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 after merging with the articles per this and prior discussions (e.g., the 16 May 2017 discussion). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dynamo Kursk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Fenerbahçe Istanbul (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Good Angels Košice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:MBK Ružomberok (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Nadezhda Orenburg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ros Casares Valencia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WBC Spartak Moscow Region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single-use template, can be merged with the article; there is no need for a separate template. Frietjes (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Substitute and delete per nominator. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
  to reply to me 11:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question User:Frietjes, you !voted delete here because "the code here is very complex, better to keep it segregated from the article wikitext". Why isn't the code here any less complex?Gonejackal (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • seems obvious, 5,595 bytes (Africa Labelled Map) vs. 2,356 bytes (Dynamo Kursk). Frietjes (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. So these templates got segregated from the article because the article had gotten to large?Gonejackal (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why these rosters are segregated from the article, which is why I am suggesting that they be merged with the articles. I though that was obvious from the nomination. Frietjes (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer the question please.Gonejackal (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now I don't see how any of these templates are any less complex than the one that the nominator !voted for keep in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 29#Template:Africa Labelled Map so until a good answer or if the other template is 'Merged then deleted', I see no consistency in determining what sort of template should be retained to prevent needless clutter of "the actual content text", to prevent coding mistakes or both.Gonejackal (talk) 01:15, 24 May 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 by User:CactusWriter. SporkBot (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Kids' Fun Science Experiments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Definitely non-encyclopedic. I'm sorry, but this isn't encyclopedic and doesn't meet Wikipedia's basic guidelines. J947^(c) 18:50, 17 May 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) 22:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Space: Above and Beyond (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Would like other eyes on this one – is there enough in this navbox to justify keeping it?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, redundant to standard "see also" links. clearly the three sub-articles are all well-connected to Space: Above and Beyond, so you really just need two see also links in each sub-article to have them all connected. Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 21 May 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 May 24. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (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 merge with Template:Doctor Who companions Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an un-used template that is a duplicate to the already-existing and well-used Template:Doctor Who companions. The template is also out of date, and the current template has been sufficient for years. The nominated template also cannot be used to separate between the companions of each Doctor, as the articles are currently set up as; the latter template allows for both a full view, and keeping the templates separate. If other additions needed to be added from other media (e.g. comics, audio, novels, etc.), then they can easily be added to the individual templates. -- Alex^TW 12:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge anything useful from ((DoctorWhoCompanions)) into ((Doctor Who companions)) Amisom (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, this has already been done. Everything in the former template is already in the latter; the latter includes even more. The nominated template seems to simply be a project that was created almost four years ago, and then forgotten about and never used. The latter template has existed for over a decade, and is widely used and accepted. Why it failed the speedy delete, I do not know, since it's textbook WP:CSD#T3. -- Alex^TW 13:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with ((Doctor Who companions)). I contested the speedy deletion and although ((DoctorWhoCompanions)) is unsused and out of date, and there is no content to merge, the format is a lot easier to use and aids nagivation better, so it is the format I would like to see merged. That was my reason for contesting, basically because I knew this discussion would happen, since whenever I've tried to suggest template changes on the Doctor Who WikiProject talk page, the discussions have never gone anywhere. Companions in spin-off media can easily be included. It would also mean every Doctor-specific template in Category:Doctor Who companions navigational boxes could be redirected to it, and there would only be a need for a single template instead of 13 templates. —anemoneprojectors— 14:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to that, I didn't realise I had already made a userspace draft for what I thought this template should look like, which I did in 2010 (that's how long I've hated ((Doctor Who companions)))! I've updated it to reflect what the merge would look like, it's at User:AnemoneProjectors/Template:Doctor Who companions. This reflects the current subsections in the current templates, and it does look excessively long with lots of whitespace, but I don't see much point in keeping main, recurring and one-off compansions separate, and perhaps companions from spin-off media could be merged together to a single line next to their respective Doctor (which I've now added as a second suggestion). —anemoneprojectors— 15:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Ideally I'd like to see something like User:AnemoneProjectors/Template:Doctor Who characters happen eventually, but it's for a future discussion (and maybe a couple of past ones that trailed off) so no need to comment on that here - however, I don't think it's necessary for a navigational template to give information beyond linking articles together. For example, if I wanted to know which Doctor(s) Martha Jones was affiliated with, I'd just click on Martha Jones, or if I wanted Third Doctor companions, I'd click on Third Doctor. —anemoneprojectors— 15:22, 17 May 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).