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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Al Smith series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Al Smith. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template, particularly in the Governor of New York section. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point of politician templates is so that you do not NEED to read through the article to access related content. It acts essentially like a page guide on the subject. By deleting all of these political templates you are proposing you are not improving user's experience/interface with these articles, you are lessening it. You decrease the topic's direct navigability to users who prefer not to embark on a scavanger hunt through the main article to find related pages.SecretName101 (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please combine deletions of politician templates you have proposed to delete to decrease redundency of seperate conversations.SecretName101 (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that these should be consolidated. None of them are based on any Wikipedia policies, and for that reason they should be speedily closed. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bad idea, each template might have a different result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talk • contribs) 07:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: This template is really bad. It is used on only 4 out of the 26 articles it lists so it fails in its sole purpose of navigation. --Gonnym (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Links to these articles aren't elsewhere conveniently collected like in this sidebar. Perhaps it could do with some pruning. --Bsherr (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep NENAN is not a policy. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. TheSubmarine (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - ((Donald Trump series)), ((John Kasich series)), ((Jeb Bush series)), ((Rand Paul series)) and ((Rick Perry series)), with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate ((George Washington series)), ((Abraham Lincoln series)), and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited (((George Washington series)) could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No deletion is an island. Deletions frequently set precedents. It is valid to use other templates as examples of how the principle/premise upon which this (or other template deletion proposals) are perhaps flawed, and the ramifications potential precedents would have on the existence of similar templates. SecretName101 (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. As per SecretName101 and TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. This series is especially helpful because it is the only template, category, list, etc. organizing Al Smith-related topics. Even if a separate Al Smith category or template existed, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE: "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:John Kasich series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via John Kasich. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template, particularly in the Governor of Ohio section. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep NENAN is not a policy. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x2) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - ((Donald Trump series)), ((John Kasich series)), ((Jeb Bush series)), ((Rand Paul series)) and ((Rick Perry series)), with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate ((George Washington series)), ((Abraham Lincoln series)), and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited (((George Washington series)) could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Although a separate John Kasich category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE: "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Andrew Yang series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary and unused template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Andrew Yang. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - only 4 of those links mention him - Andrew Yang, Andrew Yang 2020 presidential campaign, 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and Venture for America. A bit short for a navigation template. Also, no reason to have this as a side bar. --Gonnym (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Additional comment - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - ((Donald Trump series)), ((John Kasich series)), ((Jeb Bush series)), ((Rand Paul series)) and ((Rick Perry series)), with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate ((George Washington series)), ((Abraham Lincoln series)), and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited (((George Washington series)) could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep NENAN is not a policy. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x3) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep I am working on more information gathering on Andrew Yang's published works to create a new article. I will add this article to the template in the following days. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. As per TheSubmarine, political leader sidebars are helpful to navigation in general. However, this sidebar is short and many of its articles are loosely related to Yang. I would change my comment here to Keep if Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 and/or others add more to the template. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 March 21. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Jill_Stein_series (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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Newt Gingrich series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Newt Gingrich. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC); edited 23:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete All these links are covered by ((Newt Gingrich)) anyway. No reason to insert another navigational box on the page. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Zackmann: as per WP:NOTDUPE, "[t]hese systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." The sidebar being duplicative of another template is not a valid reason for deletion. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Tvc 15, you are misreading WP:NOTDUPE. That is discussing the use of both Categories AND Navigation templates. Having both on a page is not duplication. However, having 2 navigation templates that cover the same material, is duplication. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - this has enough links to warrant a navbox, but it is a lesser duplicate of ((Newt Gingrich)). --Gonnym (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Additional comment - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - ((Donald Trump series)), ((John Kasich series)), ((Jeb Bush series)), ((Rand Paul series)) and ((Rick Perry series)), with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate ((George Washington series)), ((Abraham Lincoln series)), and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited (((George Washington series)) could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Further, as per WP:NOTDUPE, "[t]hese systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." The sidebar being duplicative of another template is not a valid reason for deletion. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. On the contrary, this sidebar is better organized than the navbox, and usefully consolidates these major topics. --Bsherr (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x3) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x3) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Although a separate Newt Gingrich category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE: "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Herman Cain series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Herman Cain. