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).
Doesn't further aid in navigation in the existing articles as they all already link to and from each other without this navbox. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough active links to warrant a navbox. --woodensuperman 12:03, 24 October 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:The Magic Circle - The David Devant Award
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 result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 20:03, 19 October 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 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).
unused, could be history merged with Template:Warsaw Metro route diagram? Frietjes (talk) 16:21, 19 October 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 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:User WikiProject Ice Hockey Coordinator
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 Moved to Mfd I totally knew that I must have been asleep this morning. -DJSasso (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template. Was created by a user who at the time did not know our Wikiproject does not have coordinators. DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Djsasso see the "What not to propose for discussion here" section at the top of WP:TFD: Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 19 October 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:ECHL explanation
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 template. DJSasso (talk) 14:09, 19 October 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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BobherryTalkEdits 14:09, 19 October 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:NHLh
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. Was a single use template which has been subst'd. DJSasso (talk) 13:56, 19 October 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 procedural close. This family of templates was already determined to be slated for deletion in this previous TFD. Primefac (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused except for in one talkpage archive, where it can be substituted. I haven't checked all of the helper templates but most of them are unused. Jc86035 (talk) 10:37, 19 October 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).
I'd rather you hadn't done this before I have had time to look at it properly. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 12:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Template:Belfast–Newry railway line
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:Belfast–Larne railway line
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:Belfast–Derry railway line
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 result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:34, 26 October 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:Belfast–Bangor railway line
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 history merge Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:55, 26 October 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:PD-Maldives
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 license tag, and likely misrepresentation of consensusFASTILY 04:57, 19 October 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:Anime convention events
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:Fraternitysororityproposed
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:Philippines former state
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).
Question - Do we know why it's unused? This makes more sense to me than at least one of the templates currently in use. Perhaps there's value in reviving it? - Alternativity (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that I don't often work with templates, so I'm unsure what's an acceptable level of overlap, and to what degree it's acceptable to shift content from one template to another.
I'll look up the relevant guidelines when I can but perhaps you can help me by pointing them out?
And... what's the level of urgency on this deletion proposal? So I know how much time I have left to study/consider my vote? :) -Alternativity (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:32, 19 October 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 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:Pop song 1
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, violates overlinking policies. No reason to standardize pop song intros since they can have different things in the first sentences. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment, clearly substituted, which is why it is unused. not sure if Hyacinth or InnocuousPseudonym or others are using it. Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What over linking policies? Hyacinth (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyacinth: Linking "X in music" when mentioning the year in the lead is overlinking. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; easier to copy and paste text and modify it as appropriate (also per overlinking concerns). A template like these would be more useful as a template for an entire article, used as a preload. A lot of notable songs in recent years have been written by people other than the artist, making the templates less applicable because they only allow a lyricist and a writer; and an intro would probably specify the actual genre rather than "popular song", which is a distinct term from "pop song" (not every popular song is in the pop genre). Jc86035 (talk) 05:25, 24 October 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:Grand Theft Auto IV
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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that I have combined these two nominations, as the rationale is identical and neither had any comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NAVBOX"Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use". Seems to me to fit the criteria perfectly, and Template:Grand Theft Auto is not as intuitive or user-friendly. Plenty of video games have their own respective navbox to combine a pool of a half-dozen or more articles into one topic navbox. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#T3 as substantial duplication and redundant navigation. We do not need multiple navboxes with the same links or additional navboxes with a subset of the same links. --woodensuperman 12:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Duplicates a subset of the series navbox which isn't even that big. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:06, 25 October 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).
Marvel characters by alphabet
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).
