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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete per nom and Pppery. Nothing remarkable to keep here. Interestingly, I note the transclusion is with Jeff G., who I just noticed at RfD earlier today, I believe. Doug Mehus T·C 01:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if you want, I userfied the contents to User:Jeff G./Vandalcount and changed my user talk page to use that instead.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2020 (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 delete after replacement with {{right now}}. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Right now (User message) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fork of {{Right now}} Just seven transclusions, outside sandboxes and archive pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for Pigsonthewing, does {{Right now}} have a parameter to set the background colour to a hexadecimal colour value of one's choice? If so, then,
  1. Delete after orphaning and updating the transclusions; otherwise, if not,
  2. Update {{Right now}} to include such a parameter, then #1. Doug Mehus T·C 01:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "does {{Right now}} have a parameter to set the background colour" Yes. But the nominated template does not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / Userify I don't see a constructive value in deleting this template. No harm if some editors want to use it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fork that duplicates the template with a different color. Original template already supports a color param. --Gonnym (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2020 (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 merge to Template:Usertalkpage. As per consensus, the trailing redirect left after merging Template:Usertalkpage2 to Template:Usertalkpage should be deleted. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Usertalkpage2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fork of {{Usertalkpage}} (which has 1986 transclusions), with very minor formatting change; just 10 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after orphaning and updating the 10 transclusions per nom. No need for a trailing redirect for 10 transclusions. Doug Mehus T·C 01:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete In this instance, a carefully worded message is best formed via a single template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge 'n' delete per Tom. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:32, 20 February 2020 (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 delete. If anyone wants the codebase for this template, WP:REFUND will apply. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:TMobileIP6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, but requesting that the closer allow WP:REFUND to apply in the closing rationale, should anyone want the codebase for this template. Doug Mehus T·C 01:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2020 (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 delete. Given the single use if from a blocked sockpuppet, this is a borderline WP:G5 case anyway. If anyone wants to restore it to their own userspace I will be happy to do so upon request. Primefac (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Talkpagecool show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Move after orphaning without leaving a redirect to Oracle of Delhi's userspace; please don't substitute. I may want to transclude this in the future. Doug Mehus T·C 00:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Subts and delete per Pppery--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Userfy Seems harmless; deleting it doesn't free up any disk space or bring any other tangible benefit that I can see; and we have one editor who above who says they may wish to transclude it in future. --kingboyk (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2020 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Snowed in (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Unused" is not a valid reason tp delete a template that per definition will only be used when the situation it mentions happens. If no one is snowed in, no one has to use the template but how can you be sure that it was not and will not be used? That's like saying we should delete a maintenance category because it is currently empty. Regards SoWhy 08:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "situation it mentions" is happening right now, in many parts of the hemisphere; especially those where English is spoken. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SoWhy; failing that, userfy without leaving a redirect and after updating and orphaning to the userspace of the creator. Doug Mehus T·C 00:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. No harm in preserving it and also there is the potential it may be used in the future. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2020 (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 Userfy. Userfied to User:Samee/Pakistani banner. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pakistani banner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Userify it please.  samee  converse  06:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy to either of, in order of preference, the userspace of its creator or to Samee. It's unused and not sufficiently generic to apply to all Wikipedians; otherwise, I'd be supporting keep. Doug Mehus T·C 00:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Userify per above. A way for editors to indicate their interest in editing certain article.--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2020 (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 keep. kingboyk (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Offline user (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; redundant to {{wikibreak}}, et al. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not redundant. A wikibreak is something you choose to do. Being offline is oftentimes something that happens to you whether you want it or not. If anything, it should be merged or redirected to {{No Internet}}. Regards SoWhy 08:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hence "et al", See {{Wikibreak templates}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SoWhy. Different rationales does not make them redundant. Just like redirects being cheap, I fail to see the purpose of deleting these templates, which use such marginal diskspace. Doug Mehus T·C 00:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Deleting them will actually increase the diskspace used. Regards SoWhy 15:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  SoWhy, Ah, good point, because we keep the old revisions. Doug Mehus T·C 15:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep no harm in keeping this template. May be used by editors. By helping editors communicate these things to each other we might make the editing experience better. I don't see any value in deleting it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{No Internet}} is perfectly adequate for "helping editors communicate these things to each other". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to {{No Internet}} per SoWhy as these are almost identical. --Gonnym (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2020 (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 delete. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Penn FC squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

the club is no longer active; no need for a current squad template Joeykai (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 20:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2020 (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 Rename to Template:7th Parliament of Zimbabwe. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Current Zimbabwean MPs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

