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 duplicate of ((U.S. Supreme Court composition 2005–2006)). HandsomeFella (talk) 20:12, 25 January 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).
Not being used or ever likely to be used; poorly implemented (only handles a particular range of inputs); and duplicates more general functionality. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: See also ((Division)). This has the same issues, although it's being used on ~100 articles. But these all relate to college baseball/basketball tournaments and it seems like something there is using this thinking it's for the league division, but I can't figure out what's directly transcluding it. I wanted to list this one also, but I'm waiting until someone figures out exactly what's going on here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete ((multiply)) and ((division)). however, I could see keeping ((sum)) since summing is a more common task, and because it uses a lua module to help with the efficiency and error handling. Frietjes (talk) 14:08, 27 January 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).
Template:Cavan U21 Football Championship
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 Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:11, 27 January 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).
Template:NRL map
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, Primefac (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I am relisting this because the template was added to the template and then subsequently removed by the TFD nominator and replaced with a different map. Thus, there is currently a map on the NRL page but it is not this template.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:43, 25 January 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).
Template:NY
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:Comics prop redi
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. The template was changed during the discussion. Please feel free to renominate it if you would still like to see it deleted. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 04:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
unused and would only connect two articles if it were used (2010s and 2000s) Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the title of this template is misleading and incorrect anyway... the articles mentioned above that would fit into this template are NOT the overall number-one songs each week in Venezuela, but the number-one songs on the chart specifically for English-language songs – at the time the chart was known as "Pop Rock General", but there are now three charts, "Pop General", "Rock General" (both for Spanish-language acts) and "Anglo", which is the natural continuation of the former "Pop Rock General" chart. For genuine Venezuela number-one songs, the articles that should be connected via this template are List of number-one singles of 2014 (Venezuela) and List of number-one singles of 2015 (Venezuela), although you can see that the latter is incomplete. Richard3120 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated it to include the current existing articles/lists appropriate to the template. As author of the template, I'm neutral on whether to keep/delete. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 23:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Once more, with feeling?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:29, 25 January 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 no consensus. The template was changed during the discussion. Please feel free to renominate it if you would still like to see it deleted. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 04:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
provides no navigation Frietjes (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: Someone had removed the previous navigation. I went ahead and put in new links WhisperToMe (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:22, 25 January 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).
Template:Ayreon guest musicians
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).
A list of guest musicians is not a suitable topic for a WP:NAVBOX. Articles are not closely connected to one another and navigation between them seems unlikely. Transclusion of the navbox on the articles of the individuals involved puts WP:UNDUE weight on the loose association. Best left for List of Ayreon guest musicians. --woodensuperman 15:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:11, 25 January 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).
Template:Scuba Dice
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).
Only two EPs have articles. Not needed for navigation. --woodensuperman 11:58, 25 January 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).
Template:Chennai Bus Stations
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).
Only one of the links is an actual bus station, the rest link to articles of geographical areas (localities) where a bus station is located. Ajf773 (talk) 07:27, 25 January 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).
Template:2014–15 Top 14 Table
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 article Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Used in only one page. Should be substed and deleted. Izno (talk) 03:13, 25 January 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. No prejudice against recreation if and when a significant number of the redlinks turn blue. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unhelpful navigation box since all the links take you to category space, instead of to the corresponding articles Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
per Wikipedia:Navigation template, navigation boxes are for navigation between existing articles on WP. if I want to see a list of all the articles on years in Nicaragua, I navigate to List of years in Nicaragua, which has all of them. if I want a list of all the year in Nicaragua categories I can go to Category:Years in Nicaragua or use
Keep as helpful guide to chronologically arranged information about Nicaragua, one of Wikipedia's most underdocumented countries. -- M2545 (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 11:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Navbox links categories, not articles, and as such, should not be used in article space as no reader would expect to end up at a category when clicking on a link here (see WP:EGG and WP:BIDIRECTIONAL). As it isn't employed elsewhere, this should be deleted. Per WP:NAVBOX: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia"--woodensuperman 09:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see this has been updated (correctly) to link to the year articles and is now a sea of redlinks. Note that per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, navbox should only be transcluded on the articles contained in the navbox. So, navbox is still pretty pointless with only a couple of active links. --woodensuperman 09:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Seeking comments on updates.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This template is unnecessary. Given that it pretty much only contains redlinks, it would not at all assist readers. Open to recreation when an editor takes on creating previous year articles. Mamyles (talk) 23:13, 8 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 no consensus. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose (see above), and possibly discuss the usages of the two "Year in countries" template branches? - See above for my comments on the matter of the "Year in countries" project. However, the differences between and differing usages of the two branches of "Year in countries" templates (the ones with "Years" and the ones with "Year") should probably be discussed further, in order to help better the parts of the Wiki focusing on various nations. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
per Wikipedia:Navigation template, navigation boxes are for navigation between existing articles on WP. if I want to see a list of all the articles on years in Chad, I navigate to List of years in Chad, which has all of them. if I want a list of all the year in Chad categories I can go to Category:Years in Chad or use
Keep as helpful guide to chronologically arranged information about Chad, one of Wikipedia's most underdocumented African countries. -- M2545 (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 11:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait It has potential, but needs a lot of work. ∰Bellezzasolo✡Discuss 21:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Seeking comments on updates.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:44, 25 January 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).
