Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Wikipedia:TFD)

Jump to: navigation, search

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

Shortcut: WP:TFD

Deletion discussions

Deletion today Articles • (today, closing) Templates • (today, closing) Files • (today, closing) Categories • (today, closing) Redirects • (today, closing) Miscellany • (today, closing) Stub types Undeletion Deletion review Speedy deletion • (candidates) Proposed deletion • (books) Deletion log Policy \| Process \| Guide Administrator guidelines

On this page, deletion or merging of templates (except as noted below) is discussed.

[edit] How to use this page

[edit] What not to propose for discussion here

The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

Speedy deletion candidates

If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion for general items or templates, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at Tfd, tag it with {{db-repost}}. If you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{db-author}}.
Stub templates

Should be listed at Stub types for deletion.
Policy or guideline templates

Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the CSD templates, cannot be listed at Tfd separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
Userboxes

Should be listed at Mfd, regardless of what namespace they reside in.
Template redirects

Redirects for discussion.
Renaming a template

Requested moves.

[edit] Reasons to delete a template

The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
The template is redundant to a better-designed template
The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

[edit] Listing a template

To list a template for deletion or merging, follow this three-step process (replace TemplateName, not including the namespace identifier "Template:", with the name of the template to be deleted unless otherwise noted):

I

Tag the template

Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:

For deletion {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}
For deletion of a sidebar or infobox template {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|type=sidebar}}
For deletion of an inline template {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|type=inline}} or {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|type=tiny}}
For merging {{Tfm|ThisTemplate|OtherTemplate}}
For merging an inline template {{Tfm-inline|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}

Do not change PAGENAME to the actual name of the page. The command "subst:" requires the text "PAGENAME".
Do not substitute either template.
If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, either put the notice on its /doc (documentation) sub-page inside <includeonly>...</includeonly> markup; or put the notice on its talk page (without such markup); or use {{editprotected}} on the talk page to ask an admin to add the notice to the template.
If placed directly into the nominated template, consider using <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the Tfd notice if it is likely to be disruptive to articles that transclude that template. However, make sure to publicise the Tfd in the appropriate WikiProject, noticeboard, etc.
Do not mark the edit as minor.
Include in the edit summary the phrase
Tfd: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:TemplateName]] or
Tfm: Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:TemplateName]]

If the template has been nominated before, use "TemplateName (2nd nomination)", "TemplateName (3rd nomination)", etc.

If you are nominating multiple related templates, replace TemplateName in the edit summary with an informative discussion title, and use {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|TemplateName}}, {{Tfm|ThisTemplate|OtherTemplate|TemplateName}} or {{Tfm-inline|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|TemplateName}} instead of the versions given above, using the same discussion title for TemplateName (but not for {{subst:PAGENAME}}, which must remain the name of the template being Tfd tagged). If you were nominating a lot of navboxes about American films, you might use "American films by decade", for instance, as the TemplateName.

If a template is intended to be substituted, wrap the {{Tfd}}, {{Tfm}} or {{Tfm-inline}} template in noinclude tags: <noinclude>{{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}</noinclude>

The Tfd template, in the form {{Tfd|type=inline|literal name of template|TemplateName}}<br />, should be added to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the Tfd, using the same TemplateName value and edit summary as the template(s), and the actual name of the template (minus the prefix Template:). Note that it is {{Tfd|type=inline}} followed by a line-break; the wording of {{Tfd}} without the inline is not suitable for category use.

II

List the template at Tfd

Follow this link to edit the section of Tfd for today's entries.

Add this text to the section, at the top:

For deletion {{subst:Tfd2|TemplateName|text=Your rationale for nominating the template. ~~~~}}
For merging {{subst:Tfm2|TemplateName|OtherTemplate|text=Your rationale for nominating the template. ~~~~}}

If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following

{{subst:Tfd2|TemplateName1|TemplateName2|title=SectionHeading|text=Your rationale for nominating the template. ~~~~}}

replacing TemplateName1, TemplateName2 etc. with the name of each template (supports up to 20 different templates), and SectionHeading with an informative discussion title for the nomination.

If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, use {{Catfd}} together with {{Catfd2}} or {{Catfd3}} (depending on the complexity of the nomination).

Make sure to replace TemplateName with the same value as used in step 1, above (usually the template's name, excluding the "Template:" prefix).
Use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion entry for [[Template:TemplateName]]
replacing TemplateName as above.

III.

Notify users.

