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 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).
Does not appear to have ever been used. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has been used plenty of times, but it is not transcluded when it is used (as with other discretionary sanctions-related templates), so you can't view all of the instances of its use in one place. Here's one example, which I pulled out of a hat at random. If you look at the various log of community sanctions, you'll find many more examples. RGloucester — ☎ 05:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While the template is supposed to be substituted, it has only ever been used twelve times. However, this might be expected depending on the frequency of ArbCom decisions. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 16:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 19:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whiole one would hope that use of this would be rare, having a template aids in consistency, and does no possible harm that I can see. As it has been used, the nominator's argument fails. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:15, 13 June 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).
Template:Northeastern Mexico
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 and per the discussion at the related AfD Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 20:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 19:45, 11 June 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).
Template:Northwestern Mexico
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).
Delete if the articles listed in the second AfD nomination are deleted. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 16:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 19:45, 11 June 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).
Propose mergingTemplate:Shared IP mil with Template:Shared IP gov.
This is overkill. We created ((Shared IP gov)) a long time ago because the benefits to having a separate template for the military apply to most government IP applications in general. Having this template also creates the question as to whether to use this or use ((Shared IP edu)) for places like the Department of Defense Dependent Schools and the United States Naval Academy. I'm in favor of the EDU template for those because the specific instructions on it and ((school block)) (class projects, etc) apply to those institutions, but people were tagging military educational institutions with the military template before its replacement with ((Shared IP gov)). Furthermore, what does an editor do with things like The Pentagon or The White House when we have this template in addition to the GOV one? PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day. 23:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There's a difference between the US Army and the US Congress. KMF (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but there's also a difference between Microsoft and AutoZone, Sidwell Friends School and Chicago Public Schhols, and the Department of Homeland Security and the City of Punta Gorda, and the difference doesn't seem to justify having different shared IP templates for them. In terms of IP sensitivity or reasons to categorize IPs separately, there's actually a bigger difference between the US Congress and the City of Punta Gorda than there is between the US Congress and the US Amry. PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day. 19:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 19:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The gov template is broad enough to include mil. Certainly someone on a military facility would not be surprised to see the "government agency or facility" language. – PhilosopherLet us reason together. 12:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do private defense contractors qualify for mil? If so, it would be best to leave them separate since they're clearly not gov. Smartyllama (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Define defense "contractors." Does that include companies that provide basic support services like Sodexo (who provides food services to the United States Marines, or companies that sell things to the military like General Motors or Ford? Tagging defense contractors with this would be like tagging textbook companies with ((Shared IP edu)). There's a template called ((Shared IP corp)) for private companies, and there is no reason to complicate things. PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day. 19:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There's also a difference between the Bureau of African Affairs and the Salem Veterans Affairs Medical Center, but they both get the gov template. Why should the military be different? And I agree that a private company's products and customers shouldn't matter when we tag its IPs. Nyttend (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge, the broader categorization is enough. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 20 June 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) 01:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Used in two articles... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 07:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Save This Article it's only 5 Months away I don't want to wait until November or March save this article now please don't delete save it. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the articles will be created as we get closer. It doesn't make sense to delete and recreate in a few months. Smartyllama (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Corkythehornetfan: First of all, it's used on three existing articles, not two. Second, WP:EXISTING says it's OK to have redlinks if they are very likely to be developed into articles, which is clearly the case here. So your entire rationale is invalid. Smartyllama (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It failed to navigate when it was only used in 1 article... You know – the main purpose of a NAVbox... when I nominated it. So no, it isn't invalid. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 19:42, 11 June 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) 01:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
what would we use this template for? I have never seen a music genre template before (doesn't mean there aren't). Kellymoat (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also with the establishment of several notable subgenres and fusion genres, metalcore is certainly notable enough to have template to organize those topics. Don't really see a problem here. See also Template:Alternative metal. -Chrisbkoolio
Keep I haven't seen any pro-deletion arguments. The reason an earlier version of this was deleted is because another user created it when the genre was less prominent and there were not notable fusion genres to mention. I see no issue with having a template for a genre with 5+ notable sub genres / fusion genres. If there's any legitimate reason why this shouldn't exist then I think there's dozens of Category:Music genre templates that need to be reviewed. This is a prominent genre and template organizing it should be able to live. -Chrisbkoolio (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 19:41, 11 June 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).
