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).
I don't even know why this is a template or what it means. — Music1201talk 20:18, 23 June 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).
Template:Infobox lol biography
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. I'll leave the decision on a redirect to interested editors, but there superficially appears to be no need. This template has never been in use in the mainspace (or even draftspace/userspace) and I doubt someone would accidentally apply this template name in the mainspace. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 22:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis is just a test, I will leave a note in the discussion saying when I'm done and then you can delete it ~Larcombe — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into ((Infobox Pro Gaming player)), although it might be a good idea to recreate sometime in the future if the Lol scene becomes distinct enough from esports.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:03, 26 June 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).
Redirect4, redirect5, redirect7, and redirect11, to redirect-multi
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 all to ((Redirect-multi)) as part of an on-going initiative to simplify the hatnote system. Assuming that substitutions and other merge clean up will be performed by the proposer at this point. (non-admin closure) — Andy W.(talk ·ctb) 21:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Template:Redirect4, Template:Redirect5, Template:Redirect7 and Template:Redirect11 with Template:Redirect-multi.
These templates all serve to produce redirect hatnotes that list multiple redirects. They all produce fairly similar output analogous to ((redirect)) or ((redirect2)) but with more listed redirects, and all are rarely used (((redirect4)) leads the pack with ~240 transclusions).
((Redirect4)), ((redirect5)), and ((redirect11)) each produce a list with a set number of redirects and then a prebuilt "for-see" statement that with use text that defaults to "other uses" and target custom text that defaults to a list of disambiguation links based on the redirects provided:
Redirect4:
((redirect4|REDIRECT1|REDIRECT2)) →
"REDIRECT1" and "REDIRECT2" redirect here. For other uses, see REDIRECT1 (disambiguation) and REDIRECT2 (disambiguation).
((redirect4|REDIRECT1|REDIRECT2|USE|TEXT)) →
"REDIRECT1" and "REDIRECT2" redirect here. For USE, see TEXT.
Redirect5:
((redirect5|REDIRECT1|REDIRECT2|REDIRECT3)) →
"REDIRECT1", "REDIRECT2", and "REDIRECT3" redirect here. For other uses, see REDIRECT1 (disambiguation), REDIRECT2 (disambiguation), and REDIRECT3 (disambiguation).
"REDIRECT1", "REDIRECT2", "REDIRECT3", and "REDIRECT4" redirect here. For other uses, see REDIRECT1 (disambiguation), REDIRECT2 (disambiguation), REDIRECT3 (disambiguation), and REDIRECT4 (disambiguation).
"REDIRECT1", "REDIRECT2", "REDIRECT3", and "REDIRECT4" redirect here. For USE, see TEXT.
((Redirect7)) uses custom text for the list of redirects, then produces a basic for-see list in the same style as ((redirect)) (albeit with a wikitext backend instead of the now-standard Module:Hatnote list). For example:
((redirect7|TEXT|USE1|PAGE1|USE2|PAGE2)) →
TEXT redirect here. For USE1, see PAGE1. For USE2, see PAGE2.
"REDIRECT1", "REDIRECT2", and "REDIRECT3" redirect here. For other uses, see REDIRECT1 (disambiguation), REDIRECT2 (disambiguation), and REDIRECT3 (disambiguation).
"REDIRECT1", "REDIRECT2", "REDIRECT3", and "REDIRECT4" redirect here. For other uses, see REDIRECT1 (disambiguation), REDIRECT2 (disambiguation), REDIRECT3 (disambiguation), and REDIRECT4 (disambiguation).
"REDIRECT1", "REDIRECT2", and "REDIRECT3" redirect here. For USE1, see PAGE1, PAGE2, and PAGE3 § SECTION. For USE2, see DISPLAY.
Since ((redirect-multi)) drops support for the custom text used in these templates, I've created the tracking category Category:Pages using redirect4, redirect5, or redirect11 with custom text to track use of those, and manually checked all 5 transclusions of ((redirect7)), and can confirm that all extant uses of custom text can be reproduced verbatim in the structured parameter syntax used in ((redirect-multi)). I've already simplified all mainspace uses of custom text used by ((redirect4)) to uses of ((redirect2)) instead. ((Redirect2)) is not included in this TfD because it defaults slightly differently:
((redirect2|REDIRECT1|REDIRECT2)) →
"REDIRECT1" and "REDIRECT2" redirect here. For other uses, see REDIRECT1 (disambiguation).
