Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 12#Template:Talk archive navigation

: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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Infobox disease doubleimage}}

fork of template:Infobox disease. we can add a {{para|Image2}} option if needed in the main box. Frietjes (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2013 (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). 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 Delete; deleted as G7 by {{admin|RHaworth}} AnomieBOT⚡ 23:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round Group A/Ethiopia}}

No long necessary. By creator — አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Speedied as CSD G7.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2013 (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). 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 Delete. Template is unused and redundant. John Reaves 01:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Returnvandal}}

As far as I can tell, this template has only been used once since early 2009 (if even that); I didn't even know it existed until I tried to see if {{tl|RV}} existed (to use as a variant of {{tl|MV}}) and got search-bounced to {{tl|Rv}} which redirects to this. In addition, despite its "zombie" status, it recently attracted an odd spate of (ironically) apparent vandalism. As this is a "zombie template" that is no longer being applied, and its redirect is "squatting" on a potential valid template name, I believe its transclusions should be subst:'d and the template deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Weak keep (preferred) or strong merge: Strong keep: it looks like a valid template; the fact that it hasn't been used much may simply mean it hasn't been publicized enough. The redirect can obviously be changed separately and shouldn't be a factor in this discussion at all. If not kept, this template should be merged with another warning template, not simply deleted. Note that, given the myriad of WP:ATA-type arguments used in these discussions, I've decided to change my opinion somewhat to try to balance them out. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• The trouble is that apparently in all but one of the cases in which the template was used it was as {{tl|Rv}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• As I pointed out in a similar discussion above, though, incorrect usage to date isn't a valid argument for deletion (and that's assuming such usage is in fact incorrect in this case). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Not an issue. Took me less than a minute to go through the handful of transclusions (9 I think it was) and change {{Tl|Rv}} to {{Tl|Returnvandal}}. That was quite a lame excuse. Your redirect is now free as it has no transclusions and only a couple links (including this discussion). Technical 13 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• Delete what's wrong with using the same vandalism warning templates if someone re-vandalizes after a warning? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

:* Isn't that the definition of insanity? Using the same method over and over and expecting different results? I like the idea of having multiple different ways to get the message across, obviously if they didn't get it using one template the first time, throwing the same template at them again isn't going to help. Technical 13 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep as I see no valid reason to delete it. Technical 13 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• The fact that it's dead, Jim? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

::* I agree with {{U|Dogmaticeclectic|Dog}}{{U|Dogmaticeclectic|DE}}'s comment above: "the fact that it hasn't been used much may simply mean it hasn't been publicized enough.". So, I don't find it as being unused, or "dead" as you put it as a valid reason. Technical 13 (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

:::*User:Technical 13, while I appreciate the support, I would ask that you not shorten my username to that in the future. I would prefer "DE" instead, which is in fact shorter. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

::::* Noted and I will try to remember that in the future. :) Technical 13 (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Old, unused template. We don't usually keep templates which, despite being currently unused, have a prospect of being used in the future. This has been discussed in the past, although I have been involved with so many TFDs over the years that I would be hard-pressed to find exactly where. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• But see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&redirs=1&profile=all&search=%22You+have+returned+to+vandalising%22 this]; it is obviously still used (although not very often). Anyway, still delete it on the grounds that the 4im templates, like {{tl|uw-vandalism4im}}, do the job nicely. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

::* I think this serves a different purpose. This is for returning to vandalism after already getting past level 4 warning and being blocked. Maybe it should be renamed {{tl|uw-vandalism5}} since it should only be used after 4im and blocking have failed. Technical 13 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

:::*There's a template for that already: {{tl|uw-vandalism4im}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

::::* Quick recap... Isn't that the definition of insanity? Using the same method over and over and expecting different results? I like the idea of having multiple different ways to get the message across, obviously if they didn't get it using one template the first time, throwing the same template at them again isn't going to help. Technical 13 (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete pointless template, no more likely to discourage vandalism than standard and largely unused.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Besides the pointlessness of keeping a template that's essentially never used (so we won't impair future use) and was substed when used (so we won't mangle page histories), we can do this with our normal vandalism warning templates. When I use the templates, I don't use them in the same way for returning vandals: if you vandalise after coming off a block for vandalism, I start out with a uw-vand3 warning. The vandal can see that pre-block, he was warned with a kinder admonishment (uw-vand1) and got up to sterner stuff gradually, but now someone's starting with the sterner stuff. If he thinks about it, he'll see the difference; and if he doesn't think about it, the warnings really won't help no matter what they say. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• delete, the usual vandalism templates work fine, no need for something special for this case. Frietjes (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2013 (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). 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 Merge. Editors performing the merge, please try to retain functionality, shortcuts, etc. The name beginning "talk archive..." was favored, and it is also the most used template by a factor of 2:1, so I suggest merging Aan into Tan. DrKiernan (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Talk archive navigation|type=merge}}

:{{Tfd links|Automatic archive navigator|type=merge}}

Propose merging Template:Talk archive navigation with Template:Automatic archive navigator.