Overly specific, only ever used five times and not in the modern uw series of templates. Replace with ((uw-lang)) or ((uw-disruptive3)). Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 07:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 19:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect I'm not sure how you've generated that number, but remember that as it is a substituted template, you can not rely on transclusion count to determine usage. If the template is still in usage it should be redirected. If not it should be deleted. TheDragonFire (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect so if anyone wants to repurpose it as a proper 'uw-series' they can without DRV/REFUND. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 20 June 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).
Overly specific, only ever used 30 times and not in the modern uw series of templates. Replace with ((uw-lang)) or ((uw-disruptive2)). Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 07:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 19:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect I'm not sure how you've generated that number, but remember that as it is a substituted template, you can not rely on transclusion count to determine usage. If the template is still in usage it should be redirected. If not it should be deleted. TheDragonFire (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect so if anyone wants to repurpose it as a proper 'uw-series' they can without DRV/REFUND. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 20 June 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) 23:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 07:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an easy way to identify a problem that affects readers and one that is possibly easy for interested editors to fix. It's great that nobody has noticed such a problem currently. We have 53 Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users, which means the problem is still present, just nobody has dived deeper than the level of "article containining problem image(s)" to identify specific images. DMacks (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 19:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Followup note: there is an analogous commons:Template:Colour blind, which is in moderate use there (~50 images tagged) at this time. DMacks (talk) 03:13, 22 June 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 redirect to Template:Uw-lang, but feel free to revive it as cleanly-substituting uw-series template Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate of ((uw-lang)), except the image is missing. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 16:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there are also ((lang2)), ((lang3)) and ((lang4)), which may or may not be used by editors and do not have uw-template counterparts. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 16:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 01:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's nice to have a consistent series of stepped warnings.--Srleffler (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Srleffler: The other three haven't been used all that often (lang2 was only ever substituted 30 times, lang3 five times, and lang4 three times). The first one is a duplicate, and the rest are overly specific and generic vandalism templates can be used instead. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 07:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those numbers are unbelievably low. I don't know how you can tell how many times a template has been substituted, so I wonder if whatever method you are using is not working correctly. Generic vandalism templates are not appropriate. Language edit warring is not vandalism.--Srleffler (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we migrate lang2 to lang4 to the uw template format, then I would be fine with getting rid of the non-uw versions.--Srleffler (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Srleffler: The templates leave behind hidden comments when substituted. For example, this search for the wikitext "Lang4 -->" returns 5 results, one the template itself and one a list of warning templates. I'd be fine with converting the others, but they're barely used, and I think ((uw-disruptive2)) to 4 could work instead. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 07:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 19:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect so if anyone wants to repurpose it as a proper 'uw-series' they can without DRV/REFUND. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 20 June 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 keep. The deletion camp makes some very compelling arguments, but the keep camp has an overwhelming majority. This discussion has raised some interesting points, and it might be worth a discussion (or RFC) about if we should ask for "experts" to be editing pages. NPASR provided either usage decreases significantly (like, down to sub-1000 transclusions) or a discussion determines that it might not be the best idea to use this template. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no purpose for an expert to be needed in any subject as we all have access to the same sources. The only thing that an expert can do better than an ordinary Joe here would be original research. THE DIAZtalk • contribs 19:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Every reason stated below and that not everyone has every resource and experts are specialized in a specific area that others do not know anything about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Father The Son The Holy Spirit (talk • contribs) 04:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the reasons stated above. Even if we all have access to the same sources, experts in a field can far more easily understand what they mean. Robminchin (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Maybe redirect to ((cleanup)) or another similar "all-purpose" template. KMF (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
