The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:New Brunswick Timber (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Newfoundland Rock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Niagara Lightning (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Nova Scotia Keltics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ottawa Harlequins (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Quebec Caribou (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Toronto Xtreme (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Edmonton Gold (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Fraser Valley Venom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Manitoba Buffalo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Saskatchewan Prairie Fire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Vancouver Wave (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Vancouver Island Rising Tide (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navboxes for amateur teams from the defunct Rugby Canada Super League. These templates provide insufficient navigational benefit as they only link to 2 or 3 articles (the team, the league, and sometimes the venue). For the most part, each navbox only has a single transclusion on the parent article and appears right next to Template:Rugby Canada Super League which takes care of linking to every league season.  BLAIXX 17:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (was Rework and merge) these templates somehow. While, at present, there's a lot of redlinks. I don't see why these couldn't be merged into a Rugby Canada Super League (defunct or not) in some way. For example, one row could list all the teams, another could list seasons (some of which would be redlinks), and so forth. I would think there's a benefit to having a common navbox for these league teams' articles, but each team does need a template. Trialpears, what do you think? --Doug Mehus T·C 00:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Dmehus, apologies if you have already seen this but a combined template does exist as Template:Rugby Canada Super League and it is well used. That template could be expanded upon if desired, but it already has all the basics. BLAIXX 15:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm inclined to agree with Blaixx here. Template:Rugby Canada Super League contain most of the necessary links with these templates being unnecessary. I have no problem if some appropriate links are added and if Dmehus so desires keeping them in the holding cell so they can refer to them when adding links. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per WP:NENAN. Not enough links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete all per Blaixx and BrownHairedGirl above. I see the combined template. I'd still like to see that combined template expanded to include additional table rows, commented out until they have some bluelinks, for franchise personnel and other fields, as and when available. Nevertheless, I don't want to make that condition of deletion, so I ask the closer, in determining consensus, to specifically permit WP:REFUND (undeletion) to one or more templates, on request, to the requesting editor's userspace. Doug Mehus T·C 17:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. No prejudice against recreation if there are more links in the recreated template. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Order of the Bath (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox that contains only four bluelinks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. I've added the navbox to all four articles. ミラP 17:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ミラP 17:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath has over a thousand people, so too many to fit in a template. Category:Order of the Bath has ample entries in it. Companions of the Order of the Bath‎ has 2,389 in it. Perhaps template entries for Bath King of Arms, Blanc Coursier Herald, and List of Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath could be added. How useful is this for navigation? Dream Focus 18:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dream Focus: The navbox is for navigation between lists of people who got the award, not individual articles of people who got the award. ミラP 15:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is pointless: it's just a set of redlinks to non-existent lists. There are links to 27 lists, but only 3 of those lists exist. If and when the lists are created, then this navbox would serve a useful purpose, but until then it's a bridge to nowhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I get why Dream Focus wants to keep it because it lists relevant individuals, but it's nearly all redlinks. This should be substituted into the one or two articles and then deleted, without prejudice to recreation. --Doug Mehus T·C 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Note I did not say to keep it. I was just asking if it could be made into something useful enough to be worth keeping. Dream Focus 00:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Dream Focus, Fair point. Sorry, I misapplied your comment with the !vote from Miraclepine. Doug Mehus T·C 00:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Userbox/Pedosexual (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Considering WP:CHILDPROTECT and the past history of such userboxen (in its current form pedosexual is a redirect to pedophilia), is it really a good idea to have such an userbox? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; consider also ((Userbox/Necrosexual)) and ((Userbox/Zoosexual)), created by the same user. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is unused and absolutely inappropriate in a professional setting. I do however think this should be moved to MfD since userboxes should be nominated there and many people there are likely to be interested in this discussion. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I really don't understand how we got from WP:NOTSOCIAL to this tsunami of userboxes for everything under the sun. --Gonnym (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong venue * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong venue per Pppery and Trialpears above. I've only recently learned that MfD handles userbox templates but, curiously, not wikibreak templates. Nevertheless, I support the deletion. This the one time where I support censorship as these have absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Per WP:NOTBURO, we can probably safely delete these at TfD as the nomination was well placed. Thanks to Jo-Jo Eumerus for bringing this forward. --Dmehus T C 22:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ogaden is the name of Ogaden region part of Ethiopia apparently and the Ethiopia administration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This reads more like an essay/rant than something that would be appropriate as a template, or even in articlespace. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Spedy delete as against policy; its only use is in Ogaden. It can be subst before deletion, but even then I'd expect the content to be removed from the artcle. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, I've removed it from the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Useless as a template, and the unsourced text would be inappropriate to subst in mainspace. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cryo adventures (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A navbox based upon video games in the same genre by the same developer. With List of Cryo Interactive video games and Category:Cryo Interactive games, this is unnecessary. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator: The navbox is far more accessible to average users than the cat or the (very shaggy) list. On top of that, Cryo Interactive's adventure games are a distinct entity in its catalogue, and are treated as such by reliable sources. Cryo developed games in many genres, but its adventures were a core part of its business, and the Cryo adventure is a specific and widely-imitated breed of game (again, as seen in sources, both in English and foreign languages). I reflected this by using the same formula followed by one of WPVG's more notable navboxes, Template:Sierra Adventure Games, a partial inspiration for this one. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JimmyBlackwing:, thanks for your input. Why would an average user be in need of a navbox based upon a certain genre of video games by a certain developer? What's the point of an easy navigation to another entry? It fails WP:NAVBOX on all five points: there is no coherent, single subject. Most of the games aren't related, except for a couple of sequels, and as such do not refer to each other. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The coherent, single subject is adventure games developed by Cryo. We already have Template:LucasArts adventure games and Template:Sierra Adventure Games, as those are well-defined topics in reliable sources about video games. Those companies developed games outside those genres, but their adventure game output is a specific, notable subject in itself. Cryo is in the same boat. To offer a rough example, here's Der Spiegel:

"Until the late 1990s, the French software house Cryo Interactive was known for colorful, graphically opulent and light adventure games, such as 'Atlantis' or 'The Ring of the Nibelung'.

With the decline of this genre in general and also due to the low quality of its own products in comparison to many competitors, the designers were forced to look for alternatives."

Similarly, here's the French newspaper Liberation defining the company's style of adventure game. And here's a partial transcript from a French game magazine in which one of Cryo's founders identifies the company's adventure games as a core, specific, individual part of its business, which it de-emphasized with time. I've done a lot of reading when it comes to European adventure game sources in this era, and could link dozens more examples of Cryo's adventure games being defined and analyzed as a specific subject, if necessary. Many of the sources for what I'm describing are in foreign languages, admittedly, because Cryo was a European company that made most of its money in Europe—but that shouldn't have any effect on the outcome here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep while a distinction like this would not be useful in most circumstances it is here. Cryo interactive is primarily known for their adventure games so much that they are regularly discussed together as shown by Jimmy's sources. The main problem would be that the topic doesn't have an article yet which I'm honestly surprised it doesn't but since it meets the four other criteria at WP:NAVBOX and they are explicitly to be interpreted as guidelines I have no problem giving a pass on that. Also worth noting is that the template being redundant to the category and list is not a good argument per WP:NOTDUPE. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 January 27. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Macedonian_diaspora_political_parties_and_political_organisations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Macedonian_diaspora_organisations (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:6ixBuzz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Offers no benefit over existing navigation within the transcluded articles. WP:NENAN. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, Delete. Too few entries. If there were seven or more, it would be a clear keep but three is a clear delete. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Koavf. This one can be safely deleted. --Doug Mehus T·C 00:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).