From all of the templates listed in the "Headers/With navigation" section of {{Tl|Warchivenav}}, these two seem redundant enough to be merged. Both of these templates essentially have the exact same function, specifically the way that they both list archived talk pages, and the fact that neither of them have a way to modify the titles that the template navigates: all titles these templates navigate are required to have a naming pattern with the word "Archive" in their titles and go in sequence, such as the following examples:

:"Talk:THIS EXAMPLE/Archive 1", "Talk:THIS EXAMPLE/Archive 2", etc.

::OR

:"Talk:THIS EXAMPLE/Archive 2003", "Talk:THIS EXAMPLE/Archive 2004", etc.

Due to {{Tl|Automatic archive navigator}}'s slightly more advanced functionality, {{Tl|Talk archive navigation}} should be merged into {{Tl|Automatic archive navigator}}. If merged, the functionality of the period| parameter from {{Tl|Talk archive navigation}} should be merged into {{Tl|Automatic archive navigator}}, as well as possibly the noredlinks| parameter. (I'm actually "against" merging the noredlinks| parameter into {{Tl|Automatic archive navigator}} as I believe it is unnecessary and could disrupt the functionality of {{Tl|Automatic archive navigator}}, but if it can get merged in with no issues, I would be neutral about it.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Don't merge Is there any reason why users should not have the option of including redlinks, as in the current version of {{tl|Talk archive navigation}}? Users may, for example, like to have it as a quick way of manually starting a new archive page. If there is no good reason for denying users the opportunity to use this option, then merging the two templates but dropping the "noredlinks" parameter, as preferred by Steel1943, would mean a reduction in functionality, while adding no benefit at all. At least, I am not aware of any benefit in the proposed change, and Steel1943 has not suggested any. (He or she has merely indicated that, apart from the "noredlinks" parameter, he doesn't think there is any benefit in having both templates, which is not at all the same as saying that there is a benefit in not having both.) If, on the other hand, the templates are merged, including the functionality of "noredlinks", is there any other loss of functionality, perhaps minor, that neither Steel1943 nor I have thought of? Even if there was no good reason for having two different but closely similar templates in the first place, unless having both of them is actually doing some harm, we may as well keep them both. Some people may make use of the redlinks option; some people may have a preference one way or the other over the minor difference in layout ("Automatic archive navigator" puts the links to other archives inside the box, at the top, while "Talk archive navigation" puts them outside and below the box); there may or may not be some other difference that some people have a preference for, or a use for. These considerations are fairly trivial, and if there is any less trivial advantage in making the proposed change then that advantage may easily outweigh those minor losses, but in the absence of any actual advantage to be gained from the change, why accept even a small loss of choice? In short, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:*JamesBWatson, in regards to the aforementioned concern about the "red links", I actually think that having it as an option is necessary (in fact, I realize I said the exact opposite in my opening statement, and have crossed out what I do not actually agree with.) I just do not see how, in code, the parameter can be added to the {{Tl|Aan}} template. If it can be done, then by all means it should be merged. I'm just personally neutral about it: that, and I'm still trying to learn Lua to understand how feasible adding red link functionality to {{Tl|Aan}} really is. Steel1943 (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

::* I've added the noredlinks parameter to Module:AutomaticArchiveNavigator/sandbox. Try using it on some archives with both {{tlx|Automatic archive navigator/sandbox}} and {{tlx|Automatic archive navigator/sandbox|2=noredlinks=yes}} and see what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

:::*Mr. Stradivarius, thank you for creating the sandbox for {{Tl|Aan}} functionality with redlinks. I like the way it looks, but there's one thing that I'm curious about (and I hate to wonder this, but I just don't understand Lua just yet): I'm not sure if this would be a concern from others, but I would imagine that being able to display redlinks a maximum of 5 values forward/backward could cause some pages to be accidentally created. I'm trying to figure out is ... is there any way for this to happen: when redlinks are active, can it display only a maximum of one non-existing page (forward or backward) rather than 5 max, but still be able to show links to 5 existing pages the other direction? If not, I would imagine that if it would not be possible, it would be because doing so would also limit the links (forward and backward) to existing pages to a maximum of one as well (as it currently is in {{Tl|Tan}})? That, and I'm hope I'm asking/stating this clearly. Steel1943 (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

