Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SchuminWeb (talk | contribs) at 12:11, 9 December 2010 (Completed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Header

Current discussions

June 8

Template:Scrolling box

Recently created and largely duplicates other templates like Template:scroll box. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Counties of Fars province

Unused. All information found in Template:Fars province. Gonnym (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category TOC (non-Latin)

Unused category ToC template. Gonnym (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Both

Propose merging Template:Both with Template:If both.
Both of these templates do the same thing except {{if both}} is configurable. We should merge them to avoid needlessly duplicated functionality. The only change required to {{if both}} is to add a default value of 1 in its true parameter so it acts like {{both}} when no parameters are passed to it. Nickps (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ethel Caffie-Austin

Unused navigation template. None of the articles in the releases section mention her. Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Estonia T1 route map

Unused road route template. Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Estonia T11 route map

Unused road route template. Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dhaka MRT Line 6 mapframe

Unused rail route image map. Gonnym (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mehedi Abedin (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Climate finance in Africa

Unused with only red links. Wrappers of continent topic templates such as {{Africa topic}}. Gonnym (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Barmer–Bandra Terminus Humsafar Express

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bandra Terminus–Barmer Humsafar Express

Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBL Ladder 2021–22 - Team's Page

Unused sports template. Gonnym (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NBA G League Ignite current roster

Unused sports roster navigation template for an inactive team. Gonnym (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Makati OKBet Kings roster

Unused sports roster for an inactive team. Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bacoor City Strikers roster

Unused sports roster for an inactive team. Bacoor City Strikers#Final roster uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asia-Pacific Association for International Education

Unused navigation template. The topic, Asia-Pacific Association for International Education was deleted in 2013 for being non-notable. Gonnym (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Allee

Was incorrectly used in an article which I removed. This isn't template content. Gonnym (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:French football clubs/Header

Unused football table template. Gonnym (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Medcab case update

Unused as Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal hasn't existed for over a decade. See related deletion of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 30#Template:Medcab1. Gonnym (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trains portal/News image flag

Unused portal related templates. See related deletion of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 30#Template:Trains portal/News image 2. Gonnym (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Actionurl1

Unused. See related deletion of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 30#Template:Actionurl1-f. Gonnym (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S.L. Benfica defunct sections

Propose merging Template:S.L. Benfica defunct sections with Template:S.L. Benfica sections
Only three sections, could be easily added and just separated with a horizontal rule or given italics to display that they are defunct presently. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox climber

Propose merging Template:Infobox climber with Template:Infobox mountaineer.
I think that Template:Infobox mountaineer could be handled by Template:Infobox climber. A lot of mountaineers do climbing and visa-versa. Infobox climber is the most important infobox (and the most detailed) and has the richest level of detail on their climbing/mountaineering career (I think infobox climber captures all of mountaineer career data. The mountaineer infobox items of "famous partnerships", "final ascent" and "retirement age" are subjective items). The main differences are around the non-climbing items that cand be just merged? Aszx5000 (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting also that we have been recently merging several mountaineering categories and climbing categories together such as Category:Works about climbing and mountaineering at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 26#Category:Works about mountaineering, amongst others. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Cullen328 who I have seen participate at climbing AfDs - @Cullen328, what do you think of my proposal? I have put a notice of this on at WikiProject page but no one has answered so far - are there any others who should be pinged? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list the parameters that would need to be added or have different names? That would make it easier to see if these indeed have the same scope. Gonnym (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


December 8

Template:Wildlife of Norway

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wildlife of Norway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was copied from the Template:Wildlife of India template, and the links still point to India-related topics. Simple editing could make this template useful, if only the named articles existed for Norway, but for the most part, they do not. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 02:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sorry but the template not is useless, is just constructed, one moment please :-) --Jackson Harrison (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom plus the fact that the creator just insisted on getting blocked as a sockpuppet. Favonian (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per favonian Kittybrewster ☎ 19:14, 9 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WonderPets

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WonderPets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Remove the cast, which shouldn't even be in this template, and it navigates no more than three articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. When the cast is removed its useless. Mhiji (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 01:51, 11 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Zulapatrol

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zulapatrol (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Way too soon. Remove the cast, which shouldn't be there in the first place, and this template navigates absolutely nothing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. When the cast is removed its useless. Mhiji (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 01:51, 11 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Current tennis tournaments

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current tennis tournaments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Current tennis tournaments/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is totally unused and nobody updates it. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:58, 8 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2008 ATP Race header

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2008 ATP Race header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is redundant to {{ATP Race header}}. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 02:56, 9 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2010 ATP World Tour Race to Barclays

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 ATP World Tour Race to Barclays (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is completely unused and wasn't updated since July 2010. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, goes well into a table instead. Rehman 02:57, 9 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Time ago2

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

The result of the discussion was Merge, but delete redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Time ago2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template created in May that is identical to {{time ago}}, with one exception: The template does not display "ago" at the end. Compare 13 years ago (time ago) with {{time ago2|20101209121145}} (time ago2). It isn't really necessary to have the removal of "ago" as a separate template. I'm proposing redirection of {{time ago2}} to {{time ago}} and the incorporation of {{time ago2}}'s function as a parameter of {{time ago}} cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 01:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support feature merge - Yes, this is a vote, but the vote itself is all I really have to say, apart from the redirect.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 02:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but delete redirect. Since the template is fairly new, and considering its title, a redirect would be useless. Simply update the few links manually. Rehman 08:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per nom. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:12, 15 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Largest cities of the United States

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

The result of the discussion was merge. JPG-GR (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest cities of the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas of the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Largest cities of the United States with Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas of the United States.
I think we can capture all the data in one template. There is no need to have 2 different templates with such a similar scope and different data. Its confusing. Kumioko (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - Although being metropolitan (more urban/economic) is not the same thing as been largest (by size/population). It is still confusing to have two templates that serve almost the same purpose. Farjad0322(talk|sign|contribs) 22:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge, as said above, it's confusing to have two templates with nearly the same purpose. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per above. Rehman 09:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as duplicative, can be consolidated. --Bsherr (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I repaired the TfM tags on the templates, which were broken or inadequate. Please relist this discussion to provide a fair opportunity for interested users to comment. --Bsherr (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge so long as the discrete information of metropolitan areas versus cities is preserved. While a single template will likely see more use (and is thus to be preferred), metropolitan area can be a more practical measure than legal city limit and the merged template should provide both datasets. Citizen Sunshine (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – templates serve the same purpose. —mc10 (t/c) 21:45, 12 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 7

Template:Anon vandal

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 redirect. JPG-GR (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anon vandal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose redirecting to Template:Uw-vandalism3. In actuality, the only part of this template that is specific to anonymous users is the last paragraph, which is redundant with adding Template:SharedIPAdvice on to a UW-vandalismX template. And the UW-VandalismX templates are superior to this template, because the series has gradations based on the faithfulness shown by the offending user. In contrast, this template assumes bad faith, and does so under the guise that it's the only template that exists to serve anonymous users. It's redundant to the UW templates. Bsherr (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:TTT

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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TTT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Was previously used as a demos at Help:Template but not any more. Mhiji (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've notified the creator of this template. --Bsherr (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not much point in this case as the creator hasn't been very active for a while now. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 08:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant and not used. --Muhandes (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unused and so unnecessary. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not useful. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 21:23, 13 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Kōnan Line

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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kōnan Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant to Template:Kōnan Railway Kōnan Line, last (non-bot) edit on 24 February 2007 (may fit criteria for speedy delete) EmanWilm (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait, you are nominating the wrong file. {{Kōnan Line}} is much older than {{Kōnan Railway Kōnan Line}}. I suggest you delete the latter, and rename the earlier to the latter. Rehman 03:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Older does not necessarily mean better. I notified MChew who authored the new one and might want to comment on the difference/need. --Muhandes (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that two identical templates are redundant, and one should deleted. However, the Kōnan Railway operates two lines, and for the sake of uniformity, feel it would be better to keep the naming as {{Kōnan Railway Kōnan Line}} to match the template named {{Kōnan Railway Ōwani Line}}. --MChew (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Professional Colleges of North Malabar

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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Professional Colleges of North Malabar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't see the purpose of this template. It is not a navigational template, as none of the colleges are actually linked. It seems like WP:NOTDIRECTORY Muhandes (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 03:03, 9 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Channel Island parish

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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Channel Island parish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Infobox parish/settlement.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - useful overview, and also visually appealing. -MacRusgail (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and edit to become wrapper for Infobox settlement. --Bsherr (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, IMO there is nothing that useful to merge. Rehman 12:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This one is not that complicated and could be easily replaced. It would be far easier maintain without having yet another frontend/template. I have already made a few test edits to the ones in Jersey demonstrate the feasibility. I will, of course, revert/change these edits if the ultimate decision is to refactor the template, or keep it outright. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Redundant to Infobox settlement. Mhiji (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cleanup-now

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. JPG-GR (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-now (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with {{subst:Dated|Cleanup}}. Bsherr (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I suppose this was meant to save some typing. The Cleanup-now template must itself be subst-ed, so it saves one from typing only 3 characters vs. using {{subst:Dated|Cleanup}}, although {{subst:clnd}}, which redirects to this one, saves more. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be best if a single convention could be adopted. Either the Dated template, or Template-now. --Bsherr (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't see a strong argument for deleting this typing-aid template. (Never mind that most people write {{cleanup}} and have a bot write the date; it's obviously better to allow or even encourage people to add the date themselves if they can.) The name is potentially a bit long for its purpose, but the redirect avoids that. --ais523 11:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Actually, I recently put in a bot request for a bot that automatically adds dates to undated articles in maintenance categories. As soon as the bot gets up and running this template (as well as others like it) will become obsolete. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 00:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Per ais523, most people just add the template and let a bot do the rest. If a reliable bot is set up to quickly add the date after adding the template that would be great and when vgmddg's proposal is up and running there will be little need for templates like this whose sole purpose is for users (like me) who are too lazy to type out the whole |date= parameter - these users will soon just rely on the bot do the extra work. However I don't think it's a bad idea having a method to do this and I agree with Bsherr we need one convention. That should be the {{dated}} template. This can be used for all templates and if new templates are added at a later date, using {{dated}} means extra templates don't need to be created. We don't want to start a trend of creating an additional template for all of the cleanup templates! Just have the one. Mhiji (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Santa Clause

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 Speedy delete. CSD G4 JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Santa Clause (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Take away the cast, which is not allowed in film navboxen, and you have only three articles to navigate among — the Laura & Neil Miller links point to other people not associated with the film. WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:02, 7 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Disambig 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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airport disambig (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Callsigndis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Disambig-Chinese-char-title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Geodis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hndis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hospitaldis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Letter-NumberCombDisambig (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mathdab (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MolFormDisambig (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Numberdis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Schooldis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Species Latin name disambiguation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{disambig}}. The {{disambig}} template now has parameters to add a page to a particular category. This has the added benefit that one disambiguation page can be added to multiple categories. Mhiji (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep The individual messages produced by these templates are very useful. Having individual templates in this case would be better than having to remember individual parameters which may not be supported. Ng.j (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why speedy? Why do you think the individual messages produced are very useful? For example, how does this page benefit from having the hospital message rather than the standard disambig message? I don't see how this is useful or helps anyone, it just complicates things. Keep things simple. Mhiji (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you may not have realized is that some of these templates also provide sorting functions, which is very useful for projects or when you are looking for similar information. Deleting these templates will also unsort many dab pages. Many editors use these templates, and we should be adding more tools, not taking them away.Ng.j (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have realised that... I'm not proposing just deleting them all together, but replacing them with {{disambig}} with the correct parameter instead. This still sorts the dab pages into the correct category so none of the functionality will be lost. Mhiji (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The airport, hospital, school and human name templates all have parameters for sorting alphabetically within their categories. Merging would remove this, and although the categories could be added separately to the disambiguation pages, it seems unnecessary and would not be an improvement. Peter E. James (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • What do you mean they have parameters for sorting alphabetically within their categories? They just look like standard categories to me (so are in alphabetical order anyway). I am not suggesting adding the categories separately to disambiguation pages - as you said that wouldn't be an improvement at all. If you look at Category:Airport disambiguation at the top it says there are 3 methods to add a page to the category. Adding it manually, adding {{Airport disambig}} or adding {{Disambig|airport}}. I don't see any benefit in having both of the last two methods for this - this is quite simply duplication. We only need one method for this. Either the parameters should be removed from {{Disambig}} or we should get rid of {{Airport disambig}}. However having the parameters has the added benefit that up to ten of them can be used at the same time (if a number of the above templates where added then one article would have multiple dmbox messages - we don't want that), therefore this method is superior to using the templates above. Mhiji (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • For example {{hndis|name=Weber, Max}} - the "name=" exists in these templates but not in Template:Disambig. It looks like it's only used in the human name disambiguation pages (a good reason for keeping the templates used on those pages separate) - is there a way to check whether this option is used with the other templates? Peter E. James (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all you could simply intermediate transclude the new {{disambig}} from these current usages. 65.94.45.167 (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I understand what you're saying. So, for example, the code at {{Airport disambig}} could be changed to simply be {{disambig|airport}}? This would mean that users who want to use these template names can still do so. Mhiji (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be no problem with the system as it is. I only usually edit hndis pages, and check the changes to this category every day. If it was just part of the enormous disambig category, I probably wouldn't bother, as it'd simply be too big a job. Also there are slightly different rules for hndis and disambig pages, e.g. no a/an/the at the start of the sentence fragment for hndis, but that's fine for disambig, etc. Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But adding {{disambig|human name}} does exactly the same job - it still puts the page into the same category. I'm not suggesting deleting the categories. You wouldn't have to look through all of the disambig pages - that wouldn't change. Mhiji (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all they provide sub categories for more individual topics and are good for categorising disambiguation pages. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 12:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding {{disambig|parameter name}} does exactly the same thing - it adds them to the same category so that would not change. I just don't see the point of having two templates which do the same job! Mhiji (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This is a WP:SNOW keep. We're not going to replace every single {{hndis}}/related template on Wikipedia with {{disambig}} with a parameter. Just doesn't make any sense. Logan Talk Contributions 15:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why doesn't it make any sense? Mhiji (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are more precise than the generic dab template and very helpful when applicable. ThemFromSpace 01:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Especially geodis.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the template encodes useful information. A very strong case for the benefits of a single parameterised template would need to be made to justify changing the 28 thousand pages that use hndis - TB (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about converting them to wrappers for {{disambig}}, keeping the categorization? --Bsherr (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds good. I'd support this. Mhiji (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And oppose speedy keep. Unless anyone can show why one of the criteria in WP:Speedy keep applies. --Bsherr (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral leaning to replace. If all the features and benefits of these templates are going to be preserved and the templates themselves remain functional via redirects, I see nothing wrong with replacing this wild variety with just one parametrized disambig. It is a step towards better standardization. On the other hand, if any functionality is going to be compromised during the conversion, then no, I'm not supporting this proposal.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 10, 2010; 18:39 (UTC)
  • Keep, though maybe make into wrappers for {{disambig}} with appropriate parameters to reduce duplication of text. I have a decent number of edits (10,000+) and yet I'd never heard of {{disambig}} taking parameters until I read it just now. A straight delete, if it doesn't keep the expected behavior on long-standing template names, will cause a lot of confusion. --Closeapple (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Useful substitutes for {{disambig}}; wrappers would be nice if they were possible to implement. —mc10 (t/c) 21:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Everything is working fine. No reason to replace. ∙:∙:.:pepper:.:∙:∙ 23:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:17, 13 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:20-cen

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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:20-cen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecesssary, against MOS (see WP:DATE#Typography) Mhiji (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 6

Template:Family disambiguation

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. If someone wants to recreate the title as a redirect, they are more than welcome. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Family disambiguation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Battledis

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Battledis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Links to a category which doesn't exist. Mhiji (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Reference desk navigation