Inflation-related templates that were initially created by mistake
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; links zero articles (all are category links which are already covered by the category tree) Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose (hear me out?) - While the "Years in countries" categories, pages, and templates are definitely something to be improved upon; these templates, in my honest opinion, would provide helpful navigation between topics in the yearly history of various countries. These templates, while not perfect and currently relatively unused, would provide a structured, helpful way to easily find any page or category on any year in any given country. I've been trying to help organize the mess of pages and categories that exist in this mini-WikiProject of articles, but it's far too soon to make a bold move like deleting it. Hopefully, instead of deleting these works in progress, they can be improved upon by helping manage and create the pages and categories involved. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
per Wikipedia:Navigation template, navigation boxes are for navigation between existing articles on WP. if I want to see a list of all the articles on years in Bahrain, I navigate to List of years in Bahrain, which has all of them. if I want a list of all the year in Bahrain categories I can go to Category:Years in Bahrain or use
Keep as helpful guide to chronologically arranged information about Bahrain, a country in one of Wikipedia's most underdocumented regions. -- M2545 (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 11:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Navbox links categories, not articles, and as such, should not be used in article space as no reader would expect to end up at a category when clicking on a link here (see WP:EGG and WP:BIDIRECTIONAL). As it isn't employed elsewhere, this should be deleted. Per WP:NAVBOX: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia"--woodensuperman 09:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see these have (correctly) been updated to link to the year articles and is now a sea of redlinks. Note that per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, navbox should only be transcluded on the articles contained in the navbox. So, navbox is still pretty pointless with only a couple of active links. --woodensuperman 09:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Seeking comments on updates.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:39, 25 January 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 no consensus. Many participants believe that there is room for improvement, so I suggest a discussion take place on how to either reduce the excess listings with a more defined inclusion criteria or split it up into separate navboxes. (non-admin closure)Nihlus 00:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
looks like WP:OR with an arbitrary cut-off for inclusion Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lordtobi (✉) 16:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very good and informative. It is not a WP:OR and it has a specific criteria for inclusion and exclusion. While supporting keeping it, I may suggest tightening the criteria even more to shorten the list. --Wisamzaqoot (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not WP:OR. They are all recognized as global leaders in IT. And it's informative and encyclopaedic. scope_creep (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This doesn't appear to fall under WP:OR, as all of these companies as pretty big leaders if you ask me. Namcokid47 (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, there is no clear logical criterion for including/excluding companies in this navbox.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this navbox per nom, make new specific navboxes. It is not navigable. Störm(talk) 17:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This subject matter is as big as the broad side of a barn; it's far too unwieldy to have as a reliable, useful navbox. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 22:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or split if the new templates could be useful, with well defined inclusion criteria. —PC-XT+ 03:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Split or keep Looks like a very useful navbox. There is a clear methodology detailed. I'd say this has potential. ∰Bellezzasolo✡Discuss 20:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undefined inclusion criteria. Not really useful as a navigational aid as the articles are not interconnected. --woodensuperman 15:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The methodology is probably the most confusing thing I've ever seen on a template. And the size is ridiculous, mostly caused by the term "major" being entirely subjective... and based in some strange arbitrary function. Simply not useful to our readers anymore than a category page would be like this. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for the reasons expressed by Wisamzaqoot. — Fajr18 (Talk) 07:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for it has good methodology although some might not find it familiar due to its asian customisation. The need is there to inform people of its existence. I personally found it useful. EROSmessage 08:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Split or keep if splitting not possible I see both sides and believe the template does serve a purpose as I've used it in the pass. However, I also do believe that it has gotten big and unwieldy at this point. I'm not sure how one could objectively tighten it methodology (i'm not sure what discussion even went into its current methodology). In an ideal situation, I think it should be split into multiple templates for each industry, however, seeing as how I tried and failed to create a separate template for video games, this may be easier said than done. As it does function for its purposes as it is now, I recommend keeping if all else fails.Rogue Commander (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting one more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Organizes all the major high-tech companies in one place instead of tediously looking for them one by one if one wants to look a particular company up. Backendgaming (talk) 05:17, 29 January 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).
Template:San Francisco Deltas squad
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 team is dissolved Joeykai (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for dissolved teams. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no 'current squad' for a nonexistent team, so no need for a 'current squad' template... GiantSnowman 10:15, 26 January 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).
Template:NYC year nav
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).
Navbox links categories, not articles, and as such, should not be used in article space as no reader would expect to end up at a category when clicking on a link here (see WP:EGG). As it isn't employed elsewhere, this should be deleted. Per WP:NAVBOX: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia". --woodensuperman 09:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The navbox aids navigation through the city's history, year by year, and its presence on various article pages helps contextualize each article within the larger sweep of time. Each year link leads to a lot of useful information about the city. -- M2545 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what a navbox is for. It should link related articles. See WP:NAVBOX. And it should only be transcluded on those articles that are mentioned in the navbox. See WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. --woodensuperman 15:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NAVBOX. if this were being used exclusively in category-space, I could see keeping it. but it's not, so it's really not that helpful. if you really need a link to category space, you can accomplish the same thing with a single link to Category:Years in New York City, which doesn't need to be updated every year. Frietjes (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most navboxes link to articles, so this could easily confuse some readers. Given that a category link can perform the exact same functionality, it's not worth keeping in spite of this. - User:Axisixa[talk][contribs] 01:29, 28 January 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).
Template:Motagua New Orleans squad
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).
Unnecessary to maintain squad templates for amateur teams. Jay eyem (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough bluelinks to justify the template. GiantSnowman 10:14, 26 January 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).