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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:FEC color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:FEC lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:FEC stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/FEC left/AllAboardFlorida (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/FEC left/Brightline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/FEC left/Main (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/FEC right/AllAboardFlorida (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/FEC right/Brightline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/FEC right/Dixie Flagler (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/FEC right/Havana Special (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/FEC right/Main (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/FEC right/South Wind (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Florida East Coast Railway and Module:Adjacent stations/Brightline. All transclusions updated. Mackensen (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2019 (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:Infobox television episode. The main concern of the opposition is that the usage of this template is significantly different than {{infobox television episode}}, but the target template contains a |module= option that will allow any missing parameters to be added that don't fit in with the merger directly. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Inhumans IMAX (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox television episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Inhumans IMAX with Template:Infobox television episode.
only 3 uses. No need for a custom template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Did the nominating research view the articles at all? What basis do they have for "No need for a custom template"? This just seems like a mass deletion because they personally don't like forks. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Alex 21 Has stated in another discussion that his position on this matter is now neutral. U-Mos (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alex 21: uh... nearly all the parameters are duplicates of the parameters in Template:Infobox television episode. Additionally WP:INFOCOL and I would remind you to WP:AGF and not just assume that I personally don't like the forks... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm allowed to AGF and still state my opinion on what this appears. Compare Inhumans premiere to another episode and note the great amount of difference, given the format's appearance as both a television episode and film. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I have not. I still oppose the deletion, but am not worried about the result of the discussion. Do not put words into my mouth; consider this a warning. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So being used in relatively few articles doesn't matter again now? Interesting. U-Mos (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can smell the straw... -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, I'd advise caution with your interpretation of any non-keep result, as based on your comments in another thread, you are intent on ignoring the outcome decision, if it isn't a keep. Your alternative solution was not one of the options proposed here by anyone, and for what it's worth, I oppose it. --Gonnym (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, that it not what is being discussed here; what's being discussed here is to delete the wrapper that holds the content of this template. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to interpret it as you wish, but what is discussed here is merging/replacing the infobox used, as can be seen by the comments. If you replace this infobox, with a different infobox, that will be gaming the system, which I don't recommend, but do as you wish. --Gonnym (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see no merge !votes in this discussion, and only one comment mentioning the word "merge". -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as with Alex 21, please look at the template documentation. It is not simply a fork for a fork, but clearly spelled out that this is a custom infobox pulling formatting and parameters from {{Infobox television}}, {{Infobox television episode}} and {{Infobox film}}. nearly all the parameters are duplicates of the parameters in Template:Infobox television episode: yes, for the most part, but not all. As currently used, if merged, 7 of the parameters used to show data related to this unique content would not be valid, thus, rendering the infobox incomplete. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Plenty of television shows have also had film-style premieres; a forked infobox which would only ever be used in three articles seems like the wrong outcome. Alternative solutions would be using a separate, smaller infobox for the film premiere, or simply not presenting that data in an infobox. Another possibility might be modifying {{Infobox television episode}} to accept an embedded infobox as a separate parameter for situations in which episodes had theatrical releases. The original Battlestar Galactica comes to mind as possible use case; Saga of a Star World was both the pilot episode (typically shown in three parts) and released theatrically in various markets, with some editing. Mackensen (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mackensen: I can't think of any other example such as the Inhumans case where the intent from the start was to release the episodes theatrically before broadcast. The example you provided isn't quite the same, as from my reading of the article, it was only done to recoup production costs, not with the intent on the onset to be a joint theatrical release and television broadcast. And yes, other series have had "premieres", but more so as a screening. So this is still a wholly unique instance where this custom infobox is warranted. I also very much disagree with your suggestion of using a separate, smaller infobox for the film premiere, or simply not presenting that data in an infobox because why should the info need to be split or removed, when this singular infobox covers it all? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Favre1fan93: a single-use or limited-use infobox is an unreasonable outcome and should be avoided at all costs. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Mackensen, policy or guideline that states as such? -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      • @Alex 21: I'm not aware of any policy or guideline which commands such an outcome (this would be a much shorter discussion if there were). WP:INFOCOL is neither, but there is much in it which is sensible and carries some weight at TfD. Maintaining a fork of an infobox for a single article imposes an inordinate maintenance cost. Maintaining a fork to represent a couple pieces of information which are easily discussed in the main text does not, in my view, justify that cost. Mackensen (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Opposing for now per Alex 21 I've taken a look at the use of the template and although it is single use it's different enough to keep. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Mackensen. The article in general needs to decide whether its subject is primarily a film or a TV episode, and exist accordingly rather than attempt to straddle the boundary with a bizarre one-use hybrid template. From a cursory glance, looks like TV to me (ABC Studios/Marvel Television are the production companies listed) - and there'd be no tangible drawback to using the TV episode infobox and putting any other information in the theatrical release section. U-Mos (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that The article in general needs to decide whether its subject is primarily a film or a TV episode. As has been pointed out, yes it is episodes for a TV series, but it's unique production (with IMAX Corp.) and release (on IMAX screens) warrants how it is focused, plus the infobox that has been created. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There is no need for a single-use template. If there is some really particular information that you can't shoehorn into an infobox, that's why you have text in an article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• To be honest, I'm leaning to agree with the supports here. While this episode was released in theaters, it was still always meant to be a two-part television episode. This was only done for a promotional boost. Out of the 7 unique parameters that {{Infobox Inhumans IMAX}} has: |country= and |language= are relevant for any episode infobox. If |starring= is relevant here, it is relevant for any episode (which the episode infobox has decided against). This just leaves: |executive_producer=, |distributor=, |gross= and |budget=. However, if we want to treat this as a film, then {{Infobox television}} is already setup for this. Bottom line, this template can use either, but it really shouldn't create a new one just for this. --Gonnym (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updating my vote: Just to make it clear, that the resulting infobox from this discussion should replace the infobox on the page. --Gonnym (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Support per nom. Seems to just 1 use and it is difficult to believe that this one is so unique that it requires its own infobox. Nigej (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: This looks like a copy of the "Television episode" template. -Mardus /talk 19:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mardus: EXACTLY!!! lol. That is the point of the TFD... :-p --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is a rather unique case and the infobox is much more helpful than any regualar ones would be. Yes info can be included in the article, but so can any other info that would go in a regular infobox, yet we still have tons of infoboxes, because they're helpful and aide the reader. Neither a film or a TV episode template is a good replacement.★Trekker (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2019 (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 no consensus. The major issue seems to be whether we should be using templates to display these images or whether it should be done as a gallery - there is no consensus at this TFD either way, so I think the best thing to do would be to hold a wider discussion about the entire family and what it's trying to achieve. No prejudice against renomination following such a conversation. Primefac (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PDB Gallery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

