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.
Wouldn't moving it to the sole user's userspace (with or without a redirect) work? I have several templates that I use (subst) with some regularity in my own userspace. ansh66606:33, 13 August 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.
Delete, without any doubt whatever. Not a remotely suitable template. It is questionable whether it is ever a good idea to post a message to an article talk page announcing that a particular editor is banned from the article, but making it a prominent as this is totally unacceptable. As far as I can make out, the template was used just three times in 2006, and never again. One of those uses totally dominated the talk page of an article with a huge display of ban notices about three editors, only one of whom has edited since 2006, and that one not since early 2007. No justification for keeping that at all. I have boldly done what Alakzi suggested: subst in one archive use, add "tl" to two others, and I have simply removed the one example of triple use on a current article talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a very punishment-minded template. I can only imagine a very restricted scenario where this would be necessary, i.e. when the ban is unnaturally long (say, two years), the list of watching editors is unnaturally fluid (say, they might leave, never return and the banned editor knows it or risks testing it) and the banned editor's wrongdoing is unnaturally severe (more severe than an aggressively rude edit warrior who vandalizes to make a point). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:08, 26 August 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.
@Alakzi and Pigsonthewing: I don't use these types of notices, but I believe that there are several "editor not presently available" themed templates . . . do we have a list of the alternatives? I assume there are several comparable alternatives. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:01, 10 August 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.
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.
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).
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). 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.
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places collaboration templates[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 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 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 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 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). 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).
WPBANNERMETA has a setting for inactive wikiprojects. As long as the project exists, its project banner should exist. If you delete the project, then the project banner can be deleted. An alternative would be to merge the project into one of the other cleanup projects, which would also mean there wouldn't need to be a separate template. But as things stands, the template should not be deleted while the project exists. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Father Christmas is an article, this is not. Why don't you actually do something with the wikiproject? Afterall, many wikiprojects have been merged or subsumed into others, and their banner templates subsequently deleted. So, get rid of the project first -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:55, 12 August 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).
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 soft delete, consistent with precedent on these nominations for defunct project-related templated; there is no consensus that the project must be deleted before its templates. Can be restored if the project is revived. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can convert the banner to the standard WPBANNERMETA. Not every project uses that anyways. WPBANNERMETA has a setting for inactive wikiprojects. As long as the project exists, its project banner should exist. If you delete the project, then the project banner can be deleted. An alternative would be to merge the project into one of the Indian Subcontinent or Spoken Wikipedia wikiprojects, then there wouldn't be a need for a separate project banner. But as things stands, the template should not be deleted while the project exists. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:43, 9 August 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).
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 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 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 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 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).
That is only the wording when on the current CotW. It becomes a past-tense notice after the week has elapsed. What would you replace it with? I wouldnt mind a generic notice. John Vandenberg(chat)05:23, 8 August 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).
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 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 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). 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).
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). 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).
Keep and convert to a WikiLove-compatible message. Seriously, why should our choices be either (1) a barnstar for distinguished such-and-such and extraordinary due diligence in what-not or (2) a kitten, dog, pig, cake, coffee, tea, etc.? Can't us Wikipedians say thanks like normal humans? So far, I've resorted to custom messages but this one is simple and efficient. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be nice if this template was used more often—I just found it for the first time. If Sources were made a bit friendlier, might not be any need for this one, though. – czar20:23, 7 September 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).
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 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 soft delete. Broad consensus in many discussions of unused collaboration templates has been in favor of deletion; no desire expressed from the wikiproject for the move, but the template may be restored to any title on request. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:58, 19 September 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).
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 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 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).
Userfy. One of the two users has edited again since this nomination was made. No reason to delete something in Template: space which is used and would be acceptable in user space. BethNaught (talk) 08:42, 14 September 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Delete. I don't know if there was a time when Commons images were red-linked on Wikipedia, but it's not the case now; therefore, this banner isn't needed. Alakzi (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as en: talk pages of Commons: files are categorically exempt from G8. Even if they weren't, {{g8-exempt}} would be a more appropriate template. I am soooo tempted to go all WP:POINTY and just delete all 6 uses then nominate the template for speedy deletion under {{db-t3}} as being redundant to {{g8-exempt}}. But I'll be WP:CIVIL and respect the process instead. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:56, 19 August 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).
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).
Well, not that I really care, but I would argue that "CALM" was redundant to "BE CIVIL", considering that the latter was created 2 years earlier. CALM just seems to have been used more frequently after it was created. It would also argue that "CALM" is used more like a friendly reminder, while "BE CIVIL" is set up more as a warning before a potential block. BIGNOLE (Contact me)15:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Didn't even know this one was here. I agree that the "Be Calm" message of the other template is more likely to get the desired results. That said, I wonder if a switch can be added to the other template to add the words If you are attacked, or someone is rude, please just ignore it since that could be useful in some circumstances (and the option would be apparent in the documentation, likely leading to more use.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓07:39, 11 August 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).
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.
