning it's far more flexible and can handle cases ((other people2)) can't:

• ((other people||PAGE1|PAGE2|PAGE3)) →
  For other people with the same name, see PAGE1, PAGE2, and PAGE3.
• ((other people2|PAGE1|PAGE2|PAGE3)) →
  For other people of the same name, see PAGE1.

The system of hatnotes is simpler when there are fewer templates to choose from and maintain. This template is redundant, so we should merge and delete it.

For context, this TfD is part of a series of TfDs I've filed to improve the hatnote system. See also About3 & About4; Redirect6; Details3 & For-on-see; and Redirect4, redirect5, redirect7, and redirect11, to redirect-multi. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 20:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, just because there is a very large drive to merge templates. Extensive discussion is also needed. -Mardus /talk 18:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mardus: Can you clarify your objection? What do you believe needs to be discussed? ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 20:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's missing, is an in-depth discussion by multiple (experienced) editors as to the merit of merging or deleting this template. -Mardus /talk 20:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Per Mardus above. I also find it redundant. Not to mention confusing. So I think a merge would provide both clarity and simplicity. On those bases, I support it. X4n6 (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to reduce the number of variations and make it easier to decide which one to use —PC-XT+ 03:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since they serve different functions, if you actually read them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Necrothesp: How does changing "of" to "with", or vice versa, change the function? ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 16:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't help thinking you haven't actually tested (or read the pages on) the two templates you want to merge. Give it a go. You'll find it doesn't produce the results you seem to think it does! Have you not noticed that one produces a disambiguation suffix and one doesn't? -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Necrothesp: Um, I wrote Module:Other people. The first parameter of ((other people)) produces the disambiguation suffix since it changes the defaulting, but the second parameter doesn't, and in fact overrides that behaviour from the first if present. Look at the examples I gave in the nomination: they show the overlap in functionality. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 22:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Seems redundant.--EchetusXe 20:07, 20 July 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 02:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Edinburgh City F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Does not navigate between sufficient number of bluelinks, does not merit squad navigation template. GiantSnowman 17:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. May well become worthwhile in the future, should they acquire more notable players, but not right now. Jellyman (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NENAN, not a useful aid to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Filipino film directors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

duplicates the category. the category doesn't suffer from POV decisions regarding who is included. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 11 July 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 both. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Iranian-Americans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:List of Iranian-Americans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Basically a copy of List of Iranian Americans. Too large and broad to serve as a proper navigation tool. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Template:Iranian-Americans alive . i will fix it as a shorter an better soon . thank so much for your notes . that was helpful Amir Muhammad 14:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which one - one is just a copy of the other.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i mean the Template . i wanna made a Template to consider Iranian-Americans, for example famous Iranian-Americans who are most academic immigrants of the US( base on MIT reports at 2011}. if my last works was wrong please tell me how can to fix it . dear @PRehse: thank you so much for mentioning me . health n wealth dear Amir Muhammad 14:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 100% delete per Gonzo_fan2007. Has absolutely no purpose and is problematic in numerous regards. PS: I just noticed he already spammed it on all those articles, and thus some bot manually deleting it would be appreciated. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: thank you for your helps in Iran Project related pages . as im an Iranian how can i make this template better as real and encyclopedic ?? can you help me to make ?? however im so appreciated to work with you fellows . you are so smart and kind and helpful . im waiting for your next present dear buddy . it can be nice of you . wish you the best by now Amir Muhammad 15:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment dear Gonzo please Delete Template:List of Iranian-Americans and Keep Template:Iranian-Americans . im working on it to improve it to not be so large and broad . a thing like Template:People from Russia .thanks Amir Muhammad 15:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AmirMuhammad1: ((People from Russia)) is a redirect to ((Lists of Russians)). As you can see, ((Lists of Russians)) doesn't link people, it links relevant list articles about Russian people. Your template is a list of Iranian people. It is not useful as a template, because the template would become infinitely large and complex with so many people in it. Templates serve to help people naviagte. Hope this helps you understand. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment i fix it . pls look at Template:Iranian-Americans . if its ok to keep please mention if its not pls what is its problem . tnx Amir Muhammad 16:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I have deleted ((List of Iranian-Americans)) per your request. I will let the discussion determine the fate of the remaining template. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you again for your help, that was so helpful Amir Muhammad 16:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, not how we do things. we use categories and list articles for this purpose. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: thanx . and we can have a Template for this purpose :) we have some other case like this that have Template and article etc in the same time .however your comment can be so helpful to me. health n wealth . Amir Muhammad 16:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no, the template suffers from POV, since the membership in the template is not automatic. Frietjes (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: thank you so much for considering this topic as your mention. your opinion can help me find out more . your sincerely Amir Muhammad 18:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: this template is in the form of a navbox, but is far too broad to be a useful navigation tool. I'd be more open to it if it had a similar form to ((Lists of Russians)), but either way it's both oddly broad and oddly specific (intersection of two nationalities). ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 21:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Gonzo_fan2007. Pahlevun (talk) 12:25, 12 July 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 Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:General Soleimani (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Has no encyclopedic value. At best it probably is considered a userbox that would need to be moved to the userspace. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do wrong to make a userbox instead of a Template . if its possible for you tell me how i can make a userbox like this, before deletion? Amir Muhammad 14:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. dear @Gonzo fan2007: you can delete it now . i made an Userbox for this here . that was my fault . thank you for your help . wish you the best buddy . be healthy and wealthy :) Amir Muhammad 14:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @AmirMuhammad1: I moved it to your userspace here: User:AmirMuhammad1/Userbox General Soleimani. These type of userboxes need to be in your userspace. They can still be transcluded by putting the name in brackets, i.e. ((User:AmirMuhammad1/Userbox General Soleimani)). Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: thank you so much man! you are so kind and helpful . God save you for us. Amir Muhammad 14:55, 11 July 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 02:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Green aviation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A discussion of this template at WikiProject Aircraft resulted in a consensus that the template has no focus, no inclusion criteria and that there is no Wikipedia topic for Green aviation, nor any idea what that might include. The items included in the nav box are just random and mostly unrelated. The titular topic is piped to Environmental impact of aviation, which, while related, is not the same subject. - Ahunt (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, no parent article and the piping violates WP:EGG. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for having too many problems for too little benefit —PC-XT+ 20:53, 14 July 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 02:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Modo Hockey seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Does not link to anywhere MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Zero links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now or userfy as premature with support for restoration once it has several blue year links —PC-XT+ 20:57, 14 July 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 02:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:MRT Line 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:MRT Line 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates are not disambiguation pages MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This does not belong in template space. Pppery (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to see also links, basically —PC-XT+ 21:04, 14 July 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).