... and all ~2800 subtemplates. Not a valid navbox: contains images rather than links. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Who cares if it's not a valid navbox? It's seemingly not intended as one (you might as well nominate {{Infobox person}} on the same grounds) but as a collapsible gallery that provides useful images without taking up a lot of space. It's being used properly at Vasopressin, for example, and I see no reason to object to that usage. Nyttend (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd tend to agree with Nyttend as I don't see any issue with this template. If kept, then it will be worth revisiting Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_4#Unused_PDB_gallery_templates: there a subset of this template's subpages got deleted as they were unused at the time: the only thing this achieves is to cripple the template's functionality. – Uanfala (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with gallery if needed and Delete templates - navboxes can't be seen by many of our users. If the images are important to the article (which it seems they are), then they should be shown to those users as well. Use either {{Gallery}} or the <gallery> tag. Also it should follow WP:GALLERY and be placed inside the actual article with prose explaining the gallery and not tucked away at the end without context. --Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get the impression that this template is actually taking advantage of its invisibility to some users. Instead of displaying a bunch of minor images to everyone, it functionally says "these images are useful, but to a minor extent, so they're configured to be visible only to people who want them and have the right machine". A major problem with gallery sections (in many cases, but not all) is that they waste a bunch of space on irrelevant or minor-relevant images, but because this one has curated subpages, the irrelevant images are avoided (or obvious to anyone editing the page, if you transcluded the wrong subpage) and we don't spend much space on minor-relevant images. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think what your perceive as an advantage is objectively that. The use of this template exploits a problem in the system to create hidden content for some users which they decide are unworthy of this content, and this clearly is not a visible only to people who want them and have the right machine case, as no user can opt-in to this on mobile, even if they want to see it. The images are either helpful and should be viewed by everyone, or not and should be removed. As a side note, I'm not sure how the exactly navbox content is hidden, whether it is not loaded at all with the page, or loaded but just not shown. If it is loaded, then those viewing on mobile are wasting bandwidth on images they can't see. --Gonnym (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're going off on a tangent here: the question is whether the information displayed in this template is needed and whether a template is the best way to handle this information. If the answer is yes, then the template should be kept, and it turns out that a navbox isn't the best way to display this content, then the template can be edited to display that content in another manner. That's the advantage of having a template, no? – such a change can be done in a single edit to the template, rather than with edits to each of the 2,927 articles that use it. – Uanfala (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did state my initial position was to replace with gallery and follow the gallery guideline. If the information is important or not, I'm not too familiar, but Nyttend is arguing that the images are of minor importance, which seems to point to not. --Gonnym (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2019 (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. Primefac (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Peru TV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox with mostly plaintext and redlinks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep and use - I've cleaned the template so it can now be used. However, some of the articles linked to are from other countries so not sure how valid that list is. --Gonnym (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed additional articles which don't mention a TV station/channel/network and channels that don't mention being aired in Peru. While small, it has 7 real links so passes the minimum needed.

