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. Can be recreated if there are enough stand-alone articles created. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Anglican Bishops of Busan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox with only one blue link. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Create missing articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  

  (Actually it has two blue links.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  

• (Template creator) Create short biogs sections of list article. I don't see them supporting a full biographical article each, a section each should be achievable. DBD 19:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as it only links one bishop article, and the other three blue links are because someone inappropriately redirected the rest of the names to Anglican Church of Korea. This article doesn't even mention the other three (as far as I saw) except for mentioning that they were bishops; that's not enough to maintain an article. Nyttend (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, insufficient navigation. Frietjes (talk) 17:03, 10 January 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 January 14. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Animal_Rights_Barnstar (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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Vulgar slang (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No topic-matching article. Not sure this is a topic worthy of a navbox, just a selection of words that don't form a defined set, just all happen to be of varying degrees of vulgarity. Fail to see the navigational value. More appropriate to a category or list. --woodensuperman 16:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep disagree with nominator, these words have logical links and this navbox provides some navigational value. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a subtopic of Profanity, where Vulgar slang redirects. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redundant to ((Profanity)). Individual English terms can be linked on that template. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just words. Categories are much better for this sort of thing. Nigej (talk) 21:08, 14 January 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:League of Legends Challenger Series North America (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The League of Legends Challenger Series North America was dissolved in 2017. The template has incorrect information and has not been updated since 2016. It serves no meaningful purpose as it only lists the teams before its dissolution. CentreLeftRight ✉ 09:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree, in its current form, it's confusing. I think deletion for now is appropriate. --Bsherr (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Links can be contained within the parent article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not useful. Qualitist (talk) 18:53, 7 January 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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uncategorized stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Category:Uncategorized stubs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Category:Uncategorized stubs from December 2018 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Uncategorised)). Serves no purpose, as most of the time, even stubs are well categorised, and otherwise, Uncategorised can anyway be used. 0 transclusions in mainspace. (after I fixed the two existing ones). SD0001 (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No need for a separate template. Not in use presently so either its use if very well attended, or not used at all.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added the tracking categories here and the Templates for Discussion template to the nominated template and categories. --Bsherr (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. When a stub template is added to an article, the article is automatically placed into a stub category. Stub categories are not hidden categories. However, when an article is improved, the stub template is removed and with it the stub categories. Thus, a stub may appear categorized because of the stub categories, even though it is still uncategorized in an encyclopedic category. This template is intended to instruct that stub categories should be ignored when considering adding or removing this template or addressing the issue. It was created as a result of the consensus described at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 9#Categorization as process. It is used by at least one inactive bot. I oppose removal, but I think a merge could be appropriate if Template:Uncategorised were made to address this problem by the inclusion of instructions. --Bsherr (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Since this category is automatically added then it should stay to help with the editorial process. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:21, 7 January 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 speedy close. Can be deleted per the merge - no need for a separate discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Big Brother housemates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was decided by consensus to merge here, all mainspace transclusions to this template have been replaced so it can now be deleted. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:56, 5 January 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pinoy Big Brother - special season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a modified version of Template:Big Brother endgame that is in the process of being merged as per this discussion. This template is not being used on any articles and all Pinoy Big Brother season articles have been migrated over to the module Template:Infobox reality competition season that is part of Template:Infobox television season. This should be deleted as part of this merger since no articles are using this template/infobox. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 04:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support template is not being used and has been replaced so it's ready to be deleted. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support delete - should I be surprised that there was a 4th BB template? As the others, BB season articles should be converted to use [Template:Infobox reality competition season]] and as this isn't used, no issue here at all. --Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gonnym: I didn't even know of the existence of this template until I was cleaning out ((Big Brother housemates)). On an unrelated, side note I'm surprised this template wasn't used! Would have made much more sense for the Pinoy Big Brother articles lol. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 08:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unused. --Bsherr (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unused. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:19, 6 January 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Hi-5 America (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template solely includes cast members of a TV series and nothing else, violates WP:FILMNAV. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It used to have more than that, but those articles were deleted. I agree that WP:FILMNAV supports deletion. --Bsherr (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above rationale. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:19, 6 January 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).