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

The result of the discussion was delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reference desk navigation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Template creator notified --Bsherr (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Former Yugoslavia tallest buildings lists

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Former Yugoslavia tallest buildings lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless navbox, because unlike List of tallest structures in former Yugoslavia it doesn't actually have a coherent theme (buildings tallest 1945-1991), it just links the tallest building lists of today. These are already navbox'ed through the European template, so this makes no real sense. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, what's there stopping ppl starting templates of tallest buildings in roman empire or Austrian empire, w/e. just useless piece of spam if you ask me, Yugoslavia is no more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.53.72 (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template because I thought it would be useful for navigation. If most people don't think so, then delete it. --Local hero talk 18:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This might be useful if it was converted to a Part of a series on sidebar. In its current state though I'd say delete. Mhiji (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Palestine foreign relations

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. The contents of the template have already been merged into the article Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. Accordingly, no future need for this template is apparent. JPG-GR (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was merge. JPG-GR (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Palestine foreign relations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a redundant template. The content was moved to Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, and there are no other pages intended to hold a transclusion. The talk page contents were also moved to Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority/Recognition section and table, by the author (Alinor (talk · contribs)). I previously requested speedy deletion, but was opposed by an uninvolved user. Nightw 08:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that "If there is no need anymore to synchronize content on both SoP and the Foreign relations articles, then yes - the template should be deleted", but here Eliko states that "there is still some need to synchronize content" and that some content is not yet moved. I think that we should wait for him to explain what content is not yet moved and what needs to be synchronized. Currently the duplicated content is not in the SoP page (it contains a link to the Foreign relations page instead) and I don't see any missing content (but haven't checked it line-by-line - so maybe there is something I missed). Alinor (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe he disagrees with the replacing of the content in the SoP page with a link to Foreign relations page - maybe he wants the content to remain on both pages (thus a need to synchronize). Let's wait for his input on these issues. Alinor (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The State of Palestine page is already long enough. Per convention, specific topics about the country (e.g., foreign relations) should be sectioned and summarised, with hatnotes to the Main articles for further information (see current). It won't ever contain the template's content. If the user disagrees with the content, then s/he should take it up on the talk page of the new location, but the template itself is redundant: it isn't being used, and won't be used in the foreseeable future. Nightw 09:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an "uninvolved user", as you can realize by looking at the history page. Anyways, 126th and 127th footnotes were not moved to the other article, nor the line to which the 127th footnote refers. Eliko (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, those were subsequent edits made after the move? Nightw 09:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template {{db-g6}} states that the content was moved by the "author", and this is incorrect.
  • When any consensus (for deletion) was achieved (if ever), there was still some content to be moved.
  • When the template {{db-g6}} was presented, there was still some content to be moved.
Eliko (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to add to the article any information that you feel is missing. It's not a reason to oppose deletion of a template that is not being used, and won't be used in the future. There's only three questions relevant to this TfD:

  1. Is the template being used? No.
  2. Is the template going to be used? No.
  3. Is the template needed for any other reason? No. Nightw 10:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eliko, what is the information that isn't moved? I put the 127th footnote (and re-arranged the table a little). I didn't noticed the 126th footnote, but you can add it, no problem. Anything else? Alinor (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you had added was reverted and deleted. See the current version of Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. Eliko (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits were made to an unused template after the move had been made. If you want to persist with those edits on the moved content, you're free to propose it on the talk page there. Otherwise, this looks like a case of WP:POINT: You're blocking a deletion of a redundant template because you haven't gotten your way on other pages. You're content to let it sit there and do nothing, until your edits get pushed through. Nightw 04:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to talk directly to a user who hides incovenient comments by archiving them. I'm recording everything. Eliko (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Re the "unused template": it's been used during the recent days - many times, including some footnotes (e.g. 127th footnote, and the line to which this footnote is linked) that were used as well.
2. Re the "redundant template". It's redundant only in the view of the user who has presented the template {{Tfd}}, however, it's not redundant at all, in the view of another editor, who thinks that it contains some important information (e.g. 127th footnote, and the line to which this footnote is linked).
3. Re the "move": The date of "moving" the content - has nothing to do with the proper procedure required for handling User:Night w' request. What really matters, is the following:
  • When any consensus (for deletion) was achieved (if ever), there was still some content to be moved, and this content hasn't been moved yet.
  • When the template {{Tfd}} was presented, there was still some content to be moved, and this content hasn't been moved yet, because somebody - who has presented the template {{Tfd}} - prevents the move, by violating Wikipedia rules, and by hiding any clue of what they have done. I'm recording everything.
4. Re the suggetsion "to propose on the talk page there" the rest of content which has not been moved yet: This is not me, but rather the editor who has presented the template {{Tfd}}, who must make sure that this article is redundant, i.e. that everything has been moved (see above #3), rather than "proposed". Unfortunately, not only doesn't this editor try to make sure that the whole content has been "moved" (not only "proposed"), but they also try to prevent the full move, by violating Wikipedia rules, and by hiding any clue of what they have done. I'm recording everything.
5. Re "blocking a deletion of a redundant template because of not having gotten one's way on other pages". First, It's redundant only in the view of the user who has presented the template {{Tfd}}. Second, the reason for rejecting this user's request, is not because of "not having gotten one's way on other pages", but rather because the editor who has presented the template {{Tfd}} must make sure that this article is redundant, i.e. that everything has been moved (see above #3). Unfortunately, not only doesn't this editor try to make sure that the whole content has been "moved" (see above #3), but they also try to prevent the full move, by violating Wikipedia rules, and by hiding any clue of what they have done. I'm recording everything.
Eliko (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should try posting around for some help again? Nightw 10:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to talk to a user who violates Wikipedia rules. Eliko (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Let's send it into the holding cell as merge, and if there's anything that needs to be merged, it can be done, and then redirected. If not, it can just be redirected. --Bsherr (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the template? Where to?
About the merge - I posted the 126 and 127 notes (it seems that this is the non-merged content) at this talk page because Night w insists on prior discussion - but if Eliko refuses to discuss anything with him - I don't see how this will work.
My opinion is that there is no problem in using these sources and we can easily add them and this is fairly uncontroversial - but as it seems it may not be so. Alinor (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • note Eliko, if I understand correctly you accuse Night w of deleting/changing comments. This is a big accusation, so could you provide links to edit history showing this? Alinor (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, I think he's just referring to our discussion on my talk page, which I archived. Nightw 08:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alinor, I was referring to a comment of mine, in which I proved (by direct links) that somebody had violated the three revert rule; Somebody here (not you) knows what I mean. Anyways, as far as the idea of "merge" (of 126th and 127th footnotes) is concerned, I support it as well, so we are now at least two unquestionable editors (and probably three), against one unquestionable editor who rejects that merge. Eliko (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so let's discuss it here - and postpone the template deletion for after a consensus is reached about the 126 and 127 footnotes inclusion. Maybe we should put some tag in the template that it is pending deletion after finalizing a merge (so any future changes by any user are made not in the template, but directly in the Foreign relations article). Alinor (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. so we are now two editors who support this idea. Who rejects it? Eliko (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an outcome. You've already moved the subsequent edits to the talk page for discussion. The template, on the other hand, which is what this nomination is for, is still unused, and, you both agree apparently, won't be used in the future. You're blocking the deletion of an unused template simply over a content dispute elsewhere. Whether or not consensus will be reached about those few edits under discussion is another matter; it doesn't make this template worth keeping. Nightw 09:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template could have been deleted, only if the parties had agreed about its redundancy. However, not only no consensus has been reached upon this issue of redundancy, but also the template is still used, and probably will be used, unless it's merged (if ever) with the other article. Eliko (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean it is still used? Where is it being used? Your edits were made after the merge, and as you're aware, they're being discussed elsewhere. If a consensus is reached to add them, then they'll be added. Blocking the deletion of unused space because you're not getting your way on another article is plain WP:POINT. Nightw 12:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template:Palestine Foreign relatins, is used on this category page and also on this category page. Additionally, it has been used - by readers - during the recent days, many times.
  • No merge has ever been carried out, because no proposal to "merge", has ever been agreed upon.
  • When the idea of "merge" was proposed (by User:Bsherr on 9 december), there was still some content to be merged, and this content hasn't been merged yet.
  • When any consensus for deletion was achieved (if ever), there was still some content to be merged, and this content hasn't been merged yet.
  • When the template {{Tfd}} was presented, there was still some content to be merged, and this content hasn't been merged yet, because somebody - who has presented the template {{Tfd}} - prevents the merge, by violating Wikipedia rules.

Eliko (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was merged in this edit, at 02:59, 28 November 2010. Any subsequent edits (all of which are being disputed elsewhere) can't be accounted for. If you want to add them to the new page, propose them on the talk page there. Stats for the template show very few views, most likely all editors considering the spike on 6 December, when the template was listed at TfD. Nightw 14:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date of "merging" the content - has nothing to do with the proper procedure required for handling User:Night w' request. What really matters is the dates I indicated above.
  • Re the suggetsion "to propose on the talk page there" the rest of content which has not been merged: This is not me, but rather the editor who has presented the template {{Tfd}}, who must make sure that this article is redundant, i.e. that everything has been merged, rather than "proposed". Unfortunately, not only doesn't this editor try to make sure that the whole content has been "merged" (not only "proposed"), but they also try to prevent the full merge, by violating Wikipedia rules.

Eliko (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Sigh*... Nightw 14:50, 13 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:User Badjokes

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 Speedy delete per G2. Mhiji (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Badjokes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:User NTCSNS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:User DNKHTMAUB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:User duh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that does not appear to have any encyclopedic value. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:52, 6 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox bus service

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

The result of the discussion was Merge. Bidgee has converted the two transclusions to the other template. Thank you! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox bus service (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has a limited number of transclusions, and is basically redundant to {{Infobox bus transit}}. My prior attempts to convert the uses of this template to {{Infobox bus transit}} were resisted due to the "bus transit" template being "Americanised". I believe that any WP:ENGVAR can be included in {{Infobox bus transit}} and the two could be merged. Although, it appears "bus transit" is already in use for both Australia and England, so it is unclear what is Americanised about the template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now, I would like to see some of the features which Infobox bus service has (Hubs, Depots, Operating since and maybe Disability access), also Australia doesn't use Locale (Its location or locality not locale). I would have been nice if it was discussed (on my talk page) first rather then placed here. Bidgee (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Infobox bus transit already has hubs & depots. founded can be used as an alternative to operatingsince. Disability access is not there but could be added as a param. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Essentially duplicative. Doesn't seem to be any difference that can't be overcome by conscientiously merging the two. --Bsherr (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Features of both can be accomodated in one. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Mhiji (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - What's wrong with writing some prose, rather than stuffing an infobox with lists of Hubs, Depots and Routes? Parameters in an infobox should indicate how many of those exist rather than details. Use service_area rather than locale. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Nebula/Best Novel

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nebula/Best Novel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hugo/Best Novel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned succession templates, which could be replaced by a standard {{succession box}} if necessary. Plastikspork (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pixar animated film chronology

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pixar animated film chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused succession template. No significant edits since 2008. Plastikspork (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This use of the succession box template is inferior to a navigation box. --Bsherr (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unused, per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:31, 9 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Animation editors/doc

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Animation editors/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless documentation page that does not add any understanding to using the template. Usually these templates (e.g. Template:Theories of gravitation) would require no documentation. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:28, 6 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Dookie

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dookie (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a common use of navigational boxes. Templates for entire track listings of albums are only useful if all songs on the album have articles such as {{Led Zeppelin IV}} or {{Pet Sounds}}. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are some album navboxes in which not every song has an article. - PM800 (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's unnecessary. All of the articles which use it are singles and there is also the {{Green Day}} template on each one of those. The {{Green Day}} template also links to each of these articles too making this one redundant. What's the point of having 2 navboxes on the bottom of each article when we only need one?! Because of that it doesn't aid navigation it just complicates things. Mhiji (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For the same reason, Template:Parachutes, Template:Dewaar, Template:Inquilaab and Template:Kashmakash should also be deleted. If not, we might as well make a navbox for every album! Mhiji (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Redundant to {{Green Day}}. Navigation templates are not discographies (or, in this case, track listings). There are only 5 links, all of which are in the Green Day template, and the other song titles are unlikely to ever be linked as the songs do not pass the criteria for stand-alone articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Hmed

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. Courcelles 08:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hmed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't make sense, since Wikipedia does not give medical advice. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused. Mhiji (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Template doesn't do anything or link to anywhere. It's purpose is so vague that it is clearly not necessary.--Kudpung (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unused and pretty useless too. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 16:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 03:24, 9 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 5

Cricketer 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 Delete, but can be userfied upon request. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cricketer templates list
Template:Ajit de Silva (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Alan Hurst (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Alan Knott (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Alan Turner (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Allan Border (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Alvin Kallicharran (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Andrew Hilditch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Andy Roberts (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Anshuman Gaekwad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Anura Ranasinghe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Anura Tennekoon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ashley Mallett (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Asif Iqbal (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Asif Masood (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bandula Warnapura (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Barry Hadlee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Barry Wood (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bernard Julien (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bishan Singh Bedi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bob Taylor (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bob Willis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Brian Hastings (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Brian McKechnie (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Brijesh Patel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bruce Edgar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bryan Mauricette (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cecil Marshall (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Charles Baksh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Chris Old (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Christopher Chappell (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Clive Lloyd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cornelius Henry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:David Gower (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:David Heyn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Dayle Hadlee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Dennis Amiss (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Dennis Lillee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Derek Randall (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Derek Underwood (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Deryck Murray (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Dilip Vengsarkar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Don Pringle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Doug Walters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Duleep Mendis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Eknath Solkar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ewen Chatfield (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Farokh Engineer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Frank Hayes (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Franklyn Dennis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Frasat Ali (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Gary Cosier (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Gary Gilmour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Gary Troup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Geoff Arnold (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Geoff Dymock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Geoff Howarth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Geoff Miller (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Geoffrey Boycott (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Glenn Turner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Glenroy Sealy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Gordon Greenidge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Graeme Porter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Graham Gooch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Graham Yallop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Greg Chappell (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Gundappa Viswanath (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hamish McLeod (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Harilal Shah (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Haroon Rashid (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hedley Howarth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ian Botham (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ian Chappell (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Imran Khan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Javed Miandad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Jawahir Shah (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Jeff Moss (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Jeff Thomson (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Jeremy Coney (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Jitendra Patel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:John Jameson (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:John Morrison (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:John Nagenda (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:John Parker (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:John Snow (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:John Valentine (cricket) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:John Vaughan (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:John Wright (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kapil Dev (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Karsan Ghavri (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Keith Boyce (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Keith Fletcher (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ken Wadsworth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kevin Wright (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kim Hughes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lalith Kaluperuma (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lance Cairns (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lance Gibbs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Madan Lal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Majid Khan (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mark Burgess (cricket player) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Martin Stead (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Max Walker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mevan Pieris (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Michael Tissera (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mike Brearley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mike Denness (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mike Hendrick (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mohinder Amarnath (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mudassar Nazar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mushtaq Mohammad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Naseer Malik (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Parbhu Nana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pervez Mir (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Peter Lever (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Phil Edmonds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Praful Mehta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ramesh Sethi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ranjit Fernando (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Richard Collinge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Richard Hadlee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rick Darling (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rick McCosker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Robert Callender (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rod Marsh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rodney Hogg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rohan Kanhai (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ross Edwards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Roy Fredericks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sadiq Mohammad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Samuel Walusimbi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sarfraz Nawaz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Shiraz Sumar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sikander Bakht (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Somachandra de Silva (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Srinivasaraghavan Venkataraghavan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Stanley de Silva (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sunil Gavaskar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sunil Wettimuny (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Surinder Khanna (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tariq Javed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tony Greig (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Tony Opatha (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Trevor Laughlin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Vanburn Holder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Viv Richards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Warren Lees (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Warren Stott (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Wasim Bari (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Wasim Raja (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Wayne Larkins (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Yunus Badat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Zaheer Abbas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Zulfiqar Ali (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary templates. None have any transclusions or links. Mhiji (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea was a good faith attempt at improvement but the structure is too convoluted for the average user to follow and is of only small benefit. 1975 Cricket World Cup squads and 1979 Cricket World Cup squads should revert back to simple tables. –Moondyne 04:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is probably a more efficient manner of doing things, once established - but it is not the way the Wikipedia works, or should work. Editing should be intuitive. I have enough problems trying to edit succession boxes and rail templates without expanding the concept too much further. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Moondyne delete the subpages and the other 3 templates as well. Mhiji (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Guys - I strongly request not to delete this. I accept that it is a bit complex structure, but I can look to simplify that. The idea was to store static information about crickets in a single place and then transclude that using the Templates to show where ever needed. Practically every cricket tournament has either a section or linked page that contains the squad of the teams that took part and as someone who has been looking at it, there are multiple cases of this information being different in different pages.
      I took the idea for this from the way one of the more established templates Template:Infobox Election uses for the party color & party short name.
      If the problem is only the complexity, then perhaps I can discuss with you experts on how this can be simplified and I will make sure I change all of them. This is a passionate request...
      Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 20:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Basing it on a similar style to Country data (e.g. Template:Country data Australia) would be a little better as at least all the data for one person would be in one template. Not sure if date of birth needs ot be in every cricket squad article though. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really see why they are necessary or useful. I don't think its sensible basing the approach on the way Template:Infobox election works as there are a relatively small number of parties, but there are hundreds of professional cricket players. This would mean creating a new template every time a new cricket player is involved in a tournament (and if the approach was used for other sports, every time a new sports person enters any tournament - literally thousands of templates). I suppose it would make sense to have a centralised record of player details if they would change over time and thus would need updating regularly (so that all the articles would not need to be updated separately) but these details are very unlikely to change so it seems unnecessary. Also I agree with WOSlinker, the player's date of birth doesn't need to be there. Although this would mean having to change every one of the templates separately... This is also a flaw with the method as any changes would need to be made to every template separately. Actually, thinking about it I'm not sure the other details need to be there either. If a reader wants to find out more information about a player (such as whether they are right- or left-handed or their bowling style) then they will click on the link to the relevant player article anyway. Also, any major changes like this should really be proposed at WT:CRIC first. Mhiji (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was something I found interesting when I first started using Wikipedia to browse through the World Cup history etc. The World Cups used to have this data manually populated. I was simply trying to centralise it so that it doesn't need to be manually entered in every tournament and a change in single place would change it everywhere. Also, in the current design, if the dob needs to be removed from all pages, it only needs to be removed from the 3 main templates.
          Anyway, I accept your point about the number of players and recognise that this could end up mushrooming into a very large number if used as a precedent for other sports. In that regard, I accept that this approach is not that great.
          Thanks for the link to WT:CRIC - I tried looking for a place to bounce my idea off, but couldn't really find the right place (I was looking more at the Template-related projects rather than Cricket specific projects). Anyway, thanks for responding to me in much detail.
          Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 23:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for putting so much effort into improving Wikipedia. I know its soul-destroying when your hard work gets deleted and you would have spent many hours on this. –Moondyne 00:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll consider it a learning course.
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 23:01, 8 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:SA

