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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Need to avoid template creep and delete these. We don't need the clutter of listing trivially related articles to other sports teams on a per year basis, merely because they are based in same city. Fails WP:NAVBOX No. 2: "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." The sports are unrelated aside from trivial matter of being in same locale. Don't need the year-by-year ad nauseum clutter. Also fails WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." There is a general sports article, Sports in Los Angeles, but it doesn't go into crufty year-by-year detail. Template:Greater Los Angeles Area Sports already links to that general article, and a single template is sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've had my eye on these templates for a while now, and I'm glad to see someone else did the dirty work and nominated these. The nominator did an excellent job with the rationale, but I also want to add the fact that Los Angeles is the only city that got this treatment. If we allow these, we could start to see several other cities get templates like this, so we should delete this navbox creep before it gets out of hand. Tavix | Talk 20:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above reasonings. They are also incomplete, as a full listing of Los Angeles sports teams would include multiple college teams, several minor league baseball teams, a d-league basketball team, an arena football team and assundry other activities, many of which have season articles that could conceivably be included here.. Spanneraol (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ughhh, delete per above. this is way over-navboxing. Frietjes (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - These sports navboxes that include clusters of teams based on regional groupings within states and metro regions are usually ill-conceived and little used. Breaking them out even further by year is crufty and unnecessary, contributing very little to reader navigation among sports team articles that share very little other than geography. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete alll as navbox cruft. Unnecessary and will undoubtedly spawn more cities' navboxes like this – let's not let that happen, thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
A navigation template is supposed to make the navigation between related item easier. But this template has only one item, a link to an article in the Thai lanuage, so there is nothing to navigate. The Bannertalk 13:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough links to provide useful navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreate when there are more links to include. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With only 2 article links, there's not much to navigate. Everything else has been deleted. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's now not a single link to an article on en-WP in the template, only a link to an article on the Thai WP... Thomas.W talk 21:57, 1 June 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was subst and delete. I performed the substitution in the three articles that used this template prior to its deletion. North America1000 10:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a line of article text in a template; its three transclusions can be substituted. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
subst and delete article content should not be hidden away in templates making it difficult for regular editors to edit. This is an improper use of a template. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
subst and delete Article text should be editable right within the article, and the content of this template—a mere two half-sentences with two wikilinks—is hardly so unwieldy as to warrant exiling it to a template. Maralia (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
This nav box claims to be for the CW's DC Comics universe. That page does not exist, because the universe itself is not notable yet. Instead, the nav box links to List of CW's shared DC Comics TV universe actors (which honestly, probably should not exist right now either). The links within are currently either duplicating existing templates (Template:Arrow (TV series)), linking to individual sections of the same page (ala List of The Flash characters and List of Arrow characters), or simply sending them to their comic book page which does not have any direct connection to the shows. The template appears useful on the surface, but when you really look at it, it's masquerading the fact that it's just housing an indiscriminate collection of links to sections of pages, instead of actual pages themselves. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:28, 18 May 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merged with Guangzhou section of {{China line}} (now in holding cell) into {{Rail-interchange}} and {{Rail color box}}, now redundant to the latter two templates. All transclusions should be substituted before deletion. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:33, 18 May 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
No need for a navigation template to navigate between two relevant items. This can be solved by normal wikilinking. The Bannertalk 11:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreate when there are more links to include. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:55, 19 May 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
No need for a navigation template to navigate between two (max. three) relevant items. This can be solved by normal wikilinking. The Bannertalk 11:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreate when there are more links to include. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:55, 19 May 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
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). No further edits should be made to this section.
No need for a template with just two relevant items, the navigation between them can be solved with normal wikilinking The Bannertalk 11:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreate when there are more links to include. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:55, 19 May 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:GZM box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
