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 September 30 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Timeline of Yugoslavia's evolution as a republic (1943-onward) (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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Current WWE Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are currently two WWE Championship templates, Template:Current WWE Champions and Template:WWE Championships. However, due to a recent discussion, most agree that the former should be deleted because of the following:
1. A template listing all the current champs is not helpful at all.
2. The current champions template will have to be updated every time there is a title switch.
3. It will also have to be removed from the one wrestler's article and added to the new champ.
And that's why I'm nominating for deletion; it's a maintenance disaster and the reason we chose not to list the current champion in the navbox ages ago. Nickag989^talk 15:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Likewise Template:Current TNA Champions.oknazevad (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. With templates for separate titles where no names are removed, title changes would require names and templates to be switched with this one, which isn't helpful at all. Sekyaw (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.LM2000 (talk) 23:38, 21 September 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 September 29 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Busy4 (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 September 29 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Zalaegerszegi TE sections (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 September 29 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pécsi VSK sections (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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cite nothing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Apparently pointless. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was used for performance testing during the Lua citation transition. If no one is using it now, it can probably be deleted. Dragons flight (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine this can be useful for testing, but then it had better be moved to the more descriptive title ((Do nothing)). Uanfala (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• [As nominator] This should be deleted outright; the only argument for keeping it is that one person imagines it may be useful in the future. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If there's consensus against keeping it in template space, I'd volunteer to have it at User:Uanfala/Do nothing. Uanfala (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if it doesn't cite or do anything, then it has no good reason to exist. This being unused doesn't surprise me. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:56, 21 September 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. No opposition, but REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Notice-nc-geo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Serves no purpose and barely used. This verges on a T2 speedy. We do not need a template declaring why an article has the title it does. The effect, if not explicit purpose, of the template would be to discourage anyone from using normal WP:RM process if they think an article is not correctly named. Templates like this encourage WP:OWN behavior and will just inspire the creation of more "claim-staking" tags ("This article follows WikiProject Foo's preferred way of punctuating", yadda yadda).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:13, 5 September 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Social Media Presence (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per WP:External links#Minimize the number of links and WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, having this is too many links for an infobox. Just a subject's website is enough there. We don't need to overstuff infoboxes with excessive links as infoboxes are meant to be concise instead of exhaustive. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep There are a few instances when I believe this template usage is appropriate and beneficial.
  • Firstly, as per WP:External links#Minimize the number of links, multiple external links are permissible in circumstances in which the links are not otherwise accessible via an official website. One such example would be Cenk Uygur, who does not have an official website. Both his facebook page and twitter page offer unique content not otherwise accessible, and which relate directly to his notability as a political commentator. His official twitter is currently linked in the external links, but his facebook page is not. Rather than cluttering up the external links section with multiple lines of text links to these resources, I believe the page would be better served by just including this template in the infobox, which takes up less space and is clear to any user what it is.
  • Secondly, we already have templates such as Template:Infobox YouTube personality, which can include, among many other things, links to multiple official youtube channels, even when the article may also contain an external link to an official website. The use of this template with just the youtube_channel parameter is therefor less cluttering and links to less official links than than the current Template:Infobox YouTube personality does.
  • Thirdly, I see this template as a small concise way to avoid the need to develop larger, more cluttered infobox templates for things such as an "Instagram Personality" following in the youtube box's footsteps. Even worse would be articles that could be considered both youtube and Instagram personalities using both modules to create an insanely huge infobox.
  • Furthermore, the guides to external links are not written in stone and do allow for exceptions. I believe there are cases in which multiple external links, provided in a small, clear, and clutter-free form via this template would benefit and article while not conflicting with the REASONINGS by the guide of keeping external links to minimum. Take the Grumpy Cat article for example. The cat's social presence is fundamental to its notability. Chances are, viewers of this article would be interested in the Instagram/twitter/facebook page without having to navigate through an official website. Providing these links would produce a safer browsing experience, as these large social sites likely have better security features than a random web host of the official site. Providing an easier and safer method of access the cat pictures on both Instagram and Facebook has little risk of "putting undue emphasis on what the subject says" (one of the key components in the minimizing external links reasoning.) Lizzymartin (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even for instances when a subject only has an official Facebook or Twitter without his or her own website, it's best to just include one (or maybe both) of those and list them in the "website" parameter with something like "on Facebook" or "on Twitter" so people don't confuse it with a separate website. Anything more than that is rather much. It probably takes up less article space to do that than to have multiple icons for each social media site. There is also the option of listing such sites in the "External links" section of articles instead of filling the infobox with social media. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant; after replacing any transclusions wit the relevant individual templates (i.e. ((Twitter)), ((Facebook)), etc.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant and WP:NOT. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't disagree with most of what the nominator says, but I think those statements are not good reasons to remove this template. It is important to remember that all parameters are optional. I do not suggest we start adding all social links to every article, and the use of this template should generally have the same scrutiny as any external links currently do. My main point is that there are articles that do contain multiple social links, some justifiably, and those articles would be a lot cleaner, more clutter-free, and generally more useful by just using this template w/the appropriate parameters rather than filling the external links section of with multiple lines of text links. Lizzymartin (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I respect the idea, but I don't think this sits well with Wikipedia's linking philosophy. Specifically, I believe emphasizing a subject's social media pages in this way runs afoul of WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, especially this part: "Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites." If cataloging a subject's social media presence in the "external links" section is not permitted, doing the same in the infobox (and with graphical icons) should be doubly discouraged.