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Template creator notified --Bsherr (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Hamlets in Suffolk

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hamlets in Suffolk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There must be hundreds of hamlets in Suffolk, putting them all into one template would be unweildy and not at all useful Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Hamlets are too numerous to have any worthwhile function as a navigation or search aid. --Kudpung (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary duplication already included in multiple infoboxes that are in each of the articles see {{Boxford}} {{Edwardstone}} {{Round Maple}} Gnangarra 11:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, such navigation template wouldn't be very useful. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:03, 9 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Hamlets in Norfolk

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hamlets in Norfolk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are hundreds of hamlets in Norfolk and I see no use in putting them all in one template. This current one is far from complete. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Hamlets are too numerous to have any worthwhile function as a navigation or search aid. An English county or administraztive area could have thousands of hamlets.--Kudpung (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Nct

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nct (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, is redundant to Template:Cr. Mhiji (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template contributor notified --Bsherr (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for notification. With n substitute being clearly available I've not problem with it's removal. Earl CG (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Den

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Den (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Template creator notified --Bsherr (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Mythological king of Sweden

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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mythological king of Sweden (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In the process of cleaning up the category sort in articles transcluding this template, I found it easier to just orphan by substitution, since it automatically adds a cat, and it was otherwise impossible to sort the cats. Given that it was only transcluded on about 5 articles, and didn't really save any typing, I felt this was uncontroversial. It was also a bit inflexible, in that it could not be merged with other neighboring succession templates due its transclusion of the {{s-start}} and {{s-end}} templates. Hence, I now present this template for deletion. If my orphaning of this template is controversial, I am happy to revert these edits. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:10, 5 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Naismith Award Winners Men

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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Naismith Award Winners Men (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Wooden Award Winners Men (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Basically hard coded versions of {{succession box}} which are orphaned and haven't had any significant edits since 2006. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 02:09, 11 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:IPNI

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

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPNI (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ipni (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:IPNI with Template:Ipni.
Duplication. Mhiji (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:RomanCentury

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RomanCentury (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

"18th century" etc. is not the recommended style for centuries (see WP:MOS#Longer_periods). The template is not used anymore, and even if it would give MoS-friendly output ("18th century"), {{RomanCentury|18}} requires more keystrokes than simply "18th century". Markussep Talk 16:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per T2 and WP:MOS#Longer_periods. Mhiji (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is useless and (thus) unused. But it is not a T2 candidate, because it does not "blatantly misrepresent" any policy. Thparkth (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove superscript tag and subst all uses, per above. ―cobaltcigs 07:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact there are none, so just delete. ―cobaltcigs 07:53, 10 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WikiProject American thoroughbred racing

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 ummm, I think this is a nomination for a page that never existed, therefore procedural close. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject American thoroughbred racing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This Project has been long dead. It does not link to anything besides a couple user and Wikipedia space pages and there is no need to keep it. Kumioko (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WikiProject Atlanta Falcons

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 ummm, I think this is a nomination for a page that never existed, therefore procedural close. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Atlanta Falcons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This Project has been long dead. It does not link to anything and there is no need to keep it. Kumioko (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 4

Template:By-nc-nd 3.0

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:By-nc-nd 3.0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless! Mhiji (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is the name of a Creative commons license. However, it is non-free by our standards, so changing it to a license tag would be WP:T2 I think. And in its current form it's pointless. --NYKevin @812, i.e. 18:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Kevin. Rehman 10:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template creator notified --Bsherr (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, simply pointless. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:18, 9 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Brunei Barracudas team roster

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brunei Barracudas team roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox with only 2 articles. Mhiji (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, useless navbox. Rehman 10:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template creator notified --Bsherr (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Arizona Diamondbacks retired numbers

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arizona Diamondbacks retired numbers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:AstrAri

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AstrAri (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AstrTau (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AstrGem (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AstrCan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AstrLeo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AstrVir (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AstrLib (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AstrSco (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AstrSag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AstrCap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AstrAqu (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AstrPis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary templates. Mhiji (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Books of Hamid Bin Ahmad Al-Rifaie

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Books of Hamid Bin Ahmad Al-Rifaie (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Red links! Mhiji (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, useless. Rehman 10:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template creator notified --Bsherr (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Films of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Films of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Actor filmography templates not supported per consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries Managerarc[talk] 09:00, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Asian Computer College

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asian Computer College (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is used in one article only, and it is the only link included in the template. Totally useless. — JL 09 talk (site)contribs    08:17, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

BAFTA 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/delete/redirect, basically do whatever WOSlinker says. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BAFTA Award Best Actor 1980-1999 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BAFTA Award Best Supporting Actress 1980-1999 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BAFTA Award for Best Actor 2000-present (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role 1968-1979 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role 1980-1999 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role 2000-2019 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BAFTA Award for Best Actress 2000-present (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Supporting Role (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BAFTA Award for Best Adapted Screenplay (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BAFTA Award for Best Original Screenplay (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BAFTA Award for Best Supporting Actor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BAFTA Award for Best Supporting Actress 2000-present (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Various unused, unnecessary navboxes. Mhiji (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Agent Orange

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Agent Orange (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with only one article in it. Mhiji (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 10:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template creator notified --Bsherr (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Annie Wilson

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 G2 Obvious test page. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Annie Wilson (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Random text. Mhiji (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, per G2. Rehman 10:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete not a template, just some random text. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 16:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball delete Not eligible for speedy since the text is (currently) coherent. OTOH it looks useless enough that it won't do well in article space. --NYKevin @819, i.e. 18:39, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BusyUniversitySemester

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 Speedy delete per T3 and G7 Mhiji (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BusyUniversitySemester (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused unnecessary template. Redundant to Template:Busy Mhiji (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bumthang District

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 Speedy delete per G7. Mhiji (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bumthang District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with only 2 links. Mhiji (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 10:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template creator notified --Bsherr (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I apparently created this (and its companions) some time ago. Not sure why now, possibly as extension of Indian district templates, but there doesn't seem to be much to put in them. All 8 in Category:Bhutan district templates should go (Crusoe8181 (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:TUFF Puppy

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TUFF Puppy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Way too soon (show debuted in September). Navigates only the main article, Butch Hartman's and Nickelodeon's, used only on the parent article. At this point it's extremely unlikely that any of the characters will develop articles. (Note that I removed the cast since we don't do that in navboxes.) One of the most egregious WP:NENANs I've ever seen. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:41, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Football table start

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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Football table start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Football table blue row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Football table green row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Football table red row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Football table yellow row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fbt-row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates are unused and basically redundant to the corresponding handball templates (e.g., {{hbt-row}}). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, may qualify G2. Rehman 10:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can you rename the handball templates to a more generic name? 65.94.45.167 (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Income of the world

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 now that redlinks have been suppressed. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Income of the world (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Red links. Not useful. Mhiji (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nice big red box. Rehman 10:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Three of the articles are created, and should indeed have a navbox linking them. --Bsherr (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this is not used on any of the 3 articles (probably because it is just a big red box). I agree it might be useful if there were more articles, but it is unlikely they will be created any time soon, so the red links shouldn't be there per WP:RED. Perhaps it could be kept with just the three articles (and adding it to the bottom of those articles), but keeping it in its current state is pointless. Mhiji (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redlinks are a significant way Wikipedia grows. But if you don't like the redlinks, you can delete them. The template is still useful for navigation to the articles that exist. --Bsherr (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Never mind, this is a world topics template. They automatically list every country in the world. --Bsherr (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I realise red links can be useful. But per WP:REDNOT and WP:NAVBOX#Properties, red links should not be used in navboxes. Navboxes are supposed to be for navigation, not to provide a massive list of articles which could be created. Mhiji (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Plastikspork found the way to disable them. --Bsherr (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Cool. Might as well keep it then. Mhiji (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added it to the three constituent articles. --Bsherr (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Administrative divisions of the United States sidebar

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Administrative divisions of the United States sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 10:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template creator notified --Bsherr (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Administrative levels of Romania sidebar

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 redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Administrative levels of Romania sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BUAFLinfobox

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BUAFLinfobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary infobox. Mhiji (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as unused. Rehman 10:59, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Broaddus Battlers football coach navbox

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 userfy per request Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Broaddus Battlers football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with all red links. Mhiji (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, useless navbox. Rehman 11:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template creator notified --Bsherr (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but before you do, please userfy (move into) into my workspace. I'll keep it in my incubator and if I run across any notable information for the coaches on the list, it will help with my research. (I'd do it now, but it's "bad taste" to move a template under discussion--whoever closes, please send it to me and let me know you did it. Thanks!)--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • More details definitely please userfy. I've done some research, and I think they'll all be notable for how BAD the program was! Operated for 25 years, only 4 winning seasons (and two of those were 2-1!). This is a story, but one to be worked on later...--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not used, no articles to navigate among, and no likelihood of those articles being written any time soon. But if anyone ever does start writing about Broaddus football, there should be no prejudice against this template being recreated. cmadler (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:AA Omaha (sidebar)

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 snowball keep. Nominator changed position, all other positions are to keep except one, predating nominator's change, that includes per nominator as rationale, and I think would be likely to change on reconsideration. Nonadministrator closure. Bsherr (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AA Omaha (sidebar) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unnecessary. Per nom. Rehman 11:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:Nav. These links would clutter the "See also" section in many of these articles, and this template provides a clearer way to navigate the articles related to the topic. • Freechildtalk 14:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But its not used anywhere... Mhiji (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's because I just created it a few weeks ago and haven't had time to install it. I will make time, just for you, Mhiji. • Freechildtalk 15:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as now used. Mhiji (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use appropriately. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks good, well done.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Keep. Mhiji (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep What do you mean unnecessary? It displays }}} (three brace brackets), which have special meaning on MediaWiki, so are hard to type. 64.229.102.230 (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I must agree with the above anon. Much like Template:)), the template in question might serve as a useful alternative for those who don't want to bother with the longer <nowiki></nowiki> markup. Sophus Bie (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close, per above. Rehman 11:01, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Keep. Mhiji (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep What do you mean unnecessary? It displays {{{ (three brace brackets), which have special meaning on MediaWiki, so are hard to type. 64.229.102.230 (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I must again agree with 64.229.102.230. Much like Template:)), the template in question might serve as a useful alternative for those who don't want to bother with the longer markup. Sophus Bie (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close, per above. Rehman 11:02, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Sit Down, Shut Up Season 1

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. WOSlinker (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Sit Down, Shut Up Season 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Sit Down, Shut Up Season 2

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. WOSlinker (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Sit Down, Shut Up Season 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox television Worst Cooks in America

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. WOSlinker (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox television Worst Cooks in America (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox diocese

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 Moot, already in WP:TFD/H waiting to be merged. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 07:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox diocese (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Diocese (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox diocese with Template:Infobox Diocese.
Duplication. Mhiji (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:SBM

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 posting at wp:rm. Terrillja talk 03:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SBM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a clearly named template. Propose rename to Template:Summit Business Media Terrillja talk 01:19, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 3

Template:Infobox breath mint

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox breath mint (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose Deletion. Unused and unlikely to be used. This template is way too single-use, and most articles about specific brands of breath mints would probably live on the page of their company. vgmddg (look | talk | do) 00:05, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Australian winery

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 Merged. WOSlinker (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Australian winery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox winery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Australian winery with Template:Infobox winery.
Additional params in Infobox Australian winery could easily be added to Infobox winery. WOSlinker (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created this template. I have no objection to the merge provided the additional parameters are added to the general winery infobox. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've now added all the extra params into Infobox winery. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Mhiji (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge, per the creator of the template. Rehman 11:06, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox economy 1

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 Merged. Rehman 13:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox economy 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox economy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox economy 1 with Template:Infobox economy.
Fork of Infobox economy template. With just average gross salary and average net salary params added. WOSlinker (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Mhiji (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completed the merge (and converted to redirect). Rehman 11:16, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Botstatus

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Botstatus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:108

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:108 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary navbox. Mhiji (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, absolutely useless. Rehman 11:38, 3 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Hardy Boys character

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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hardy Boys character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 2 transclusions. Nothing {{Infobox character}} can't handle. Magioladitis (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: 134.253.26.6 (talk) has been going through and orphaning all of these series character infoboxes as a result of the recent attempt to mass delete all other infobox except for {{Infobox character}}. These actions may affect the outcomes of this and future nominations of character infobox templates. —Farix (t | c) 03:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have been orphaning many of these, but this isn't one of them. If I had, it would have zero transclusions :) In any event, I don't think it is that controversial in this case. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I created this template before there was Infobox character and when there was a lot more individual HB character articles. But there doesn't really seem much point in it anymore. WHLfan (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per G7. Rehman 11:39, 3 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Entourage character

