Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 22

< April 21	April 23 >

April 22[edit]

Template:Central Arkansas Sugar Bears softball navbox[edit]

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) 16:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Central Arkansas Sugar Bears softball navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two links... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 19:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant navbox Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, only connects two articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2017 (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).

Template:Pp-main-page[edit]

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 redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pp-main-page (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template does not appear to be in use anymore. Should it be deleted or simply marked as historical? (It has a fair amount of links) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add to {{c-uploaded}}, as that seems to be its intended use case. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be used however. Maybe merge the code of the pp template into the c-upload one? (Perhaps even make the latter template produce an error message if the file is edit or indefinitely protected, as none of these two things are in its scope) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging sounds good too. I'm not too familiar with when {{c-uploaded}} is necessary - as far as I understand it's merely as a backup when the bots are down now? – Train2104 (t • c) 20:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{c-uploaded}}; unused. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as suggested, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2017 (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).

Template:Viral life cycle[edit]

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 rename to Template:Influenza virus life cycle. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Viral life cycle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This illustrates influenza virus only. Other viruses replicate differently. It gives incorrect information by implying that all viruses replicate like this. Graham Beards (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per the argument of the nominator it should simply be renamed to "Template:Influenza virus life cycle". Why delete though? Debresser (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rename, seems useful. Frietjes (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2017 (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).

Template:KNUTE[edit]

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) 17:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KNUTE (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only one active link, provides no navigation Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, connects two articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2017 (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).

Template:Higher education in Crimea[edit]

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, but feel free to recreate if there is more content Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Higher education in Crimea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Provides navigation to two or three articles only, unused since 2015 Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it needs reformation, but for now does not seem to be useful. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has many entries, just that not many are articles yet. The potential, however, is there. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to go against the principle of a WP:NAVBOX being for navigation, it would be better to create the articles first before creating this template. At the moment it is mostly a list and that doesn't help any reader. Aloneinthewild (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, with categories it is a rule that we look at the potential. Although I agree with you that with templates we do not have such a rule, I think we should cut some slack to an area which on Wikipedia is not yet as developed as e.g. the US, by which I mean the Crimea. Debresser (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, the only working links are in Template:Universities in Ukraine, which is telling. the better approach would be to first write List of universities in Crimea, which can have as many red links as needed. navigation boxes are for navigation. currently this isn't navigating anything. Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2017 (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).

Template:Higher education in Uman[edit]

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Higher education in Uman (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only one active link for navigation Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

make sure the list is in Uman, then delete. 14:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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).

Template:Article probation[edit]

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 2017 April 30 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Article probation (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).

Template:NHL on Global[edit]

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 per this and prior discussions Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NHL on Global (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Once you remove the commentators per WP:PERFNAV, and the articles that do not have any relation to the actual coverage of the sport by the network (the games, etc), you are left with one link! Rob Sinden (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments that the games themselves have no relation to the actual coverage of the sport by the network makes absolutely no sense. It would be sort of like saying that you can't acknowledge that NBC was the American network that broadcast this particular year's Stanley Cup Finals since they don't go hand and hand one way or another. Whether you want to admit it or acknowledge it or not, these games in question were broadcast by SOMEBODY in particular. Again, you're not reading between the lines and having an extremely narrow focus. You're just taking something that you seemingly didn't actually bother to read into or fully understand such as its context and therefore, decided that you might as well throw the baby out with the bathwater. BornonJune8 (talk) 01:59 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The articles are about the finals, not the coverage. Where on the 1987 Stanley Cup Finals article (for example) does it discuss in any detail the coverage of the finals by the Global network? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the beauty of Wikipedia is that you could always add the broadcasting information in a section about that. It isn't like we could just create a separate article about the television coverage of said Stanley Cup Finals.

BornonJune8 (talk) 16:20 13 April 2017 (UTC)

delete per nom. if you remove the broadcasters and the tangential sections, you are left with nearly nothing. Frietjes (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:08, 22 April 2017 (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).

Template:Bill Willis Trophy[edit]

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bill Willis Trophy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not career-defining. Minor award that receives minimal media coverage. One of several given by the Touchdown Club of Columbus. Lizard (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not career-defining per nom. Frietjes (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2017 (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).

Template:Uw-userspacenoindex[edit]

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, but rewrite Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Now that userspace is NOINDEX'ed by default, this template message is unnecessary. — Train2104 (t • c) 23:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unfortunately the default setting can be overridden – see this ~~current~~ discussion. When setting a user page or subpage back to "no index", it is very useful to have this template to explain to the user what has been done: Noyster (talk), 07:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template could use a rewrite, since it's now a matter of removing __INDEX__ not adding __NOINDEX__. But given the typical use pattern of user warning templates, I'm not sure if it's accepted practice to significantly change the tone/wording/meaning of an existing template under the same name. (since indexing is now a manual decision, a "you shouldn't index this!" should probably be a little stricter) — Train2104 (t • c) 13:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but fundamentally rewrite to reflect the update and with a stricter tone per Train2104 and Noyster.--Mr. Guye (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2017 (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).