  Also, I think moving links from external links sections to infoboxes is a mistake. With very few exceptions (height comes to mind), infoboxes are usually viewed as summaries of information already given in the article, not as concise replacements. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Many articles link to single official websites from their infoboxes, but, in my observation, these articles always include a corresponding ((official website)) link in the "external links" section. Rebbing 08:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most, if not all, uses of this template would be against policy and guidelines. If the links should be included, then they should be placed in an external links section, not the infobox. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:56, 29 September 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie poster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use Wikisource-link template, created 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there are lots of similar single source templates see Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sister_projects#Wikisource. Each is useful as it remove the complexity of hand-crafting the link to the book on Wikisource, and if the book is moved there is only one place it has to be changed on Wikipedia instead of possibly thousands of pages as would be the case with ((EB1911 poster)). In this case it is a sister template to ((Cite ADB)) and like its big brother it links to the German version of Wikisource that few editors know how do do. User:Pigsonthewing please explain why you think that single use Wikisource-link template are undesirable. -- PBS (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say "single source", said "single use". The reason such templates are undesirable is explained in Wikipedia:Template consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @User:Pigsonthewing, if this template is used again would that remove its status as "single use" and invalidate this request or is it then "dual use" and open for deletion? How many times does it need to be used before you would not put it up for deletion? -- PBS (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If you mean at the moment there is only one instance then if there is another instance will that suffice for you to withdraw this request? The reason for these poster [box] links, is because once an article has more modern sources then the use of the Wikisource as a citation becomes redundant. But rather than just deleting the link this template can placed into external links and used in place of the citation now redundant citation while keeping a link to the sister project. -- PBS (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, pending examination of this class of templates. I'm skeptical that the rationale PBS gives is sufficient reason to keep this series of templates. If the work in question is being cited as an actual source, then it belongs in the citations. If it was used for actual content in the article, then it needs a different kind of template like ((EB1911)). If neither is happening, there is no reason to to apply such a template in the manner this one is being employed in right now. It simply is not relevant to our readers that WikiSource has some old book scanned that has some material about the subject of the WP article. WP articles do not exist as a vehicle for advertising other projects. If we would not also provide a link to the same work at Google Books or Project Gutenberg in the "External links" section, we have no reason to provide the WS link. A completely different kind of case would be WP article about a notable out-of-copyright work; then a WS link to a free copy of it would be pertinent to reader interests.

  That said, unless and until that series of templates is TfDed (remembering that the D stands for discussion), I see no rationale here to delete this particular member of that set of templates, since the work in question is a biographical encyclopedia, thus potential for additional use of this template in particular is very high. I.e., there is no present consensus to not use templates like this, so we should not selectively remove ones that are likely to be reused (even if I think consensus should be against the use of these templates). It's a lot like trying to delete infoboxes from classical composer articles because one hates infoboxes and has some influence in the classical sector, by way of analogy. Either we should generally have them or generally not have them; we should not be trying to get rid of the one, in particular, for composers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion is about one template, not a family of them. The rationale for its deletion is that it is single-use, and that applied equally to the many single-use infoboxes I have previously, and successfully had deleted at Tfd. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This has nothing to do with a family of templates. It has to do with the fact that this particular template is being used once. There's nothing wrong with another template within this family that is being used many times. The rationale for keeping that has been advanced is that we can more easily change the output if something changes than changing it on multiple articles, but that obviously doesn't apply here since it's being used a single time. Compare this to the plausible and related case of an in-article table (such as a season record table for a sports league). We regularly substitute and delete such templates if they're single use, but that doesn't mean we delete all of them, as some are used on multiple articles. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, better to just use cite ADB, rather than a large floating box. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The easiest way to protect a template against a "single use"-accusation is to use it more often. But now, nearly 6 weeks alter, it is still used in just one article. A straight link to the source will do well enough. Superfluous template. The Banner talk 21:05, 25 September 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).