::::*{{ping|Steel1943}} It's possible, but it would require restructuring the module. At the moment, the getLinksText function doesn't know whether the page returned by getSubpageLink exists or not; it only knows whether a link has been produced. To be able to output only a limited number of redlinks, getLinksText would need to know which pages exist and which don't. I can think of two ways of doing this. The first way would be to check each page to see whether it exists, and make that information available to getLinksText somehow; probably the best way would be to make getSubpageLink return two values: the archive link and the existence status. The other way to do it would be to check what the highest archive number is (Module:Archive list can do this), and then assume that archives exist if they are less than or equal to that number and greater than or equal to 1. Feel free to ask me on my talk page if you want any pointers, or if you have any other Lua questions for that matter. I'm always willing to help spread the Lua love. ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'd dearly love for all of the talk archive templates to be merged; it's long overdue. That said, I agree with JamesBWatson that if possible we should retain the ability to include redlinks as it makes manual archiving (still often required) a wee bit easier; I've never really understood the revulsion to redlinks which led to us needing an option to hide them in the first place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Merge somehow: the current morass of archival templates is extremely confusing, even for someone like myself who has actually worked on one of those templates significantly. However, because of the confusion, I don't currently have an opinion as to how to perform the merge - as in which template should be merged with which, for example. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep helpful and convenient for navigating between archive pages. Grapesoda22 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:*Grapesoda22, are you able to clarify your opinion since this is a Merge proposal? Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:*This seems like a clear-cut case of WP:ITSUSEFUL to me. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

::*Dogmaticeclectic, agreed. Hopefully, the act of me asking for clarification will produce a result, but we shall see. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:::*I'd say keep Grapesoda22 (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

::::*User:Grapesoda22, unfortunately, I'm requesting that the closing user disregard your opinion in this discussion per WP:POLL. However, do feel free to provide more detailed reasoning; I may strike out my request if such reasoning is provided. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

::::::You a re free to ask that, but I would note that your objection is based on an essay about arguments to avoid in deletion discussions about articles, not merge discussions about templates. Usefulness is in fact a perfectly valid argument when discussing templates. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• merge no point having two, I've always wondered what the difference was. I'm indifferent as to the direction and functionality, as long as they roughly continue to do the same thing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Merging seems appropriate to me. Technical 13 (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• No merge. Sorry Steel1943, I use the TAN template and like its simplicity. I took one look at the other one and decided it was too complex for my liking. I'm sure others like it, but I would prefer to stick with the simple ease of the TAN template. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

:*Hey Paine Ellsworth, I respect that, and have a question for you as a follow-up: if the opposite merge were to happen, or if {{Tl|Aan}} was made to look more like TAN as a result if this merge, would you support it? (I know this isn't my proposal, but I'm curious, especially if that might lead to a different proposal that might be a better option for consensus.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

::: I suppose that like JamesBWatson above, I feel that there is nothing about the TAN template that needs fixing. Those times that I needed to navigate through the archives it served me well, so I don't feel it needs any more bells and whistles than it already has. Rather than blend it together with another more complicated template, I would prefer to maintain status quo on this one. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

:::User:Steel1943 The main thing I think is that the TAN template is easier to use for those contributors like me who have only a few archive pages, while the other template appears to be designed for use with a good deal more archive pages. So the question would be: would a merge be able to maintain the utility for those users who have a lot of archive pages while continuing to be simple and elegant for those of us with a dozen or fewer archive pages? (PS added by – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX!)

::::Paine Ellsworth, I completely understand where you stand. Being that I only have about 2–3 archive pages myself (but do not use either one of these templates currently due to how I have my archive pages arranged), if I didn't understand exactly how {{Tl|Aan}} worked, I would not have wanted to use it either. However, after looking into the intricacies of {{Tl|Aan}} and finding that it displays only archive pages that actually exist, I found it to be a bit helpful. Usually, it will have a range of, if I recall, 2 pages going each direction, then it skips 5 in both direction. However, it will not even display links to nonexistent pages (which I find a bit nice.) In fact, at this point, since this is a merge discussion, I wonder if there could also be a modifier added to {{Tl|Aan}} that would give the user the option to include a parameter to use the old appearance? I say this because currently, {{Tl|Aan}} is built in a way where the user can customize the way their archive bar appears: for the sake of user talk pages, I wonder if the appearance of {{Tl|Tan}} could be implemented into {{Tl|Aan}} as a "yes/no" modifier. Steel1943 (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• The name of the merged template should be prefixed with "talk archive", because that's the main point, the navigation is just a bonus over {{tl|talk archive}}. Also, the merged version should default to putting the explanation *first* and navigation second. Don't care whether it's within the box or outside of it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• As long as I can type {{tan}} and get a link to the previous archive and a redlink to the future archive I'm not fussed what happens. But if those things are going to be jeopardised, then I would be opposed. If a merge goes ahead which somehow results in a loss of the current functionality of TAN, then it's highly likely that someone will create a new template with that functionality as there are a number of regular talkpage archivers who like TAN's navigation functionality. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