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x4) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x4) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - ((Donald Trump series)), ((John Kasich series)), ((Jeb Bush series)), ((Rand Paul series)) and ((Rick Perry series)), with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate ((George Washington series)), ((Abraham Lincoln series)), and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited (((George Washington series)) could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Although a separate Herman Cain category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE: "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Tulsi Gabbard series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Tulsi Gabbard. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. Winning ordinary elections is not enough. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep NENAN is not a policy. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x5) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Although a separate Tulsi Gabbard category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE: "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Paul Ryan series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Paul Ryan. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. Links to these articles aren't elsewhere conveniently collected like in this sidebar. --Bsherr (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Helpful template. --Informant16 (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x5) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x6) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - ((Donald Trump series)), ((John Kasich series)), ((Jeb Bush series)), ((Rand Paul series)) and ((Rick Perry series)), with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate ((George Washington series)), ((Abraham Lincoln series)), and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited (((George Washington series)) could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom Colonestarrice (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Although a separate Paul Ryan category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE: "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep as per above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 March 21. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Mitch_McConnell_series (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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Gary Johnson series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Gary Johnson and ((Gary Johnson)). See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template, particularly in the Governor of New Mexico section. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - duplicate of ((Gary Johnson)). --Gonnym (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Additional comment - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - ((Donald Trump series)), ((John Kasich series)), ((Jeb Bush series)), ((Rand Paul series)) and ((Rick Perry series)), with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate ((George Washington series)), ((Abraham Lincoln series)), and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited (((George Washington series)) could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Further, as per WP:NOTDUPE, "[t]hese systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." The sidebar being duplicative of another template is not a valid reason for deletion. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. As for "NOTDUPE", actually read what it says. I wasn't against having a navigation template, just not a side bar. These navigation templates aren't different than any other bottom navbox and should be placed there. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x7) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x8) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Although a separate Gary Johnson category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE: "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Bill Weld series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Bill Weld. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x8) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x9) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - ((Donald Trump series)), ((John Kasich series)), ((Jeb Bush series)), ((Rand Paul series)) and ((Rick Perry series)), with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate ((George Washington series)), ((Abraham Lincoln series)), and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited (((George Washington series)) could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. It is especially beneficial because there is no Category:Bill Weld. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Elizabeth Warren series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Elizabeth Warren. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x9) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x10) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - ((Donald Trump series)), ((John Kasich series)), ((Jeb Bush series)), ((Rand Paul series)) and ((Rick Perry series)), with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate ((George Washington series)), ((Abraham Lincoln series)), and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited (((George Washington series)) could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom Colonestarrice (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Although a separate Elizabeth Warren category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE: "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 March 21. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Rand_Paul_series (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 March 21. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Tim_Kaine_series (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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Kirsten Gillibrand series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Kirsten Gillibrand. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak keep; I think it's potentially useful. Ethanbas ^(talk) 00:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x12) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x13) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Withdraw as this template is more meaningful now. Will do the same for other navigational boxes that went through a major change after their TFD. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - ((Donald Trump series)), ((John Kasich series)), ((Jeb Bush series)), ((Rand Paul series)) and ((Rick Perry series)), with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate ((George Washington series)), ((Abraham Lincoln series)), and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited (((George Washington series)) could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep as useful. Applies to all the major presidential candidates listed here; not sure why they're separate noms... ɱ (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. It is especially beneficial because there is no Category:Kirsten Gillibrand. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Kamala Harris series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template that just clutters the page. Everything linked here can be accessed via Kamala Harris. See WP:NENAN. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: Will withdraw this nomination if anyone can add more substance to this template. