The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies, provided this isn't WP:OR. Primefac (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:7th Saga series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The titular series does not exist. Aside from Mystic Ark and Mystic Ark: Theatre of Illusions (which has no article of its own, just a subsection of the Mystic Ark article), there is no official connection between these games apart from their being by the same publisher and developer. Simply put, this template's sole purpose is to promote a hoax. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Should Produce (company) be cleaned if so? Aside, I doubt it's a hoax—the more likely cause is some fan theory connecting the disparate games. --Izno (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if and when we get consensus to delete this navbox I plan to fix Produce (company) and the series fields for the three component games. I wasn't sure it would be appropriate to bring up those proposed fixes here. The "series" being based on a fan theory is my suspicion too, but that falls under the definition of a hoax (though I'll admit the term has an excessively negative connotation).--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. I mean, even if the series did exist, a meager 4 entries isn't really enough to warrant a navigation template like this... Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 12 April 2017 (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. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Animator.ru (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was used three times, but two of the articles were WP:CSD#A7s. There's no evidence this site should be promoted through a nominated link template. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:BS8d-2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
to reply to me 06:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, old test. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2017 (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. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Test (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Test2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Test3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Test4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is a duplicate of ((uw-test1)) and ((uw-vandalism1)). Delete the series, please. UpsandDowns1234 05:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's not a duplicate; it's the original and the wording is completely different. Many prefer it. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 26#Template:Test, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 3#Template:Test, and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 17#Template:Test for previous discussions. What's changed since 2015, the last time the majority of these were kept? Mackensen (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with ((uw-test1)) since it is actually a duplicate of this template, just with different wording. Plus, this is a user warning template, yet does not have the uw that should precede it. UpsandDowns1234 21:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• These arguments were hashed out and rejected in 2007, 2013, and 2015. I realize that you start editing since then, but if you're making a fresh nomination you need to state what's different. It's disruptive to just keep renominating this template. Also, if you still want to "delete the series" then you should tag what other templates you consider to be within the scope of this discussion and list them here. Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I discovered this template very recently, and the deletion discussion for 2015 caused most of these templates to be redirected. If all of them are redirected, as they are pretty much unused, then it would allow older editors to use the newer templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpsandDowns1234 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The template is generally subst'd; please provide evidence that it is unused. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The nomination appears incomplete if ((test2)), ((test2)) and ((test3)) are not included. They would fall under the same rationale. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep retarget if needed, but don't delete these. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & Redirect/Merge: First of all, the wordings are remarkably similarNeither one assumes bad faith, but Template:test is slightly more certain in its accusation: Template:Uw-test1 said that an edit "appeared to be a test" and gives instructions if the user thinks the reversion was a mistake; the other definitively labels the edit a test, saying "Your test worked and was removed" and providing no such opportunity for contesting the determination. I performed a search for the wording of the template and did find it on thousands of pages (roughly 180,000); the vast majority seemed to be from 2007-2009, though there definitely were some more recent usages. That might because, as DavidLevy said in one of the discussions, ((test)) is not included in Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, but for me the fact that it's not included there is actually a demerit against it. The other arguments seem to be that talk templates do not need to be standardized, so we should allow infinite varieties assuming those infinite varieties are used. While I'm sympathetic to that argument, I don't find it compelling enough in and of itself to support the continuation of a redundant template.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Template:uw-test1, Template:uw-test2, Template:uw-test3, Template:uw-vandalism4, and Template:uw-vandalism4im. These are the modern versions of the template. But then, Template:Test5i is not included, so the nomination is incomplete. Whatever it is, Template:Test5i should redirect to Template:Uw-vblock, and so should Template:Test5. This nomination is incomplete. I will list Template:Test5 at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion because of this. UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) (My Contribs) 18:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Per Mackensen and previous TfDs; these are not duplicates. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. The templates work as intended with no obvious duplication. Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2017 (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 2017 April 22 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pp-main-page (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. No objections. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The notice is out of date. I do accept that an update of the content may be more appropriate, but I am not familiar with the edit history of the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nom. I think it goes without saying that we should not reproduce speculation, but perhaps there have been some specific issues with that article with unregistered and recently-registered accounts. --Izno (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I completely accept that; the edit notice refers speculation about a series that aired in 2015. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2017 (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 Deleted upon request by author (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:BS3x (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
to reply to me 04:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete by author. Fast route-map template, not needed since MediaWiki wikitext parser became 6x faster in 2014. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wikid77: Moreso because ((Routemap)) allows faster loading through use of the Lua module, probably. I don't think the parser change did anything to reduce template load, at least not for the largest RDTs. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