• Keep per Gonnym. I think this template, whilst having some redlinks, links related articles in a manner helpful to readers. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2019 (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. No prejudice against recreation if it can be expanded into what is considered a "well-linked" navbox. Primefac (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Railway stations in Nagaland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox with only 1 link Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep yes, there is one link at present, however this navbox has the potential to be expanded and useful for navigation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only mainspace links on this template are Northeast Frontier Railway zone, Railway station, Nagaland, Lumding railway division, and Dimapur railway station. Nagaland and Railway station aren't placed here for navigational purposes, and NFRZ and the railway division are interstate topics (both are headquartered in Assam) linked here to organise the template, so the Dimapur station is literally the only thing placed here for navigation. I could see a value for this template if every other state had a navbox of this sort, but there's no {{Railway stations in Sikkim}}, so the deletion of this template won't create an isolated hole. Should we get several more articles about Nagaland stations, anyone's free to recreate this template, since adding extra stations will mean that it's not a WP:G4 repost. Nyttend (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2019 (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 2019 April 3. Primefac (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cleanup-SVG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cleanup_image (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies if the bot stops functioning or this template is found to be needed again. Primefac (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, (although typically subst). Do we still need a template like this to inform local users about deletions at Commons, as i thought that was now done by a bot instead? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Potential keep, but I can easily see myself changing my vote. We ought to have a talk-page notice for informing individuals about relevant DRs at Commons. Is there a bot actually doing notifications like this, with or without a substituted template? If so, I'm happy to switch to delete, since a bot doesn't need a subst-only template. Nyttend (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Community Tech bot does. --Gonnym (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay then, delete. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If the bot stops functioning or is blocked again, a template may still be needed. Peter James (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2019 (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. The usage (or not) of the <dfn> tags is not within the scope of this venue. If the tag is found to not be desired, this discussion can be revisited. Primefac (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

We currently have the <dfn> tag being used on about 40 pages, and Template:dfn used on about 80 pages. This tag is apparently just for semantic web purposes, and doesn't benefit readers directly. Sometimes we do put semantic web markup inside templates and things, but it seems like most of the time we try not to clutter up the article text; the Manual of Style says to use HTML markup sparingly. The template adds <dfn> tag, but also has the capability of producing a nice tooltip.

If we were to decide that this tag should be used for its intended purpose, that would mean a campaign of adding it to millions of articles, at least to the bolded term in every intro, and possibly to other terms in the article that define important terminology. The fact that it's used on so few articles after 7 years or so of this template being around indicates to me there's not much support for doing that. While I'm an active user of the semantic web, in this case I think it might be better just to go in the other direction and scrub the project of this tag on the theory that it's unnecessary markup.

