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. czar 03:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:William DuVall (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This musician's navigational template consists of no notable individual releases, but notable releases from two bands he was a member of, Alice in Chains and Comes with the Fall. All of the bands' releases are already covered by Template:Alice in Chains or Template:Comes with the Fall, making this template redundant and unnecessary. Aspects (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Delete per nom. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2019 (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. czar 03:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Nick Littlemore (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This musician's navigational template consists of no notable individual releases, but notable releases from two bands he was a member of, Pnau and Empire of the Sun (band). All of the bands' releases are already covered by Template:Pnau or Template:Empire of the Sun, making this template redundant and unnecessary. Aspects (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The nav 'plate serves little useful additional access: Other than Pnau and Empire of the Sun he was also in another notable band, Teenager, but they have no album articles: that group can be accessed via biography section main articles 'plate. Of non-redundant related articles, Pip Brown, can be accessed in the same section under her pseudonym Ladyhawke.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2019 (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:Western Schism. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Antipopes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Western Schism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Antipopes with Template:Western Schism.
Illustration and text sections seem to fit together? PPEMES (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support redirect into Template:Western Schism. The scope of Template:Antipopes is broader than Antipopes specifically in the Template:Western Schism, which would be a reason to oppose. However, I instead argue that there is no lasting connection between Antipopes outside of the Western Schism (read: they don't "refer to each other to a reasonable extent"), and thus the existing list article and category sufficiently handle the relation between all Antipopes. "Antipopes of the Western Schism" retains its purpose, though, as that lineage of Antipopes have a common lineage (not just one-offs like the other Antipopes) so Template:Antipopes can redirect there as a search term. czar 10:25, 21 August 2019 (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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:North Line (METRORail) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and unusable; may have been a faulty attempt at a template redirect. Mackensen (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unused and un-useful. BLAIXX 11:24, 14 August 2019 (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 2019 August 24. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Indigenous_peoples_by_continent (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ethnicity (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 Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Search wikipedia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((search box)). 8 transclusions. --Trialpears (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. PPEMES (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2019 (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 2019 August 24. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Germanic_mythology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Germanic_paganism (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 relisted on 2019 August 24. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ship_burial_customs_in_Germanic_paganism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Death_in_Germanic_mythology (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 Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Teahouse questions archiveline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Teahouse archiveline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused archival templates unlikley to be used since the teahouse now uses the standard ones. --Trialpears (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2019 (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 2019 August 24. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Military_career_of_Muhammad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Muhammad2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Campaignbox_Campaigns_of_Muhammad (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 keep templates as-is. No prejudice against a discussion (at TFD or on the template's talk page) to split Template:Characters and names in the Quran. Primefac (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Prophets in the Quran (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Characters and names in the Quran (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Prophets in the Quran with Template:Characters and names in the Quran.
Duplicate information. PPEMES (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Characters and names in the Quran is too long in its current form and should be split or trimmed significantly. --Trialpears (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Trialpears. Template:Characters and names in the Quran needs to be much shorter, and when it is, it likely won't completely overlap with Template:Prophets in the Quran any longer. I suggest paring down Template:Characters and names in the Quran to be something like Template:Bible lists, e.g., only include Quran-related lists to give a topical overview of common features without listing each one. Then for the list areas that have enough commonality (e.g., prophets), each can have its own more specific navbox. czar 10:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose, better to keep these separate. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2019 (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) 19:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Crusader sites (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Crusader states (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Crusader sites with Template:Crusader states.
