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 23:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Scott Walker series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and only connects two articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I'd say delete as redundant to links and maybe put the image somewhere else if needed —PC-XT+ 01:44, 23 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 23:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what the point is but maybe they had planned to add links... If so, it should be userfied, otherwise delete —PC-XT+ 01:49, 23 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary template. Why is it necessary to abstract a link to Help:Labeled section transclusion into a template? Pppery (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant to shortcuts like Help:LST. We don't use templates like this. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:46, 30 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 keep (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dhaka Dynamites (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Comilla Victorians current squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Chittagong Vikings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Barisal Bulls squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

out-of-date roster, no use for future (if any) editions of the competition Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 12:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment These four identical nominations have been combined into one nomination. Primefac (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - All these teams are existing while the tournament is also running and scheduled to have its 4th edition later this year. The wholesale nominations of contents related to Bangladesh Premier League by this user is getting disruptive. --Zayeem ^(talk) 01:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just as we don't delete out-of-date articles, we don't delete out-of-date templates. ((Sofixit)) applies. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:47, 30 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 Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 2#Template:Rangpur_Riders_current_squad (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Rangpur Riders current 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 Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 2#Template:Sylhet_Super_Stars_squad (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Sylhet Super Stars 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 Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 2#Template:Sylhet_Super_Stars_current_squad (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Sylhet Super Stars current 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Sylhet Royals squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Khulna Royal Bengal squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Duronto Rajshahi squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Dhaka Gladiators squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Chittagong Kings squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Rangpur Riders Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Chittagong Kings Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Barisal Burners squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Sylhet Royals ceasing to exist in 2013, there being no "current" squad for defunct team Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 12:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As all of these nominations are for identical reasons (and the type is the same) I have combined them into one nomination. Note that while this nomination specifically mentions Sylhet Royals, each individual nomination gave the name of the team. Primefac (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking you again, Primefac. This is a learning point for me and I will be making sure in future I am looking to combine multiple cases. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 08:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If none of these teams exist any more, there's obviously no reason to keep these templates. – PeeJay 15:02, 26 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 soft delete as unopposed, as this template is unused. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Largest metropolitan areas of Tamil Nadu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

'Largest' is POV. Looking at the title, only Chennai would qualify for the 'metropolitan' status. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:07, 21 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 23:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Navigation template with only two articles, therefore not necessary as an aid to navigation between the two articles. anemoneprojectors 07:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant to links —PC-XT+ 02:00, 23 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 unused and unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PD-musical scale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PD-musical interval (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PD-chord progression (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PD-chord (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:PD-tone row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused license tag, replaceable by ((PD-ineligible)) FASTILY 06:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment These five separate nominations have been combined into one, as the rationale (and type) are all identical. Primefac (talk) 20:11, 21 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pitchfork10.0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't see this as being encyclopedic. If there can be an navbox on this, what's stopping people from making navboxes for albums Rolling Stone or AllMusic have rated five stars, or half-stars, or three stars, etc.? FamblyCat94 (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't think Pitchfork is so noteworthy that this is a truly special thing needing a navbox. Perfect scores from Rolling Stone? Ok, I'm on board. But an online publication with an Alexa ranking below 2,000? Nope. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:29, 29 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 relisted on 2016 August 2. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pac-12 Conference men's soccer seasons navbox (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 August 2. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Atlantic 10 Conference Baseball Player of the Year navbox (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 keep. I recommend discussing the move further at Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Adventure. We typically don't keep redirects from template space to a back-end space like Wikipedia: or User:, so it may be possible that The Wikipedia Adventure needs to change some things to make a new template name work. Or maybe this is an exception where we should leave the redirect. Either way, further discussion on that topic would be helpful. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template doesn't make sense to me. Under what circumstance would one want to completely hide a page's title. In at least two occurences (User:Jojit fb, User talk:Jojit fb), this template is being used to circumvent the restrictions on the ((DISPLAYTITLE)) parser function, making the title in the header not resolve to the actual page name. Such fake titles also have counter-intuitive behavior when one tries to select the title. Pppery (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This template is used entirely on The Wikipedia Adventure on their subpages, ostensibly to avoid having titles like Wikipedia:TWA/1/Reasons/The Mission used on the top of the page. The example given by the nom does not use this template. While I am neutral on whether this is kept or deleted, at this point in time I think that if kept it should be moved into TWA as a subpage and used only for that purpose. Primefac (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: the example I gave has been edited since I filed this nomination. Pppery (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it was. My mistake. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if moved per Primefac, as there aren't many/any uses for this outside of TWA, otherwise subst and delete could be an option, though a template may be easier to track (It looks like the user page code could be based on the template or some related code, somewhere.) —PC-XT+ 04:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep @Pppery: Did you look at what links here (103 uses cases)? This template is intended for design purposes and it's used on Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. Besides BTW everyone can decide how his own userpage should look like. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 09:54, 21 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).