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. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, no obvious parent article, and no readily apparent need. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Completely agree.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with AlgaeGraphix. It's not even clear which Chelmsford it refers to. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 22:55, 3 June 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. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Roompot–Charles riders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Team is defunct, so the template is no longer required. Craig(talk) 14:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:38, 1 June 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 speedy keep. On the record: no consensus has emerged for this change, nor seems likely to, at this rate. (non-admin closure) ——Serial ^# 22:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-nothereblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template does not identify a policy-based block reason. WP:NOTHERE is a supplemental page, and as such "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community".

WP:NOTHERE details some policy and guideline violations. However, most of these have their own specific block templates which should be used instead. This one is way too broad and unspecific, and because it encourages poor block practice, it should be deleted. In many cases, Template:Uw-deoablock would be the substitute, as it covers trolling, disruption or harassment. --Pudeo (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because of so many cases where it's not a single policy/guideline alone repeatedly violated, but some of several. Two commons patterns are minor vandalism that morphs into some trolling or personal attacks, and substantial but not universal incompetance regarding citing sources or faithfully writing what they support with occasional copyvio. There's usually one "last straw" that leads to an admin hitting the block button but that alone is nowhere near the whole reason, and it's not major enough to go to a dramah-board (such that "per ANI..." could be the block reason). DMacks (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally so, but there also are examples of first-instance indefinite "cowboy" NOTHERE blocks (for instance, where to draw the line with WP:AGF with new-ish users that cause disruption). Basically the usage of this template has broadened a lot. It would be beneficial if all blocks were explained with policy to the letter, which also helps with appeals. It is interesting how these templates affect de facto blocking policy, as for instance, there is no block template for "No personal attacks" - only harassment. My take is that this template is too much of a catch-all slammer that is contributing to lazy blocking practice. --Pudeo (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then (as others below note) let's address those specific cases and potentially return this to its narrower scope if current individual practice isn't in line with what we want when we actually sit and think about it as a group. Sounds like you're trying a process of having the template tail wag the admin-behavior dog. DMacks (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It'd just be replaced with a generic WP:DE blocks, which like WP:NOTHERE is basically a catch all saying that there doesn't need to be a specific policy reference for a block if someone is causing issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTHERE may not be marked as policy, but WP:Blocking policy#"Not here to build an encyclopedia" is. —Cryptic 17:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last major discussion there about NOTHERE blocks is significantly older than I'd thought I remembered, so it's probably worth revisiting. But deleting this template would be the last step of that, not the first. —Cryptic 18:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep TonyBallioni (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find this template very useful when there are multiple or nuanced reasons for a block not captured by single-reason block templates. If I believe the reason for a "not here" block may not be obvious to the blocked editor or reviewing admins, I will also include the specific points of WP:NOTHERE the block pertains to, either in the block log or as a supplement to the template on the editor's talk page. If Pudeo knows of specific instances of the rationale being abused or "encouraging poor block practice" then those instances can be dealt with on a case by case basis as opposed to deleting a useful administrative template.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Widely used, and reason for deletion has no basis in policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTHERE isn't a policy, also, the wording is pretty broad - if I were to be blocked, I'd appreciate more clear wording. Maybe recreate or revise to make the wording more clear and usable. I'm not an admin and therefore don't employ this template, so take my vote with a grain of salt, but this is my opinion. -- puddleglum^2.0 19:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is incorporated by reference, however, see: Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#"Not_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia" TonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While this discussion is ongoing, a very visible notification appears on every userpage where the template is used that states the template is up for deletion and invites the editor to join the discussion. Obviously it is an issue as the notification is essentially inviting blocked editors to evade their block to join the discussion here and I imagine it will add confusion to to the appeal process.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why start with a TfD to challenge blocking practices? Seems WP:POINTy. El_C 20:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's explained in the nomination. Yes, individual shoddy blocks can be brought to AN/I, but the problem is that this template is guiding poor practice (in my opinion, anyway) and templates which are more accruately based on policy should be used. --Pudeo (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's explained poorly in the nomination. The exception being taken is with the blocking practice, not the template per se. This actively disruptive TfD should be speedy closed and the discussion shifted to VPP, where it is currently ongoing. El_C 21:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NOTHERE describes legitimate reasons to block so there is nothing wrong with using this template. P-K3 (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Does_the_community_still_approve_of_NOTHERE_blocks?. That seems a better place than TfD to have this discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NOTHERE is implicit, but not explicitly stated at Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Rather than discussing deletion of the template, it seems more sensible to discuss expanding the section on "Not here to build an encyclopedia" in WP:WHYBLOCK. The VPP discussion seems a sensible move. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the above reasons. Some people aggregate block reasons that can be summed up with this template. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, certainly. Make your case at the Village Pump discussion, if you feel strongly about it. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:22, 31 May 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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Prussian Royal Family (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has three major flaws, the first two of which are incorrigible.