The sites around contemporary Israel are probably in a larger quantity than the potential row of places associated with the other entities. Thus, the template should be too large if eventually merged. Why not keep it all together, listing the sites under respective state section? PPEMES (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose—These templates have fundamentally different purposes. Sites is only for particular locations in Israel. States is for political entities not only in Israel, but the the wider near east, southern & northern Europe. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose, orthogonal navigation. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2019 (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 -FASTILY 00:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Baku Metro color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Baku Metro lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Baku Metro stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

((S-line)) and related templates for lines of the Baku Metro. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Baku Metro. All transclusions replaced. There are 13 dependent s-line data modules which should also be deleted. BLAIXX 12:15, 13 August 2019 (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. czar 00:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Our Last Night (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The band's navigational template consists of three links: the band's article and two album articles. Since the articles already connect to each other, there are not enough links to justify having a navigational template and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With three things, it makes sense to have a nav box. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see the opinions of my peers. No need to carry the discussion on. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, the three articles are well-connected through in-article linking, and the succession links in the album infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete textbook WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:37, 13 August 2019 (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. In addition to the majority calling for deletion, I find the arguments that the articles within the infobox are loosely related, particularly in failing navbox criteria 3 and 5 is a stronger reason to delete than the reasons given to keep (which are mostly around the presence of other things that ought to be deleted). I did not find "redundant to categories" to be a strong reason to delete, but this did add further weight to the argument for deletion. Fish+Karate 10:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned at Deletion Review to No Consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't meet the navbox criteria: the contents are loosely related and have no lasting relation to each other, i.e., they wouldn't be linked in each others' "See also" sections. The category and list are sufficient for organizing the loosely related contents. The latter has the added benefit of sorting by region. (Also note that this template was a cut-and-paste merge from Template:Autonomous social centers, now a redirect, where you can find the actual edit history and talk page.) czar 14:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep To state it simply, there is a page called Infoshops and this navbox serves as a useful means to group these infoshops. I’ve already explained this to Czar, who came here for “outside opinions” - in that case, why not make a request for comment or ask for a third opinion instead? Anyhow, I’ll put my reasoning again here, based on the navbox guidelines in the Manual of Style:
• 1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. - yes and that subject is the infoshop
• 2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. - this guideline isn't so important in my opinion since as the relevant literature (eg Lacey) makes pains to state, infoshops and social centres are vaguely defined themselves, but yeah the majority are, I've checked
• 3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. - yes i think they do, they are networked in different ways
• 4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. - yes there is .. and category as well
• 5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the 'See also' sections of the articles. - yup i think that is true here
  • That's the five guidelines. I don’t think it helps that Czar is cherry picking from them above. Further, Czar is being dishonest in suggesting that 'Template:Autonomous social centers' is the original version. This template was first created as 'Template:Infoshops' all the way back in 2008, then was retitled 'Template:Infoshops and social centers' in 2012, and then it was retitled without any discussion in 2018 to 'Template:Autonomous social centers' (by Czar). I have already indicated this is not a useful thing to have done, since many of the listed infoshops are not autonomous social centres eg CIRA, Extrapool, Freedom Press, 491 Gallery, The Forest and many of the North American projects (happy to explain in more detail if anyone is interested). Mujinga (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the guidelines from which I quoted. The point is that it doesn't meet the third one: this grouping has as much in common as would an arbitrary collection of movie theaters or specialty grocery stores. As I said, it's fine for a category or list but not a navbox. I've already established that "autonomous social centers" are the parent topic to "infoshops", hence the title of the template that retains literally all of the edit history before its cut-and-paste move. But the scope of the title isn't even the point here. Whether it's scoped to "autonomous social centers", "infoshops", or a combined topic, none of those are a subject matter fit for what warrants a navbox on Wikipedia per the quoted criteria. czar 01:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, better to navigate by list article and category. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets nav box criteria. It is a narrower category than 'grocery shops'. They are quite a specific type of venture. You can just as well say Template:Street_newspapers have nothing more in common than they are street newspapers. The fact that some users prefer to use list and category methods of navigation doesn't mean other user wont' find this method more useful. Jonpatterns (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ((Street newspapers)) suffers the same "loosely related contents" issue and should be nominated as well. czar 11:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two deletes (including proposer), two keeps so no consensus for deletion. Relisted for over a week with no further discussion. Can someone please close this discussion, thanks. Mujinga (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, much better to use list articles and categories for this sort of thing. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete They wouldn't be linked in a see also section and doesn't have a strong connection, but I don't see anything problematic with keeping them either. --Trialpears (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whilst not all of them would be linked in each others' "See also" sections, that might be said of thousands of other navboxes, e.g. ((International rugby union)), ((Pirates)), and ((Online social networking)). It has the added benefit of sorting by region, like the List of autonomous social centers. That list is far from complete with only 24 entries, compared to the 61 in Category:Infoshops and ~79 (not including related articles) in the navbox. The navbox is a convenient way to see related articles at a glance, and allow readers to pick and choose amongst them. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the list is far from complete, expand it. The point is that we don't use navboxes to collect articles by topic (they need to have some relation to each other); otherwise we have other techniques (lists, categories) for displaying such a collection. czar 03:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Examining a sampling of the articles, they fail WP:NAVBOX criteria 3 and 5 in a big way. The articles rarely refer to each other, and an editor would be unlikely to cross-link many of these articles in their "See also" sections (if in doubt, look at the articles prior to the addition of the navbox).

There are also lesser problems with regard to criteria 1 and 2. Although an article may now describe its subject as an infoshop, and thus give the appearance of being about a single, coherent subject, that is sometimes WP:OR, no reliable source describes the subject as an infoshop. One could remove the offending entries, but it will always be difficult to have a "well-defined group of articles" because infoshop is amorphous (it is often this, it can be that, it may be this, some are, tend to be, etc.) All of this indicates that "the articles are loosely related, and a list or category may be more appropriate". --Worldbruce (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2019 (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).