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Entourage character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan template. {{Infobox character}} does the job better. This one has some entries like "age" and "lovelife" which strongly depend on "current" episode and go against WP:FICTION. Magioladitis (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: 134.253.26.6 (talk) has been going through and orphaning all of these series character infoboxes as a result of the recent attempt to mass delete all other infobox except for {{Infobox character}}. These actions may affect the outcomes of this and future nominations of character infobox templates. —Farix (t | c) 03:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you for noting this. I have been making changes like this. However, I don't think it is that controversial here, since the core information is being preserved. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As per below, and looking at the above - "Speedy" is not a valid reason here. - J Greb (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 11:40, 3 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Xanth character

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Xanth character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan infobox. Almost all entries are covered by {{Infobox character}}. Magioladitis (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: 134.253.26.6 (talk) has been going through and orphaning all of these series character infoboxes as a result of the recent attempt to mass delete all other infobox except for {{Infobox character}}. These actions may affect the outcomes of this and future nominations of character infobox templates. —Farix (t | c) 03:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you for noting this. The mass deletion was a mistake, in my opinion, but there are several on the list which should be less controversial, and this is one of them. Note that, this is an example of one of my edits. As you can see, no critical information is being discarded. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that act streatchs WP:AGF almost to breaking since it was at the same time the infobox was put up as a mass delietion nom. Once a template is nominated it should be left in place untile the TfD closes or is withdrawn. The template may very well have been deleted/redirected/converted to using Infobox character as a meta-template, but the editors commenting should have a chance to see how widely the template is used and exactly how its use differs from Infobox character. In that light the IP may want to undo the damage done/bias created so others can see how the template was used. - J Greb (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP provided a link to the single edit that orphaned the template, as far as I can tell from checking edit history. I agree that it would have been better to wait until the prior TFD had closed. Anyone should feel free to roll back the edit per WP:BRD. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 07:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 11:40, 3 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 2

Template:Belgrave (band)

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Belgrave (band) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. No navigation. Mhiji (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 11:40, 3 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bruce Forsyth

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bruce Forsyth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary navbox. Mhiji (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, why not use it instead? Looks ok to me... Rehman 11:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, take a look at the links in the infobox. On which of those articles are you going to place this template? I don't think television articles want navboxes for individual participants. If they didn't the entire bottom of the page would explode with navboxes. A navbox is good for navigating a collection of subpages, but none of these pages are really a subpage Bruce Forsyth. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow up, going through the links, it appears someone just took the navbox for Will-i-am and repurposed it, without changing the links. I am going to attempt to clean it up. After that, it may well be a useful navigation box. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indifferent I fixed the problem that the navbox was filled with Will-i-am links, by replacing it with a list of his shows. However, these need to be cleaned up a bit before I can say if it is a viable navbox. What a mess! 134.253.26.12 (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your earlier comment that we don't want navboxes for individual participants. If we did put this box on every page thats linked to within it and made similar infoboxes for other presenters there would be hundreds of navboxes at Have I Got News For You! There's already a list of his appearances on the Bruce Forsyth page already at Bruce_Forsyth#Television_and_film therefore putting it on that page would not help. There's a trend with TV articles to have navboxes for the programmes rather than the presenters and have a list on the presenter page of TV appearances. Other presenters do not have navboxes so I don't think we should start a trend really... Mhiji (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Mhiji. Kudpung (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bbref

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bbref (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 11:42, 3 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bury-Altrincham line link

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, per T3. Rehman 14:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bury-Altrincham line link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Jetlag

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jetlag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unnecessary mainspace template. May be included as an option in {{Busy}}, if needed. Rehman 11:45, 3 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Jetlag2

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jetlag2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unnecessary mainspace template. May be included as an option in {{Busy}}, if needed. Rehman 11:46, 3 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Hamlets in England

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hamlets in England (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are thousands of Hamlets in England, linking them all into one template is a pretty tenous link. Including buildings in hamlets is shakier still. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep we can limit the number of entries on the template, to say for example 100 Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 15:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And how do you propose we choose which one's to limit it to? I can think of no method that would be in line with wikipedia policies. Dpmuk (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hamlets that are significant or that have a large amount of content eg Round Maple, Mucking, Flatford, Thorncliffe, West Yorkshire Woolsthorpe-by-Colsterworth, we only have 9 hamlets at the moment, so there is room for more. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 13:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Delete I was thinking this may just be a poorly named template but it really does seem to be covering all hamlets in England given those already included in it. As such it's would be a stupidly large template and serve no useful purpose. Dpmuk (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Delete too broad as above, most entries aren't even hamlets, just placenames from the A-Z--J3Mrs (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above too broad. Mhiji (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC
  • Delete - too broad and would not add to a reader's experience. One county in England alone could have as many as a thousand hamlets. Hamlets are sufficiently covered by their respective county projects if they need any special listing for any reason, and by various categories.--Kudpung (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Likeeatingwaffles. The scope is simply too large; there would be too many entries for this to be a useful navigation template. Nev1 (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – impossible to decide which hamlets to include. Occuli (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we have Template:Hamlets in Norfolk Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 11:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Hamlets in Norfolk is also going to be proposed for deletion for the same reasons. Kudpung (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Religious text primary