a) It attributes princely titles to people who probably do not use them (e.g. the High Line architect Tatiana von Preussen) for reasons ranging from professional to legal or ideological. Because the vast majority of the people listed in the template are private citizens, meaning entirely obscure, it is impossible to verify whether they use the titles attributed to them by this template.
b) The template is meant to be a navbox ("a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles") yet it completely fails as such. Only 10 out of 70 people named in the template are linked; the rest are bare names.
c) There are no sources verifying the existence of more than half of the people mentioned in the template. Most of the people listed in it do not appear anywhere else on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. 100% agree; fails verifiability, not a navbox, and lacks sources verifiable claims and demonstrating notability. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, edit, and rename to House of Hohenzollern? PPEMES (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see how that would solve any of the three flaws I listed, PPEMES. Surtsicna (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: A) Wouldn't renaming to House of Hohenzollern be one way of dealing with that? B) and C) Only entries with verifiable sources should be included, if relevant. That's a template content discussion concern and not a template for discussion as far as I can understand. PPEMES (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PPEMES: Renaming the template would not affect how we name the people listed in it. Removing non-notable people would make the template misleadingly incomplete while retaining unlinked names defeats the purpose of navboxes. This sort of thing belongs in an article; a template is just not the place for it. Surtsicna (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedians should not be inventing royal titles for people. These individuals are not princes or princesses of any existent monarchy because the Prussian monarchy was abolished. The idea that this is somehow irrelevant is absurd. Also, there is no point in a navigation template filled with people who do not meet our notability requirement. Kahastok talk 17:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a tool for fancruft by people obsessed with moribund and defunct ex-royal families, laden with obscure non-entities. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with nom and nom's rationale. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Of course the House of Hohenzollern still exists—the people at the top claim the title. It's just the family of the Emperor, not an invention; I don't see substative reasons for this deletion. --Foghe (talk) 22:40, 2 June 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 June 9. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:AFC_submission/draft/HD_preload (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:AFC_submission/declined/HD_preload (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. czar 05:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:User Status/Offline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Few people use it, and there are already All in one Template. The redirection it sets delete with CSD G15, except for the corresponding parent page and the redirection set on the parent page. (And delete Template:User Status/Busy, Template:User Status/Not Active) SecurityXP ^C 03:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There does seem to be a template that duplicates this. I think the destination template looks much better though.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SecurityXP, wrong venue. Because this is technically a "userbox", it should be listed at WP:MFD instead. Aasim 10:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:16, 7 June 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. @SecurityXP, didn't you create these templates with your alt account? Can just request G7 for unused templates in the future. czar 05:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:User Status/Online (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Few people use it, and there are already All in one Template. The redirection it sets delete with CSD G15, except for the corresponding parent page and the redirection set on the parent page. SecurityXP ^C 03:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There does seem to be a template that duplicates this. I think the destination template looks much better though.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• SecurityXP, wrong venue. Because this is technically a "userbox", it should be listed at WP: MFD instead. Aasim 10:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong venue. Ignoring the venue issues, Delete as unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:16, 7 June 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 June 7. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Narendra_Modi_timeline (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).