Merge, ending up with how {{Github}} works: Having two templates is totally confusing, but the end result should be how the {{Github}} template currently works as the displayed content is more informative and consistent with the {{YouTube}} template, for example. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I wasn't clear enough – referred to outputting "on GitHub" separately from the repository link, in {{GitHub}}. To be precise, I'd suggest that we end up with "XYZ repository on GitHub" as the template's output, which IMHO should be the most informative. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, could we go with something like having a |repo=yes/no parameter in the merged behavior? That could also be accomplished through the redirection to the destination template after the merger. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed (I am not sure that is the only/best way but I have not researched it extensively either). I am all for the merger but I believe care should be taken in doing it right as it was tried once before and reverted. 50.126.125.240 (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With that parameter in place, we could have {{GitHub}} and {{Github}} continue working as before the merger, and ask one of the bot owners to create a task that would replace all {{Github}} instances with proper |repo=yes/no-including invocations of {{GitHub}}. As a result, we should have zero disturbance as a result of the merger, and a stable final result, whose instances the editors would refine further over time in various articles. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is certainly possible to define one in terms of the other and then have all usages subst'ed (via bot, etc.). It should be noted that though neither of the templates is that highly used, currently {{Github}} has 101 tranclusions (the one to be defined in terms of the other) vs. only 42 tranclusions for {{GitHub}}. 50.126.125.240 (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as no-brainer, details can be worked out on one of the template's talk pages. No real need to leave this TfD open. I can has cheeseburger closure? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge however, it should be noted that a merge was attempted in the past and it was unmerged because they did not perform the same function. {{GitHub}} is being used for arbitrary links on GitHub while {{Github}} is restricted to linking to repositories only (similar to {{SourceForge}}). 50.126.125.240 (talk) 20:30, 19 August 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.
Keep, I created this template, so pardon me if I whine a little. Several studios specialized in certain genres and got very good at them. MGM musicals and Warner Brothers crime dramas are two other examples. There should be a checklist for genre fans. Inkwell765 (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nonindepth, passing mention and doesn't establish Universal Studios have generated science fiction films worthy of a notable separate article. Template fails WP:NAVBOX 4.Algircal (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for navigation. A category would simply list the films alphabetically; the template provides grouping by time-frame (30s, 40s, etc.) which makes finding films by era much simpler. Etamni | ✉ | ✓08:59, 11 August 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.
Keep. This seems to be about game-streaming services where you play on a remote server from your console, not services which allow you to save your high scores or game saves on a remote server, or online multiplayer games. In this respect, I think this is a defining characteristic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:04, 7 August 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).
Templates of roads in a geographic area have been deleted multiple times in the past due to the fact categories better handle the need and the templates are clunky and pollute the What Links Here function. In addition, this template also has the subjectivity as to what road or rail lines can be considered to be along the "Hudson River corridor" between New York City and Albany. Dough487202:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, as creator, just because it was one of my early attempts at creating a template and I'm sentimental about it, enough so to not want it deleted—although the nominator makes very good points in that direction. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep this it will open a can of worms for other templates to be created of roads and railroads following a river corridor between two cities. Also note this template arbitrarily focuses on the roads and railroads following the Hudson River between New York City and Albany as opposed to the whole river. It is unnecessary for templates to exist for roads and railroads along a river corridor between two cities as there is a lot of subjectivity as to what two cities to choose and for what roads and railroads are defined to follow the river "corridor". Dough487203:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the template is badly named in any case, there is no indication this is supposed to be for roads, instead of any network running along the Hudson River Valley, including shipping -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:12, 27 July 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).
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.
Keep Articles relate to single, coherent subject, which subject is mentioned in every article, and is the subject of its own Wikipedia article, and if not for the nav template, editors would be inclined to link many of the related articles in a "see also" section. While the articles do not refer to each other in any significant degree, that guideline is not an absolute requirement of WP:NAVBOX. I would improve the template to group schools by region or grade (of the students) or some other meaningful grouping, in lieu of using alphabetical sorting (which duplicates category sorting) but that flaw is minor and not fatal. Navigation between the entries will be more easily facilitated as a nav box than as a simple category or separate list of schools, especially if the nav box is improved as indicated above. Etamni | ✉ | ✓08:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if for no other reason to prevent "see-also-itis" as Etamni pointed out. Note - prior to my commenting here this discussion was 2-3 "yes" recommendations away from me doing a "non-admin snow-closure" instead of participating in the discussion. If 1-2 other editors also say "yes" and no new "delete" recommendations show up, I would invite experienced editors to snow-close this rather than waiting around for an admin. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:32, 19 August 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.
Weak temporary keep for long enough to do a total reorganization of this and other related templates into lists-pages, categories, and perhaps a single large navigation template. However, an RfD should happen first to get all interested parties participating. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:27, 19 August 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.
Comment As frequently happens with notable authors whose native language is not English, we frequently see these templates that are intended as a navigation aid between articles on the author's works, but nobody ever writes more than a handful of articles on the works themselves, perhaps because this is English Wikipedia and most of our editors don't read and write the language the works are written in. As a Nobel laureate, I doubt anyone would claim that Imre Kertész is not notable, and it is likely that, if written, well-sourced articles on any of his works would survive notability challenges. I suspect that eventually, most of those articles will be written, but it might be 50 years before that happens. So how many of those articles need to be written before it makes sense to use a template nav-box? How many editors who create templates for authors they are interested in need to be bitten and driven off before we realize that deleting prematurely-created nav templates is bitey and harmful to the project as a whole? Etamni | ✉ | ✓08:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NENAN which suggests a "rule of five". It's a little pointless to have a navbox for an author and just two of his works. Personally, I'd like to see at least one more link. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now without prejudice for un-deletion or re-creation when the list of works becomes longer. 5 would certainly be long enough, but I would listen to arguments for 4. 3 would be pushing it a lot and 2 is right out. Better yet I would encourage those who support this template to write better-than-stub-class articles for at least 3 of his other notable works so the links in the template turn blue. That would render my "delete" recommendation void and would probably turn the tide on this discussion entirely. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:21, 19 August 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.
– czar 20:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
