The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 14:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pacific Coast League location map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Gigantic, apparently unfinished map with no transclusions or documentation. Does not appear to be useful. Userfy if the creator wants to keep working on it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay WikiCleanerMan is this how TfD works? You just !vote "Delete: Per nomination" on every nom or am I missing something? Just curious please don't bite. dxneo (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: this template had been rendering properly until it was broken by a technical issue with the OSM Location map template. Transclusions have been temporarily disabled until that issue gets fixed. A notice on that template advises to leave existing dependent maps (templates) in place to show evidence of it still being used, thus providing incentive for the developers to fix it. See my comment on the talk page for more details. Waz⁸:T-C-E 05:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Waz8. Hog Farm _Talk 04:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2024 January 7. (non-admin closure) Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 09:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 modify ((Category redirect)) to allow it to wrap ((R from category navigation)) and other "R" banners so that there is only one banner on the page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:R from category navigation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Category redirect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:R from category navigation with Template:Category redirect.
Having two seperate banners on a category (e.g. Category:2000s establishments in Burma) seems unnecessarily duplicative. I think modifying ((category redirect)) so it can function like a mini-((rcat shell)) makes the most sense, but would not oppose something like |navigation=yes. HouseBlaster^talk 14:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional oppose ((R from category navigation)) has roughly 2% of the transclusions of ((Category redirect)), and the tagged categories are vital to the functioning of ((Category series navigation)). Throwing all the needles into a giant haystack seems like a bad idea. ((Category redirect)) would require:
  1. |navigation=yes parameter
  2. an associated tracking category
  3. clearly state the tagged category's navigational role, i.e. reproduce ((R from category navigation))'s wording & visual separation from the usual ((Category redirect)) box
  4. ((R from category navigation)) be kept as a wrapper for ((Category redirect)), i.e. containing ((Category redirect|navigation=yes))

If all these conditions can be met, then I don't see a problem, other than the time & effort spent to implement.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I would support a merge following the four points above. @Tom.Reding: I admin I am not familiar with how ((Category series navigation)) functions, so I want to make sure I understand this correctly. Is there a technical reason something like

((Category redirect|Category:Example |tags=
((R from category navigation))
))

would break ((category series navigation))? HouseBlaster^talk 16:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: your example is not what I imagined when discussing a merger proposal. If you want to expand the functionality of ((Category redirect)), then you should do so at Template talk:Category redirect.

For the record, ((Category series navigation)) does not need ((R from category navigation)), just the categories tagged by it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough assumption. I brought this here because I would also support a traditional merge, and recalled a precedent for a similar discussion at TfD. Namely, in that discussion for ((vital article)), many called for "merging" into banner shell but then made clear in their rationales they merely meant to place this template with the other WikiProject templates (link added), but there was also discussion about a traditional merge e.g. by adding a |vital= parameter. HouseBlaster^talk 21:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I have changed the example given. I now think I should not have redirected the original example Category:2000s establishments in Yugoslavia, for the reasons now stated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_3#Category:2000s_in_Yugoslavia. – Fayenatic London 15:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Tom.Reding: I don't follow your 4th point about a wrapper. ((R from category navigation)) is used on redirects that must be kept for the purposes of ((Category series navigation)) on other pages. It doesn't wrap or contain ((Category series navigation)). – Fayenatic London 15:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fayenatic london: oops, copy paste error, now fixed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, thanks. But the proposals so far are still confusing. You asked for ((R from category navigation)) to be kept as a wrapper for ((Category redirect)), but then HouseBlaster instead gave an example of ((Category redirect)) wrapping ((R from category navigation)). These seem to imply that the workings of ((Rcat shell)) would be copied into one of them; in this scenario, we would still need both the nominated templates, and it would only be ((Rcat shell)) that becomes unnecessary.

  As that would only save one line, it doesn't seem worth the effort of implementing it. Couldn't all the workings of ((R from category navigation)) be imported into ((Category redirect)) and triggered by the parameter |navigation? – so that the redirect page would only need 1 template instead of the current three?

  After all, ((Category series navigation)) only makes use of ((Category redirect)) and its target, not the rest of the page. The only point of (currently) appending

  |keep=yes)) ((Rcat shell| ((R from category navigation)) ))

  is to avoid deletion of the wanted redirect page. – Fayenatic London 22:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If I am understanding your proposal correctly, I like it. Am I correct that you are suggesting that we delete ((R from category navigation)) and add something like |navigation=yes to ((category redirect))? HouseBlaster^talk 00:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. I thought that was your original idea.