::Completely agree with this. I have used this template on dozens, if not hundreds of archive pages. It is simple to use and helpful. I don't object to a merge if it stays just like that, otherwise I would be opposed. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Merge, assuming no loss in functionality. Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• Merge if the functionality stays the same, otherwise oppose. Epicgenius (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Merge with the resulting functionality as in {{tlx|Automatic archive navigator/sandbox}}. Based on the examples of the {{tl|Automatic archive navigator}} template, it is supposed to have redlinks. {{tlx|Automatic archive navigator/sandbox}} already includes all options mentioned on the Template:Talk archive navigation page with exactly the same syntax. The primary functional difference is that {{tl|aan}} provides more links up/down the archives. The look and feel difference is that {{tl|aan}} places links to other archive pages inside the box and above the box text whereas {{tl|tan}} places links below and outside of the box. Makyen (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2013 (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). 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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Images}}

This template is used on categories which hold images. The text starts off {{quote|This page is part of Wikipedia's repository of public domain and freely usable images, such as photographs, videos, maps, diagrams, drawings, screenshots, and equations. Please do not list images which are only usable under the doctrine of fair use, images whose license restricts copying or distribution to non-commercial use only, or otherwise non-free images here.}}

With some exceptions, free images should be transwikied to the Commons, leaving mostly non-free images in the categories this template was originally designed for. In short, the Commons made it obsolete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:Nominator's change of desired outcome This is now a straw poll to see if after a cursory check of all 200-300 categories that this template is used in, all categories that are "just" for holding free images should be mass-nominated for deprecation and eventual deletion and if such a CfD passes, that this template be replaced with one that indicates that non-free images in those categories will be removed from the categories and free images will be marked for moving to the commons (unless exempted, e.g. main page image), and that the categories will be deleted when they eventually become empty. This TfD is just a straw poll not an actual CfD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep as I oppose deletion as even though "most" free images belong on Commons:, that is not "all". This template could be kept and used for those few exceptions. Also, it will serve as a method of finding some of the misplaced images which should likely be moved to commons as most newcomers wouldn't know that they belong there (yes, I realize the upload wizard tells them like 3 or 4 times, but who reads all that crap, really?). Just my thoughts on it. Technical 13 (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and modify. This template is largely used in categories full of images that should be sent to Commons. Let's rework it substantially to read something like "This category is full of free images. Please help by moving these images to Commons" Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2013 (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). 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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|Peaches & Herb}}

WP:NENAN, links only four articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• keep for now, recently created, and Peaches & Herb recorded quite a few of notable songs. Frietjes (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

:*How do you know they're notable? Create the content first, then the template, not vice versa. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep First, NENAN is not policy, it's a user essay. Second, read the essay again - five articles isn't presented as a rule, but as a suggestion. In this case, this is clearly a well-known band with several iconic songs, and tons of room for expansion. Who cares about some imaginary number when you consider that? Ego White Tray (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

:*Again, why not create the content first, instead of creating a mostly barren template that barely links anything? Isn't template-first putting the cart before the horse? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an appropriate navbox with sufficent content now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Ugh... You're all right. I agree with {{U|TenPoundHammer|TPH}} that the content should be created first then the nav template, but I also agree that there is plenty of stuff there to make this template. So, if someone can make one more article (a stub would do), then there could be five links here and this could be simply closed with everyone being happy about it. Technical 13 (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Now has five articles, plus Book:Peaches & Herb. Also, thanks to everybody above for the keep support. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)--Discographer
• Keep, useful for navigation, no strong arguments given for deletion. WP:NENAN is just an user's essay... written by the same nominator. Cavarrone 11:58, 18 November 2013 (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). 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

:{{Tfd links|UNAM Pumas bowl game navbox}}

Only three links. Fitnr 00:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• indifferent as we have Template:Xavier Musketeers bowl game navbox which is even less useful. check [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=bowl+games&prefix=Wikipedia%3ATemplates+for+d&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search this search] for similar discussions, some which closed as delete, but the templates were subsequently recreated. Frietjes (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep; note that I'm the re-creator of said Xavier navbox. The issue here is that these navigation templates are a common feature of bowl game articles and are conspicuous by their absence. They link related articles which are not often otherwise discussed in text yet which are related. Considered as part of the article, instead of just an abstract occupant of the template namespace, the template is both necessary and useful. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2013 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.