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) 23:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

One linked article... fails to navigate per WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:47, 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 Delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Yumi Yoshiyuki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Films by director navigation template where all of the film articles have been deleted, leaving one blue link. No useful navigation left. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, navigates nothing. Frietjes (talk) 19:11, 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 Delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NBLPlayoffBracket2016 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NBLPlayoffBracket2015 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NBLPlayoffBracket2014 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NBLPlayoffBracket2013 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NBLPlayoffBracket2012 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:NBLPlayoffBracket2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I merged these with the articles, so they are no longer needed as stand-alone templates. Frietjes (talk) 13:28, 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 Delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Scottish (Pre-1707) elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden (talk) 10:39, 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 mark historical Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Str len/core (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Aside from test pages, this template is no longer widely used (supplanted by Module:String apparently). It should also be delisted from WP:CASC if deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unprotect and mark historical as a textbook example of how clumsy such templates were before Lua. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Train2104's proposal as this clearly has historical value. I'm wondering if such templates from the old days shouldn't be somehow properly archived so that they're available as a historical reference in a way that doesn't clutter the template namespace, but without going to the trouble of having them deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Unprotect and mark historical: I refer colleagues to this template all the time as a brilliant demonstration and cogent explanation of the lengths we went through in the olden days before Lua. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 15:26, 26 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:USA 2011 IFAF World Cup roster navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Japan 2011 IFAF World Cup roster navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Canada 2011 IFAF World Cup roster navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These navboxes denote the rosters of the three teams finished in the top three at the 2011 IFAF World Championship. This is a tournament of relatively minor note and membership on these rosters is not defining to the subjects listed in these navboxes. Furthmore the Japan navbox contains only one valid blue link among its list items, and it's questionable whether the other red-linked players are notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, minor competition, and the rosters are already in the section in the article. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Prod hint (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Prod-speedy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Please prod (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Are these that common situations that a prewritten template message is required? I don't think so, at least not anymore. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't deal with deletion and novice editors, but these template messages look sensible enough. I think the situation in #1 arises pretty commonly, so at the least this one should be kept. – Uanfala (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• #1 and #3 should be kept: #1 because PROD without giving a rationale is very common, and #3 because nominating for AfD when PROD could be used wastes editors' time. #2 should be deleted because the speedy deletion notification templates serve the same purpose (notifying a user about the tagging for speedy deletion of a page the user created). #2 should also be kept because nominating for PROD when CSD could be used wastes editors' time. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 12:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re #2: this isn't used to notify the creator of the page, but the person who prodded it. Do you think, Luis150902, that the generic speedy deletion notices can be used in this case as well? – Uanfala (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: No. My vote has just been updated. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 14:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• All of those should been kept while these templates are still useful. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 06:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't say I like this trend of templatifying every message one can think of. These generic and overly cheerful messages should only really be used for vandals, not new page patrollers. It really isn't that hard to type out a personal message. Laurdecl ^talk 23:29, 21 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).