Consider adding

For deletion {{subst:Tfdnotice|TemplateName}} ~~~~
For merging {{subst:Tfmnotice|TemplateName|OtherTemplate}} ~~~~

on relevant talk pages to inform editors of the deletion discussion. Use an edit summary such as
Adding notification that [[Template:TemplateName]] is up for discussion.
replacing TemplateName as above.

It is considered civil to notify the creator and main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template.

Consider adding to your watchlist any templates you nominate for Tfd. This will help ensure that the Tfd tag is not removed.

[edit] Discussion

Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.

People will sometimes also recommend subst or Subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it before the template page is deleted.

Templates are rarely orphaned (made to not be in use) before the discussion is closed.

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes.
Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] May 6

[edit] May 5

[edit] Template:2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup

Has no purpose in race articles. Also same information is displayed on the season article. Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Thessaloniki

Should use the settlement infobox P. S. Burton (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Hang on

Per consensus found at this discussion this template should be tagged with {{Tdeprecated}} and then deleted once all transcluded instances are cleared from WhatLinksHere. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 09:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

An admin needs to add {{Tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}} to the template to complete the listing process, hasn't happened yet. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy close, the discussion is still open from 23 April 2011. Comment there rather than opening a new thread. Frietjes (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WikiProject Nature

The wikiproject associated with this banner never really took off and the WikiProject page was recently redirected to WikiProject Biology. There is no need for the banner if there is no project. If needed we can always recreate it later. Kumioko (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] May 4

[edit] Template:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

I was about to remove the ridiculous entries for Diana, Princess of Wales as her "mother in law" and Camilla as her "step mother in law" then it occurred to me that the whole template was just preposterous nonsense. I mean shall we list the Queen Mum as her "great grand mother-in-law"? This is quite useless. No doubt a royal family navigation box will be on her bio, and that's enough. Scott Mac 23:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And yet you saw fit to add her dog? This seems a bit inconsistent. In any case keep the template as a useful way of navigating around Middleton articles. St Anselm (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

An identical one for Prince William (revering the "in law" and natural family polarity) is on those same articles. It just looks ridiculous.--Scott Mac 00:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Episode list unused sub-pages

Delete as unused: All are sub-pages of {{Episode list}} (except for the last in the list) and redirect to that template. This excessive list also floods the documentation page of that article with redirects that loop back to it making the few remaining valid templates get lost in the crowd, so to speak. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 22:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Spinout

This is a little used, broken template that isn't particularly useful and very awkward to use. First, it's broken because it doesn't bold the title like it's supposed to, see basic oxygen steelmaking and electric arc furnace. Second, it requires all sorts of crazy extra "onlyinclude" code, that is easy to break. Third, generally speaking, the introduction of an article isn't the best summary for a higher level article. For instance, the basic oxygen steelmaking article lists numerous other names for the process that should really be left out of the summary at steelmaking. Wizard191 (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Commercial logo rationale

Although this is meant to be subst, I feel it is redundant to {{Logo fur}}. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment - also very similar to the {{logo rationale}} template. Anyway, no objection to deletion as template creator. PhilKnight (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PD-art-uk

This had been re-directed to PD-art , but I'm not so sure. Hence I've re-instated the template with a minor wording change.

However, I'm not sure a license tag vs a restriction tag is the best way of handling images from sources that are less favourable to PD-art terms.

Hence this TFD nom to try to 'settle the matter'... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Biopic fur

Self-Nom: This appears to be an abandoned attempt to create a templated method of generating FUR for 'biographical' images. As this is seemingly unused and is a long way from being usable, I am nominating it so there is a debate about the need for a template like this.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WhoseMap

Self-Nom : This was created with the intent of trying to improve the attribution given to map represented data. Namely that the base-map used was attributed as well as the data source. Partly developed because of concerns about 'database' right in Geo-Data. I'm not sure this template is the right approach and hence this nom. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WhoseData

Self Nom: This is used on a small number of images. However, I'm not sure it's the best approach to use in ensuring that the Data source as well as physical source of an image is attributed. Partly developed because of differences in 'database' rights between the UK and US. Is a template like this actually needed? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Uw-photo-advisory

Self-nom : This was originally drafted as an attempt to have a polite user note to leave when placing a 'quality' concern on a file description page in relation to an image. However there doesn't seem to have been any development work done it. I am nominating this to TfD so that I can get feedback, as to the actual need or otherwise for a template like this.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:USgovt

Unused redirect to existing {{PD-USGov}} . Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sofades

Unused, all settlements in the template are red links. Markussep ^Talk 08:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Actinium

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 withdrawn Frietjes (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy keep. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_11#Template:Protactinium. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep all the element templates per This, that and the other. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw - per previous TfD... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Academic degrees of Denmark