((redirect-multi|2|REDIRECT1|REDIRECT2)) →
"REDIRECT1" and "REDIRECT2" redirect here. For other uses, see REDIRECT1 (disambiguation) and REDIRECT2 (disambiguation).
Given all of the above, I think it makes sense to vastly simplify the hatnote system by merging 4 templates into 1 slightly broader template.
Thanks for reading this wall of text. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 17:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom, one template to rule them all. Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: Assuming the merge proposal passes, you don't need to merge the templates as part of the close: simply confirm the result and ping me, and I'll handle the rest. I have the mop, just I need to establish consensus rather than deleting and merging templates willy-nilly. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 02:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge like the others. Good job! —PC-XT+ 21:44, 2 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).
Template:Gulf Coast Division (ABA)
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).
This template duplicates the information found in ((ABA Teams)). No point in having two templates with the same stuff. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems reasonable to consolidate to keep the number of navboxes down —PC-XT+ 22:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC) That is, pages linked from this template could transclude both, contributing to template creep, and navboxes are supposed to be transcluded on just about every main page they link. —PC-XT+ 17:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC) 17:24, 7 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).
Template:1989 All-Australian team
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).
There was no 1989 All-Australian team. See All-Australian team or page 17 of the 1991 Football Record which states that 1991 is the first time the AFL picked an All-Australian team. Jenks24 (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The AFL lists players as members of the 1989 All-Australian team here. It appears another body picked the All-Australian team before 1989, but they're still considered valid by the AFL. ~ Rob13Talk 23:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: Our article at All-Australian team actually covers this fairly well. Prior to the nationalisation of the VFL there was a VFL Team of the Year picked, but it was never called an All-Australian team (except I guess now occasionally by the AFL who are consistently inconsistent) – that was designated for interstate carnivals when all the best players in the country actually played. If you look a year prior at 1988, there was an actual All-Australian team picked that year because there was an interstate carnival. To consider the 1988 VFL Team of the Year also an All-Australian team would be a bit ridiculous. Jenks24 (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be open to renaming this somehow to make the distinction clear, but if the AFL is calling these players All-Australians, we need to follow the sources in my opinion. ~ Rob13Talk 13:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's renamed to "1989 VFL Team of the Year" (or similar) then I'd argue it should be deleted as non-notable and failing WP:NAVBOX criterion #4. The AFL is not consistently calling them All-Australians (mainly because it would be ridiculous to do so) and I don't think you will be able to find any reliable source solely talking about this 1989 team that calls it an All-Australian team. Jenks24 (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some more research, I'm finding sources saying there was no All-Australian team in 1989, so delete. (As a side note, if the 1989 VFL Team of the Year was considered another name for the All-Australian team in that year by the sources, then it would meet NAVBOX criteria #4 by virtue of the All-Australian team article.) ~ Rob13Talk 13:30, 4 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).
Template:Bounty
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 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).
Template:Glastonbury-s
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. Template is also unused. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob13Talk 23:00, 3 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).
Template:PD-music-image
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 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).
Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army National Guard
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 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).
Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAMHI
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 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).
Template:PD-USGov-Military-JCS
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 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).
Template:PD-USGOV-DVIC
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).
Unused license tag, redundant to ((PD-USGov))FASTILY 06:41, 23 June 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).
Template:PD-USGov-USDA-FAS
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).
Unused copyright tag, redundant to ((PD-USGov-USDA))FASTILY 06:39, 23 June 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).
Template:PD-USGov-USDA-AMS
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).
Unused copyright template, redundant to ((PD-USGov-USDA))FASTILY 06:36, 23 June 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).
Template:PD-GreekInfo
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).
Unused copyright template, vague/unclear what sort of media this is applicable to, no equivalent tag on Commons. FASTILY 06:25, 23 June 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).
Template:See also subsection
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).
6 article-namespace transclusions total, and redundant to simply using an automatically-prettified section link in ((see also)). ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 01:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacing, redundant. Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Frietjes....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:47, 29 June 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).