very strong keep. An expert may bee needed to understand a subject well enough to write about it clearly. An expert may be needed to know where to find high-quality sources. An expert may much better understand which sources in a field are reliable, and which are out of date, or have a poor reputation. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template should be relatively rarely used, but as others have pointed out, sometimes having an expert can help in ways completely unrelated to WP:OR. – PhilosopherLet us reason together. 12:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we all have access to the same sources, then anyone of us can then go on to do what it takes to become the expert that was needed for the given article. On a more serious note, it's precisely the users who confidently write thinking they don't need expertise that end up creating the messes that this template is used to flag up. – Uanfala 19:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Snow close: I would like to see someone with no background in statistics try to write an article like Student's t-distribution (and that's not even the tip of the iceberg of difficult mathematics). You don't need to be an expert to edit an article, but to make a substantial contribution you do need to have some understanding of the subject matter and some topics are so inherently technical you really do need to be an expert to have any understanding at all. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the idea we all have "access to the same sources" is absurd. Some people don't even have access to the same internet, nevermind access to the same knowledge or sources of knowledge (books, databases). Some editors have dedicated their whole lives to a certain subject, it may be their career or hobby, while others not. Some people have degrees, some don't. Some people are self-learned, while others aren't—on a particular subject. The template is not frequently used, but when it is—it has a purpose. Like I did just here:[1]. DA1 (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for previously-stated reasons and because it's useful to call for outside help who may not have noticed the article. However, I would like a more readily-accessible list of customized templates for the types or kinds of specialized expertise we are seeking. MaynardClark (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some people would want an expert to improve an article since they do not have the expertise and time to improve it (for instance, a reader might find out that an article about Chechnya is lousy, but he does not know much about the place yet have no time to look for reliable sources and read them so that he can improve the article).--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete over time as pointless. I've been watching this template on medicine-related articles for much longer than five years, and its actual effect appears to be: absolutely nothing. Outside experts don't edit it, and usually nobody else does, either. I suspect the tag of discouraging some less-than-supremely-confident editors from even trying to improve these articles. There is often no apparent rhyme or reason why the article was tagged, but there is a small tendency to tag "expert needed" when the problem is "the current version of the article doesn't agree with my POV" (try ((POV)) and its cousins) or "I didn't understand this article, so I'm asking for an expert, even though subject-matter experts often fill articles with incomprehensible jargon" (try ((Too technical)) instead). But my main problem is that they just don't work. This is a pointless waste of screen real estate. (I invite all of its supporters to prove me wrong by introducing me to experts who began editing in response to that tag. As I said, I've been watching this tag for a long time, and I've not met a single one yet.) I would be very happy if we could use a bot to (slowly, perhaps spread out over the next year):
remove the tag from each article,
leave a note about the request on the article's talk page, and
leave a note about the request on the talk page for every WikiProject that has tagged the page. Then we might actually see some progress on these requests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WhatamIdoing. I've never seen improvements resulting from using this template, and while that can't be extrapolated as far as "improvements have never resulted from using this template", I expect I'd be aware of occasional benefits if they exist. This template is about as useful as ((Expand)) (see 2010 TFD); it says "It would be nice if this article were better" but doesn't give any details, and in fact it's even less useful, because at least "Please help improve this article by expanding it" specifies how to fix the identified problem. This one doesn't even address what's wrong. And as noted above, this isn't actually used for expert-finding; an expert who edits Wikipedia because of a bad article will see that the article has major problems without the template. Finally, this is redundant to wikiproject ratings. If you're an expert on a subject and an active Wikipedian, you'll work with a wikiproject in your area of expertise if you edit in that area, and you'll be able to find pages in your area that need help. The categories associated with this template could simply be used for talk pages, and the wikiproject ratings templates could simply add an extra parameter (perhaps |expert=yes) to put the articles in the categories. Nyttend (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but require some explanation of the problem when the template is placed. The trouble is that in many cases those placing this template don't adhere to the text it contains: Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. The functioning should be amended such that the template doesn't transclude unless at least one of the "talk" and "reason" parameters is non-empty; existing instances where both parameters are empty may be removed, as already stated in the template documentation: Noyster (talk), 12:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per the other deletes above. it would be awesome if this template could pick up the telephone and call an expert, or send out