Template:Current Scottish MSPs[edit]

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current Scottish MSPs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Out of date and redundant. See Category:Scottish Parliament membership navigational boxes for how templates for members of the Scottish Parliament are organised. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be useful if it was updated? Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unless someone wants to update it and start adding to articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2017 (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).

Template:British honours system[edit]

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British honours system (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:British honours system with Template:Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom.
For collected overview per WP:Consistency with other equivalent national templates. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:06, 22 April 2017 (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).

Template:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. ratings[edit]

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) 17:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary and unrepresentative of the series as a whole; these templates are not used for full season-order series, as it becomes far too cramped. -- Alex^TW 16:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AlexTheWhovian. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Readd to article, and subst, and delete the template - and discuss on the articles talk page (it was removed from List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes before it was nominated for deletion here). It looks like all the numbers are sourced in the article, and IMHO it gives a better "image" of the number of viewers then the numbers in each row. Christian75 (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian75: I reiterate: the template is unrepresentative of the series as a whole; if the template was indeed expanded to display all four seasons, these templates are still not used for full season-order series, as it becomes far too cramped. -- Alex^TW 09:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2017 (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).

Template:2017 Thai League 3 Upper Region[edit]

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 G7 by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2017 Thai League 3 Upper Region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article in template space, duplicating 2017 Thai League 3 Upper Region. Unused as a template. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete or move to user space, fork of 2017 Thai League 3 Upper Region. Frietjes (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment No one disagree it should be deleted (or moved). Its look like a sandbox version which by some strange reason was done in template space (user has nearly 10000 edits). Ask the creator if they want it moved back to user space, or sppedy deleted as G2: test page or G6: house keeping by an admin. Christian75 (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete or move per Frietjes Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure whether the template should be kept, but I am sure that the non-free File:T3 logo 2017.png should not be being used in it per WP:NFCC#9. Non-free iamges are only allowed to be used (i.e., displayed) in the article namespace in accordance with WP:NFCCP. Adding the image to a template will automatically add the file to any pages, which may not be in accordance with relevant policy. I have removed the file from the template, but it should not be added if the consensus is to keep this. Consider adding a freely licensed or public domain image instead if an image is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted per WP:G7 as the creator of the page blanked it. They're also blocked for socking/disruptive editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2017 (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).

Template:2017 Thai League 3 Lower Region[edit]

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 G7 by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2017 Thai League 3 Lower Region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article in template space, duplicating 2017 Thai League 3 Lower Region. Unused as a template. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete or move to user space, fork of 2017 Thai League 3 Lower Region. Frietjes (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete or move per Frietjes Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted per WP:G7 as the creator of the page blanked it. They're also blocked for socking/disruptive editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2017 (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).

Template:2017 Thai FA Cup[edit]

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 G7 by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2017 Thai FA Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article in template space. Unused as a template. Content fork of 2017 Thai FA Cup. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete or move to user space, fork of 2017 Thai FA Cup. Frietjes (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete or move per Frietjes Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted per WP:G7 as the creator of the page blanked it. They're also blocked for socking/disruptive editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2017 (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).

Template:2017 Thai League 2[edit]

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 G7 by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2017 Thai League 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an article in template space. It is a content fork of 2017 Thai League 2. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete or move to user space, fork of 2017 Thai League T2. Frietjes (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete or move per Frietjes Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate into a draft or userify into userspace so ‎Rukkiet can ~~edit~~ improve it enough for a mainspace as part of the existing article.--Mr. Guye (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rukkiet: Seriously, you should comment here.--Mr. Guye (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted per WP:G7 as the creator blanked it. They're also now blocked for socking/disruptive editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2017 (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).

Template:Toxik[edit]

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) 23:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Toxik (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With only four pages actually existing (five if counting main band), it's far too soon for this band to warrant its own navbox, though no prejudice against recreating once more material warrants articles. The links right now can all easily be included on the band's page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep~~ strong keep, connects 5 articles. Frietjes (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's too few, and actually why it should (for now) be deleted, not kept. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your opinion, I have updated mine. Frietjes (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2017 (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).

Template:Yūji Tajiri[edit]

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yūji Tajiri (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Insufficient navigation. After articles on nn films have been deleted or redirected (see prior version), only two articles remain that are actual articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not nearly enough to warrant a navbox, though could perhaps be restored after more subjects are worth having their own articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:11, 22 April 2017 (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).