Those templates list characters from Marvel Comics, grouped by the first letter of their name. Trivial grouping. See also the guideline at WP:NAVBOX, it fails all possible reasons. Not 1, it is not a single and coherent subject (there are hundreds and hundreds of Marvel comics characters, and the subgroup of those that start with the same letter is trivial). Not 2 and not 4, as the template does not have an actual subject. And certainly not 3 nor 5, as most characters included in those templae hardly have any relation besides having the same publisher. Cambalachero (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete, this is why we have categories and list articles. some groupings are too big for a navbox. Frietjes (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Navboxes have always been organized by alphabetical order and character navboxes do exist. Frietjes made a good point except for the fact that none of it is "too big" to be a navbox while some may be argued to being too small and can be merged in with the letter next to it. Also if it is too big. Then it can be used to help editors know which should be merged or not. If the navboxes are "trivial" Then so is the poorly made list articles that are featured in it. Navboxes are not as essential as categories but they also serve a different function which is making a navigation easier for people who are using just PC. I also like to hear @Rtkat3:'s opinion of this since he notified me of this and also thanked me for the navboxes. While I don't always agree on his edits. I still feel and know he was involved with helping regardless. Jhenderson777 20:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Character navboxes usually group toguether characters that appear in a certain group, like ((Guardians of the Galaxy)) and ((Fantastic Four)). Those have a limited and manageable number of characters, and the relation between them is natural. It makes sense that someone reading the article about Drax the Destroyer may also want to read about Groot, as they are both members of the same superhero team. But why would you expect such a reader to be interested in Dragon Man, Doctor Faustus (comics), Diablo (Marvel Comics) or Dum Dum Dugan? Just because their article names start with "D"? Note that there are literally hundreds of Marvel Comic characters; a navbox that lists them all without further rationale is simply out of the question. Both for practical navigation reasons, and for reader benefit: those hundreds of characters are scattered in dozens of publications, and any given reader will likely follow just a certain number of them, and ignore the rest. I doubt there are readers like the Comic Book Guy who would have a truly equal interest in all those hundreds of characters, simple because Marvel publishes them all. Cambalachero (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The same argument can be used in the character article. The reasoning is the same. They are split between letters. The fact that they start with the letter doesn't have to mean anything. It's just the fact that they are all connected characters in the same universe which most likely have crossed over which probably have brought debate on whether they belong on the other individual superhero/superhero team navbox that you mentioned. Jhenderson777 02:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for having a list, a category and a navbox is different in each case. We may have 2 of those even the 3, but it does not follow that because we have one then we must have the other. And being in the same universe, just by itself, is hardly a reason to consider that two characters are sufficiently related to share a navbox. Drax interacts with Groot on basically each issue of their comic book, so yes, it make sense to group them. But what interaction has there ever been between Drax and Dragon Man? Just being in a same multitude, perhaps? The argument applies for fictional universes with a small and manageable cast of notable characters, such as ((Sin City)) or ((The Matrix)), but not for a fictional universe with hundreds of notable characters. There's a reason we don't have a navbox duplicating Category:Living people, despite all of the entries being in the same "universe". --Cambalachero (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't it be enough that they are already in the list articles? That's not trivial that the universe is connected. Sometimes there are less connections with the lettering in all. But it's obvious that they are all one navbox splitted and they just summarize the already existant lettering articles. Jhenderson777 00:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's trivial because of the numbers. The relation between Drax and Groot is not trivial because they are part of a small group and interact directly in a very frequent manner. That's a relation they share with only 10 other characters. Drax and Dragon Man, on the other hand, have no noteworthy relation besides simply living in the same world, and share that relation with hundreds of other characters (perhaps thousands, if we count all those who are in continuity but are not notable enough for standalone articles). --Cambalachero (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am objecting to this deletion. Jhenderson777 was right about how he established his articles and how I had to modify it with the names of the Marvel Comics characters that haven't been merged into each List of Marvel Comics characters pages. --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have informed Wikiproject Comics about this discussion, so that we may have more input on this. Cambalachero (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A lot of work clearly went into these, but Cambalachero was right saying they're trivial groupings. There is not a connection between Aunt May and Annihilus, for example. These templates don't help readers navigate articles. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's why there is a division between protagonists, antagonists and supporting characters in the first place. The lettering has nothing to do with it except for a split-off of something too large just like the articles. Also they are connected by being in the list article already. Jhenderson777 00:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The list articles serve a larger purpose - they provide a space for information about characters who are not independently notable. That way other articles can link to them instead of repeating their background repeatedly. What is the intended use for these templates? How do you see a reader using them? Argento Surfer (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It depends only if they are computer readers. Because mobile only users don't require navboxes. With that being said. I think mostly the navboxes serve the purpose with more so of not hearing about the character of knowing the character article existed. Or maybe helping find the character name they forgot possibly. Perhaps there is someone who wanted to know more of who belongs in the navbox. Like titular protagonists or recurring antagonist (sounds a little more debatable) or getting rid of supporting characters. If there is a way we can determine that instead I will be for it. Also I wanted navboxes that helped editors know articles that existed and put on the watchlist etc. Technically they are readers too. Jhenderson777 18:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we should put our effort into improving List of Marvel Comics characters. When there are too many entries for a navbox, we use list articles and categories instead of splitting navboxes alphabetically. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The groups are unlikely to be useful for navigating, as the only common thing they share is a first letter. Whilst a reader may want to navigate between, say, members of the X-Men, there would not be a common enough link between the entries in these navboxes. --woodensuperman 08:14, 27 October 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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:59, 19 October 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).
keep, as I told you last time, this is clearly being used. Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:58, 19 October 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:Royal Signals
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).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:58, 19 October 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).