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. Ruslik_Zero 18:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Religious text primary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete for the following reasons: (1) This template grew out of a previous TfD, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 30#Template:BibleAsFact and was supposed to "improve" on it, but has not. (2) On the surface, the template may appear to be aimed at all religions, but in reality it is exclusively used against only Biblical, mostly Judaic and also Christian, topics See: Pages that link to "Template:Religious text primary". (3) On the other hand, for example, NOT ONE of Islam's Category:Qur'an and Category:Hadith or Hinduism's Category:Hindu texts, all filled abundant texts that are used in even more articles, ever get slapped with this template in its over two years of existence. (4) It is therefore obvious that this template is used to push for an anti-Biblical POV on the specious grounds that it's asking for "better" "secondary sources" and violates WP:NPOV in its language when it presumes to elevate one set of literature (secular) over another (religious, in this case Jewish and Christian). (5) Therefore, this is an open and shut case of a violation of Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles and it also violates WP:NPOV policies since Wikipedia is neither pro nor anti the Bible or any subject really, it is NEUTRAL. (6) It's actually funny because the Bible is the world's oldest and most widely relied-upon book (the word "Bible" means "book" in Greek) and it would look very funny if articles about scientific theories would carry the proviso that they are not reliable unless sourced by the Bible. (7) Anyhow, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 29#Template:NotJudaism when "Template:NotJudaism" was deleted on the grounds that it was "Inflammatory and divisive" and to be consistent this should be no different. (8) Even archaeologists such as Israel Finkelstein, perhaps the most notable advocate of the minimalist school critical of the factual accuracy of many Biblical narratives, have not taken a position as strong as assuming that everything the Bible says about history should be presumed "false" as this template obviously implies. This template incorporates this extreme position and runs counter to all religion editors' considered consensus to report Biblical narratives describing the ancient monarchies and the like with neutrality as to their factual accuracy, and then give various perspectives including that of theologians, historians, archaeologists and others. IZAK (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for above reasons. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the following reasons: (1) This is a special case of Template:Primary sources suited to religious texts. I can't see how the wording's neutrality can be improved unless we want to get rid of it and use Template:Primary sources itself. (2) Religious texts of all kinds are not considered reliable secondary sources per WP:RS. (Similarly, neither are the Ilias or the Heike Monogatari.) Pointing that out seems worthwhile because articles on religious topics are often sourced only to religious texts. (3) That the template is currently used mainly (or even exclusively) on Judeo-Christian topics is irrelevant. If IZAK feels that certain articles on Islam or Hinduism only rely on religious texts as sources, he can easily add this template. (4) I can't judge what the Template:NotJudaism used to say, but this one doesn't seem divisive or inflammatory. Thus, I don't see the analogy. (5) The template does not claim or imply that everything religious texts say about history should be presumed false. But it shouldn't be presumed true either. All the template does is ask for secondary sources. If scholar X concluded in journal Y that the religious text in question is historically accurate, fine, add that. Huon (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the following: Primary sources, including religious texts, are OK to use as long they are carefully employed to supports a description of what the source says. Further interpretation or synthesis must rely on secondary or tertiary sources. That is not the impression I think many editors would gather from the current template. The existing Template:Primary sources is sufficient to cover misuse of religious primary texts, is free of any perceived anti-religious or anti-article bias by encouraging editors to supply better references, and is less likely to be illegitimately employed by edit warriors. • Astynax talk 03:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed that the {{Primary sources}} template is more than sufficient and that therefore there is no need to have yet another duplicate template that is deployed exclusively against Jewish and Christian Bible topics. IZAK (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: where the template is being applied is where primary sources are not just being used to convey what the source says, but also that it is history. Furthermore, even when we use primary sources purely to describe what a source says, the analysis of secondary and tertiary sources is still desirable (compare our articles on films - we prefer them to contain more than just a "plot" section). Jheald (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I totally agree with Astynax that Template:Primary sources covers all such misuse of religious texts that the discussed tag may be directed against.
    P.S.: I take exception to IZAK's saying that the Bible is the oldest book, it is a highly illuminating book no doubt(I've read it partly), and certainly widely read and studied but its surely not the oldest book. Tamicus (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Tamicus: Your observation is well-taken. However, the Bible is the world's oldest most famous and by far the most influential book. I agree that the words "one of the world's oldest books" would be more specific, but it's just that no other known ancient book, dating back 3,000+ years, is on a par with the Bible which is in a class all of its own. IZAK (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IZAK only appeals to the religiousness and gullibility of editors in this dishonest attempt to get rid of a template that may implicitly critique his religious beliefs. The Bible, or any other religious book, is not reliable when it comes to establishing history. In many articles religious texts are abused to convey some history that is inaccurate or plainly made-up. That is what the template is intended to prevent. NOTHING in the Bible that is assigned to any time prior to the 10th century has been confirmed archaeologically or through historical research. Any articles that touch on issues that would be relevant in t history of the ANE as well as in biblical contexts must be written so that they unmistakably show the biblical references as unscientific and unconfirmed. Also the phrase "according to the bible..." is insufficient, because it implies that the issue is real and only the details in depicting the issue may vary from source to source and the bible being one of the sources. ≡ CUSH ≡ 14:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sadly CUSH devalues himself by resorting to violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, against a fellow user, in his usual ultra-secular anti-religious POV diatribe, that in fact he openly trumpets on his own user page. He would take all the world's religions, none of which was "invented" by any of us, that collectively add up to tens of thousands of years of knowledge, wisdom and morality, and sacrifice them all on the ash-heap of atheism's altar because of his anti-religion highly POV prejudices, while in truth and fact WP is neither an anti- nor pro- religion encyclopedia. It would be great to debate all the issues with him on their merits but tragically the only "method" he knows is slashing and burning anything that he deems is connected with any religion, in fits of obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT that do not become a user of such high caliber. How sad and what a shame! IZAK (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The real shame is that editors like you use religious sources to distort history towards religious doctrine. That is unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia and is supposed to present accurate information. That excludes information for which no evidence exists. The entire mythical stuff that the Bible assigns to the 15th to 10th centuries BCE has no archaeological and historical confirmation whatsoever. And articles that do not make it sufficiently clear that their content is derived solely from a religious source that is detached from reality need a tag so that editors know that there is work to do and that secondary sources that evaluate the primary source are needed. And just starting an article with "according to <religious source>" is not sufficient. ≡ CUSH ≡ 08:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must take issue with the bias inherent in your words. This is an encyclopedia that is supposed to present all significant points of view, especially where no one school of thought has determined on behalf of all the others what is "accurate". We can't exclude describing a significant POV just because you personally don't feel it is "accurate". We describe them anyway. There are many different views of history for the timeframe 1500-1000 BC, believe it or not. There are almost as many different theories on various aspects as there are authors. There is no monolithic "Grand Central Politburo" that determines whose views are "accurate" and whose aren't. And yes, the view of history presented in the Bible is one of these views of history, and yes, it is a significant and widespread point of view for many, in varying degrees. And it hasn't been utterly and compellingly disproven to everyone's universal satisfaction and agreement, last I had heard - despite what you may think. Therefore, NPOV policy means just what it has always meant from the very beginning: ideally, we present all the widespread points of view significant to a given topic even-handedly and neutrally, without excluding any, an without attempting to use this project as a vehicle to get our favorite hypothesis declared "accurate" and all the others "inaccurate". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not believe that any of the reasons offered in the nomination justify deletion. Regardless of the origin and historical use of the template, its wording and message is neutral and most definitely not limited to Christianity-related topics. As Huon noted, the template neither claims nor suggests that "everything the Bible says about history should be presumed 'false'". It merely stresses the importance of and need for reliable, secondary sources. There are, of course, circumstances when it is appropriate and useful to utilize primary sources, but that fact does not nullify the core policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source. Even if there is consensus to discontinue use of this template, the proper course of action would be to replace transclusions of the template with {{Primary sources}}, not to just remove all transclusions. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed Black Falcon, the {{Primary sources}} template is more than sufficient which only reinforces the need for this duplicate and blatantly prejudiced template (that's only deployed against select Judeo-Christian subjects!) to go. IZAK (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing prevents the use of this template in articles about topics related to Islam, Hinduism and other religions. A case could be made that the template duplicates the function of {{Primary sources}}—although {{Primary sources}} is perhaps a little too generic—but I see nothing "blatantly prejudiced" about it. From a technical standpoint, I would support merging the two templates by means of a "religious-text" or "rt" parameter in {{Primary sources}}. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Black Falcon: What you say is all very nice, but the facts remain as I have stated them in the nomination in point "(2) On the surface, the template may appear to be aimed at all religions, but in reality it is exclusively used against only Biblical, mostly Judaic and also Christian, topics See: Pages that link to "Template:Religious text primary" please review all the articles it's deployed at, funny how it's only at articles related to Judaism or Christianity. Thanks for noting that reality, IZAK (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • How the template has been used and whether it should be used are separate issues. Where it is currently used is irrelevant as long as nothing prevents its use for other topics. The fact that the template has not been consistently deployed just highlights the need for further deployment unless, of course, the template should not be used in general. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi again Black Falcon: On the contrary, you are only proving my point, that this template reveals a double-standard at work because since it is quite evident that in its two years of existence this template has only been deployed for one purpose of "warning" and "requiring" "higher standards" of Biblically-derived topics above and beyond any others and that it has never been used against any other religions except against Judaism and Christianity, that time has shown and proven that it will almost certainly not be used against any other religions in the future, and that it should therefore be deleted as a below the radar POV-pushing template. IZAK (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't dispute the existence of a discrepancy or inconsistency in the use of this template. However, if the template has been used or poorly or misused, which seems to be the point you're making, then the problem lies not with the template but with whoever misused the template. I have read and re-read the text of the template and there is absolutely nothing which limits its scope to Biblical topics. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Black Falcon, you are focusing on one point, while in all, I gave at least eight reasons to delete. IZAK (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I understand, but as I stated at the beginning I don't think that any of them justify deletion. The first three reasons are related to the origin and current usage of the template. The fourth and fifth reasons appeal to WP:NPOV, but I think that the interpretation is incorrecting, since adhering to a "neutral point of view" is not the same as making absolutely no judgments about the reliability or usability of sources. The fifth reason also cites WP:NDA, but that guideline specifically makes an exception for article message box templates which "point to deficiencies in [an] article that should be corrected". The sixth reason ("the Bible is the world's oldest and most widely relied-upon book") seems to ignore Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The seventh reason, citing the deletion of Template:NotJudaism, does not apply, in my opinion, as I can see nothing inflammatory or divisive about this template. The eighth reason is based on a misinterpretation of the template: it does not, in any way, suggest that "everything the Bible says about history should be presumed 'false'", and merely requests improvement of the article via the addition of reliable secondary sources—something which is completely consistent with the original research and verifiability policies. The only other reason—the assertion that {{Primary sources}} is sufficient—is also questionable (see, e.g., Jheald's comments dated "22:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)" and "09:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)"). -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Falcon: We have both stated our positions quite well. There are enough "Delete" and "Keep" votes that agree with either you or me, so no use going around in circles. Vive la différence! Let's see what the rest say. IZAK (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. :) "Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress." – Mohandas Gandhi. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Astynax and nom. The primary sources template is sufficient. -- Avi (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Astynax and nom. The primary sources template is sufficient. This template seems to be agenda driven. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 05:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Astynax and nom. --Yoavd (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Are the editors suggesting that {{Primary sources}} is sufficient supporting pure deletion (i.e., removing all transclusions) or redirecting / deletion after replacement (i.e., replacing all transclusions with {{Primary sources}})? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my view {{Primary sources}} in its current form is not sufficient, because it gives the confusing impression that secondary sources are required only to confirm the primary text says what the article says it does. The rationale for WP:PSTS is wider than that: we seek secondary sources to critically discuss the reliability, significance and context of the primary sources, as a basic value of being encyclopedic. This template is valuable because it spells that out. Jheald (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lets look at some of the articles where this template is in use. Important articles like Kingdom of Judah, Kingdom of Israel (Samaria), Sack of Jerusalem (10th century BC), etc... I submit that there is something wrong with these articles, and that this template is valuable because it makes very explicit what is wrong with these articles.
This template is much clearer and more direct about what is wrong with these articles than {{Primary sources}}, which by comparison can seem vague, cryptic, and unimportant. The directness, and on-policy nature of this template (indeed its creator, User:Shirahadasha, is herself an observant Torah Jew) are why it is worth keeping. Some have speculated above that its directness is also why it has been nominated for deletion. Whether or not that is true (and we should WP:AGF), we should ask ourselves: Is this template an effective tool for bringing articles closer to policy? The answer is yes. Jheald (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's also look at the nominator's position, which simply doesn't add up. He says this template argues that everything the Bible says about history should be presumed as "false". But the template doesn't. What the template says is that everything such a religious text says about history would also benefit from what secondary sources that analyse such claims have to say about them -- that's directly in line with WP:PSTS, and it's policy to seek out what those secondary sources say when they overwhelmingly support the primary account, as well as when they question it. Jheald (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also surprised by the nom's comments that he feels the template should be deleted because it isn't being used widely enough. If the nom feels that there are similar problems with articles in Category:Qur'an, Category:Hadith or Category:Hindu texts, then (as I do) he should welcome this template as an equal-opportunity tool to try to get them put right. Jheald (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jheald: Without going around in circles, but your last point that "I" should go and add this template into articles citing Islamic and Hindu texts is ridiculous, while the fact that no one dares to do so, even veteran Islamic and Hindu scholars and editors, only proves that it will not happen simply because they fear a backlash and that therefore, by default, this template is used against only the "soft" targets of Judaism- and Christianity-related Biblical topics, and therefore it should go because of its use as only a biased tool. IZAK (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This template is a valuable tool for editors to improve articles. Even if it is only used to improve some articles, it is still valuable; but it's available for wider use, and I hope it will get wider use. Jheald (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this template's usage and related links, it's obviously been a "valuable tool" to only one set of editors, those opposing Judeo-Christian-related articles. That is what's called a double-standard and hence it's inherently a template that engenders itself to violations of WP:NEUTRALITY. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could have said it shorter. :) Debresser (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PRIMARY and also Huon. I'm gonna include a quote from WP:PRIMARY here: "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." If we follow that policy, then articles based entirely (or even mostly) on religious primary sources should have this template on them as a heads-up for readers and as a notice for editors. Also, this template isn't POV-pushing. It's incredibly neutrally-worded. So this template isn't transcluded onto articles in categories about Islam. Why don't you go ahead, be bold, and add it to articles about other religions that rely solely on primary sources instead of nominating this for deletion? --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 02:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because we have an acceptable template already that does not focus on religion or any other factor other than "primary sources". -- Avi (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Cymru lass: It is all very well for you to advise from the sidelines that "I" should be "bold" and run and slap this template onto "problem articles" in Islam yet (like telling me to stick my head into the metaphoric and even real editorial fire that would ignite instant WP:WAR, with a Judaic editor "daring" to insert a controversial template into the Islamic domain on WP), but as I have stated, in its more than two years of existence no one has dared to do that simply because it would unleash a backlash of protests from Islam editors, so therefore by default, the template is left as a one-sided one-issue tool to be used against Judaism- and Christianity-related articles that makes sense especially since there are better ways to do with a similar template requesting secondary sources. IZAK (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If no one has tried to put this template on Islamic articles in the entirety of its existence, then how do you know that it would cause backlash? Not all Muslims are hot under the collar, and not all editors of articles on Islam are Muslim. You never know if you don't try! Also, I would like to point out that your reaction to the use of this template (seeing it as an attack) is similar to the reaction you assume editors of articles on Islam would have. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 01:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi again Cymru.lass: Thanks for responding. Keep your cool. I am stating an obvious fact, that in over two years, this template has only targeted Judeo-Christian-related articles. That's a fact, as based on the template's own related links as cited in the TfD above, see point "(2) On the surface, the template may appear to be aimed at all religions, but in reality it is exclusively used against only Biblical, mostly Judaic and also Christian, topics See: Pages that link to "Template:Religious text primary"." So by all means feel free to draw your own conclusions, as I have presented mine quite frankly and honestly, but please do not put words in my mouth. If you or anyone here who is voting "Keep" wishes to place this template on Islamic- or Hindu- or any other religion related articles, feel free to do so and please follow your own advice, even though this has been studiously avoided for over two years now. Let me know what happens when you do. Bottom line, there cannot be a double-standard, one for Judeo-Christian-related articles and another for the rest of the world's religions that all have notable texts that have been poked full of holes by so-called "secondary sources" but no one wants to open that can of worms for fear of the repercussions. What don't I get? Thanks for your consideration. IZAK (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hmm, true. I'm not exactly the world's first and foremost expert in organized religion, being a Deist, but I do have a basic understanding of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and am coming at each from roughly the same viewpoint, so why don't I look through some of the Islam articles and see if they rely primarily on primary sources? (Can't figure out how to word that one un-awkwardly... oh well!) If there are any particular articles that you have in mind, why don't you put a list on here or on my talkpage? I'll look them over as soon as I can (no guarantees on how soon, though, my studies have been known to drag me away from the Wikipedia gods ). --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 09:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems useful and likely to be aplied, and is worded well. Debresser (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Normal sourcing guidelines apply, no need for exceptions for religious texts and hence no need for a dedicated template. JFW | T@lk 06:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Huon and Black Falcon. Template is neutrally-worded, none of the nom's arguments stack up. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Discussion mentioned at WT:PSTS and WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, with a question about enhancing Template:Primary sources. Jheald (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep. Problem templates targeting specific problems in specific problem areas is perfectly appropriate. The uncritical citation of the Bible, Church Fathers, and other primary sources is a severe problem in many articles. Thus, the tagging is correct. The existence of other unaddressed areas or uncorrected issues holds no bearing in deletion discussions. The rules being applied more strictly to X topic than Y subject holds no bearing as to whether that rule or template is appropriate. Of course Judaism and Christianity face more scrutiny in an English speaking venue; English speakers are more like to be exposed to and familiar with Judaism and Christianity. None of the arguments for deletion express any rational policy or practical justification for deletion, but instead run counter to the long-standing traditions of the English wiki (SOFIXIT, other crap doesn't matter, etc). Vassyana (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was pointed out to me that the nom includes NPOV justification. I still maintain there is no rational policy justification forwarded. The nom claims that NPOV is being violated by one type of literature being elevated over another. NPOV is not some mythical neutral point or "fair view"; NPOV is presenting a topic as it appears in the body of available reputable sources. His claim runs counter to the very foundation of the three core content policies. Reputable, scholarly sources are elevated above primary religious sources as a matter of course in our content policies. The nom may not like it, but that's the way it is and has been for quite some time. A long-term editor arguing that favoring reliable secondary sources over ancient primary sources is a violation of NPOV is either clueless surprisingly unaware of our basic policies or disingenuous. Vassyana (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vassyana: while your erudite comments are most welcome, your disparaging and condescending violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA are not. Kindly apologize for your latter comments that "A long-term editor arguing that favoring reliable secondary sources over ancient primary sources is a violation of NPOV is either clueless or disingenuous."! Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also seem to misconstrue AGF. It is a presumption that applies in the absence of evidence, not an absolute shield. I acknowledge the NPA violation borne of hasty and unduly insulting wording. For that, I apologize and have corrected my statement. The essential point remains intact: I cannot see how a long-term editor, especially one that has been involved in a multitude of conflicts and policy discussions, can make an argument about policy that directly conflicts with a widely repeated, fundamental principle that is an inseparable part of our core content policies and have it rationally interpreted as anything but a startling lack of knowledge or gamesmanship. Vassyana (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vassyana: Those who know me, know that I do not play word games, I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I can tell prejudice when I see it and there is no point in calling this template anything but a one-sided tool to attack only one kind of articles, those related to the Biblical heritage of Judaism and Christianity. Had the template been deployed at least a couple of times in relation to other religious then I could see that my assumptions were lacking, but based on the existing evidence as it is, it has not been, so my points are quite cogent, as the many who are voting to "Delete" agree with me as well. No one is saying that requiring secondary sources on WP is problematic and that is not the point. I am looking at not just what this template "says" it claims to want, but "how" and "when" it has been deployed and in that instance this is a very problematic template. Therefore, for you to dredge up personal complaints or degrade the perspicacity and wisdom of a fellow user is utterly unacceptable. Stick to the points and merits of the TfD and please do NOT personalize this debate by dragging nonsensical and absurd arguments into it. Stick to the subject and please avoid attacking the nominator and in that way violating WP:NPA. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said, that the template "violates WP:NPOV in its language when it presumes to elevate one set of literature (secular) over another (religious, in this case Jewish and Christian)". That is the exact opposite of the truth. I strongly recommend you re-read that policy, as well as WP:PSTS, WP:V, & WP:RS. Your other complaints are largely "so fix it" problems. I promise you that my next 100 edits will be adding this template to articles besides Judaism and Christianity topics. I will also post a request at WikiProjects Religion and Countering Systemic Bias for editors to help apply the template equally and appropriately across all religious areas. You've got the last word. I don't want to bog the discussion down further. If you want to continue discussing this, please hit my talk page. Vassyana (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wikipedia is chock full of articles that quote a few religious source verses (most commonly Bible in my experience, but that may be biased by what articles I'm a regular on), selected to lead you to some (implicit WP:Synthesis) conclusion. This happens with religious texts far more frequently than with secular ones, so I see no reason why we shouldn't have a template specifically tailored for this eventuality. Also, unlike most secular primary sources cited on Wikipedia, the religious texts in question are typically written in an antique form of a foreign language, meaning that issues of translation and meaning become even more critical, making a good secondary source all-but-essential. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A perfect example of this is Islamic mythology, which attempts to trace the "connections" and "contrasts" between Islamic mythology and "Jewish and Christian beliefs" based almost exclusively on direct citation of the Quran. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change color to yellow. 71.252.113.85 (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The applicability of this template depends completely on how the sources are used in the article. Religious sources are completely acceptable in a situation where their content is being discussed or explained. The reason for keeping this kind of a template would be the cases in which religious sources are being used as credible evidence to the contrary of observed facts (e.g. natural sciences). The primary sources template seems to do this job pretty well but I'm not sure whether there still should be a more specific template for religious subjects, so for now I vote "keep". But, regarding user IZAK's reasons for deleting the template: the fact that this template might have not been used consistently in all religious article is related to the nature of how Wikipedia works: people edit only what they are interested in, other people editing non-biblical religious articles might not even have known about the existence of this template. IZAK seems to want to argue based on one geologists opinion and the age of the Bible that it could also be used as an equal source in articles related to the scientifically observable world. I don't see how defending the "truth value" of the Bible (based on his personal beliefs so it seems) is in any way related to keeping or deleting this template. Thus, only his point no. (1) was in any way related to the actual discussion. --piksi (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - original research interpreting religious texts is quite common. This template explains the error and distinguishes it from other type of primary source usage. A useful template. Yworo (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The template is indiscriminately being added to too many articles on religious topics: see here for instance. (Examples: Nighantu which is not religious at all; Saṃsāra (Buddhism) which is mostly sourced (search the page for "Waldron"); Matsya Purana which describes the contents pretty much as secondary sources do, Yellow Emperor where pretty much every line is sourced. Of course some of these articles have problems and sourcing issues, but that does not mean this template make sense.) If an article describes the contents of a religious text — usually based on a description in some secondary source, even if no source is cited as such — or narrates the plot/outlines of a religious myth/story, this does not automatically mean that the article is using a religious text as a primary source. If an article about a novel or a film narrates its plot or lists its characters, we don't accuse it of using the novel/film as a primary source; at most we can say it's unreferenced. In fact, this template is being added to articles that don't have a source at all (and already have a tag for being unreferenced); how much more absurd can it get than to accuse an article both of not using any sources, and of using some (unmentioned) text as a source? I see more cases where the template is just an unhelpful and inaccurate eyesore than cases where it actually helps; no evidence that this template helps anything. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nighantu is an ancient text and cites the ancient commentator Yaska; they are firmly Hindu texts. Samsara features a good-sized biased selection of religious text quotations, which are not explained by outside sources. The Matsya Purana notes the most important part of the story and that the norms of standard Vedic life were revealed in the text, both of which need secondary sourcing. The Yellow Emperor makes several uncritical references to traditional and religious texts without secondary sources to provide context or counterpoint. If you have problems with the usage I am implementing, bring it up on my talk page. Vassyana (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll discuss the specific examples and your usage on your talk page (apparently all ancient texts are religious texts?!), but is it your position that an article can be both unreferenced and use some text ("or texts") as source? If so, I mention again the absurdity of the position and reiterate my delete vote for now. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if Vassyana were over-eager in his application of the template, I don't see how that's a reason for deletion of the template itself. If we were to follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, inclusionists would have to argue for the deletion (heh!) of {{afd1}}. Huon (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The primary sources template is sufficient. This one is used by editors with an ax to grind against the Bible. TuckerResearch (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per consensus: it's not that editor predilections wind up pointing this template with high or perfect exclusivity toward one subset of potential articles. It's that having such a template tempts editors of all stripes to use it to perpetuate RPOV/SPOV debates while pretending to be talking about something else, and a primar. And while evidence for that assertion is harder to come by, we all know that it's true, excuse me, verifiable. JJB 02:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: and use the editorial-free Template:Primary. I'm here to tell you someone's "next 100 edits" indiscriminately inserted the template into articles on literature, philosophy, abstract concepts, (especially boarderline subjects shared by both philosophical taoism, religious taoism, and, well... China), culture heros, mythical deities, numerous dragons, fictional characters... and the closest I've seen it get to an actual text that's held to be numinous was on Guo Xiang, the classic collected commentaries plus reader's digest version of Zhuang Zhou. Like so many of them, the article actually had a secondary source, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I think this provided an ample demonstration of how disruptively it has been used, (and will continue to be). Now we know it effectively targets religions like Hindumism and Taoism because an English translation of the religious text was published along side anything like a comprehensive treatment; and it's practically a smart bomb for all those minority neopagan religions because if they have no religious text, any source can be considered the body of their religious text. All without having to fuss over reading it and making verifiable changes to the article. Please! just brand a philosopher like Mencius as religious text in a big box at the top of the page. It doesn't even matter if it contradicts the article. It works on theosophy, mythology, it works on fiction... after all, someone at sometime, somewhere might reasonably have called some part of the subject religious... and anyway, it's about improving the sourcing; that's all that's being suggested. And a tiny FYI for the reader, just so they know the sourcing is unreliable in those types of articles.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and many others. As Machine Elf 1735 noted, the "editorial-free Template:Primary" is sufficient for any situation where this template might be used. This template is an example of WP:CREEP that is not needed and can encourage POV-oriented tagging. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:OpenStreetmap

