Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 July 25



Template:United States Collegiate Ski and Snowboard Association (USCSA)

 * 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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Overly large navbox that is more appropriate as a category. torri2(talk/contribs) 21:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * United States Collegiate Ski and Snowboard Association (USCSA)
 * Delete per nom.  Navbox links between universities and not the listed names of the sports teams.  Links have nothing to do with skiing or snowboarding.  The template is simply masquerading as a list in a navigational template.68.148.186.93 (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that the links between universities only is a problem. Most of these schools have athletic programs that would be linked if set up that way like normal conferences navboxes. But with this being a single sport conference I have a few issues that I would like to be heard. I posted a notice on a couple of active college sports projects to hopefully get some enlightened views on this topic.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw this discussion several days ago, and was generally inclined to support the template's deletion, given that (a) the included links are to articles about universities, not college ski teams, (b) the non-existence of any individual ski team articles to which to link, and (c) the only articles on which this navbox is transcluded are university articles, not college sports team articles. Given those facts, this navbox seems highly inappropriate, and I'm not sure what navigation purpose it serves.  But if you have some pro-keep counterpoints, I would love to hear them.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't necessarily have a reason to support or not support. Since this is a skiing specific conference then it would be appropriate to link it to the skiing programs such as football only conferences. But since there apparently aren't any then I don't have any reason to vote for keep, therefore I didn't. When I posted it on the CFB and College BB projects it was mearly a PSA. Such as those you often advocate.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood, Bluejay. Thanks.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Conceptually, this navbox is an incoherent mess: (1) the included links are to articles about universities, not college ski teams, (2) there are no college ski team articles to which to link, and (3) the only articles on which this navbox is transcluded are university articles, not college sports team articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - After originally leaning on staying neutral, I have to believe deletion is the best option per nom and Dirtlawyer 1. I originally thought this was a conference but now I understand it is a league. I would support the navbox's re-creation if a) this navbox consisted of leagues conferences (when they all have articles). b) If these teams were to be linked to the ski teams of which Denver and NE are the only ones which exist. Also, c) any skiing conference navbox if created would have to link to the ski teams, and not to the universities.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2015 (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.

Template:Infobox NECBL All-Star Game

 * 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 (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Redundant to Infobox baseball game. Just 13 transclusions. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox NECBL All-Star Game
 * Delete per nom. Alakzi (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's rationale. There is no difference in functionality.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2015 (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.

Template:Infobox MLB All-Star Game

 * 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. Discussions about refactoring as a wrapper can continue outside TfD and consensus is for this template to be retained at least in some form. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Redundant to Infobox baseball game. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox MLB All-Star Game
 * Keep Has essential parameters that the standard doesn't have.  True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 08:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Which are..? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It's an annual game, so it also has built in navigation to the previous and next year's games. With some tinkering, I'd imagine it can invoke  to get most of its functionality, but this should remain, if only as a wrapper to provide a simplified UI and consistent formatting throughout this series of games.—Bagumba (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So add the navigation to the generic template. Or use a succession box. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem if is made into that "generic template" to eliminate duplicate code, but  should remain as a convenience wrapper. Also, if one looks at a sample transclusion e.g. 2015 Major League Baseball All-Star Game, wikilinks like "Television", "TV announcers", "Radio", and "Radio announcers" currently point to MLB All-Star game specific article.  This type of customization is better abstracted through this template, shielding the editor from formatting details and ensuring uniformity across articles in the series. In the future, such refactoring can be done without a TfD if backwards compatibility is assured.—Bagumba (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Those links are i) badly constructed, per WP:EGG and ii) in any case not necessary. TfD is th usual forum for discussions such as this. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no preference on whether those links stay or not per WP:EGG. However, standardized naming conventions and pre-formatting navigation links for editors is enough reason to not delete. Eggs and such might be better discussed outside of a TfD and with domain expertise and wider participation at WikiProject Baseball.  I'd like to reiterate that if a wrapper provided the exact functionality and was reliably tested, I don't see where we need the bureaucracy of TfDs for these types of merges.—Bagumba (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Add navigation functionality to Infobox baseball game and delete per nom. Alakzi (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I would type out my thoughts, but realize that I would just be repeating almost exactly what said. No reason to delete.  Go   Phightins  !  17:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am not opposed to a merge/wrap, but the existing functionality must be preserved per Bagumba. It's not the purpose of TfD to dictate the substantive content of infoboxes, especially when such data is pertinent to the subject.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrapper to be found in the sandbox. Alakzi (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please take a look-see at Alakzi's handiwork. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that a wrapper can be done, and have complete confidence in Alakzi's skills. For WikiProject Baseball, I think anyone that wanted to merge and retain a template as a wrapper could just create some representative test cases with side-by-side comparison for quick evaluation. If no functionality was lost, it'd be approved w/o need for TfD bureaucracy.—Bagumba (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2015 (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.