    to reply to me 14:37, 11 April 2017 (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. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Flight-schedule-list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and no practical use; Wikipedia is not a timetable. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, I can't see any uses for this. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies if and when there are more articles created. As it stands, there is no need for a template that has one bluelink. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Patriot League women's soccer navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see no policy that sets a minimum and WP:EXISTING an essay not guideline. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough active links (not redirects) to provide useful navigation between articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 22:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Articles under development. Agree with Quidster. Hmlarson (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, unless more articles are written. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NAV/WP:NAVBOX (I can not remember which is the guideline). This navbox serves no navigational purpose. I would also accept a user-space for the creator, who is the above Quidster4040, who may want it for development purposes. --Izno (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2017 (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. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NCAA Division I Women's Soccer Seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two links... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see no policy that sets a minimum and WP:EXISTING an essay not guideline. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless for navigational purposes.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 22:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Articles under development. Exceptions in bullet point #1 of WP:EXISTING applies here. Hmlarson (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, seems like new articles are being created. Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NAV/WP:NAVBOX. This navbox serves no navigational purpose. I would also accept a user-space for the creator, who is the above Quidster4040, who may want it for development purposes. --Izno (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies if and when the redlinked articles are actually created. As it stands, there is no need for a template that has one bluelink. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NCAA Division II Women's Soccer Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One link, plus it was deleted in August 2015 for no links at all... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see no policy that sets a minimum and WP:EXISTING an essay not guideline. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless for navigational purposes.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 22:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Exceptions included in bullet point #1 of WP:EXISTING essay (not guideline) applies here. Hmlarson (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NAV/WP:NAVBOX. This navbox serves no navigational purpose. I would also accept a user-space for the creator, who is the above Quidster4040, who may want it for development purposes. --Izno (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies if and when the redlinked articles are actually created. As it stands, there is no need for a template that has one bluelink. Primefac (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NCAA Division III Men's Soccer Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see no policy that sets a minimum and WP:EXISTING an essay not guideline. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Exceptions included in bullet point #1 of WP:EXISTING essay (not guideline) applies here. Hmlarson (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NAV/WP:NAVBOX. This navbox serves no navigational purpose. I would also accept a user-space for the creator, who is the above Quidster4040, who may want it for development purposes. --Izno (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- insufficient navigation. Nav boxes are not expected to be used as "article creation maps" on subjects that may or may not be notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies if and when the redlinked articles are actually created. As it stands, there is no need for a template that has one bluelink. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NCAA Division III Women's Soccer Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see no policy that sets a minimum and WP:EXISTING an essay not guideline. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless for navigational purposes.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 22:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Exceptions included in bullet point #1 of WP:EXISTING essay (not guideline) applies here. Hmlarson (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NAV/WP:NAVBOX. This navbox serves no navigational purpose. I would also accept a user-space for the creator, who is the above Quidster4040, who may want it for development purposes. --Izno (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- insufficient navigation. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2017 (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. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:St. Francis Brooklyn Terriers men's soccer coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see no policy that sets a minimum and WP:EXISTING an essay not guideline. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless for navigational purposes.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 22:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Quidster4040.--El Mayimbe (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NAV/WP:NAVBOX. This navbox serves no navigational purpose. I would also accept a user-space for the creator, who is the above Quidster4040, who may want it for development purposes. --Izno (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, can be easily recreated from the coaching history section if more articles are written. Frietjes (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - insufficient navigation. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2017 (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 leaning towards keep. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:UMass Minutemen soccer coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two links... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see no policy that sets a minimum and WP:EXISTING an essay not guideline. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Quidster4040: And what is the purpose of creating a navbox with one or two links only? It certainly does NOT navigate, which is the whole purpose of having a NAVbox. I'm not sure how hard that is to understand. If you don't want to create the articles to allow the navbox to do what is made to do, then don't create the navboxes at all. Plain. and. Simple. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 05:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Quidster4040: Please have a look at WP:POINT. I don't see any reason beyond the fact that pages may be created someday to keep these templates. These discussions are primarily about the usefulness of templates, and they serve a very limited purpose as they are.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 22:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, useless for navigational purposes.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 22:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, I created an article for Sam Koch. I imagine more will be created over time. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NAV/WP:NAVBOX. --Izno (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Sam Koch seems like a nn subject; is there a WP:NCOACH guideline? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • K.e.coffman, you probably mean Sam Koch (UMass's "winningest men's soccer coach) and not Sam Koch (NFL punter). last time I checked, NCAA Division I coaches are notable, especially the coach with the most wins in UMass men's soccer history. Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2017 (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. Primefac (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pink Grand Prix: 1998 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Insufficient navigation. After entries without articles have been removed, only three entries remain.

This and related templates seem to be part of the effort to cross-categorise various marginally notable topics on the Japanese pink movie genre. I find this and other templates to be excessive, since the annual Pink Grand-Prix ceremonies are generally not independently notable. See for example: Pink_Grand_Prix#1998. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer question:K.e.coffman, are you advocating for just this template or all of the Ping GP templates? Primefac (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Primefac: I might eventually nominate the lot of them as unnecessary cross categorisations. But this discussion is about one template, as being particularly useless. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2017 (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).