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) 03:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Canadian name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It doesn't help articles in any way. Ties with Template:Hawaiian name and Template:Australian name. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – the creator of this template has made a number of questionable templates of this type, including ((American name)). IMO, they should all be deleted as useless, including ((American name)). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:15, 4 November 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) 03:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Hawaiian name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Included with Template:Australian name. It does not contribute to articles in any way. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - also does not accurately reflect Hawaiian name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not accurately reflect the complexity of Hawaiian name. Hawaiian names simply cannot be rendered binomically or referring one as a patronymic which did exist sometimes as surnames but not consistently enough for a person not familiar with the individual to fully understand. They are often combinations of Western given names and Hawaiian surnames/second names or Hawaiian first given name combined with foreign surnames in the case of hapa-kanaka individuals.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – the creator of this template has made a number of questionable templates of this type, including ((American name)). IMO, they should all be deleted as useless, including ((American name)). This particular one looks to be especially egregious... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:16, 4 November 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) 03:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Australian name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see how this is any helpful for articles either. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – the creator of this template has made a number of questionable templates of this type, including ((American name)). IMO, they should all be deleted as useless, including ((American name)). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:16, 4 November 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) 00:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redundant to ((party colour|Alliance Party of Northern Ireland)), etc. Frietjes (talk) 17:50, 3 November 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 do not merge. If you would like to have one or more of the templates deleted, please feel free to renominate one or more for deletion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:United States Postal Service (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Postage stamps of the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:List of United States Post Offices (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:United States Postal Service with Template:Postage stamps of the United States.
These two templates and Template:List of United States Post Offices cover a similar topic. In addition to this, concerns were brought forth about the length and methodology used to fabricate the navigation boxes. I did request assistance at WP:RT, but have not received feedback, so I am discussing the issue here. Template:Simon Property Group is simliar to Template:List of United States Post Offices, and was discussed at WP:TFD here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is not a serious merger proposal, I assume. It is a distraction, and would not solve any of multiple problems. Template:United States Postal Service is incoherent, with scattered items not consistent with the template's title. And the same with Template:Postage stamps of the United States. The proposal does not suggest any title for the combination, and indeed I think there is no possible title that could cover the combination. Does even the proposer want for the templates to be combined?

To User:Jax 0677, please relax. Opening this TFD which calls for community-wide attention to be paid to this random merger proposal is not the way forward, it is not proposed to be a solution to anything, by anyone, AFAICT. There is the beginning of some decent discussion at User talk:Jax 0677 about the purpose and limits of navigation templates. To other editors, please consider commenting there, or following discussion from there to some new forum (other than this merger proposal, which is a non-starter IMHO). --doncram 18:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I tried to go forward on my own with templates about USPS. One user asked me to put the template on every page to which it applies, but another user has asked me to pause, so for now, I have done the latter. According to Category:United States Postal Service, almost every article in the three navboxes can go in ((USPS)), as this is all that I have to rely upon. If this category is wrong, then it too needs to be fixed. If we are not going to go forward with ((List of United States Post Offices)), then I say throw all of the post offices (and MAYBE the stamp articles) in ((USPS)). Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project. If there are at least 5 articles in each of the three navboxes that should be in there, then the navboxes should be kept. I want to do what is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Implied in this, is deleting the navboxes if there are less than 5 articles that should be placed in that particular navbox. I decided to bring the issue here, to avoid the issue being brought to WP:ANI for going against the wishes of the broader community. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose: I have interacted with the proposer on the structure and content of these templates and advised him of ways to improve ((Postage stamps of the United States)), a topic that covers 170 years of stamps and postal history and now he wants to merge it with ((United States Postal Service)) that has only existed since 1970, and even if you consider it covers the Post Office Department it is an entirely different subject matter about the function of the postal service in the US. So while the two interact they are entirely separate topics and certainly do not belong together, especially if they get stuffed together in the same terrible unstructured format as they are at present (I have advised some structure al changes that make sense but they have not been acted on). Additionally these two templates require some understanding to the topic and I have the distinct impression he does not have sufficient knowledge of the topic based on the fact I have been a philatelist for 35+ years and with over 10 years editing philatelic articles I think you will agree I have some knowledge about this area. In that time I have not seen any philatelic contributions from this editor, and some of the comments above, such as According to Category:United States Postal Service, almost every article in the three navboxes can go in ((USPS)), as this is all that I have to rely upon to me shows he does not know this topic; it requires more than just looking up a category, especially where articles may be missing. About 25% of the entries in each template are classified as "Related" when most can be formed into groups or sub-groups of like articles. Both are just a mess and a merge would make two bad templates into one worse one.