Template:Infobox Wild Card

 * 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. Consensus herein is for the template to be retained. North America1000 21:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Redundant to Infobox baseball game. Used on only 6 articles. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox Wild Card
 * Keep The template is used so little because the round of the playoffs it represents is only 3 years old (4 if you count the yet-to-happen 2015 editions).  True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 08:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This does not address the redundancy. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because there is no redundancy, go look at the two templates in use. You will see that they are coded entirely differently and are used differently.  True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 19:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Redundancy" is not a synonym for "identical code". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No one said it did. I said the templates are coded different so they act different. They're two entirely different templates with two almost entirely different purposes. They only thing they have in common is the sport.  True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 19:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And the subject. And most of the parameters. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It's an annual game, so it also has built-in navigation to the previous and next year's games. With some tinkering, I'd imagine it can invoke  to get most of its functionality, but this should remain, if only as a wrapper to provide a simplified UI and consistent formatting throughout this series of games.—Bagumba (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So add the navigation to the generic template. Or use a succession box. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Andy, FYI, succession boxes have been deprecated and removed by most of the sports projects because they are ugly and kludgey. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But not by Wikipedia. More WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Add navigation functionality to Infobox baseball game and delete per nom. Alakzi (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A possibility, but see Bagumba's comments below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep MLB changed the playoffs like three years ago; this will have more use as time goes on ... again, no reason to delete.  Go  Phightins  !  17:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One addition per year is very low traffic; but in any case the redundancy alone, regardless of the low use, justifies deletion. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's two uses a year.  True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 21:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Two additions per year is very low traffic. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem if is made into a generic template, and this turns into a wrapper. However, there is no reason to delete this when it saves editors from some customization, not to mention it ensures uniformity by removing some level of human error from all transclusions.—Bagumba (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I endorse Bagumba's comment above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2015 (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.

Template:Canadian politics/party colours/histogram

 * 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 all subpages; histmerge original template. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) I refactored this to create the more generic Composition histogram. suggest history merging it with that template. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Canadian politics/party colours/histogram
 * Canadian politics/party colours/histogram/0
 * Canadian politics/party colours/histogram/1
 * Canadian politics/party colours/histogram/2
 * Canadian politics/party colours/histogram/3
 * Canadian politics/party colours/histogram/4
 * Canadian politics/party colours/histogram/5
 * Canadian politics/party colours/histogram/6
 * Canadian politics/party colours/histogram/7
 * Canadian politics/party colours/histogram/8
 * Canadian politics/party colours/histogram/9
 * Canadian politics/party colours/histogram/10
 * Canadian politics/party colours/histogram/11
 * Canadian politics/party colours/histogram/12
 * notifying User:The Tom. Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete all User:Frietjes has done a brilliant job of unifying all the templates and taking them out of subspace so that a shorter name and easier to find template can be used across many more disciplines.68.148.186.93 (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2015 (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.

Template:FIFA Confederations Cup finalists template

 * 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. North America1000 21:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC) a template that links non-useful templates. not used on any article... Koppapa (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * FIFA Confederations Cup finalists template
 * Delete - Unused and unloved. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --torri2(talk/contribs) 19:12, 27 July 2015 (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.

Template:PlaneFreak Studios

 * 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 subst and delete. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Textbook WP:NENAN. Well, not so textbook. Only used in one user's userspace to navigate between WP:FAKEARTICLEs. —Keφr 08:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * PlaneFreak Studios
 * Delete unencyclopedic. --torri2(talk/contribs) 20:20, 31 July 2015 (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.

