The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Unused template, currencies are using navboxes like Template:Currencies of Asia Bulwersator ( talk) 19:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Unused template with portal redlink Bulwersator ( talk) 18:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was reformat as a list article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was convert to a list article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
For better or for worse, navboxes have evolved into a dual purpose. The primary purpose, of course, is to provide an easy, and reasonably unobtrusive way to let readers know about other relevant articles. It is natural, for example, that the reader of an article about a particular state park might be interested in other parks in the same state. A navbox, with a link to all the other state parks provided that functionality nicely. However, in the case of bios of notable sports persons, the navboxes provide a secondary role: they serve to identify awards and accomplishments of the person, and indicate who else has earned that ward or accomplishment. In the case of a state park, if I look at the nav box, I may very well want to go to another article (although I may be satisfied by seeing the list). In contrast, if I look at the navbox of players with 1000 rebounds, I can, of course go to the article, but I am likely to receive all the information I desire simply by seeing the list of names. Of course, the information can be imparted to the user by replacing with a list article, but I contend this hampers the user, rather than improving the experience. If I link to a list article, the reader cannot tell who else is on this list, or even how many are on the list, without going to the list. In contrast, both pieces of information are available to the reader who clicks on the navbox. Generally speaking, a list is more impressive if there are fewer who qualify. A list of all UConn players with over ten rebounds would be long, but not impressive. That there are only four signifies the exclusivity. However, a list article with only four entries looks rather bare. In contrast, a navbox with four entries highlight the exclusivity.
Replacing the navbox with a list would mean the need to create a stub article with only four entries, plus adding a See also link to all articles, which I contend would be more clutter than retaining the navbox. I can say more, but I'm already in danger of tldr. Let me know if anyone wants more arguments.-- SPhilbrick T 18:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Adddendum. I hadn't read WP:NENAN before. It doesn't change my answer, although I'll note I have my own perosnal "rule of five". If I'm editing an article where there are five or more awards or accomplishments, I create a collapsed navbox for all the awards and accomplishments to help avoid clutter. See, for example Tina Charles (basketball)-- SPhilbrick T 19:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete ater merger Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Propose merging Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 1972–1979 with Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 1980–1989, Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 1990–1999, Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 2000-2009 and Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 2010-2019. No need for separate templates as all are small. The last one in particular has only one entry. A single template will do. -- Commander (Ping Me) 17:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The complete list already exists in the template below: Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages), hence merging is not necessary. The idea of dividing them into groups was taken from this filmfare awards template : Template:FilmfareAwardBestActor ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages). If you think dividing it into groups is not needed, then go ahead and delete the 4 templates listed above. Thanks for notifying me. - krzna ( talk): 20:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
This template contains the filmography for an actor, and previous consensus ( here, here and here) has shown that these should not be created. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Simple text substitution from 2005. We have the character panel now. Unused (not that it really matters). — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Redirect to {{ Seaports in the Philippines}}. Ruslik_ Zero 17:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Effectively redundant to {{ Seaports in the Philippines}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete Creators request. Jac16888 Talk 14:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
All links redirect to The Secret Seven. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Too specific a criteria for a navbox. Not currently used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Unused template, currencies are using navboxes like Template:Currencies of Asia Bulwersator ( talk) 19:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Unused template with portal redlink Bulwersator ( talk) 18:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was reformat as a list article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was convert to a list article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
For better or for worse, navboxes have evolved into a dual purpose. The primary purpose, of course, is to provide an easy, and reasonably unobtrusive way to let readers know about other relevant articles. It is natural, for example, that the reader of an article about a particular state park might be interested in other parks in the same state. A navbox, with a link to all the other state parks provided that functionality nicely. However, in the case of bios of notable sports persons, the navboxes provide a secondary role: they serve to identify awards and accomplishments of the person, and indicate who else has earned that ward or accomplishment. In the case of a state park, if I look at the nav box, I may very well want to go to another article (although I may be satisfied by seeing the list). In contrast, if I look at the navbox of players with 1000 rebounds, I can, of course go to the article, but I am likely to receive all the information I desire simply by seeing the list of names. Of course, the information can be imparted to the user by replacing with a list article, but I contend this hampers the user, rather than improving the experience. If I link to a list article, the reader cannot tell who else is on this list, or even how many are on the list, without going to the list. In contrast, both pieces of information are available to the reader who clicks on the navbox. Generally speaking, a list is more impressive if there are fewer who qualify. A list of all UConn players with over ten rebounds would be long, but not impressive. That there are only four signifies the exclusivity. However, a list article with only four entries looks rather bare. In contrast, a navbox with four entries highlight the exclusivity.
Replacing the navbox with a list would mean the need to create a stub article with only four entries, plus adding a See also link to all articles, which I contend would be more clutter than retaining the navbox. I can say more, but I'm already in danger of tldr. Let me know if anyone wants more arguments.-- SPhilbrick T 18:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Adddendum. I hadn't read WP:NENAN before. It doesn't change my answer, although I'll note I have my own perosnal "rule of five". If I'm editing an article where there are five or more awards or accomplishments, I create a collapsed navbox for all the awards and accomplishments to help avoid clutter. See, for example Tina Charles (basketball)-- SPhilbrick T 19:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete ater merger Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Propose merging Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 1972–1979 with Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 1980–1989, Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 1990–1999, Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 2000-2009 and Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor 2010-2019. No need for separate templates as all are small. The last one in particular has only one entry. A single template will do. -- Commander (Ping Me) 17:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The complete list already exists in the template below: Template:FilmfareTeluguBestActor ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages), hence merging is not necessary. The idea of dividing them into groups was taken from this filmfare awards template : Template:FilmfareAwardBestActor ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages). If you think dividing it into groups is not needed, then go ahead and delete the 4 templates listed above. Thanks for notifying me. - krzna ( talk): 20:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
This template contains the filmography for an actor, and previous consensus ( here, here and here) has shown that these should not be created. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Simple text substitution from 2005. We have the character panel now. Unused (not that it really matters). — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Redirect to {{ Seaports in the Philippines}}. Ruslik_ Zero 17:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Effectively redundant to {{ Seaports in the Philippines}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete Creators request. Jac16888 Talk 14:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
All links redirect to The Secret Seven. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Too specific a criteria for a navbox. Not currently used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)