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. Does not appear to be any opposition, but REFUND clearly applies since it deals with ArbCom stuff. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:ArbComBlock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Since BASC no longer exists and arbcom-appeals-en no longer in use, this edit notice can probably be deleted as obsolete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Have you notified ArbCom about this nomination? If not, could you? Given that this template is used only by arbitrators, we should ensure they're fine with getting rid of the edit notice. I can't see why they'd want it to stay. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure how to do that. Opabinia regalis? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  We should make a template that pings all of us.. Oh god no! I posted a note at WT:AC in case anyone else has input, but I can't think of a reason to keep this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:11, 19 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 October 3 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:External link (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 no consensus. However, there is NPASR provided lists/categories can be demonstrated to be more effective than this template. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I propose that this template, which seems to be listing ALL drugs of a certain chemical class, be deleted. It

• Is not navigationally useful
• Is extremely large
• Acts as a list
• Can be easily duplicated (and probably is) using categories
• Contributes to pointless navbox sprawl

I propose that this template is deleted and instead we use categories and subcategories to represent this content. I propose this move speculatively and look forward to hearing the opinions of other users Tom (LT) (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a pharmaceutical chemist not involved in the creation, I find it very useful. If you don't like it, you can always hold an RFC to have it collapsed by default. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the template is all that useful. Even though it is large, it only includes a small fraction of the >300 Wikipedia articles about piperazines. I don't know why some are included and most are not. To be useful, I think it would need to be focused in some way. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The template isn't divided by relevant topics. I agree, it acts like a list. It looks like just an arbitrary proper subset of piperazines. For mentioning all pages we have on piperazines, a list or a category are better. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete, or split up into several smaller templates; this one's just too large to be useful for navigation. Or perhaps listify. Nyttend (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a useful template, even if it isn't all-inclusive (nothing ever is anyways). I don't see the point to deleting it - just make sure it's collapsed by default. Garzfoth (talk) 14:29, 19 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) 00:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Iranian university ranking (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant, no transclusions. Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, we should really consider merging some of the University and college rankings templates. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 23 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 no consensus. While it appears that there may be other options, no one seems to agree what is that best option. NPASR if a suitable "what to do" is determined. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:UTC with local time link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created 2011, but only two transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean toward keep: We're very tolerant of low-use templates intended for user and project space. The site being used to provide the data is free and not covered with ads (I just checked with my ad-blocker turned off), so it's not spammy, just a utility. This would be useful for coordinating things like a local wiki-meetup or cutoff time for processes like RfA. This template can be used as a meta-template, and the underlying site (aside from this template in particular) could be used more broadly, though we'd need another tool (see below) to get at specific hour and minute values to feed into it. At bare minimum this should at least be userspaced to the author, not just deleted.
  Could be replaceable with a Lua module that munged ((CURRENTTIMESTAMP)) and ((LOCALTIMESTAMP)) to get at specific values in them. If we had that (do we not already?), and it were done flexibly, it could be used for an array of template situations, e.g. even to convert one local time silently to UTC then back out again as a different local time, or whatever. The hitch is that WP:MAGICWORDS only gives us ((CURRENTHOUR)) not minute, so doing it without Lua wouldn't be able to account for fractional-hour time zones.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep, or move to project space. it is being used, but we probably don't need it in template space. Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of the transclsuions are historic, and can be substituted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 23 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Single use Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The purpose of this template is to frame Publisher Item Identifier (PII) codes in citation id= parameters (at least for as long as we don't have a dedicated pii= parameter, as exists in some other WPs). It can also be used in flow text.

The idea is to provide a convenient and consistent (and searchable) output format for all such ids, and to later have some means to adjust this format centrally for all PIIs (and other ids) would this become necessary in the future for technical or cosmetical reasons. It should be added to many other citations rather than be deleted (the template is just a couple of months old, that's why it isn't used in more citations already).

While the template is - at present - only a simple wrapper without much "functionality", in the long run, I see this being converted to use the more generic ((Catalog lookup link)) template internally, and have meta data output and error checking added.

I don't see any of our deletion criteria for templates applying and also I can't identify any other plausible reason why we should delete this.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthiaspaul, is there a website for navigating by PII like we have for doi? Frietjes (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my knowledge. It's an identifier, sure, but it's a pretty useless one. I'd be in favour of purging PII from all articles actually. Same for SICI.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in that case, delete as pointless. Frietjes (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must have a very different definition of being "pointless", it seems... To me it is just the opposite:

While I am not currently aware of a publically available online service to retrieve these PIIs, one of the benefits of using templates for all such IDs over embedding them as free-flow text is to enable central maintenance. If someone finds or creates such an online service, a single edit to the template will enable online lookup for all of those IDs at the same time. If that service changes later on, a single edit to the template is enough to bring all entries up to date.

Also, templating this information makes it machine readable (in source code, in rendered output and potentially also in meta data), so it helps bots to retrieve that info and thereby helps that it gets incorporated into other databases - to which we can then point the template's link. So, by providing the info in a machine readable form, we help externals to build the resources we can later benefit from ourselves. It's creating a win-win situation.