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep NENAN is not a policy. (x13) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @BrendonTheWizard: if you are going to spam over a dozen TFDs with the same copied and pasted comment you should at least understand what an essay is... At no point did anyone say that WP:NENAN WAS a policy. So every WP:!VOTE you cast is basically you just saying "keep because I say so"... You haven't actually addressed concerns at all... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    @Zackmann08: So it's not spam to flag over a dozen templates for deletion without any policy reason to do so? I was initially addressing these individually (see the Jill Stein nomination) by noting how it is of no benefit to the readers to delete these, but then I realized every last nomination is verbatim copied-and-pasted. Your criticism is very, very asymmetrical; perhaps I wouldn't have posted the same reply a dozen times if they didn't post the same nomination text a dozen times? There was no case made that it was either (a) necessary (b) beneficial to delete helpful navboxes; what "concerns" am I supposed to address when they've not raised any that would offer grounds for wholesale deletion, something that should - in all cases - be a last resort, something that should only be done when it's either mandatory per Wikipedia policy or demonstrably in the readers' best interests? I'm speaking from personal experience as a reader first and editor second when I say that I've found these navboxes very useful when looking for articles covering these public figures. Spare me the comments such as "you're basically just saying 'because I say so'" - that's simply made-up nonsense. Am I supposed to counter that it "clutters the page?" The burden is on the one making the claim that it is, which they've not substantiated. Is it an issue that their main BLP articles include links to the contents of their series templates? No. That's the entirety of each and every one of these nominations. That entire reply struck me as being very disingenuous. Lastly, I "don't understand what an essay is?" Aside from the obvious WP:NPA there, in what way does it demonstrate the ignorance of an editor to point out how essays don't hold the same weight as guidelines? There's an argument to be made that referring only to an unvetted opinion as grounds for deletion is equivalent to simply referring to one's own editing philosophy as grounds for deletion, which would be a more literal "because I say so" vote. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    BrendonTheWizard, just because you don't like something that was said, does NOT make it a personal attack bud. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Commentary on the contributor rather than the content is by definition a personal attack. Simple as that. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 09:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Technically, everything related to Barack Obama or Donald Trump could be accessed from their articles. Nav boxes are meant to help navigation so it is easier for people to find what they are looking for. This is extremely beneficial and should be kept. (x14) TheSubmarine (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - seeing as how none of the comments are actually about the specific template but about the general issue, I'll also post about this in general. This sidebar navigation templates are not limited to one per page at the top of the page. This causes the page layout to be unnecessarily cramped. Now since this also follow (or should follow as some of these templates fail) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they are placed on pages which they link to. So if we take 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries as an example, we have the following currently available templates that should be placed here at the same section - ((Donald Trump series)), ((John Kasich series)), ((Jeb Bush series)), ((Rand Paul series)) and ((Rick Perry series)), with 11 more possible templates that are yet to be created. There is a reason these navigation templates are placed at the bottom of the page. --Gonnym (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Gonnym: WP:BIDI is a principle, not a requirement. If it was required, we would have to nominate ((George Washington series)), ((Abraham Lincoln series)), and most of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Series would be unnecessarily limited (((George Washington series)) could not include Valley Forge) and as you say, articles would be unnecessarily burdened (if every election results article included sidebars for each candidate). If a sidebar cramps an article, it can be removed or discussed. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Please don't spam ping me again. Especially if you comment the same exact thing. BIDI is not a principle, it is the basis to how good navigation works (and also a guideline). You allow the user to navigate between a set of articles that all share the navigation tool. A bottom navigation template helps solves all and any issue of both BIDI and the mass of templates, as it allows, A) the templates to be placed in a non-intrusive place, at the bottom, and B) it allows to group templates and collapse them. Side bars don't allow any of that, so you either don't place them, which then fails to navigate, or you place them, which then spams them, as can be seen in some election articles. Also, it would be useful if you and the others start actually commenting on the actual template being nominated instead of keep bringing up different templates for your examples. --Gonnym (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete and for the reasons stated by Gonnym --Capriaf
• Keep. As per TheSubmarine, this series is beneficial to navigation. If we remove the sidebar because its articles and information can also be found in links in the main article, we would have to nominate all of Category:United States political leader sidebars for deletion. Although a separate Kamala Harris category exists, this is not a valid reason for deletion as per Wikipedia:NOTDUPE: "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Let's WP:IMPROVEIT rather than delete. --Tvc 15 (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep I think it makes navigation easier. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep It makes navigation easier. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 12:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2015–16 Welsh Premier League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports template. Table has been moved to the main page 2015–16 Welsh Premier League, per this thread at WT:FOOTY. ' Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - per nom, unused and not needed. GiantSnowman 09:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2015–16 Czech First League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports template. Table has been moved to the main page 2015–16 Czech First League, per this thread at WT:FOOTY. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - per nom, unused and not needed. GiantSnowman 09:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. All deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2015–16 North-East V AFG table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2015–16 North-West V AFG table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2015–16 South-East V AFG table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2015–16 South-West V AFG table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports template. Tables have all been moved to the main pages 2015–16 V AFG, per this thread at WT:FOOTY. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Now substituted in 2015–16 V AFG. Nigej (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2017 Division III independents football standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports standing template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• See also this thread at WT:FOOTY. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Zackmann08, this one isn't an association football template. Frietjes (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Frietjes: Whoops! Thanks. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 00:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Bourgogne-Franche-Comté Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Brittany Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Centre-Val de Loire Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Grand Est Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Hauts-de-France Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Normandy Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Nouvelle Aquitaine Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Occitanie Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Pays de la Loire Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur-Corsica Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2017–18 Championnat National 3 Group Île-de-France Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused tables. These tables are ALL already present on the parent page (2017–18 Championnat National 3). They are just called directly without using one-off templates. no need for these. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also this thread at WT:FOOTY--Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all per nom. GiantSnowman 11:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• delete all per nom Hhkohh (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2017–18 Welsh Premier League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused table. Data is already on 2017–18 Welsh Premier League. No reason an unused template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• See also this thread at WT:FOOTY. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - per nom, Frietjes (in this discussion) and FOOTY discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - per nom, unused and not needed. GiantSnowman 09:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2017–18 Czech First League table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused table. Data is already on 2017–18 Czech First League. No need for another template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• See also this thread at WT:FOOTY. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - per nom, Frietjes (in this discussion) and FOOTY discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 07:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - per nom, unused and not needed. GiantSnowman 09:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2017–18 Eredivisie results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused table. Data is already on the parent article 2017–18 Eredivisie. No need for another template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Total nonsense. The data is not on the 2017–18 Eredivisie page. There is a reference to template on that page which causes the data to be displayed on this page. The whole concept of this structure is exactly meant to avoid presence of double data. Someone not understanding modules and templates is one thing. An administrator not understanding this concept and proposing templates for deletion is sad. --Sb008 (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sb008: so many things wrong with what you just said... First of all, if you ACTUALLY look at 2017–18_Eredivisie#Results you will see that it DOES NOT call ((2017–18 Eredivisie results)). (Per haps you are confusing 2018–19 Eredivisie??). The 2017-18 page directly invokes Module:Sports results. Before you respond go and actually look at the code... I assure you that you are mistaken. As for not understanding modules and templates... I've got a pretty darn good grasp on them, you are simply mistaken. Finally, I'm not an administrator. Not sure where you got that from, but I am most certainly NOT an admin, that is pretty clearly stated on my userpage. If you are going to throw around accusations and no WP:AGF at the very least check your facts bud. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sb008: by making this edit you are first acknowledging that you were completely wrong with your multiple accusations. Second, you are gaming a TFD which is a violation of policy. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete per this thread at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frietjes, would it be fair to say that the thread you linked to applies to a number of the other TFDs above? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zackmann08, probably so. from my reading of that thread, there is general consensus to merge all of the league tables and league results with the articles, and even stronger consensus when the tables are used in 2 or fewer articles. unless someone starts a new threat at WT:FOOTY and finds a new consensus, this is the most recent discussion on the issue. when merging, my preference is to include editor attribution in the edit summary as I have done with all that I have merged. Frietjes (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frietjes, Stellar! Thank you much! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zackmann08 and Frietjes: Okay, seems I jumped to some conclusions to quick and was wrong. So at this spot my apologies as well. But I like to mention 2 things in my defense. First, it would have helped if there had been a reference to the footy thread in the comment field of the change on the 2017–18 Eredivisie page. Second, the footy thread mentions, as a major reason for the change, vandalism going unnoticed. I can add whatever page to my watch list but never get a notification if the page changes, unless I'm the one who created the page. The 2017–18 Eredivisie page is on my watch list. If I would have gotten notifications at time of the change, it would have helped. --Sb008 (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - per nom, Frietjes and FOOTY discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:MSA Formula circuits (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. Claims to be "Current" but hasn't been updated since 2015. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 March 21. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:WWIIUSAircraft (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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Unused template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete non-functional attempt at making a template front-end for Module:Plotter. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Unused custom user message from a specific user. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - stupid template. --Gonnym (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Unused custom image. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Unused custom user message. Userfy if needed. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Parsed time (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pretty sure this is a remnant of the old days before modules. It is unused and I don't see any reason it would be used again. Hasn't been touched since 2008. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Webcomic deletion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template and no reason for plaintext template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 March 21. