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) 18:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Random image array (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no longer needed now that we have WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES ... Frietjes (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't this be used outside of the ethnic galleries? – Uanfala (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if this feature is needed, it can be added to Module:Image array directly, which would be much more efficient. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:06, 16 February 2018 (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) 22:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WPLSY-M (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Frietjes (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; unused. Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2018 (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) 22:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WPAI/doc/row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not used by Template:WikiProject Article Incubator Frietjes (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2018 (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) 22:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused; articles are using other succession templates. Frietjes (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2018 (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) 22:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused; most likely replaced by the former clubs section in Template:VFL Frietjes (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:19, 12 February 2018 (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) 22:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:VMR blue style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:VMR gold style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:VMR green style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused; all the VMR articles are using other styles Frietjes (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2018 (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) 22:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

no longer needed now that Template:AFLLadderHeader supports |byes=y Frietjes (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2018 (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 merge to Template:Isle of Man. (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Education in the Isle of Man (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Isle of Man (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Education in the Isle of Man with Template:Isle of Man.
I have nominated for Education in the Isle of Man template to be merged into Isle of Man template. I believe this would work well and the schools listed under the headings: Primary, Secondary, Independent, Further and higher should become a subgroup of Education in the Isle of Man template. The result would look like this:

What do you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The size of the merged template is reasonable, but merging them without losing content would result in ((Isle of Man)) having a significant overemphasis on education. A general template for a jurisdiction ought only to list general articles (e.g. "History of place", "Religion in place", "Education in place") and important individual entries, like major towns or important historical figures; the only way it should link to everything of a certain class is if those articles are all critical to the topic, such as the sheadings and parishes here. Education is a good general article to link, and I could understand an argument for linking the most important school (if there is one) from the main template, but The Buchan School and Bunscoill Ghaelgagh are not critical to the topic of the Isle of Man. By the way, why was I notified? No complaint; I'm just confused. I've never edited the template, and as far as I know, I've never seen the template before. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Fair point, I just thought because at present the Education in the Isle of Man template is small, and it would look nice if it appeared as a subgroup of Education within the main Isle of Man template. At present, the Education has three links; a link to a list of schools, Education in the Isle of Man template and University College Isle of Man. But having second thoughts now, think I may get an administrator to withdraw this or wait 7 days to pass for it to be closed. I notified you because you were the creator of the Isle of Man template and the TFD says I would need to notify the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger. You created it all the way back in 2007 haha Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, I didn't realise that it asked you to notify the creator of the target template; I thought you notified me because you thought I had something to do with the education template. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like template consolidation. Isle of Man is a small place so a single template is for the best. User:Nyttend, I think if all the schools are on the same line (no subdivisions) education won't be emphasized too strongly. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's impossible; there are too many of them to fit on one line. Unless you mean a single code group, e.g. making |group7= be "Schools" and listing them all there? Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant a single code group, "Education" - Alternatively it can be subdivided with one for primary and secondary schools and the other for "other" (universities and public libraries) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe: @Nyttend: I like template consolidation too - I agree with you WhisperToMe, think it would be best to remove the Primary, Secondary, Independent, Further and higher headings and just have these schools listed together next to the Education heading, that way it would fall in line with the rest of the template. This should reduce the overemphasis on education. The Education text itself links to Education in the Isle of Man article which has a link to the list of schools. These schools currently listed are the only schools in the Isle of Man that have their own article and the current template is too small. I think it would be better in the main Isle of Man template. What do you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I agree that it would look best without having multiple lines for education. Just combine them into one line of the overarching template. Mamyles (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge A separate template in this case isn't necessary....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:29, 9 February 2018 (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 move to ((Jordan Peele)). NPASR as a template for Jordan Peele himself. Primefac (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A bit of a confusing navbox this one. Most of the content is related to Peele only, without Key. But with only four entries, it's not really necessary. Would suggest that in the future, separate navboxes could be created when the body of work is greater. --woodensuperman 15:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Repurpose to just Peele. Per WP:PERFNAV, the navbox should focus only on works authored and not appearances, which is the nature of Key's relation to almost all of the navbox's elements. The current navbox scope would make more sense if the two had co-created multiple works. czar 18:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep existent, but Neutral on repurposing - I definitely think we should keep this navbox. However, I'm neutral on the possible repurposing to just be about Peele. To be honest, I personally think it's fine the way it is. Not sure how we should go about this, but I'm kinda fine either way I guess. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• move to ((Jordan Peele)) per above, then reconsider if people still want to have it deleted. Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This approach is fine with me. --woodensuperman 15:30, 20 February 2018 (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).