  In the past I used e.g. ((R from alternative spelling)) on category redirects, but I was told that such redirection templates must only be used on hard redirects, not soft redirects. Category redirects are soft redirects. Therefore ((R from category navigation)) is the first and only redirect-explanation template which may be used on category redirects. Therefore it might as well be incorporated into ((category redirect)). – Fayenatic London 08:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd prefer ((R from category navigation)) not be deleted, but left with ((Category redirect|navigation=yes)), to allow simpler placement of the to-be-parameterized ((Category redirect)).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have a slight preference for deleting ((R from category navigation)). Most (all?) of the ((R from foo)) are wrappers for ((redirect template)). That being said, I would not lose sleep if it was kept. HouseBlaster^talk 22:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just come across ((R from template-generated category)) as a second rcat template which is used on category redirect pages. As we now know there is more than one, it may be better to keep these rcats as separate templates, and add shell functionality to ((category redirect)). – Fayenatic London 11:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the more rcat templates there are, the more adding shell functionality to ((category redirect)) makes sense, which is the more future-proof solution anyway.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Note to self: hiding ((Category redirect)) behind ((R from category navigation)) would make ((Category redirect)) harder to find by ((Category series navigation)) & other modules like ((Resolve category redirect)), so should be avoided. This point is irrelevant though, if ((Category redirect)) is to receive shell functionality.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also support adding shell functionality to ((category redirect)). HouseBlaster^talk 21:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Plastikspork: I see a thorough discussion and clear consensus: everyone here is in agreement that ((Category redirect)) shell ((R from category navigation)) and other rcat templates.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Plastikspork: requesting close or relist.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom.Reding, could you please restate your opinion above? What you have written doesn't seem like a complete sentence. In other words, everyone here is in agreement that ((Category redirect)) shell ((R from category navigation)) and other rcat templates should what? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Plastikspork: ah, I used "shell" as a verb, aka "wrap".   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:User line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Userboxbreak (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Userboxgroup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Ubx-section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:User line, Template:Userboxbreak and Template:Userboxgroup with Template:Ubx-section.
Template:Ubx-section merges Template:User line, Template:Userboxbreak and Template:Userboxgroup, with some upgrades. In absence of given parameters, this template renders a simple Template:User line; otherwise it works as a more versatile and customizable version of Template:Userboxgroup. The optional sub-parameters |Background=, |Color= and |Main=Y allow new additional layouts. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 10:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not as currently implemented The "replacement" has rendering significantly different from Template:Userboxbreak, and creates different document structure too. Anomie⚔ 12:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomie: Yeah, the new template is mostly based on Template:Userboxgroup and Template:User line, but the latter and Template:Userboxbreak are not very different, that's why I included it too. Template:Userboxbreak is slightly more spaced, but not relevantly. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 13:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Leave people's userpages alone unless you have a good reason not to - I don't see one here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pppery, not seeing what is being improved with this proposal. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (oppose) - In general, these are used by editors who are not tech-savvy, so let's try to avoid over-complicating things for this. Also, per Pppery. - jc37 01:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 14:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies (1998) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created three years ago but never transcluded into the film articles (except for one), but these are probably unnecessary in the first place as the lists in these cases serve their purpose on their own. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. On top of this, I think we may also have a copyright issue with the articles here per WP:CLIST. --woodensuperman 10:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, these are used on the two pages themselves which provide a second quick listing of the 100 films. Hopefully the Film Wikiproject has been notified about this deletion attempt (done). At least one of them should be distributed to their film articles (as collapsed navboxes). The link above (WP:CLIST) is an essay, not policy or guideline. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, but WP:COPYVIO is policy which is what WP:CLIST considers. Note that "ordered rankings based on judgement" should not be reproduced, which could be the case here (and in the articles). --woodensuperman 15:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Beyond this list there is little to no association between the films on it (minus sequels, etc.). I am not sure what Raging Bull has in common with Double Indemnity, for example, that a navbox is needed to link from one to the other. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That makes no sense, the association is in the title of the navboxes and the poll of 1,500 film-knowledgable people that AFI reports on with their top 100 films. Why do you think Raging Bull and Double Indemnity have to be similar films? Not understanding the reasoning. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But the only association in this case is appearing on a subjective list. That's not a reason to navigate between them by means of a navbox. --woodensuperman 09:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Still not getting what you mean. If a navbox for the Boston Red Sox lists someone as a third baseman and someone else as a relief pitcher, they are united by being on the navbox of the Boston Red Sox. Confused in Cornwall, Randy Kryn (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, they are united by being definitive members of a team, and thus inclusion is objective. Being included in a list of films based on an opinion poll is not, so the subject is not a good one for a navbox. Winning an Oscar is a tangible thing and while I'm not a fan of awards navboxes, a navbox containing Oscar-winning films makes sense, this does not, they are only loosely grouped together from a poll appearance. --woodensuperman 15:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, that explains your reasoning. But still only an opinion, and others have an opposite opinion - that major polls such as this are fine as navbox topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Subjective inclusion is not fine though, this isn't a suitable navbox topic, as repeated deletion of similar navboxes has proven. Navboxes should be restricted to a definitive group or series. --woodensuperman 15:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's where we disagree. These navboxes are already restricted to a definitive group, the films chosen by 1,500 film-knowledgeable individual critics and people in the industry as organized and collected by the American Film Institute. It is a very good list, and as a list is also acceptable Wikipedia material for a navbox and a category. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So both of these should exist? What about every other AFI list? Why not those? The Sight and Sound one, too? And each time they do one of these polls? Where does it stop? This just leads to template clutter with links to the many of the films in each one. The lists are much more conducive and sufficient for things like this. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Sight and Sound navbox for sure, it was deleted with very little discussion and nobody notified the Film Wikiproject. That was an interesting and informative navbox which quickly illustrated the top-ten results of the once-every-ten-year poll which was often considered the definitive poll of the best films ever made. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CLT saying, "Accordingly, these methods [categories, lists, and navigation templates] should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." It's fine to have both the templates and the lists. To address the point of the copyright issue, it looks like at least a couple of news outlets reproduced one of the lists: The Washington Post and CNN, so I am not sure if there is an actual copyright issue to worry about. However, I'm open to other reasons to delete. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, whether it is a copyvio or not, a list like this is not really navbox worthy. It's not like they're award templates, this is just reproduction of a subjective list, these are not a definitive series (in the way that an Oscar winner per year might be), so would only belong in a list article (as would be non-defining for a category). I know we recently deleted similar templates for the Sight and Sound poll. --woodensuperman 15:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for reminding me, I've been meaning to challenge the Sight and Sound deletion, which was done by, if I recall, three editors and should have been relisted at a minimum. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't follow the "subjective" argument? Awards like the Oscars are won because of subjective voters. If anything, these templates group noteworthy films at a point in time, where the Oscar Best Picture winners are spread out across time, with some winners still being known (e.g., The Godfather Part II) while others not so much (e.g., The Great Ziegfeld). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Like I said elsewhere, I'm not a fan of awards navboxes. However, they at least actually have a tangible "winner" for each year. We don't have navboxes for all the films nominated each year. These navbox may group together noteworthy films, but they are by no means a definitive group of films in the way that Oscar-winners could be considered to be. Other notable lists of noteworthy films also exist, but we should not have navboxes for each of them. --woodensuperman 16:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of these templates (AFI and Oscar-winner) have around a hundred films each. If I had to pick, the AFI template would be more suitable than the Oscar-winner template. To be clear, I'm fine with both, but my point is that this AFI template is more in retrospect and defines a group of films with enduring legacies. That's why I mention The Great Ziegfeld -- it won at the time, but it has not had an enduring legacy. The availability of its link in the Oscar-winner template is less strongly relevant, and there are probably other weakly-related links. In contrast, the AFI template presents a set of films that share with each other a legacy. That is how I see it, and you don't have to agree. I'm only outlining that there is different value to be found in either template. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Linking to previous discussion in which the result was a unanimous delete. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