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Cantitruncated_hypercube_polytopes (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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Celtic-language media (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Celestial masses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused custom link formatting Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: we already have ((solar mass)), ((jupiter mass)), ((earth mass)), and ((lunar mass)) templates, which are the most common types. Praemonitus (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Cape Town City Council seats allocation, 2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused election table. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Carboniferous epoch nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused invalid navbox. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Caltrain Stops (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused table. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment This template was removed from the Caltrain article in 2013 when content was split to List of Caltrain stations. That article contains an inline table that conveys similar (but not identical) information. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, redundant to the article content and out of date. Mackensen (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Calgary C-Train map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused custom map template. If needed, should be placed directly on article page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, unused and does not seem useful. BLAIXX 19:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2015 University Athletic Association football standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports table. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete the conference was defunct by then.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2015–16 GNAC men's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports table. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete AFAICS, nobody has created any "Great Northwest Athletic Conference men's basketball season" articles yet.—Bagumba (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2016–17 Atlantic University Sport men's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports table. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2016-17 Canada West men's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports table. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2016-17 Ontario University Athletics men's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports table. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2016-17 RSEQ men's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports table. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment, the above 4 (Atlantic, Canada West, Ontario, RSEQ) can probably be combined into a single discussion if it's not too late. All four templates would be useful in the 2017 U Sports Men's Basketball Championship article. BLAIXX 19:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Blaixx: last time I combined them, people were less than please... that's why they are separate this time around. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Zackmann08: The previous TfD was for 40+ templates across various leagues and years. The four I indicated above are all from Canadian men's university basketball in the 2016–17 season. BLAIXX 19:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2015 NCAA Division I & II men's volleyball Independent standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports table. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2015 Eastern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association volleyball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports table. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2015 Conference Carolinas men's volleyball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports table. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2014–15 NBA Southeast standings (preseason) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports table. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete This table covers the entire eastern conference, not the Southeast division like it should. Same with the other table that was nominated. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 00:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Tracking exhibition games to this level is WP:FANCRUFT and WP:UNDUE content.—Bagumba (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2014–15 NBA Atlantic standings (preseason) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports table. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Tracking exhibition games to this level is WP:FANCRUFT and WP:UNDUE content.—Bagumba (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2014 Independents women's soccer standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports table. Main tournament is redlinked. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - per nom, unused and not needed. GiantSnowman 09:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2014 Big South men's soccer standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports table. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - per nom, unused and not needed. GiantSnowman 09:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2014 America East men's soccer standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports table. Main tournament article doesn't exist. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - per nom, unused and not needed. GiantSnowman 09:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2013–14 AHL Midwest Division standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports table. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. The other 5 templates in the set have already been deleted (former discussion). BLAIXX 19:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 March 21. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2012_NCAA_Division_I_baseball_independents_standings (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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2011 Northeast Conference men's soccer standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused sports table. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - per nom, unused and not needed. GiantSnowman 09:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 March 21. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2011_Mid-Eastern_Athletic_Conference_baseball_standings (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 March 21. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2011_Horizon_League_baseball_standings (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. Already deleted by User:Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:2011 AEC men's soccer standings condensed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sports table with redlinked main article. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - per nom, unused and not needed. GiantSnowman 09:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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) 22:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Module:Wikipedia Requests (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Given that no Template:Wikipedia Requests subtemplates exist that could be reached by passing more than one parameter (and furthermore, doing so is unreliable because named parameters have an undefined order), this is an unnecessary lua module that could be implemented in Wikitext. ((3x|p))ery (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep until better understand what this is for. It appears to be part of an external tool Wikipedia Requests which was funded by the Wikimedia Foundation. -- GreenC 14:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Just because it can be re-implemented in Wikitext doesn't mean that it should. Future-proofing is a good thing. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 March 20. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Pittsburgh_Penguins_Owners (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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Infobox NRHP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox historic site (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox NRHP with Template:Infobox historic site.