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OpenStreetmap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:REM

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:REM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless! Mhiji (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom! Rehman 14:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per template documentation. ("Template does nothing") --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:41, 6 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Denominazione di origine controllata

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Denominazione di origine controllata (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, IMHO we don't need a template for that. Rehman 14:49, 2 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:DOCG

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DOCG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A handy template. A typing aid. It produces the common, but easy-to-get-wrong piece of wikitext [[Denominazione di Origine Controllata e Garantita|DOCG]]. Of course it is only unused in the sense that it has been widely subst-ed. I see nothing in the section Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Reasons_to_delete_a_template to support deletion. Ian Spackman (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just as easy to type [[DOCG]] -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 14:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 17:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The piped link has a use: it allows the reader to mouse-over the text and confirm what DOCG means. So I can see some value in having this available to subst. Jheald (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if we have this template, we might as well create a template for every phrase which is either non-English, long or simply because some users find it difficult to spell it - that would be thousands of extra unnecessary templates! Mhiji (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:UsertalkHeader

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UsertalkHeader (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary duplication of Template:Talk header. Easily confused with Template:Usertalkheader which is a redirect to the former. Mhiji (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Template:Talk header. Thought to go "delete", but lets save that old history. Rehman 14:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The page history does not seem to contain anything overly useful (and 2006 is not old enough, in my opinion, to preserve it for historical reasons). A redirect from UsertalkHeader to Talk header is confusing and unlikely to be used, and redirecting to Usertalkheader is unnecessary since the search function will resolve the capitalization difference. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Premier League Top Scorers

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Premier League Top Scorers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. No navigation. Creates confusion as name is similar to Template:Premier League top scorers. Mhiji (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as dupe. No need to redirect as it's just simple caps change. Rehman 14:52, 2 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lorem ipsum

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

The result of the discussion was Merge to allow for both formats. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lorem ipsum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Lorem Ipsum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Lorem ipsum with Template:Lorem Ipsum. Duplication. Mhiji (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, per nom. Rehman 14:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems to be used in a variety of other quote templates like {{cquote}} and {{rquote}}. Will this merge affect the functionality of those other templates? -- œ™ 18:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see it's just filler text. I thought it was a quote template itself. -- Ϫ 18:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. They are not duplicates. Lorem Ipsum links Lorem ipsum, and Lorem ipsum allows text (for example bullets), to be inserted in between paragraphs. Does the nominator intend to keep both options? I do support that Template:Lorem Ipsum 2 and Template:Lorem Ipsum list get redirected, as I see no additional options, a color effect can be added on the usage. 117Avenue (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Kannur District

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

The result of the discussion was Merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kannur District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kannur district (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Kannur District with Template:Kannur district. Duplicate navboxes. Should be merged. Mhiji (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox scale

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

The result of the discussion was Merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox scale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Scale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox scale with Template:Infobox Scale. Duplication. Mhiji (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge, per nom. Rehman 11:49, 3 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Old discussions

December 1

Template:Traumahawk - HCD Palm Beach County

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Traumahawk - HCD Palm Beach County (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on one article, should be substituted and then deleted. WOSlinker (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Fb competition 2010-11 Relegation playoffs

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. WOSlinker (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb competition 2010-11 Relegation playoffs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless! Mhiji (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep! Rehman 11:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is now orphaned by replacement of {{Fb cl2 qr}} with {{Fb cl3 qr}} in the article transcluding the template. By the way, we have way too many of these Fb templates, and the naming convention is completely indecypherable. Someone should merge these? 134.253.26.12 (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. The name of the template is longer than the actual content! --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 00:27, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:—wrap

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 Separate. WOSlinker (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:—wrap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:–wrap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:—wrap with Template:–wrap. Duplicate. Mhiji (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose exactly how are they duplicate? One is an ndash, the other is an mdash. We even have guidelines on their use WP:DASH. And where would you merge it? {{-wrap}} (hyphen wrap ; which doesn't exist for some reason) {{--wrap}} (double hyphen wrap) {{−wrap}} (minus wrap)  ? 65.93.13.216 (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But what's the point of having two templates that do the same job? Surely one should redirect to the other? Mhiji (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I agree with the IP, it is different. Look closer. Rehman 15:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as long as there is a difference between en dash and em dash, having both is useful. See MOS:DASH. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Specialist police units of the United Kingdom

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Specialist police units of the United Kingdom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used anywhere, refers to three completely different types of body and replicated by Template:Garda Síochána, Template:UK home nations police forces and Template:Specialist police units of Britain. ninety:one 17:29, 1 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Talkbackalien

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talkbackalien (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 15:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The template code and the documentation were copy-pasted from {{talkback}}, and this template does nothing that talkback doesn't (except changes the image from one that expresses communication to one that doesn't). -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. The problem itself has actually been partially solved with {{Wormhole}}. On the plus side I do like the graphic. ; ) --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 00:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unused and simply useless. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 17:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as needless variation. Creator notified. --Bsherr (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Rep

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. WOSlinker (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rep (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Dem (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Srd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ind (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ppl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Prg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Nrp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Knn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fdl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Drp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Amp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Whg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Various unused templates. Mhiji (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, after substituting. Rehman 11:56, 3 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Thankyou

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 Redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thankyou (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template. Very few transclusions. Should be substituted and then redirected to {{Thank you}} to avoid confusion. Mhiji (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Template:Thank you, per nom. I think what it's attempting to do is too generic—e.g., "Your apology or cleanup was greatly appreciated." (emphasis added). The few transclusions can be substed. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Black Falcon, and delete its useless talkpage redirect. Rehman 11:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge {{Thankyou}}, {{Thank You IP}} and {{Wikithanks}} into {{Thank you}}. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rehman. The underlying template ought to be deleted for the reasons given by Black Falcon, but the actual name ought to be a redirect as a spacing variation. --Bsherr (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Promotional Products Businesses

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Promotional Products Businesses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not much navigation with only one or two links. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:58, 1 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Promotional Products

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Promotional Products (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not much navigation with only one or two links. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 10:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed, not useful. --Bsherr (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Motorsport in 2011

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Motorsport in 2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Usage of this template has never been clearly established in its 2009 & 2010 versions, neither has an inclusion criteria for what 2011 motorsport season articles can be included. Is poorly named (some categories listed are not international), has been subject of edit warring. Until such time as an inclusion criteria can be established (discussion currently underway at Template talk:Motorsport in 2010#"Previous Consensus"?. Doing this in an attempt to prevent further perpetuation of NPOV and edit warring. Falcadore (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Easy to edit war, also the criteria for international motorsport is vague, as there is no definition. Some of these listed are not international even if they visit one country (V8 Supercar and H1 Unlimited), does this make them international. Since when Sprint Cup was international, they never ventured outside the US for a start. Donnie Park (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Donnie. Rehman 12:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Can I also recommend nominating this template (Template:Motorsport in the UK) for deletion as it is no better either for the same reason as the nom. Donnie Park (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All of these arguments can also be applied to Template:Motorsport in 2009 and Template:Motorsport in 2010; should they also be deleted? --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 18:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and Template:Motorsport in 2009 and Template:Motorsport in 2010 as well. Little chance of establishing a meaningful criteria means there will be a constant stream of editors adding and removing series based on personal preferences. Kuguar03 (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to comments - anyone know how to incorporate the 2009 & 2010 rtemplates into the discussion? --Falcadore (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Reply - There's some directions for a multiple AfD here: WP:BUNDLE, but I don't know if that'll work here. Since this discussion has been going on for a week already it might not be correct to include them here, but rather list separately. Kuguar03 (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: let this TfD run its course then decide whether to list 2010 and 2009 based on the outcome. --Falcadore (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per above, and possibly replace with something more specific, and with a proper inclusion criteria! Calistemon (talk) 06:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all 3 per above. Mhiji (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:KLFsg

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. WOSlinker (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KLFsg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template. Only 2 transclusions. Should be substituted then deleted. Mhiji (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 10:44, 1 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Shannara character

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shannara character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 10:47, 1 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Exalted City-States

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Exalted City-States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, don't see any use of it. Rehman 10:46, 1 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox SG rail museum

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. As per G7 criteria. WOSlinker (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox SG rail museum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete says the editor who created it. It's purpose is no longer needed. WuhWuzDat 06:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under G7, per above. Rehman 10:45, 1 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 28

Template:Campaignbox Arab-Israeli conflict

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 and replace with Template:Arab-Israeli conflict engagements (or its parent). Ruslik_Zero 19:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Arab-Israeli conflict (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Campaignboxes are designed for campaigns within a larger war. I think it stretches the concept too far to consider the Arab–Israeli conflict as a single war (of which wars like the Yom Kippur War and Six-Day War are mere campaigns). It's much more nuanced, and Template:Arab-Israeli conflict engagements, which is a child of the larger Template:Arab–Israeli conflict, serves the subject much better. It's different in that it's a navbox, but it repeats all of the contents of this template. I propose this template is therefore redundant, and that a campaignbox for the Arab–Isreali conflict (not "Arab–Isreali war") is incorrect. Bsherr (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the polites of the Arab-Isreali conflict have been in a state of war with isreal since 1948 (Syria), or were for lengthy periods of time (Egypt, Jordan). Thus from one point of view the arab isreali conflict can be seen as one great war with several bouts of fighting in the same manner as the hundred years war.XavierGreen (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that's a possible viewpoint, but, at the minimum, if it is legitimate, it ought to be first included in the lede of the Arab–Israeli conflict article, and sourced, before considered in the design of templates on the topic. --Bsherr (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of some military operations (not only wars) and the exclusion of other bouts of fighting in this template is totally arbitrary. This is the only complete template that should be included in every article about Arab-Israeli engagements.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Family Guy character

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. WOSlinker (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Family Guy character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, I doubt it will be used in Family Guy related articles. JJ98 (Talk) 17:01, 28 November 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 25

Template:TSA Leadership

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TSA Leadership (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one bluelink (which is a dablink) except for heading - this info belongs more in the TSA article, not a navbox. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not useful for navigation. Only transcluded in one article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. This is content, not for navigation. --Bsherr (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Joaquin008 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:San Jose Radio

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 Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:San Jose Radio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template contains dulplicate content from some Bay Area stations and it is no longer used. Geoffrey100 (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the stations on the template do not overlap San Francisco, as the stations generally can't be received there. (I'm talking about FM mostly, and lower powered AMs). San Jose is the 10th largest city in the United States. A lot of templates in California as far as radio stations overlap. Your edits as well as the IP edits which I believe are also you, are disruptive to Wikipedia. It is only unused because you deleted the pages it was on, which will require restoring. The SF template doesn't contain every station in the Bay area. There is room for this template on Wikipedia. A lot of radio templates on Wikipedia overlap. If this template would include San Jose stations only and not stations from SFO that are on that template, it is fine. --milonica (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The SF Bay Area is so large that some stations, depending on their power output and position, do not reach from one end to the other. Sitting on the very south end of the bay, San Jose does not receive all the other stations. Conversely, its stations do not reach all the way north. This template should hold all the South Bay stations which can be heard from San Jose. Binksternet (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WWII Scottish rugby fatalities

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 Convert to a list Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WWII Scottish rugby fatalities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. This template gives undue weight to an intersection of two unrelated attributes of the biographical articles to which it is attached: playing Rugby and being killed in World War II. I encountered the template on Patrick Munro MP, who was nearly sixty when he was killed in 1942,more than 30 years after he had last played international rugby.

There is already a list at List of international rugby union players killed in action during the First World War#Scotland, which is quite sufficient. Transcluding the list into biographical articles via this template gives undue prominence to this trivial intersection. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been listed at WP:RU and WP:Scotland
The list referred to as "quite sufficient" refers to World War ONE not Two. I realise some people consider one a continuation of the other, but I think most agree there is a substantial difference.
Its importance is a subjective matter. There is a pretty large memorial in Edinburgh to them all (both World Wars, plus the single fatality of the Boer War).-MacRusgail (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The length of time after they finished playing rugby is not an issue. Mainly because where is the cut-off point when this fact is no longer an issue. While still a player; impossible as all international rugby was suspended with the outbreak of war, one month, two years, five years? We just can't put a quantity to it. Every player on that list is a former international as their death prevented any further caps. There is also a link between the wars and playing sport as it was used as a recruitment drive (See File:Rugby Conscripts.JPG), including sporting battalions in a similair way to Pals batallions.FruitMonkey (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Jessie J

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jessie J (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overall completely unnecessary navigational template. Artist's page is a stub, the album doesn't have an article, none of the singles have an article, and the discography doesn't have an article. In fact, the only items with articles are the record labels and the artist herself, and the redirects the template do link to are easily accessible through her page. Yves (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - per nom. - eo (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and what I'd hope was common sense. Should never have been made. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:US Heads of State

