The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 for failing WP:NAVBOX. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ted Cruz series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is politically biased. It is being used on articles about legislation – for example Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018 in which Senator Cruz was just one of the many senators involved in passage of the legislation, and not even one of the most important ones (e.g. Senator Hatch actually introduced the legislation in the Senate, not Senator Cruz). I'm worried this template has promotional intent to promote Senator Cruz, and even if its creator didn't have that intent, it gives off the appearance of that intent even if the intent isn't there. Mr248 (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but not because it's biased. Delete because the legislation doesn't relate directly to Cruz. Compare it with Template:Barack Obama series, which includes links like Early life and career of Barack Obama, Family of Barack Obama, Public image of Barack Obama, etc. This template has only Ted Cruz, Political positions of Ted Cruz, and Ted Cruz 2016 presidential campaign, and maybe the two Senate election articles, that are truly about Cruz. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in agreement w/ Muboshgu, and it also just doesn't seem necessary. Plus, of the aforementioned articles where it might make sense to use it, Political positions… is a section of the main article, and the Senate elections don't have the template. -Coreydragon (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I created this template because it was a blank page, with literally nothing there, as the person who had created the static page was blocked from editing. I then decided it shouldn't be left just as a blank page, but rather as an actual template so it would be useful. I wanted to include legislation Cruz played a part in but my priority was legislation that had been signed into law. Obviously I didn't read through the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018 article, otherwise I would have known who sponsored the bill, and that Senator Cruz was one of many cosponsors. When reviewing the legislation linked in the template, I found that the only piece of legislation that he actually introduced was Public Law 113-100. As far as the comparison to Template:Barack Obama series goes, I did not add something along the lines of Early life and career of Barack Obama to Template:Ted Cruz series because you could just as easily scroll down and see the section, and when compared to Template:Joe Biden series, this also proves my point about not really needing a direct link in the template because the closest thing to Early life and career of Barack Obama is split up in that template, but links you to the respective sections. When creating this template, I did not base this template off either of those templates, I based it off another template, which is also why you don't see things like the subject's early life. As far as it being politically biased, when creating the template, I had no intention of making it politically biased or to promote the subject. I included articles like his presidential campaign because I thought it would play an important role if it were linked in the template. Another person also stressed that "political positions" are a section of the main article, and while that's true, there's also Political positions of Ted Cruz, which is linked in the template. That same person also stressed that the two Senate election articles don't have the template, and while it may be logical to put it in them, I have been waiting until an article titled "Electoral history of Ted Cruz" is published (if anyone decides to do so). If you have any questions or concerns regarding what I said in this comment, do not hesitate to reply and I will get back to you as soon as I can. Unknown0124 (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Unknown0124, I accept that you didn't have any intention of creating a politically biased template. But can you understand how a reader might have a perception of such a bias even if it wasn't intended? We have a piece of legislation, which was supported by numerous Senators, yet Ted Cruz is the only Senator with a "series template" on the article on that piece of legislation, despite the fact that he arguably wasn't even one of the most important Senators involved in it, and none of the other Senators involved, not even those more involved than Cruz was, have such a series template on that article. It creates the impression of trying to draw special attention to Senator Cruz's contributions to the Senate, above that of other Senators, even if that impression was not intended. Mr248 (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Mr248, I now understand that even though I did not intend to create a politically biased template, a reader may perceive such a bias. To improve matters, I have removed the template from Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018 for the reasons you stated, because Senator Cruz was one of the least important Senators involved in the legislation, yet that template was the only one on that page. I obviously did not read through the article, otherwise I would have known that Senator Hatch sponsored the bill and that Senator Cruz had a lesser role in the bill. I also removed the link (in the template) to Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which I hadn't even read, but if I did, I would have known that Senator Cruz neither cosponsored nor sponsored that legislation. What's different with this article is that it did not have the template in question. Like I said in the last post, I created the template from a blank page because the user who attempted to create the template had been blocked from editing. I didn't want the template to remain a blank page, so I decided to actually make it into a template, and obviously I did a pretty terrible job as far as what to put there. Unknown0124 (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Unknown0124, Thank you for your changes, that is better, but I'm still not convinced that we ought to have this template.

  I think it makes sense to have a series template for a recent US President, because generally there will be so much to cover there will be multiple articles on them. I'm less convinced we need a series template for someone who is just a US Senator, even one who has had an unsuccessful Presidential campaign like Cruz has – keeping in mind that heaps of other Senators have had unsuccessful presidential campaigns too, and unlike some of them, Cruz never got as far as being his party's nominee. There are 100 US Senators at any one time, there are many hundreds if we count former US Senators too – do we want a series template for all of them? Admittedly Cruz is somewhat higher profile than your average senator, but still where do you draw the line between who is high enough profile to get a "series template" and who isn't?