• Referring to ((List of United States Post Offices)) I've already pointed out this is a redundant template being essentially a duplicate of List of United States Post Offices. Is it way too big but I would not know how else to structure it. A link to the list article can just as easily be made in the "See also" section of the appropriate articles, where it can be found more conveniently than having this template at the bottom of each article. Doncram suggests commenting on the user's talk page but I've posted sufficiently there. ww2censor (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - The whole point of a navbox is being able to go from one article to another without having to go to a list or discography page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you are correct but only if the templates are structured in a way that is useful to the reader and not just a dumping ground for links. ww2censor (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• do not merge, and we should consider deleting Template:List of United States Post Offices as "way too much for a navbox". we already have List of United States Post Offices and Category:Post office buildings in the United States by state. Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: ((List of United States Post Offices)) for reason already mentioned above and views of Frietjes here and Doncram on the proposers talk page at User talk:Jax 0677#Pause with Template:List of United States Post Offices.
• Also Delete: ((Postage stamps of the United States)) because it is a mess, has major structural problems, is pretty useless to stamp collectors and philatelists and other readers too. The creator/proposer has made not attempt fix it and it seems no one else appears to have the time or inclination to try to repair it so it is basically a waste of space.
• Weak keep: ((United States Postal Service)) not much better than ((Postage stamps of the United States)) but can still be improved significantly. ww2censor (talk) 17:56, 11 November 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) 03:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2010–11 Nemzeti Bajnokság I (men's handball) teamlist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, and the links are not to team season articles, but to the general team pages Frietjes (talk) 14:43, 3 November 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) 03:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Nicholas Meyer's Sherlock Holmes pastiches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant as all links included at ((Nicholas Meyer)). Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 3 November 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) 03:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Angelo State Rams basketball coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and out-of-date Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 3 November 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) 03:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:America East Conference softball navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, all redirects and redlinks Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 3 November 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) 03:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ambassador Steering Committee navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, almost all redlinks Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 3 November 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) 03:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2014 NAIA football season navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and provides very little new navigation Frietjes (talk) 14:13, 3 November 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) 03:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Brian Kelly (composer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a renomination. Everything in the template has been deleted. Clearly the template itself should be deleted too. Sn00per (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, all red links. Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 3 November 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) 03:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2013 Northeast Conference men's soccer navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and mostly red links Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 3 November 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 withdrawn, now that the template has been complete rewritten as a citation template and added to articles (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:1922 Locomotive Cyclopedia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused attribution template Frietjes (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I thought this was already more widely used than the current links list shows. The reference work that is mentioned is a very substantial tome, so this template should be used more widely in much the same way as ((Bioguide)) is today. There is a copy on Google Books, so this template could easily grow in usefulness just like Bioguide and be used on a number of articles that are in Category:Steam locomotives of the United States. I have left a note at WikiProject Trains for other interested editors to join the discussion. Slambo (Speak) 15:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Templates like this are often created, but take time to get widely used. This template can easily be applied to many articles. KirksKeyKard (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KirksKeyKard, it was created in 2004. that has to be a record for "time to get widely used". Frietjes (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but I think we should refactor into a proper citation template. From an article maintenance standpoint, it's better to have direct citations than a blanket statement that some PD material was incorporated. Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try and take care of that next week.KirksKeyKard (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completed. I've also added this into a few articles for good measure. This template will now start to get some usage. KirksKeyKard (talk) 13:19, 7 November 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) 03:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:1914 Southwest Conference football standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