template appears to be unused and is superseded by Template:Current members of the Zimbabwe House of Assembly Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, and then orphan the old template so that all transclusions use the merged template's filename. --Doug Mehus T·C 00:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to refer to 7th Parliament of Zimbabwe, revise its content accordingly, and add it to linked biographies. – Fayenatic London 08:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, without leaving a redirect, per Fayenatic london. That sounds even better. Doug Mehus T·C 22:52, 16 February 2020 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NENAN, WP:TOOSOON, links only four articles. The first two albums are only barely notable and seem like redirect candidates. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, what links here shows five articles. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep they're cheap, additional storage will be used in deleting them, and it's got all bluelinks so it passes WP:AOAL/WP:NAVBOX. Doug Mehus T·C 22:50, 16 February 2020 (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 speedy merge to Template:WikiProject Television. The previous discussion (linked in the nomination) as well as this other discussion all had the same outcome and is for an identical set of templates. Speedy closing this as a "whoops, missed it" case based on the previous two discussions. Primefac (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WikiProject British television (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WikiProject Television (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:WikiProject British television with Template:WikiProject Television.
Mistakenly missed this in the merger of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 4#Various TV-related WikiProject templates. Hopefully this can be speedy as it is basically the same thing. Gonnym (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2020 (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 merge to Template:Buffy the Vampire Slayer. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Buffy video games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Buffy the Vampire Slayer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Buffy video games with Template:Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
A total of six games are listed in the separate Buffy video game navbox, that can easily be part of the 'main' navbox. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Five stand-alone video game articles can be covered in the main template just fine. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge per nom, but then delete the merged out template after updating the few transclusions. No need to force cleanup at RfD. Alternatively, have Pigsonthewing bring the redirect with zero transclusions to RfD. Doug Mehus T·C 13:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't ping me like this again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 16 February 2020 (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 delete. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cho Aniki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A navbox for the video game series Cho Aniki. In this case there is an article on the series, but only two individual games have articles. Links are already in the article body ("part of the Cho Aniki series... ", "followed by the sequel...") or that can't be done with a see also section. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete With only 2 games, it hardly qualifies as a "series" per se. The template seems unnecessary._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and ZXCVBNM.--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:NENAN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Substitute and delete or Delete and hatnote the two pages per nom. Doug Mehus T·C 22:49, 16 February 2020 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Colony Wars series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A navbox for the video game series Colony Wars. No article on series, a total of three entries. Links are already in the article body ("is the sequel to...", "followed by the sequel...") or that can't be done with a see also section. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:AINTBROKE. There does not seem to be an improvement to be made from removing it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ZXCVBNM. These are an aid to navigation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Small navbox, but navboxes are cheap, and all links are blue. No problem here. Moreover, deletion would actually increase the disk space used, as was reminded to me yesterday. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 13:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:NENAN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: 3 links and no likely increase in sight is not sufficient to sustain a navbox. "NENAN", in a sense. --Izno (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zxcvbnm and WP:ANOEP. They're cheap, additional storage will be used in deleting them, and it's got all bluelinks so it passes WP:AOAL/WP:NAVBOX. Doug Mehus T·C 22:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful aid to navigation. A series of games seems like a sensible thing to have a navbox for, and 3 blue links are plenty. Moreover, I see no benefit to readers which would accrue from us deleting it. --kingboyk (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2020 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

A navbox for the video game series Croc. No article on the series, a total of three entries. Links are already in the article body ("is the sequel to...", "followed by the sequel...") or that can't be done with a see also section. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:AINTBROKE. There does not seem to be an improvement to be made from removing it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ZXCVBNM. These are an aid to navigation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:NENAN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: 3 links and no likely increase in sight is not sufficient to sustain a navbox. "NENAN", in a sense. --Izno (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zxcvbnm and WP:ANOEP. They're cheap, additional storage will be used in deleting them, and it's got all bluelinks so it passes WP:AOAL/WP:NAVBOX. Doug Mehus T·C 22:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful aid to navigation. A series of games seems like a sensible thing to have a navbox for, and 3 blue links are plenty. Moreover, I see no benefit to readers which would accrue from us deleting it. --kingboyk (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2020 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Dark Fall series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A navbox for the video game series Dark Fall. No article on the series and a total of three entries. Links are already in the article body ("is the sequel to...", "followed by the sequel...") or that can't be done with a see also section. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:AINTBROKE. There does not seem to be an improvement to be made from removing it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ZXCVBNM. These are an aid to navigation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:NENAN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zxcvbnm and WP:ANOEP. They're cheap, additional storage will be used in deleting them, and it's got all bluelinks so it passes WP:AOAL/WP:NAVBOX. Doug Mehus T·C 22:47, 16 February 2020 (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 relisted on 2020 March 9. Primefac (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:DeathSpank (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).

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. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

A navbox for the video game series Disciples. No article on the actual series and a total of three entries. Links are already in the article body ("is the sequel to...", "followed by the sequel...") or that can't be done with a see also section. Not needed. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:AINTBROKE. There does not seem to be an improvement to be made from removing it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ZXCVBNM. These are an aid to navigation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:NENAN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not seeing any advantage to deleting this, and while the nominator suggests alternatives that could be done, they do not indicate why they should be done. The series does not have an article yet, but that's not a reason to delete the navbox, but to create a series article. I'll echo the WP:AINTBROKE sentiments of the others above. Phediuk (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zxcvbnm and WP:ANOEP. They're cheap, additional storage will be used in deleting them, and it's got all bluelinks so it passes WP:AOAL/WP:NAVBOX. Doug Mehus T·C 22:45, 16 February 2020 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

A navbox for the video game series Dungeons. No article on the actual series and a total of three entries. Links are already in the article body ("is the sequel to...", "followed by the sequel...") or that can't be done with a see also section. Not needed. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOTDUP's logic. Navigation templates are useful tools to quickly navigate between articles of the same series without having to search for the links in the main body. Also, for example. there is no direct way to navigate from Dungeons 3 to Dungeons (video game) without the navbox since that article does not mention the first game. "Not needed" is not a good reason to delete a navigational tool that provides a benefit to some users even if you personally don't think so. Regards SoWhy 11:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:AINTBROKE. There does not seem to be an improvement to be made from removing it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ZXCVBNM. These are an aid to navigation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:NENAN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zxcvbnm and WP:ANOEP. They're cheap, additional storage will be used in deleting them, and it's got all bluelinks so it passes WP:AOAL/WP:NAVBOX. Doug Mehus T·C 22:44, 16 February 2020 (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 relisted on 2020 March 9. Primefac (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Elite_Beat_Agents_series (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).