The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Izno (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:R of dubious utility (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Propose deleting Category:Redirects of dubious utility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: If a redirect appears dubious to an editor, it should be RfD'd, not placed in this rcat. DefaultFree (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Persent101: pinging editor who added this dubious template to a number of redirects. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The category describes itself as "use this category for redirects that don't add value to the encyclopedia if you can't be bothered to nominate them for deletion" — but since listing a redirect for RFD isn't in any significant way more complicated than adding this template, it's likely that if you can't be bothered to nominate the thing for deletion, then you also can't be bothered to add this template either. So the solution to an editor's not-bothered attitude is to get bothered, not this.
  In theory, I could see the value of this as an "I'm not sure if this is useful or not, so other editors with more experience should evaluate that" sort of thing, but even that only works if other editors are actually reviewing it, which clearly isn't happening since there are things that have already been in here for months or years. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Maybe we need one for cats we don't like but couldn't be bothered to bring here, Category:Meh. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this belongs at WP:TFD, given it is populated by {{R of dubious utility}}. Would participants be alright with relisting this discussion, but to TfD? Pinging @RevelationDirect, Marcocapelle, Bearcat, Persent101, and DefaultFree. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good to me! Bit of a chicken/egg situation with the template/category; I wasn't sure whether to initially list it here or there or both. DefaultFree (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a relist of a CfD nomination (permalink). Per WP:CFD, If a category is populated solely by a template (other than a stub template, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Stub types below) and you are proposing to delete both the category and template, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. I have added {{R of dubious utility}} to this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• To ping me as an actual participant is overly generous. But sure, moving this to the right venue makes sense. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The category should be emptied by removing the template from redirects that are not quite TfD-worthy, even if they are of somewhat dubious utility (not everything that is of dubious utility is TfD-worthy), on the basis of editorial judgement, and by nominating the rest of the redirects for deletion. The template should then be deleted.—Alalch E. 22:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  An illustration of the above: I've removed the template from 3 A M. Not TfD worthy in my opinion. Just an extra space relative to 3 AM; a single plausible typo. On the other hand, I've nominated 0 A.D. (video game for deletion. —Alalch E. 22:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but only after assessing the utility of the redirects in this category, and sending applicable titles to RfD if appropriate. If someone finds usefulness from any of these, then the utility would appear to no longer be dubious. But in the future, it's preferable to discuss these particular redirects at the appropriate venues (talk pages or RfD) rather than leaving a tag labeling it as dubious. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Depopulate then delete: that is, RfD any redirects of no value then delete the category and template. — Bilorv (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Now depopulated, therefore: Delete in light of the above (post-relist) discussion.—Alalch E. 14:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 23:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Organ transplantation in fiction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This meets some but not all of the criteria at WP:NAVBOX. The topic is too broad. It is not true that without the navbox many articles would link each other in a "See also" section, as the fiction spans centuries, media and disparate genres, themes and plots. The articles do not significantly refer to each other. A category, Category:Fiction about organ transplantation, already exists, and indicates that the navbox would have to contain 100 articles or more for completeness. — Bilorv (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nomination. Theooolone (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. ✗plicit 00:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Emperor Nintoku's family tree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Feels pretty superfluous. Analogues don’t seem to exist for most other historical emperors (unless I’m unusually oblivious). Purpose is kinda unclear. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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; deleted as G5 by Phantomsteve (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Abu Bakr Abdullah (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no need for such template when there is rarely anything in the sidebar. It was created by a blocked sockpuppet SharqHabib and the template Abu Bakr was already deleted quarce times Jemhorrett (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 keep. Withdrawn. Somehow I missed that the template is transcluded after all, in Wikipedia:Templates with names differing only in capitalization. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 18:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not transcluded anywhere and should not be transcluded anywhere because it isn't useful for anything. If an editor wants to say that {{Cite Web}} redirects to {{Cite web}}, whereas {{Quote web}} redirects to {{Cite web.}}, or whatever (???), they can use {{tlx|Cite Web}} redirects to {{tlx|Cite web}}, whereas {{tlx|Quote web}} redirects to {{tlx|Cite web.}}. Etc. —Alalch E. 18:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Izno (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Welcome-turnaround (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly redundant to {{Welcome-unconstructive}} and {{Welcome-warning}}. I could find no existing uses of this template, and this template is not likely to be used in the future because its creator has been checkuser blocked indefinitely (see log). While the premise of this template (that it is possible to identify intentionally disruptive new users who are likely to be interested in contributing constructively) is an interesting one, especially in the context of hoaxing, it is one that I suspect is not shared by the majority of editors. (Also, some of the wording is awkward, and there's even a typo and an amusing case of an unclear pronoun antecedent. However, those issues can be fixed easily if this template is kept.) PleaseStand (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not redundant. Not mentioned in the other templates:

... it's not too late. You can turn around and become a constructive editor. Please consider this and think about the readers, the people who come here for serious, neutral, and above all, true information.