a bat signal, but that doesn't happen. Frietjes (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it turns out that it is indeed the case that this template doesn't help at all in enlisting the help of experts, at least it's got another function left: to flag up a certain kind of problematic content. And that job isn't done by any of the replacement templates that have been suggested above. – Uanfala 15:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the reasons I've stopped contributing to wikipedia is because any idiot can do anything; a problem when it's on subjects they're not fit to comment on. Often (even in an area like mathematics) definitions and statements may be given differently and then may or may not be equivalent, we don't want some n00b guessing. What you should do is have an expert pool and notify people when it's used. Whoever thought this should be deleted is the kind of idiot I'm talking about 137.205.1.108 (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per most of what previous "keepers" say (if I can take the last one as an indication that I have a vote despite not being logged in). WhatamIdoing definitely has a point; but as Uanfala pointed out, it does not make the template pointless for readers, and improvement is a better answer. Some kind of expert pool, per 137.205.1.108, could definitely improve things – if the experts are verifiable academics (or equivalent) and edit under their own names in their own area of expertise only. But I'm all too aware of the practical difficulties… 151.177.62.193 (talk) 14:50, 22 June 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).
Template:Stubexpwarn
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 per author approval Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 21:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused warning template; ((Expand)) was deprecated years ago, so this warning is no longer needed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to be honest, I'm surprised this is still around. I thought it had been deleted ages ago. Grutness...wha? 23:33, 11 June 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).
Template:Struck idiophones
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 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).
Template:Spanish Radio Stations in Delaware
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).
Keep: Template now in use on both linked pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:05 on June 12, 2017 (UTC)
@Neutralhomer: That still doesn't fix that it links only two pages, which is way too few for a navigational template. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: I never said it fixed it. :) I just said it was now in use. :) Fixing things is someone else's department now. I just wander in, tinker with things and wander off muttering incoherently. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:50 on June 12, 2017 (UTC)
keep, seems useful. Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it's part of a series, one of 39 such templates, and as such I don't think it should be deleted merely on NENAN grounds. NENAN is more for isolated templates that aren't part of a series, e.g. an article about a musician and two of his albums. Nyttend (talk) 19:06, 18 June 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).
Template:SociologyTasks/to do
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 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).
Template:Sioux City Attack roster
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 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).
Template:SGCOTF article header
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).
Unused, corresponding collaboration is defunct Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:56, 11 June 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 keep as it is now used Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 20:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, not a valid navigational tool especially with the "or similar" rule. These currencies have nothing in common but a vaguely similar name. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:53, 11 June 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).
Template:ReviveWP
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 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).
Template:RetroLayer game
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 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).
Template:Regional units
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).
Delete while this is the more nuetral title in the Wikipedia:Measurements Debate, it's lack of usage and the fact that Twinkle has a dependency on ((metricate)), makes the choice pretty clear.--RadioFan (talk) 13:52, 11 June 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).
Template:Popular music traditions
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 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 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).
Template:Plantsclean
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 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).
Template:Past NFL Team
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 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).
Template:POV heading
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 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).
Template:Nostalgia Critic sidebar
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).
delete duplicates navigation found in Template:Channel Awesome
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).
1960 and 1961 NCAA Division I men's ice hockey tournament navboxes
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).
Two articles in each fails WP:EXISTING. Category better fit. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The two templates follow the same pattern as others in succeeding years. They're useful but not necessary.PensRule11385 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacing with see also links. Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 18 June 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).