? That 12-year old discussion has nothing to do with this one, the first navbox being nominated here was not involved in that discussion, and the reasonings of the discussion focused on odd concerns such as mentioned above and not taking into account the massive voting by film experts (1,500 people in the industry and critics). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NAVBOX The articles [in a navbox] should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. This is simply not the case here. Placing in on the movie pages would be inappropriate and keeping it on the main page is simply unnecessary. --Trialpears (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Claiming that this is outright "inappropriate" is an exaggeration. The guideline says in full, "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Good navboxes generally follow most or all of these guidelines", with five different points listed, the highlighted one being only one of them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as navbox creep. a list article is enough. Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the AFI lists should be mentioned at each movie page, from which there should be an article link or reference by which readers can view the full list. However, the articles are not closely connected in production history or in genre/themes so link by navbox is not necessary. The contents of the films don't heavily overlap or follow in sequence. The list is unwieldy in length/layout and not useful for navigation. — Bilorv (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 11:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:St Paul Island weatherbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Due to article merging, there is currently only one article using this template.

See also: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 4#Single-use weather box templates (M–R) Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 11:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Isotopelinktable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Isotopelink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used only on a series of pages nominated at MfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A series of pages which should be kept. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow MfD We should do the same thing as the MfD. I wouldn't have nominated before that discussion was finished. --Trialpears (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow MfD, per Triaalpears. --Randykitty (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:SSSIs Wilts biological (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I am looking to generate a discussion around deleting this template and network of related articles. I believe they don't meet Wikipedia rules nowadays. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the template could be renamed, I fail to see how this navbox violates any rule. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this whole set of articles, along with this template violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY (a Wikipedia policy):

Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated. See WP:LISTCRITERIA for more information.

Take a random article from it, say Cloatley Manor Farm Meadows. Its only content is:

Cloatley Manor Farm Meadows (grid reference ST981910) is a 12.1 hectare biological Site of Special Scientific Interest in Wiltshire, notified in 1997. The site is managed as a nature reserve by Wiltshire Wildlife Trust.

You could argue that this information belongs in an encyclopedic list, but why justify having each one as a standalone article (and the template that links them)? बिनोद थारू (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then propose a merge to a list, see where that gets you first. If the list is deemed preferable to individual articles, then this can be deleted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, as that discussion would have the same objective this one. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for as long as at least six of the articles exist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This navbox is transcluded in 100+ pages, so is obviously useful. If the nominator thinks that the individual articles should be deleted, AFD is the right venue for that. If this template shrinks due to articles being deleted, it would be eligible for renomination at TFD due to those changed circumstances. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.