There remains the question of what to do about the tooltips. As the template documentation warns, the tooltip contents are not accessible to all users. I think that's an argument for not using that functionality at all, and integrating any definitions into the main article text in all cases. The fact that a tooltip aids understanding is probably an indication of sub-optimal writing, which I think is another argument for scrubbing this template.

So here are the options I can think of:

1. Declare (by not deleting them) <dfn> and {{dfn}} are beneficial, and advocate putting them on millions of articles.
2. Declare (by not deleting them) <dfn> and {{dfn}} are OK to use, but don't promote them.
3. Convert all instances of <dfn> and {{dfn}} for consistency, more control over rendering, and easier parsing. Declare (by not deleting it) {{dfn}} as the preferred form.
4. Delete all instances of <dfn> and instances of {{dfn}} that don't involve a tooltip.
5. Delete all instances of <dfn> and {{dfn}} and integrate tooltip contents into the main article.

I think these are actually ranked from least to most preferable in my view. I'm open to other suggestions if I've missed something or if people don't like any of these choices or have some clever ideas. -- Beland (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (option 2) as potentially useful, and as the correct markup to use for the purpose in question. WP needs to be doing more not less semantic Web stuff as we move into the future and as repurposing of our content broadens, and as we get closer to proper HTML 5 compliance and the site thus gets increasingly easy to machine-parse. Option 3 wouldn't be terrible, but we actually have no real reason to try to get people to stop using plain HTML if they want to. TfD even has a history of deleting HTML-wrapper templates some editors don't think are strictly necessary (albeit that's mostly a very old history, and consensus could have changed, especially given the frequency with which people are using custom CSS and JS these days – we need templates for classes).
  Also, wrong venue: Whether or not <dfn> and {{dfn}} should at this time be used more broadly, as a matter of the guidelines advocating them directly, is a matter probably for an RfC at WT:MOS, not a TfD (and probably also advertised at WP:ACCESSIBILITY, WP:VPTECH, and various other venues). "We're not using it much" isn't really a deletion rationale. And buried at the bottom of a TfD is not the place for a discussion of whether the tooltip system should be dismantled; that's definitely an RfC at VPTECH.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC); clarified, 19:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I sit somewhere in #2 or #3 for now. I think it would be nice if we could get a wikitext version of this tag, so that we could use it in the lead of an article. --Izno (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless the MediaWiki devs want to give us some new wikimarkup for this, a template is the way to do it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Which may not be practical. I know for example that templates don't interact well with the various popups scripts lying around, and it's Yet Another Template. Also, this would be applied to 6 million pages or so. --Izno (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and #1 as a strong advocate for MOS:ACCESSIBILITY. Maybe somewhat leaning to #2. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I arrived at this discussion from MOS:WAW, which describes how to format terms wrapped in <dfn>/{{dfn}} (and has done so since at least 2014). This appearance in the MoS seems like at least a tacit approval by the community (why give advice on the usage of a harmful/useless template?), which would put the status quo somewhere between #1 and #2. Colin M (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Etta Bond (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This singer's has zero notable album or singles, there are three notable featured singles, but since she has no notable recordings of her own, so a navigational template is unnecessary. Aspects (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Also ExR, which is a band she's in.--Launchballer 11:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only notable recordings are where she is the guest vocalist, not the primary creator of the material, so WP:UNDUE for a navbox. Related articles are just filler. No justification to keep this. --woodensuperman 13:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per above. Nigej (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bülent Ersoy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The singer's navigational template consists of two links, her biography and an album redirect back to the biography. Aspects (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Needs way more content before a navbox is useful. Nigej (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing to navigate. --woodensuperman 13:35, 18 March 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:OE template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template consists exclusively of a transclusion of itself, i.e. a "template loop". Since it doesn't contain anything else, the end result is just blank space. I expect the creator was really trying to create something useful; that's why I brought it here instead of speedy-deleting it as a test page. However, the creator's goals haven't been fulfilled and can't be fulfilled without completely starting over. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Relates to some fantasy country called Ostania. Nigej (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems fake information trying to mimic some sort of infobox settlement style by the look of the parameter names. --Gonnym (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2019 (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).