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US Heads of State (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template combines Presidents of the United States with the post-1776 Presidents of the Continental Congress to create a list of people who are alleged to be the "US Heads of State". As a primary author of the article on the Presidents of the Continental Congress, I have never encountered a reliable source that claims that the President of Congress was the "head of state" of what was then a confederation of states. Sure, the argument could be made, but I haven't seen it in a reliable source. A template that promotes such a view is original research or, perhaps, an endorsement of an unconventional idea. We already have templates for both {{US Presidents}} and {{Presidents of the Continental Congress}}. No need to force them into a shotgun marriage. —Kevin Myers 05:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heres a source, [[1]]. Other independent states have templates on their heads of state so why not the United States? Its not original research, if you look at the Articles of Confederation the President of the Continental Congress is given a status that in political science equates to a head of state. Heres another source [[2]]. I can provide more if nessesary. It should also be noted that not all of the presidents of congress listed in the {{Presidents of the Continental Congress}} where heads of state (no polity existed for them to administer before 1775).XavierGreen (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are those your best sources? The first is a tertiary source, which is okay but not ideal; the second one is a school book from 1865! Neither are what we're really looking for when identifying reliable sources. The second source doesn't even agree with your assertion that "no polity existed for them to administer before 1775", since it includes the pre-1775 president. The first may not agree with you either; it seems to say that the first President of Congress to be a "head of state" was John Hanson, since he was president when the Articles were ratified. I've checked a number of modern, scholarly reliable sources and can find nothing to support your position. —Kevin Myers 14:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the Articles of Confederation are not a reliable source?XavierGreen (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I urge you to review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which says "Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves." The Articles of Confederation is a primary source. The term "head of state" doesn't appear in the Articles. There's a brief mention of an officer whose job it was to "preside" over meetings of Congress. Interpreting this to mean that the presiding officer was therefore the "head of state" of the United States is something we leave to the reliable, secondary sources. —Kevin Myers 03:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The President of Congress was the highest official under the Articles of Confederation. The highest offical in the government of a state is the head of state. I have provided sources which say that the head of state at the time was the President of Congress. If we look at [[3]] the template is valid. If the President of Congress was not the head of state than who was? Can you provide sources stating otherwise? You yourself stated that the one source i listed was ok, yet than completly disregarded it in your argument.XavierGreen (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have one tertiary source that makes a passing (and literally parenthetical) reference that seems to support you on some points but not others. That's a weak argument when the scholarly reliable sources make no claim that the President of Congress was a head of state. You say, "The highest official in the government of a state is the head of state." That may be true, but it's not widely accepted that the United States were (not "was"; United States was a plural noun then) a "state" under the Articles of Confederation. As our article on confederation says, a "confederation is an association of sovereign member states" that does not create "a new state on top of the member states." You assert that the Confederation was a state, that it must have had a head of state, and that the presiding officer of Congress was the highest official. This is all interpretation, something we leave to the reliable sources. —Kevin Myers 05:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign powers recognized the United States of America, not any of its constituent states individually. The Articles of confederation gave all power in diplomatic relations to the confederal authority. If you like i can show you the documents of recognition from the various countries that recognized the US at the time, none of them provide recogntion to the individual states only to the United States of America.XavierGreen (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect: the Treaty of Paris recognized twelve or thirteen independent sovereign states (Delaware got the shaft in some versions). But it doesn't matter: your interpretation of the documents matters when you get it published in a reliable source. Until then, you're just a guy ignoring WP:NOR and WP:RS. I can sympathize: it's sometimes disappointing not being able to have our personal interpretations endorsed by Wikipedia, but that's how it works. —Kevin Myers 23:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you think we should keep this template, don't forget to specify who you think the first name on the list should be. The first source listed above says it should be John Hanson; the second says Peyton Randolph. According to XavierGreen's interpretation, it should be John Hancock, though another amateur historian on the Internet has claimed that the correct answer is Samuel Huntington. You can decide, right here, who was the first US head of state. How exciting! —Kevin Myers 23:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that two sources were found on the internet within two hours of this AFD opening, I'd bet there are more out there clarifying this point. Or we could (relying on the secondary sources) make the ostensible heads of state gray up until the point that they're supported by both sources. Or we could continue being sarcastic, 'cause that's real helpful.--Chaser (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the sarcasm was bad judgment on my part. Sorry about that XavierGreen. My point remains valid, i.e. that to keep this template is to engage in original research or to give undue weight to a minority (and possibly fringe) interpretation of the role of the President of Congress. Best to leave such muddled matters to articles, where the issues can be explained, instead of templates. —Kevin Myers 17:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue you speak of in the comment section above derives from the fact that there were actually 2 different offices, president of the continental congress (this position existed before the declaration of independence) and the president of the confederational congress.XavierGreen (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking to the guy who wrote the President of the Continental Congress article as it now exists, and so I know that the scholarly sources generally disagree with your statement. The idea that the President of the Continental Congress and the President of the Confederation Congress were two different offices was an idea promoted by John Hanson's grandson, part of his scheme to have his grandfather recognized as the first President of the United States! After Edward Cody Burnett wrote the first definitive scholarly history of the Continental Congress in 1941, historians no longer make a meaningful distinction between the Continental and Confederation Congresses. The idea has been given a second life through amateur history on the Internet, which is perhaps where you first learned of it. (That's how I heard of it.) When we stick to modern reliable sources, the oddities of amateur Internet history become easier to spot. —Kevin Myers 02:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt say that that was the position i agreed with, you asked why the sourced differed and i told you. From what i understand as you have stated, the only thing that differed between the two positions was the name. I am fully aware of the John Hanson grandson debacle. But none the less the highest official in a government is the head of state.XavierGreen (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources: [4] ("The limited duties of the President of the Congress included the ceremonial tasks of a head of state.") [5] (Under the Articles of Confederation, "there was to be no president or head of state..."). "Ceremonial tasks" seems spartan compared to the powers of the American President under the Constitution. There is also this source, which may speak to the head of state issue (it speaks more to head of government in the article). I'll keep researching. No opinion yet.--Chaser (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems like we have several templates that display presidents. Perhaps this template is redundant and I don't claim to be a heads of state expert but I seem to recall the role of the President of the Continental congress being...well less than the head of state. With that said I think its useful to leave them in this template but I think the template should be modified to split the Presedents of the CC from the Presidents of the US. --Kumioko (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting them into 2 or even 3 sections within the template would seem reasonable. A head of state by many definitions is merely the highest official within a government. Many heads of state today have even less power than the President of Congress did under the articles of confederation, for example the Emperor of Japan.XavierGreen (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We also should merge it with this one {{US Presidents}} --Kumioko (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This ought to be deleted. To the extent it's not original research it's duplicative of two other templates. Coemgenus 22:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coemgenus. Formally there is no such office as US Head of State. Twilightchill t 21:30, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Warn, 3rd nomination

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 and stale. No prejudice toward future nominations, though hopefully there will be a day of two before the next one... JPG-GR (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Warn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with Template:Uw-test1. Propose redirecting to the same. Bsherr (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redundant with a standard template, and also, when did we begin to "appreciate" people experimenting on the real articles? Bad wording, and I don't see a reason to fix it other than getting rid of the template outright. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, very obsolete. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close we just discussed this; See #Template:Warn, 2nd nomination, which is still here on this XfD page (as of today, 25 Nov; look at 13 Nov nominations). It just closed on the same day which it was renominated. That certainly seems like excessive renomination speed to me. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the criteria at WP:Speedy Keep apply. The last discussion was closed as no consensus, so there's no prior consensus to which to defer. --Bsherr (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That a new discussion is opened on the same day as the old one closed, certainly seems like getting rid of the old opinions; it was not relisted, it was closed. The new discussion is without the previously lodged opinions, which certainly do not seem stale, since they were still fresh earlier in the day -- that is why I think it is excessive renomination speed. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's certainly a valid argument for !voting keep, though I disagree. --Bsherr (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As the person who closed the last discussion, I don't see anything untoward about this renomination, though I was surprised to see how quickly it came back up. The arguments in the previous discussion were made prior to a relist done by another administrator, and then the relisted discussion, which generated no comments whatsoever, ran long. And there was no discernable result from the earlier discussion. So rather than relist a second time, I just cut it off. Were the old comments stale? Probably, as two weeks had passed between the last comment's placement and the closing. This new discussion, however, appears to be doing what the relist couldn't, and is generating new discussion to hopefully clearly determine the fate of this template. So enough on process - this is a perfectly cromulent nomination - and join us in weighing in on the substance of the matter. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As deprecated and redundant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Joaquin008 (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. Some of us like simple and memorable names; others dislike the wording of the uv series. There is no reason why those editors cannot be pleased, and storage is cheap (if indeed this deletion saves any; the text is still in memory although inaccessible). The sole purpose of any of these templates is to save a little trouble in warning vandals; if this one saves a little more trouble by not forcing a look-up of uv jargon, so much the better.
    • The template will be redirected, so you can continue to use {{warn}}. If someone dislkies the wording of the UW series, let them propose new wording (and none recently have), not make a redundant template. --Bsherr (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And speedy close. Not only is this the second nomination in two weeks, the proposal, ill-reasoned though it is, is a merge proposal. Take it to the template talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge proposals (though that is not what I proposed) are within the scope of Templates for Discussion. None of the criteria at WP:Speedy Keep apply. --Bsherr (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The continued presence of a redirect makes it a merge, whether the text is altered or not. No deletion is needed for that; no reason (no advantage to the encyclopedia) has been given for deletion by anybody. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm going by WP:MERGE, which says, "A merger is a non-automated process by which the content of two pages is united on one page." By that definition, redirecting is not merging. But if you're going by a different definition, I'm pleased to consider it and recharacterize the proposed action accordingly. But please be aware that Templates for Discussion considers template mergers, too. I did give a reason for the redirection, the template is redundant. Are you asking why redundant templates should be deleted? If so, I can address that. --Bsherr (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then do address it; recalling that this template is only used on user talk pages, and is therefore no part of the look and feel of the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Indeed. Besides being resource inefficient (yes, resource efficiency is not an important motivator, but all else being equal, is still a factor), redundant templates are undesirable because they are consensus avoidant. Wikipedia practices and page content are decided by consensus. This is desirable because it requires users to come together to decide the best way to do things, which usually produces the best possible result. Reduntant pages interfere with the formation of consensus, because they allow users, deliberately or inadvertantly, to avoid this process because no consensus is required to go off and start a new, redundant page. Because many users expect Wikipedia as a unified project to have uniform practices, redundancy also confuses users (and this can only be treated, not cured, by documentation explaining the redundancy). This is why redundancy is explicitly forbidden for articles, why WP:MERGE directs that redundant pages be merged (if not redirected or deleted), and why redundancy is widely accepted as a valid reason for deletion. --Bsherr (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Now, one may next assert, because this is a user talk template and users are free to communicate as they choose with other users, that users will want to vary how they communicate with other users, including by template. However, our practice, as it is for all content, is that templates in the Template-space are accepted by consensus. Templates that are not consensus are userfied, and there is no prohibition on having user warning templates in userspace. Many fine essays, userboxes, and user talk templates exist there, and this is an option for this template too. --Bsherr (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, this nomination is based on two undocumented falsehoods:

  1. That it is "resource-inefficient" for you to use template A and me to use template B for similar purposes, as opposed to both of us using template A and template B being deleted. This is blithering nonsense. It uses the same amount of memory, since deleted material is not actually removed from memory (that's why deletions can be reversed), and it still uses two template calls. Indeed, if two templates tend to have fewer revisions each than one combined template, it may marginally save revision calls to use two.
  2. On the one hand because this is a user talk template and users are free to communicate as they choose with other users, that users will want to vary how they communicate with other users, including by template is mere reason. It is; others may indeed wish to use the same template as I do. But Bsherr goes on to say: templates in the Template-space are accepted by consensus. That is neither practice nor policy (I note that no actual policies are cited); changes in template space are made by consensus.

This template exists; it seems useful; this request is disruptive and irregular, and will not save the resources employed in discussing it. Keep immediately. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia pages are edited in perpetuity, and each revision consumes capacity. It is mathematically probable that two pages, with associated talk pages, will generate more revisions than one, thus consume more resources. But like I said, this is a very minor consideration. As to the point that templates in the Template-space are there by consensus, this can be proved by its negation. Templates that do not have consensus to exist are deleted. Perhaps you'll soon see that here. --Bsherr (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(You may have noticed that I replied without labeling your arguments "blithering nonsense", as you did mine. Maybe you can extend me the same courtesy?) --Bsherr (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more courteous to better arguments. False conjectures deserve to be called out; that way there may be fewer of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would give better arguments if you were more courteous. --Bsherr (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Set me a good example; give them anyway. They might well persuade me, if they came to light. Until then, this is a pointless and out-of-place proposal, of no benefit to the encyclopedia, supported only by bafflegab and the sort of consistency Emerson decried. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 30 November 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Philippine TV block 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 delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ABS-CBN Primetanghali (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ABS-CBN Primetime Bida (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ABS-CBN Saturday Afternoon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ABS-CBN Saturday Night (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ABS-CBN Sunday Night (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Dramarama sa Hapon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:GMA Linggo Bingo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:GMA Sabado Star Power (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hapontastic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Linggo Bingo sa Gabi (GMA Telebabad Weekend) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LinggoBingo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pinoy Telenovelas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sabado Star Power sa Hapon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sabado Star Power sa Late Night (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Sabado Star sa Hapon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:TV5 Primetime Panalo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Telebabad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:UMAGANDA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bandila (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Umagang Kay Ganda (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not everything needs a navbox. Not only most of these templates contains only 2-3 shows, it also clutters the articles that are linked on these templates. Most of these templates were also created by either fanboys or blocked sockpuppets of fanboys. WayKurat (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Mr/Ms WayKurat and other people concerned,

May I justify to you why I created a template for Bandila (TV program) and Umagang Kay Ganda. The main reason why I created such template is because I have received numerous requests to put up a template for the page similar to the TV Patrol page which shows the anchors current or former of the said program. This would also give an easier access to those people who are looking for the anchors of the said show or vice versa rather than browsing the whole body of the page.

P.S. Pls do not remove the said article immediately. If you want more justification about the matter, I am willing to give more justification so that the template will not be deleted and can be reconsidered.

Jeromesandilanico (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From where did you get those "requests"? I have nominated those templates for deletion since it can only clutter the articles on where they are associated with and can set trend on creating a template for every TV show from the major networks. Also, if you have noticed, TV Patrol has its own nav template since there are a lot regional versions for that newscast. Bandila has none. The template only contains five articles and all of them are the anchors. You don't see NBC Nightly News or CBS Evening News have its own template and list its current and former anchors. Even Saksi or 24 Oras has no similar template since it is already contained to the GMA News and Public Affairs template. -WayKurat (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Mr/Ms WayKurat and other people concerned,

I got these requests from different sources like blogs and groups inside and outside of wikipedia. And may I request that you please stop comparing these pages to other pages for your opinions. Wikipedia is made to help people in gaining credible knowledge in the easiest and convenient way possible and if the people wants to have such which will not create any conflict or misinformation about a topic then as contributors, we should give them what they want.

P.S. Pls do not remove the said article immediately. If you want more justification about the matter, I am willing to give more justification so that the template will not be deleted and can be reconsidered.

Jeromesandilanico (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Movieclips