according to Southwest Conference#Members there were no members for the 1914 football season. if there were, we can clearly add it to the season articles for the various temas. Frietjes (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Inaugural football season was 1915. Confusion is possibly attributably to the founding activity occuring in 1914. None of the associated team (1914) articles use this standings template, but the following (1915) team articles do adopted the 1915 standings template. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:31, 3 November 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) 03:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Current MPs of India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an unmanageable template for a nav box, if complete it should have 545+245=790 entries which is way too much. All articles have the requisite categories to aid in navigation. —SpacemanSpiff 08:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For clarity, if this navbox were to be kept then it should be a merger of these two lists: List of members of the 16th Lok Sabha (98kb) and List of current members of the Rajya Sabha (32.5kb). —SpacemanSpiff 10:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my explanation here. Vanamonde (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nominator's rationale. In addition to the unmanageable length, this temple would also be dynamic for "current"ness of the topic. Not that "current" is invalid template topic but with 750+ entries this is going to keep changing a lot and is going to stay unkempt few months from now when enthusiasm fades away. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to current Rajya Sabha MPs whish is manageable -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · ) 11:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Means nearly 250 entries that keep changing every 2 years? Why in the first place do we need a template for members of either house? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, unmanageable if completed. Frietjes (talk) 13:57, 3 November 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) 03:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Current EAS Leaders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The countries that participate in the East Asia Summit are not a group that get particular attention as a group: a navbox listing their leaders really is verging on cruft, and serves no useful purpose. If we made similar navboxes for equivalent groupings, articles on leaders of large countries would be simply snowed under. Vanamonde (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, better to navigate through the East Asia Summit article. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 10 November 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 replacing Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Commonwealth Games Country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox country Paralympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox country Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox Country Youth Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox World Aquatics Championships country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Theses templates are (almost) redundant to ((Infobox country at games)), with the only difference being the country codes used. However, these can easily be added to the "country at games" template. Additionally, this falls in line with a previous TFD which declared similar templates to be redundant. Primefac (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the templates that have been placed at the bottoms of pages are redundant and should be deleted.--MorrisIV (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Um... MorrisIV? This nom is for the infoboxes, not navboxes. And I'm not debating the content of them other than the fact that they're all redundant templates (the actual "what goes in these templates" is a discussion for another place). Primefac (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Sorry, I misunderstood. I tentatively lean towards keep with some reservations. I certainly don't want to see these templates get out of control (for example, we don't need a template for the world championships of curling or badminton), but I also like how the Commonwealth Games template includes a link to the British Empire Games. That's a nuance to the history of the event which I believe should be clear to all, and it makes navigation faster and easier.--MorrisIV (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  MorrisIV, things like the Empire Games links are parameters that are passed to the template. As with most merges, the parameter values are retained. It's simply changing one infobox call to another, and really the only thing will change is the formatting. Take a look at any of the pages that transclude ((Infobox country at games)), you'll see that most of them have similar "present at other years" lists. Primefac (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For Template:Infobox Country Pan American Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) they were redirected.... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Sportsfan 1234, I'm not sure what you mean. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Like the template was merged with another template. I did not support that at all and I do not support deleting any of those templates. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Um... that's the point of a TFD. At the time, they decided that those templates should be merged into ((Infobox country at games)). These templates are functionally identical (they can easily be replaced by that template). Sportsfan 1234, I guess my next question is: why are you opposed to deleting these templates? Primefac (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—I agree, the over-all look and feel of ((Infobox country at games)) is more refined and streamlined, now that we have Youth Games and a few more games added to the long list of sporting events, Olympics-wise. k_cms (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I feel like it s a good intro infobox for an Olympic games, and I don't see why it should be deleted. Spike789 ^Talk 01:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Spike789, the parameters and look are almost identical; why have two different templates that accomplish the same thing? Primefac (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Changed my mind. I agree with above. Just keep the original and delete the rest. Spike789 ^Talk 13:47, 10 November 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) 03:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Symbiosis Society (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two articles in the template appear to be stand-alone pages; a third is being considered for deletion: Vidya Yeravdekar. Other entries are either red links or redirects. Pls also see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Symbiosis_Society. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Vanamonde (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator - this was a good-sized walled garden that has been pruned. Ravensfire (talk) 20:39, 7 November 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) 03:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only a half-dozen uses--it doesn't seem like there is a consensus for this in the taxoboxes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There can only be a consensus or lack of one if there has been a discussion. Where have you seen this please. The issue of whether a species in an endemic or not is of huge interest to bird enthusiasts. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, (1) we shouldn't use images as a substitute for text, and (2) it's being placed in the image caption when it is clearly not the caption for the image. Frietjes (talk) 13:09, 2 November 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 No consensus after two relists. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PD-USGov-Atlas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused license tag, replaceable by ((PD-USGov)) FASTILY 22:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this template has siblings on other wikis. --evrik ^(talk) 02:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, if it's PD it should be at commons. Frietjes (talk) 13:12, 2 November 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).