EGAFD and BGAFD templates

 * 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 all. Consensus is the templates are not redundant because of the speciality of content of the databases and that linking templates are still useful. Certainly no consensus for deletion. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC) The websites (http://www.egafd.com/) and http://www.bgafd.co.uk) haven't been accessible since June 1st and there functions are redundant as Template:Afdb name, Template:Afdb movie, Template:IAFD name and Template:IAFD movie serve the same purpose. WikiU2013 (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Egafd name
 * Egafd male name
 * Egafd movie
 * Bgafd name
 * Bgafd movie
 * Depends.
 * "Male name" could be deleted: not/seldom used, plus egafd/bgafd just have succinct info about males, by choice.
 * "Movie" templates seem not/seldom used. May be redundant with other templates.
 * For female templates, egafd/bgafd are NOT redundant with other sites. Being European-only, they often provide more complete info for European actresses/films, plus unique self-compiled photo galleries illustrating physical characteristics. The info presentation is very different than on iafd and afdb, and then there is/was the forum area and a more open and easy way of contributing and interacting with editors for anyone interested. It's a real shame the sites are down given the amount of unique info found there, especially for old/European titles. There's been a claim by the site owners (and great hope from users) that the sites will be up again in the future, but for now we have the not-quite-up-to-date-but-still-useful web archives.
 * It would be a shame to drop links to such a great database. A site being down is in itself not a good reason to drop its support entirely; references to archived versions can be useful too, and you can't simply drop links where they're used to source facts in articles. And, if we drop afdb too, we'll have to rely on imdb (very incomplete info for porn) and iafd (American releases only, and, by the way, a ridiculous practice of altering movie names (and so often their meaning, in French for instance) by always dropping the starting determinant -- a very bad thing to do for a reliable database).
 * To summarize my pov, keep only egafd_name and bgafd_name. They point to an information mine on European actresses not found elsewhere (i.e. American sites). -- 83.101.43.209 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep unless the websites don't come back. In no way are these templates redundant. As the IP editor wrote, the databases at BGAFD and EGAFD include many people and films not covered by AFDB and IAFD. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Wikipedia Pornography Project has maintained for quite some time that both the British Girl Adult Film Database and the European Girl Adult Film Database include European adult films, which are often not covered by other databases, and that both their filmographies are reliable. They can continue to be useful even if the websites themselves never come back online, as their information has apparently been archived online. While I've rarely come across the use of "Egafd male name", "Egafd movie", and "Bgafd movie" templates in Wikipedia articles, that doesn't mean that they serve no use at all. Guy1890 (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * keep, seems to be putting the cart before the horse. if the websites are banned per WP:ELNO, we should be removing all external links to these sites.  however, if the websites are not banned, then having a template to link to them seems useful. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep at first glance bgafd.co.uk and egafd.com appear to be inactive, but that is only the homepage. Entries for specific individuals (e.g. Samantha Bentley at BGAFD and Annette Schwarz at EGAFD) remain accessible. The filmographies on these websites list films which aren't listed on IMDb, IAFD, or AFDB. For example, Samantha Bentley's BGAFD entry lists the films Dress To Thrill, Hands On Orgasms 11, Keeping It In The Family, and Taking It Interns, which aren't listed in her IMDb, IAFD, or AFDB entires. In Annette Schwarz's case, her EGAFD entry lists Annegreth: zugekleistert!, Annette Schwarz - Ein schwanzgeiles Biest, and perhaps many more (I did not check every single title because the list is lengthy). "Annegreth: zugekleistert!" and "Annette Schwarz - Ein schwanzgeiles Biest" aren't listed in Schwarz's IMDb, IAFD, or AFDB entires. These two websites are very useful as external links in articles on British and European performers, since they list films that other databases don't. Rebecca1990 (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2015 (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.

Template:Baby games

 * 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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Fails WP:NAVBOX 1,3,4.
 * Baby games

None of the articles are strictly baby games. It currently holds 4 articles tenuously related to "baby game" whatever the definition. And lastly, and most importantly, we don't have an article "baby game" that can satisfy WP:NAVBOX 1 and WP:NAVBOX 3.68.148.186.93 (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously? If ever an example of "not everything needs a navbox" is required, this should be Exhibit A-1. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * With an ion cannon from orbit, delete. --Izno (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a suitable topic for a navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2015 (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.

Template:Nursery rhymes

 * 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC) A category for nursery rhymes and list of nursery rhymes already exist. The navbox is redundant and useless since it is a duplicate of the list. Further subcategories such as the current "counting rhymes" are useless and pointless as nursery rhymes have too many overlapping characteristics. In addition, this does not aid in navigation and the nursery rhymes are unrelated except for the fact that they are nursery rhymes, hence the existence of list of nursery rhymes and the rightful deletion of this template.68.148.186.93 (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nursery rhymes
 * Keep The category and list article may exist, but navboxes serve to navigate you to other related articles quickly. Nominator hasn't given a proper reason to delete. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 22:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per WP:CLN, since the template does not provide navigation value in addition to the category or the list--a navigation template should organize the information differently and at the moment it's not. --Izno (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a reason to keep it and do some work on it to organize it, not to delete it. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 20:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is a reason to delete due to duplicity and redundancy. Additionally, the protocol that you request is the fact that it fails WP:NAVBOX 1.68.148.186.93 (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's lazy editing what you're advocating. "Why fix it when I can just TfD it?" <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 22:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What is there to fix? Its a hodgepodge of nursery rhymes where they have no connection with each other.  This is strictly what we are not supposed to do per WP:CLN.68.148.186.93 (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep : I quite agree. Lots of fuzzy thinking. Each is complementary of the other and I wonder why all the fuss.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierreneuve (talk • contribs) 23:09, 24 August 2015 — Pierreneuve (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete as redundant to both a list and category. --torri2(talk/contribs) 20:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Articles do not relate to one another except that they are all nursery rhymes.  There seems to be a series of these all created by the same editor.  See also Party games, etc, etc.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are many nursery rhymes, but all of the ones on this list are among the very most well-known and the very most prevalent ones. When dealing with a large body of items like this, it is acceptable to list the ones of top importance and use for the sake of navigation. The fact a category and a list exists doesn't help the reader efficiently navigate such a body. If you were to get children's book focused on these rather than a scholarly or compendium listing, the contents of this navigation box would most certainly be contained within. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Chris, what I meant here is that you are claiming that the navbox should list a certain number of articles that are most important, but where is the evidence of those currently in the navbox are those which are most important?Curb Chain (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hyacinth (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * delete, better covered by a category and list article. Frietjes (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOTDUP, lists serve different purposes than navboxes, in particular where it would be likely that a "see also" link to a list would occur, a navbox is clearly a better choice. This one also has useful subdivisions, providing easy navigation at a glance with a single click. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  03:31, 28 August 2015 (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.