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 per WP:ELNO#Links_normally_to_be_avoided item 5. Ruslik_Zero 14:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Movieclips (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As far as I can tell, this template is being used for the sole purpose of spamming film articles with links to the Movieclips page for those films. Movieclips is web startup that offers streaming video of movie clips from films from certain studios. Seems a blatant violation of WP:NOT#LINK, WP:EL, and WP:SPAM to me. The article on the company is new, as is the template, and as far as I can see there've only been 2 editors applying the template: the creator & 1 other, & based on their edit history I'm almost certain one's a sockpuppet of the other. Pretty clear-cut case of spamming here that we could nip in the bud. IllaZilla (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete, per CSD G11. Nakon 05:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Negative. G11 is for violations of WP:ADVERT, pages that are blatant advertisements. I don't think anyone can interpret this template, from its plain content, as a blatant advertisement. We should have a discussion here to assess the value of the template. --Bsherr (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the creator of the template, I can assure you it is not an advertisement. I closely followed the guidelines and tried to mimic what similar templates like imdb and allmovie had in place. This sole purpose of the template is to make the creation of links to Movieclips.com content simple, consistent, and in keeping with wikipedia standards.Donbrandoni (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not used anywhere, and I agree with the nominator's rationale. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's unused because the nominator orphaned the template out of process, so we shouldn't consider that in evaluating the template. --Bsherr (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator has tossed out some links to policies, but has failed to explain in any way how they apply. (1) WP:NOT#LINK states that articles should not be mere collections of external links. I presume this is to what the nominator refers. The nominator has not explained how this template causes articles to become mere collections of external links. This template links to relevant content, and, unless the nominator can identify other similar sites, isn't duplicative of anything else in the external links sections of these articles. (2) Regarding WP:EL, is the nominator claiming this is an WP:ELNO external link, or merely that it's promotional or a conflict of interest? (3) Regarding WP:SPAM, I presume the nominator is referring to WP:LINKSPAM? If the nominator is claiming the template is promotional, it's clearly not blatantly so from its plain content. Now, if the template is being applied to articles by a user with a conflict of interest, that's problematic, but it should result in action against the user, not deletion of the template. We don't delete permissible content as a sanction for user conduct. (4) If the nominator suspects that the users mentioned are involved in sockpuppetry, report it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, and then link us to the case here. Otherwise, it's just a personal attack. However, now, I would like to know from the template proponants: (1) Do you have a conflict of interest? (2) I see the site is labeled as beta. Doesn't that suggest that it is too soon to employ such a template here? --Bsherr (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I don't think a conflict alone means the template should exist or not, I do think it is relevant to the discussion and should be out in the open. It does appear that User:Donbrandoni may be an employee of Movieclips. I have added a discussion to the appropriate talk page indicating why I believe that to be the case, so feel free to check it out at Talk:Movieclips. My argument to delete is based on the fact that the site, while probably notable, is in beta - and adding a link to a site that is subject to changes in URLs or content at any time seems like a bad idea. I would also suggest that film pages usually have a lot of ELs, including IMDB, Allmovie, Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, official sites, and any number of other review and official sites. I realize that shouldn't matter, but it is important to remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links - and we need to avoid turning these pages into that. -Addionne (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems obvious that this is being used for promotional purposes. Even if it weren't, I would ask what useful purpose this serves? Has the Wikipedia community been crying out for an easy way to link to the Movieclips page about a film? I don't think so and, indeed, if I saw these on a film page I would most likely remove them as irrelevent and indiscriminte. They simply do not add any useful information beyond a basic summary of the kind that can easily be found on many much more established and informative sites such as IMDB.--KorruskiTalk 15:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, external links may be added to articles without an outcry for the Wikipedia community being necessary. If you assert it's promotional, you have to ground that argument in WP:ADVERT. Otherwise, adding any external link could be construed as promoting its target. --Bsherr (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I don't 'have to' do anything of the sort. I am asserting that inserting these links into large numbers of articles is self-evidently promotional, per WP:DUCK. It is up to the closing administrator to judge the worth and validity of my argument, thanks. And yes, adding any external link could be construed as promoting its target, if you want to, but using a bit of common sense it's usually possible to balance the likely promotional nature of the link against its usefulness and come to a reasonable judgement.--KorruskiTalk 09:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ELNO#5: "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services." There is a distinction to be recognized between a site that offers information relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of entertainment productions, such as IMDB, and a site that markets entertainment productions, such as this one. This is essentially an advertising site that displays movie trailers and earns referral fees for viewers who go on to buy or rent the movies. (ref: Movieclips.com Launches With Studio Deals, Associated Press, 2 December 2009) ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IMDB is owned by Amazon.com. What's the difference? --Bsherr (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IMDb provides a good deal of informative content that is beyond the scope of what Wikipedia itself provides. For example complete cast & crew credits, weekly and weekend by-country box office breakdowns, technical specifications, and full soundtrack listings. Movieclips offers only streaming clips of particular scenes, nothing else. IMDb's content has informative value, while Movieclips' is purely for entertainment. Who owns the companies is really less important than this. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, the difference between information and entertainment is subjective. Arguably, a site that provides primary source material, like video clips, from movies described at Wikipedia, is informative. Would you say the same thing about a site that provides nothing but excerpts from Tolstoy short stories, or is it just movie excerpts that you deem purely entertaining? --Bsherr (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:FILMS has, by longstanding consensus & precedent, permitted external links to IMDb on the basis that it provides a fair amount of detailed information on films that is more in-depth than the level of detail that WP seeks to provide (with respect to crew listings, tech specs, & other minutia previously mentioned). Ditto informational sites like Allmovie. Movieclips does not provide in-depth information about films, it merely provides clips from films for entertainment purposes. If all IMDb provided were still images & plot summaries, it probably wouldn't pass muster. Movieclips may have some ground to stand on re: WP:ELYES #2, but it isn't hosting complete copies of films, only brief clips. We generally don't link to "copies" of works that are only clips (ie. Google books excerpts); we typically only link to full copies. (BTW, Tolstoy's works are all in the public domain as they were published prior to 1/1/1923, so that comparison doesn't hold...full text copies of his works could/should be available within the Wikimedia project such as in Wikibooks.) --IllaZilla (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no policy or guideline that provides not to link to sites that provide clips, is there? --Bsherr (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    True, there is no blanket guideline against sites offering clips of movies. But there is also no blanket guideline against sites offering lists of words that rhyme with the article subject - that doesn't mean they are relevant or needed, just that they haven't been discussed. This is a good site. It does probably add value - especially to films with notable scenes which are discussed in the article itself and can be shown at Movieclips to add context. However, it has not been established as reliably functional, and so violates WP:ELNO #16, which suggests not adding links to sites that "are not reliably functional, or likely to continue being functional. -Addionne (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I mentioned the site's beta status above, which is why I haven't voted keep. But the idea that a site that provides multimedia clips relevant to an article subject is prohibited as an external link because it's promotional or uninformative, and that it's proponents are spammers, should be disspelled as unsupported by the policies and guidelines. --Bsherr (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If (as I suspect) the creator of this template is associated with movieclips, then his actions are clearly promotional in intent, and I do not need to point to a policy or guideline to determine that, although WP:DUCK will do, if I must. If he is not, then it merely looks like spam, and I will content myself with pointing out that the links add nothing to an article and, if they were put in manually, I would remove them as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is, therefore, hard to see what purpose this template serves.--KorruskiTalk 17:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There hasn't been any evidence of a conflict of interest brought up here. That's not to dismiss the possibility, just to point out that, so far, it's just an assertion. If there is a conflict of interest, the solution is action against the user, not the content, unless the content is itself in contravention. Nothing in this template falls under any of the sections of WP:LINKSPAM. If you're asserting that the mere addition of an external link is promoting the target of the link (which is not stated in the policy), when would adding an external link ever be permissible? --Bsherr (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated in my earlier comment: 'yes, adding any external link could be construed as promoting its target, if you want to, but using a bit of common sense it's usually possible to balance the likely promotional nature of the link against its usefulness and come to a reasonable judgement'. Let me put it another way: I cannot see any valid reason for adding these links except to promote the site. They are not useful links. Do you actually want to keep them? You appear to be saying that in the absence of a policy-based reason to delete them, they should stay. Perhaps, but, as far as I am aware the burden of proof doesn't particularly rest with the delete !voters. So, if I could turn it round for a second - what is your policy-based reason for keeping the links?--KorruskiTalk 22:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. This is WP:ELYES #3. The site provides primary source material (film excerpts) relevant to an encyclopedia understanding of respective article subjects. This material (the film excerpts) cannot be incorporatied to Wikipedia for copyright reasons. --Bsherr (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification re. the extended responses to my post: "Prohibited as an external link because it's promotional" is very much the point of the pertinent policies and guidelines. Whether the links are intended to promote the site is moot, the site itself is commercial promotion.

    The above linked AP story clearly indicates the site's raison d'être is to feed viewers to retail sites by displaying teasers. A cursory examination reveals conspicuous retailer links that violate the letter of Wikipedia:Spam#Videos item 2, leaving no ambiguity about the nature of the site. This is exactly what WP:ELNO item 5 is about. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps WP:EL needs to be clarified. The purpose of this site to its users is to view excerpts of films. The business purpose of the site (to generate revenue through advertising) is irrelevant. Consider by analogy CNN Money, a news joint venture between news network CNN and Money magazine. It's a news site, and the purpose to its users is to read news. That's not the business purpose of the site, of course. It's owners aren't providing news as a benevolent service to the public; rather, the business purpose of the site is to earn revenue from advertisements on the site, to feed viewers to CNN TV, and to sell subscriptions to Money magazine. On article pages, there's the news story, but there are also advertisements, and links to subscribe to Money magazine. I could provide a similar description for nearly all reputable and reliable news sites. Is MovieClips any different? If so, why? --Bsherr (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that this site merely displays wares for sale. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an opinion reflecting the bias of one viewpoint, a quite cynical characterization of film. By the same view, Wikipedia articles about films are merely descriptions of wares for sale, no? I think many people take a different view, that film clips to them are not samples of a product, but excerpts of a creative work. Would you acknowledge that this alternative viewpoint is legitimizing? --Bsherr (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 24

Template:Countrynationalleacat

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 substitute and then delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countrynationalleacat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template creates a massive, and in my opinion unnecessary, category blurb and also categorizes. I think for these categories a manual approach would be more transparent and appropriate. meco (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • When automatic categorisation works, it's good, but this one had broken down and the creator (and only person who really understands the whole web of templates), User: Pee Tern has been inactive for over a year now. The only real stumbling block is the possibility that we would be left with hundreds of articles not categorised at all if auto categorisation is removed, but I think this would be outweighed by the fact that (somewhat rampant) incorrect categorisation would also stop. I categorised all the US LEA articles a few years back, and I would say that maybe 25% used auto categorisation, but I have no idea what that would be now, or how it would be in other articles. On a technical note, not sure this can be deleted without also deleting everything in Category:Infobox Law enforcement agency categorisation templates, and again not sure what the consequences of deletion of those would be for the parent template, Template:Infobox Law enforcement agency. ninety:one 21:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could withdraw this nom and do an umbrella nomination of all of them instead? __meco (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Slight misunderstanding here on my part: these templates do not categorise articles but rather category pages. Yes, they all do need nominating together because they are pretty much identical. I remember now; they were part of a wider effort by Pee Tern to merge categories and lists that never really got off the ground. My remarks about the effect of removing them still stand - will need to check all the cats, but I guess I don't have any real objection to their removal. ninety:one 01:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and delete, but after some minor modifications. First, I don't like the automatic categorization of the {{Infobox law enforcement agency}}, and I plan to clean that up. After that, the section about how to add the category will be unnecessary. Second, I would like to add some "safesubst:" logic to make it substitute cleanly. Please ping me if the closing decision is to substitute and delete, and I will take care of both of these issues if I haven't already. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happy to go with that, so substitute and delete for me as well. Thank you! ninety:one 19:25, 2 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Damien Hirst

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

The result of the discussion was Keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Damien Hirst (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These few links are easily accessible in the main article on this man. Redundant clutter. Artiquities (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seems to be succinct and relevant concerning a particularly notable figure...Modernist (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim. Remove the galleries, patrons and movement sections. As a navigation for articles on the major works and exhibitions it has value.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but it would be better if the colour could be changed :) Rehman 12:53, 1 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lionel Richie singles

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. The template has already been merged into Template:Lionel Richie. The redirect is not needed as these templates are supposed to be used on the same articles. Ruslik_Zero 18:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lionel Richie singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All the singles here that have articles are listed in Template:Lionel Richie. The ones that don't don't belong on a navigational box, so this is just redundant to the main template that is on each of the song articles as well. No need for both. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and remove the singles from {{Lionel Richie}}. Precedent is that singles templates can be separate from the main article template, as it reduces clutter on both. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into {{Lionel Richie}} by adding any missing in the latter, then redirect. --Bsherr (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Most of the entries in the singles template are not actually linked, and hence, there are actually not that many, so adding them to the {{Lionel Richie}} template does not add that much. The complete list of singles can, of course, be listed in a corresponding Lionel Richie discography article. Navigation templates are for navigation, and this singles template appears to be trying to be a comprehensive list, rather than a list of links. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there clear consensus to merge here? Plus, the fact that it has already been done previously. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Tracey Emin

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tracey Emin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These few links are already easily accessible within the article on Emin. Entirely redundant temp.--Artiquities (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NYCS Broadway-Seventh north2

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYCS Broadway-Seventh north2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely unnecessary template. It only applies to one station in the subway system and the service suspension is only temporary. We can just add a note to the station infobox saying that it is closed for reconstruction The Legendary Ranger (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary; per The Legendary Ranger above. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 24 November 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

November 23

Gendered Naismith Coaches of the Year

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

The result of the discussion was merge as {{Naismith Coach of the Year}}. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold and proceeding with the above non-controversial task... Rehman 12:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, awaiting admin to speedy delete some pages per G6... Rehman 12:33, 4 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox savivaldybe

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox savivaldybe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nightmare to try to edit due to the lack of named fields, and entirely redundant to other templates. 134.253.26.9 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Having a specific infobox for everything rather defeats the purpose of infoboxes, as it doesn't really reduce effort in creating an article or making things clearer for editors. This one is written weirdly enough to actually make things worse. --ais523 11:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, after replacing the articles with the correct box. Rehman 09:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I created the template what it seems a million years ago. It was on my never-ending "to-do" list to migrate it to Infobox settlement & then delete. Thank you 134.253.26.9! Much appreciated. Renata (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Golden League

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. Courcelles 08:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Golden League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant to info contained in Template:WAT. EmanWilm (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BoA singles

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

The result of the discussion was No consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BoA singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:BoA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:BoA singles with Template:BoA.
This navbox was recently split from {{BoA}}, but I see no basis for doing this. Sure, it gives us two navboxes that are half the size, but it also gives us two navboxes that are half as useful for navigation. If size is a genuine issue then it can perhaps be better addressed in other ways, but segregating the singles in this manner is unhelpful, IMHO. Suggest merging it back. PC78 (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question If these are so closely related, why are they used on different pages? [6] [7] Is this a mess created by the split? Or is it a segregation of singles articles from other articles? --NYKevin @222, i.e. 04:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a result of the split. Previously all articles had the {{BoA}} navbox, but after the split this was replaced with {{BoA singles}} on all of the single articles. PC78 (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Before you proceed explain this template i.e. Template:Britney Spears singles. BoA has been singing as long as Britney Spears and has as many albums and as many singles as Britney Spears. So why not delete every other singles template on the Wikipedia? Farjad0322(talk|sign|contribs) 22:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge per precedent that singles can have their own templates to reduce clutter on the main artist template. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 13:49, 23 November 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Demography 4col

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 after conversion to another suitable template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Demography 4col (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Set of templates which are now deprecated by flexible {{Demography}}. Barely used by now (I'll check the rest of transclusions):

No such user (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update #1: 4col and 7col are rather heavily used; they have some 100 tranclusions each.
Update #2: {{Demography}} is rather broken, and might need a bot intervention to sort it out. See my comment here. No such user (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main reason we have {{demography}} template is to support copy and paste from the FR wikipedia. Unfortunately, it is very complicated, requires the template to have a line for every possible year, and is perhaps not the best replacement. For example, the width of that template is essentially unbounded as one adds more and more fields. Now, the width issue has been noticed at the FR wiki, and the Deomgraphie template appears to have fallen out of favor. They have a new template over there (Demographie2?), which still has the same complex code, but does address the width issue. So, what we really want, in my opinion, is a horizontal layout version of {{historical populations}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a particular problem to make a horizontal version (I'm thinking of a 1-row table with embedded 2-row tables for each year), either by changing {{Demography}} or merging it with historical populations. The real problem is that we have couple of thousands transclusions that are basically broken, and should be sorted out with a bot. I can't think of a way not to alter the transclusion code, and change the template so that it a) accepts years before 1600 b) accepts refs and notes with year c) takes less than 30 kB of repetition. Everything else is easily sortable. No such user (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am basically agreeing with you that the current design is bad. Creating a horizontal version isn't entirely trivial, if you want the other features in {{historical populations}}, e.g. the automagic computation of percent changes, since there must be some continuity between rows. It is certainly do-able, but will take a bit of coding to make it happen in the cleanest way. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a prototype at User:No such user/Demography. A sample is at User:No such user/Test. Needs a lot of tweaking, but you get the idea. It lacks the automagic computation (if we want it at all, I think it's a bit of information creep), but I think it could be added relatively easily. No such user (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:45, 23 November 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Defban

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. Courcelles 08:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Defban (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Defban was a template that misstated Wikipedia policy. The template stated that the consequence of acts of defamation is an immediate ban; actually, the consequence, without more, is a block. The template was redirected to the more appropriate Template:Uw-bioblock, but there seems to be a difference of opinion over whether a redirect or a retransclusion of {{Uw-bioblock|indef=yes}} is best. I'm concerned that the title of the template still misstates policy, and would prefer deletion or redirection. Bsherr (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:42, 23 November 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PD-old-50

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-old-50 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In almost every circumstance for an image, there is a better template than this one which will describe the issue more in depth. In the rare instance that there is not (e.g., Barbados), there will need to be an explanation anyway. As such, {{PD-because}} is a better rationale. In any case, I have literally spent months removing *hundreds and hundreds* of images from the corresponding category, and all but one of those images was mistagged; someone had simply plopped this tag on it wrongly as a way of getting it to be PD. And that one image I just placed into the correct category listed above.

In any case, this template is misused too often and misunderstood. It likely was originally created under a false pretense (see talk page). It should go; it's causing more harm than good. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:42, 23 November 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Completed discussions

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. (edit | history)


If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Tools

There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.

Closing discussions

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.

To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

Navigation templates

  • None currently

Link templates

Other

  • I see I am not supposed to use {{Wikisourcehas}} on "additional pages" so I have had to move to using {{Sister project}} because {{Wikisource}} does not have the required functionality. I shall look out for further developments because some very clever coding will be needed. Thincat (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meta

To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

To substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

  • None currently

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

  • None currently

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted.

  • None currently

Archive and Indices

Current discussions

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 8

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 8 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 7 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 6 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 5 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 4 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 3 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 2

Old discussions

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 1 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 28 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 25 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 24 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 23

Completed discussions

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell

Archive and Indices

[[Category:Wikipedia templates|PAGENAME]]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=401436055"