  I understand your point about not wanting the template to be a blank page, but there is another option to consider in such a case – you could have tagged the page with ((db-blanked)). Also, if it was created by a blocked user, another option is to tag it with ((db-blocked)). Either way, it could have been speedily deleted by an administrator. However, it is too late for that now, we are now in the TFD process, and either it is kept or deleted as a result of this process. But keep in mind those are options if the situation ever happens again. Mr248 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Mr248, I had no idea you could do that, with regard to tagging a blank page. I will take that into consideration the next time I see one. Unknown0124 (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The solution to end misuse of a template is not to delete it, but remove it from where it should not be. ~ HAL333 20:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  HAL333, I still have the concern, how many articles do you need to have about "Joe Bloggs" before you are justified creating a "Joe Bloggs series" template? I don't have a problem with doing that for people like US Presidents, since there will generally be quite a few articles on them and their administration, but do we have enough on Ted Cruz to justify such a template? He's just one US senator out of a hundred, more notable than your average senator but still just a senator. He has run for President, but he didn't win his party's nomination. I think the notability bar to get a series template has to be higher than to get an article, which raises the question of whether Ted Cruz meets that bar? I think he doesn't, at least not yet. Of course, if one day he is elected US President, that would change. Maybe even if he won his party's nomination but was unsuccessful in the general election. But we aren't there yet. Mr248 (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that is the biggest issue with this template - the number of related articles. However, I would point to the Pete Buttigieg series template. Like Cruz, he lost a bid for a party nomination and has only held one federal office (I'm not sure which position is more notable/important: cabinet head - albeit the DOT - or a Senator representing Texas.) I don't think that there is an absence of content for such subarticles for Cruz - editors just have not got around to making them. ~ HAL333 01:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  HAL333, I don't think Pete Buttgieg should have a series template either. He's a transportation secretary, a presidential candidate who failed to win his party's nomination, and former mayor of a small city. I don't think either of those three individually is enough notability to justify a series template, and I don't think the combination of three is enough either. I think series templates should be reserved for super-notable people like world leaders (e.g US Presidents, Vladimir Putin), major historical figures (Jesus, Muhammad, Hitler, Julius Caesar), etc, not for US political figures of middling notability. I think there is some WP:RECENTISM going on here too – people want to create series templates for political figures who have recently been in the news, but it can take another 10–30 years to get a more accurate judgement of how important these figures really are in US political history. Maybe Cruz or Buttgieg will one day be President, maybe in 30 years time people will be saying "Oh, that guy, yeah, I'd forgotten about him, what ever happened to him?" Mr248 (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This goes back to the old inclusionist/exclusionist debate. Who should get a series template is a real grey area imo. ~ HAL333 18:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NAVBOX and WP:NAV. Fewer than 5 links (WP:WTAF) that are directly related and which are not anchor links. --Izno (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I don’t think any Senator is important enough for their own series. That should be reserved for presidents and vice presidents or maybe Supreme Court justices of a certain tenure. Trillfendi (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, only connects 4 articles, which can be accomplished through standard linking in the prose and see also sections. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per Izno and Plastikspork. 4 articles hardly seems enough to sustain a template. --Dustinmacdonald (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ateneo Blue Eagles 2011 FilOil Flying V Hanes Premier Cup Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Filoil Flying V Preseason Premier Cup is well, a preseason championship that doesn't deserve a navbox such as this. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ~ HAL333 21:15, 9 April 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Australia–United Kingdom relations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused on the majority of the articles linked in the template. Doesn't do much for navigation as it lists a general overview of political figures from both countries such as Queen Elizabeth II and the current ambassadors. The articles listed under the eponymous category have only a handful of articles relating to the relations of the two countries. These include the Five Eyes partnership, UKUSA Agreement, Nauru Island Agreement, ANZUK. But the category also contains rugby tours of the Great Britains Lions which has nothing to do with their relations, and some include popular culture works such as a novel and a documentary film about Elizabeth's 1954 visit to Australia. I doubt there is much reason to keep this template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I do understand the point the nominator is making, but I have used this template previously and find it does help me navigate between related topics. Because it's helpful as a navbox, I think it should be kept. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment But is there enough to justify keeping it? I will agree if you or anyone else would suggest that it needs fixing, but there aren't enough articles that are just about the relations between the two countries. Quite a number involves their relations simultaneously with other countries as I mentioned above. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I also like to point out there is no need for every country to have a bilateral relations template. And Australia and the UK don't have a pretty significant relationship where there are enough articles that stand out on their own. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems effectual. ~ HAL333 01:13, 9 April 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bridge over Troubled Water (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to the existing navigational benefits of ((Simon & Garfunkel singles)) and ((Simon & Garfunkel)). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: redundant to existing template. The only song included in this template that isn't included in ((Simon & Garfunkel singles)) is "Bye Bye Love", but it can easily be added to the latter template under "Other songs". Richard3120 (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not necessary. ~ HAL333 01:14, 9 April 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ASCII code (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Much like the other old-style string handling templates, this has arbitrary constraints that can be avoided by using Lua. Specifically, this can be replaced by ((#invoke:ustring|codepoint|\character)) to handle the whole of Unicode rather than just printable ASCII. I have removed it from ((R from Unicode character)) and it is otherwise unused. User:GKFX^talk 12:53, 2 April 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Led Zeppelin (album) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant navigation to ((Led Zeppelin songs)) which already lists the songs with articles by album. If appropriate, merge the Outtakes group to that navbox. Deleted previously. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• well I made that template in a similar vein to Template:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minemaster1337 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: redundant to existing template. @Minemaster1337: the difference is that for the songs in ((Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band)), there is no other navbox template that contains those songs. Here, ((Led Zeppelin songs)) already has the songs from the first Led Zeppelin album included, so there is no need to have a second template that can navigate between the album's tracks. Richard3120 (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2021 (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).