Having those IDs in a consistent format also makes manual searches via Wikipedia's own search engine more reliable - to the immediate benefit of readers and researchers who look up this information.

Further, with a bit more time at hands to implement a template allows us to add error checking for parameter values, so that typos in IDs can be easily spotted and corrected.

And finally, even if the template only links to Publisher Item Identifier at present, it is much easier to remember and use and much shorter to enter than always having to type these links in manually. So, even a few invocations of a template already justify its existance.

I could agree with the renaming of the template if it would be "in the way" of some other template of the same name, but it isn't. It also does not cause any confusion, so there is simply no valid reason to delete.

In general, we may like or not like those PIIs, but we cannot deny the fact that they exist. There are documents, which have other IDs and no PIIs, which have PIIs and no other ID, or which have several types of IDs. Editors should have some easy means to use them where they see fit, and to have them all in the same (or at least a similar) format (MOS), we have to provide templates for all of them - including PIIs, of course. Having templates only for the most frequently used IDs would undermine the whole idea. Deleting the template would not only be "pointless", but counter-productive.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Matthiaspaul's reasoning and the lack of any rationale for deletion. If there are documents that have PIIs but no other identifiers, then this template is useful. Even if it's a legacy standard, I'd expect there to be quite a few documents that it's easier to get the PIIs for (rather than other IDs), so this is a convenience for editors. Now, if it's necessary to purge PII from all articles at some point, then these PIIs would need to be replaced by some other identifier, and this is going to be all the more easier if these PIIs have already been formatter with this template. Uanfala (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've purged them already, they were only used on one article, and all had more standard identifiers like doi. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was referring to PIIs that aren't formatted using the templates, or ones that are going to be added in future. Uanfala (talk) 11:27, 24 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 October 2 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Phillips Haymakers football 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 October 2 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Spring Hill Badgers football 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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2002 Gujarat Violence (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Trivia, BLP violation, people section is entirely objectionable. Do we have any such other navbox? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · ) 16:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hardly trivia. All the entries are notable and have their own wikipedia page. Anyone wanting to know more about the 2002 Gujarat riots through wikipedia pages can do so with the help of this template. The 2002 Gujarat Riots was a significant event in modern Indian history. So Keep. Soham321 (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i am unable to understand how there is any possible BLP violation through the usage of this template. Soham321 (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Clearly a notable topic. The template helps navigation and gives an overall view of the pages on the subject. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Capankajsmilyo, could you explain why you find the template to be a "BLP violation"? If the people it lists are solely (or almost entirely) known for their role in the massacres, I'm not sure I see why they shouldn't be included. Uanfala (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." This is what it reads. I doubt all those listed in people section are convicted. Are they? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · ) 14:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the inclusion of these people in this navigational template doesn't imply that they have been convicted, only that they have an association with the events in one way or another: either as perpetrators of the violence, or as victims (like Ehsan Jafri). If you feel that a particular person's involvement in the events doesn't justify inclusion in the template, you're free to remove them. Uanfala (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep quite a logical collection, IMO. "Involvement" does not mean "criminal involvement," and all the individuals listed are very clearly "involved" (according to reliable sources) in one capacity or another. Vanamonde (talk) 14:52, 24 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 redirect to ((uw-tilde)) (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Please sign (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant, non-standard user talk-page message template. Only twelve (12) transclusions, after ten years, despite being marked "This template should not be substituted". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant to ((Uw-tilde)). DrKay (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If not need is demonstrated for this particular wording of the text, redirect to ((uw-tilde)) (which it duplicates). I'd suggest keeping the redirect as an ((R with history)) as it was created a year or so before the target. Uanfala (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding that, even with uw standardisation and all, typing ((please sign)) is more intuitive than ((uw-tilde)) and that alone justifies having it as a redirect. Uanfala (talk) 21:34, 23 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 move to userspace. Clearly a G6 instance of putting something where it doesn't belong. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Kana Museve Wode Nyama (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't really think what this template was used for. It looks like an article instead of template. NgYShung ^huh? 11:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G6 as in wrong namespace. Probably others apply. Note also that the author of the book that is being talked about in the "article" is the same as the editor's username. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:28, 19 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 October 2 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Evansville-stub (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 October 2 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Clash of the Choirs (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 October 1 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NBC News personalities (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) 22:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:The Voice (India) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No cast and crew per WP:PERFNAV. Once these are removed there is no useful navigation function performed by the navbox. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:07, 20 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 merge into ((citeplato)). (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Citeplaton (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) = 7 transclusions
• Template:Citeplato (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) = 11 transclusions

Propose merging Template:Citeplaton with Template:Citeplato.

Minor formatting difference only. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to cite plato as the two templates are almost entirely identical. Uanfala (talk) 13:32, 24 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 27 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Samford Bulldogs quarterback 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).