These two templates both deal with historic places (per this template's lead). Most of the parameters are already present in ((Infobox historic site)) and the few specific parameters can use the custom parameters available. At the very least ((Infobox NRHP)) should be made into a wrapper, so visually infoboxes on articles about similar subjects will look the same (A US NRHP historic site vs a US non-NRHP site), editors will have an easier time editing as the parameter functions and names will be the same, and maintenance will require less work. As an example of a current maintenance issue - pages using NRHP are placed in Category:Wikipedia page with obscure subdivision, while pages using the other template are not. Fixing or updating the same issue in two different places is a waste of time and resources. Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per nom (if that fails to find consensus, then make a wrapper). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge, so long as it addresses the aforementioned issues in a smart way that does not detract from the current format. Pursued as a more general wrapper this would also make it easier to work with state and city designations such as New York City Landmarks, as well as other designations like a "Cultural Resource" by the Massachusetts Historic Commission, both of which have overlap with NHRP but are not automatically under the NHRP banner.--Simtropolitan (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• This template is used in over 65,000 places. Is it really appropriate to use editor time to make this change, particularly since apparently "custom parameters" will have to be used in some (many?) cases? Also, as one who has written or edited hundreds of NRHP articles, I dispute "editors will have an easier time editing" -- I have very rarely, perhaps never, used the other template. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. Among other things, the template conveys the fact that it's listed on this heritage register, versus others (particularly state and local), which has a significant effect on real-world and on-wiki notability; it's important to convey to bots that this is the case, and reducing it to an implementation of the other will reduce that effect. As these sites are distinctly not the same as other historic sites, causing these infoboxes to have a similar appearance is harmful. Moreover, some of the other template's parameters make no sense with this one. Consider |type= for example — with NRHP sites, the only types are building, site, structure, object, and district, yet we're encouraged to use |type= for "burial mound" or "church" in the historic site infobox's documentation. We've previously rejected |governing body= because it has a technical meaning that's thoroughly useless for Wikipedia articles about NRHP sites (the only options are Federal, State, Local, and Private), so anything else is wrong, and supporting the parameter is outright problematic because it encourages people to supply information that's either wrong or irrelevant. Finally, bear in mind that this is extensively used, and you need to prove that it's going to make things easier before making an entirely unsupported claim: those of us who use it are not likely to find it easy to transition to using a different template, especially if we're going to have to add parameters of some sort to ensure that it continue to be distinct from other infoboxes. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose., per Nyttend, and if I recall, articles on historic sites in other countries still have their own infoboxes. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose., templates aren't my area but I do use "historic site" extensively, for buildings throughout the UK. To me, it's the best for including historic listing (records) information. The NHRP site appears to be wholly-country specific, i.e. the USA, and thus none/few of the parameters that it would require would be useful for the British buildings I cover. KJP1 (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. I am not persuaded by the proposal to merge and I see no reason to make it a wrapper. Properties in the US that have more than one historical designation (NRHP, state, local) can easily use the NRHP infobox and include the other designations. Those who have a state and/or local designation only can use the general infobox, which visually shows the differences. There is also a certain distinction that goes with being listed on the national register and I think the NRHP infobox makes the designation stand out. It is also a US-specific register so the infobox doesn't need to reflect those of other counties. Finally, there is a dedicated group of editors who work on the various NRHP pages on Wikipedia and maintain the infobox to the detriment of no other country or groups that make historic designations. Farragutful (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose These templates are widely used (the transclusion count tool seems to be missing atm) and there would need to be a detailed proposal that included typical before-and-after usage rather than a vague suggestion to use custom parameters for anything missing. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose WP:BROKE Einbierbitte (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose I've been successfully combining "Infobox NRHP" with "Infobox military structure" (as at Fort Delaware) and this should be possible with other templates. The auto-link to the NRHP database is very useful for those sites that are in it. Agree with WP:BROKE RobDuch (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose I believe there are over 70k transclusions of this template which is very specific to US historic listings with many variations to handle individual listings, districts, contributing properties, boundary expansions, etc. It is already relatively complicated and I see no benefit to the suggested merge. MB 23:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose As some of the other project editors have mentioned, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places has done a lot of work to make Infobox NRHP more useful: getting the parameters just right, support for embedding and various edge cases, adding automatic links to listing pages, creating automatic infobox generators, etc. The supporters seem to have barely acknowledged this, much less come up with a plan for how Infobox historic site could be tweaked to meet those needs. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose I frequently use Infobox NRHP and have found its specifics incredibly useful over Infobox historic site. ɱ (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 as G3 by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:HCC World Cup group tables (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template creator has been using user page / user talk page to concoct a WP:MADEUP cricket tournament and has now started creating articles / templates such as this in main space. Spike 'em (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete see also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Asia Qualifier for his mainspace (moved to draft) and userspace adventures Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I have speedy deleted per WP:G3 as this is clearly part of a hoax. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[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 March 21. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Ron_Wyden_series (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).