Would be happy to see the said errors (typo, etc.) fixed.

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1202872215 fixes the errors. PleaseStand (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This template is silly and should never be used.—Alalch E. 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ideally (imo) there should only be one type of these templates. There is really no reason to keep on creating more of these. Gonnym (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That "you can turn around and become a constructive editor" line is really good in my opinion. I don't mind if this gets deleted but I think that line should be incorporated into a highly used template somehow. Theooolone (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! I like that line too. :-) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 delete per author request Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Earthlings? (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with no main article (deleted) and only two blue links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 2024 February 20. Izno (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NFL lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An indiscriminate group of all NFL lists that is redundant to the more traditional and appropriate {{NFL records}} and {{NFL starting quarterbacks navbox}} navigation templates. It's typical placement is also irregular, taking up valuable article real estate that should be dedicated to something pertinent to the list that the reader is reading (like an infobox or image). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's largely a duplicate of {{NFL records}}, and what isn't is just an indiscriminate collection of any ol' NFL-related list.—Bagumba (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Adding that it fails WP:SIDEBAR: [reply]

  The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related

  It is so loose, that the box itself is a collection of collapsed groupings, since it's so cluttered.—Bagumba (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, this extremely useful navbox, placed near the top of their article entries, does more for football record navigation than anything I've seen on Wikipedia. I've used it dozens if not hundreds of times. It is compact, well edited, comprehensive and functional, the criteria for navboxes. As for taking up valuable WikiRealEstate, it belongs and serves its purpose right where it is, often under an opening image or in the space otherwise only used by the table-of-contents. And lists don't usually have infoboxes, as mentioned in the nom as one of the reasons that this long-term template was nominated. It is a welcome navbox after Sunday's games, a quick look around the record book. Let's keep this one. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed the long and undue "list of starting quarterbacks", which has always seemed out-of-place and tangential on this compact template. This addresses one of the main nom reasons for deletion, and makes the quarterback section much more presentable. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note for the closer, although the removal of the QBs is welcome, I still stand by my original deletion rationale on the basis that it is duplicative to {{NFL records}}, which is the more traditional way of navigating between interrelated lists on Wikipedia. There is a reason that WP:NAVBOX states that navigational aids should be placed at the bottom of pages and that the placement of sidebars in an article lead is discouraged by MOS:LEAD. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAVBOX highlights side-navboxes as normal and applicable to pages, and says to use them on a case-by-case basis. Nothing wrong with them. NAVBOX also says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines", which this one does. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NAVBOX, these templates should meet the following guidelines:

All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. - "NFL lists" I guess is a single, coherent subject; although National Football League records (fundamentally a disambig page) and {{NFL records}} makes more sense as the subject and navbox

The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. - nope

The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. - nope for the whole thing, maybe yes for the individual sub-topics

There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. - nope (List of National Football Leagues lists would be a fun article topic)

If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. - nope, no one is listing out most of these in a See also section

WP:NAVBOX continues with Navigation templates located in the top-right corner of articles (sometimes called a "sidebar" or "part of a series" template) should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers. The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines. If the articles are not tightly related, a footer template or navbox, located at the bottom of the article, may be more appropriate. Note that the placement of sidebars in an article lead is discouraged by MOS:LEAD (though they may be permitted on a case-by-case basis). (my italic emphasis added)

Again, sidebars are meant to provide a limited overview of a cohesive subject (like World War II and {{TopicTOC-World War II}}). Not 50+ loosely related lists nested inside a bunch of collapsed sub-templates. The reasoning you provided amounts to "you like it". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with side templates if they are done well, cover the subject concisely, and offer the readers a way to explore the topic. The best and brightest records of the National Football League mapped out in one easily understood collapsed template is like milk to a kitten for football stats fans. I would bet a WikiDollar that thousands of readers like and use it, and probably hundreds of thousands have navigated with it at least once. Your criticism about how many articles it links to, starting in the nom by criticizing 81, now you don't like 50 and find even that number high or unusual? (It isn't) That, and then implying that somehow it is wrong that the template contains collapsed sections as if that were unusual (it's not), shouldn't deep-six such a good site map. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, largely duplicative of {{NFL records}}. using a navbox here is better since it doesn't crowd other right-floating content. the only page that I found that has this sidebar and doesn't have {{NFL records}} is List of National Football League awards, which is covered by {{NFL awards}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The delete editors here argue that duplication of a footer navbox negates the usefulness of the sidebar which, if taken as a reason for removal, would denigrate hundreds of other sidebar navboxes which have been a traditional component of Wikipedia. This should certainly not be accepted as a reason for deletion. This one is particularly useful, compact, direct, well organized and valuable for its scope and interest to both casual and longtime readers, as are hundreds of other sidebar navboxes which duplicate some of the footer information. I've personally used this one hundreds of times for easy access and navigation after a Sunday's component of games has ended. Randy Kryn (User talk:Randy Kryn) 10:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Frietjes. Izno (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.