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:About plugcomputer

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 - useless article content in template namespace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Unused template? Content not a template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Abkhazian railway

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ARD-12 class floating dry dock

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete Apparently the template was replaced with {{Auxiliary repair dock (ARD)}} Brad (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:APRA party

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ALeague AIS colour

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ALPB roster

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:AIM 50 companies

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:AFL player statistics legend

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:AFL event

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:AFLCA Champion Player 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 Withdrawn by nominator. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep Now in use. The-Pope (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw per The-Pope (talk), Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:AF1 team

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ACTAFLclubs

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:AB-Kreuz

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:AB-FedRep

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Chloride

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Chlorides

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Chopin works

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Christian Democratic MP 2006-2010

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cite Audio

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cite Compert Con Culainn II

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 Withdrawn by nominator. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The template is in use now. Cavila (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw in use Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Cite TBDD II

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 Withdrawn by nominator. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The template is in use now. Cavila (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw in use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Cite gni

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cite note-15

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:A-PL-nr

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:A-PL-header

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:2010-11 Hockey East standings (men)

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:2009–10 AIHL Champions Cup bracket

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:2009-10 OUA hockey East standings

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:2007–08 Big 12 women's basketball standings

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:2007 Vanderbilt Commodores baseball game log

Unused template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:EmperorsCupBracketR1R3

Unused template MicroX (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely forgot about that one. Must have nominated for speedy deletion myself. —WiJG ? 07:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:EmperorsCupBracketLast16

Unused template. MicroX (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Same as the above. —WiJG ? 07:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:USSCOTW

This template is no longer needed. The US Southern Wikipedians Collaboration of the month never really took off and died out some years ago. No articles link to this template. Kumioko (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:AtlantaCollaboration

Unused template. No meaningful edits in a couple years. The atlanta collaboration never really took and this template is unneeded. Kumioko (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Arizona Spring Training

Unused template. This templates use seems exceptionally complicated which may be a reason it hasn't been used. Kumioko (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep, with caveat – It was originally on the Spring training page, along with Template:Florida Spring Training to show the location of all parks in relation to the rest of the state. It looks like they both were taken off that page. It should be determined if they have a place on that page before deleting either one. If they're no longer needed in that article, then I guess the best course of actions is, in fact, to delete them both. ~~Eagles~~Phillies Fan In Tampa 03:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:3~

Unused template with no associated documentation. Unlikely to be used. Kumioko (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep three tildes have special meaning in wikicode, so is impossible to type. Therefore a template is necessary to enter them. For ~~~ produces this: 64.229.100.153 (talk) when I type it. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment the template does not have a deletion template on it. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:5~

Unused template that has no documentation. Its unlikley to be used Kumioko (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep five tildes have special meaning in wikicode, so is impossible to type. Therefore a template is necessary to enter them. For ~~~~~ produces this: 05:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC) when I type it. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment the template does not have a deletion template on it. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Copy to Wiktionary

Propose merging Template:Copy to Wiktionary with Template:Copy to Wiktionary list.

This is the only transwiki template that has another template that is redundant.
This other redundant template (Copy to Wiktionary list) is used on only a few articles.Curb Chain (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment I would think that both these templates should be used on few articles, since if they were copied to wiktionary, the template would be removed, so the template should be fairly temporary. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PD-PRGov-IPC

Template based on inadequate OTRS communication. Per WMF counsel "the reasons given in the email are not by themselves sufficient to establish that the photographs are in the public domain". See the related discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 March 28#File:Roberto Clemente4.jpg VernoWhitney (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Good faith and due diligence all around, but unfortunately it's just not a usable release. Our correspondent seems to have been thinking specifically only about whether the Puerto Rican government asserted any claim to the images. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Lamentably there seems to be no alternative. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] May 3

[edit] Template:2010–11 Austrian Football Bundesliga table

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete I concur. --Kumioko (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:2010–11 Cleveland Cavaliers pre-season game log

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete I concur. --Kumioko (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:2011 AFL Rising Star

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete I concur. --Kumioko (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:2011 Rugby Super League Table

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:2011 Torneo Intermedio

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 2011 USA Sevens Fixtures Pools

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete I concur. --Kumioko (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:2011 WNBA schedule

Unused template? Looks like article content? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete I concur. --Kumioko (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:3. Liga top scorers

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete I concur. --Kumioko (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Big 12 women's basketball standings

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

See 2010 December 23 Frietjes (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete I concur. --Kumioko (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] English cricket seasons

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 Withdrawn. WOSlinker (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep all, added to the articles to which they refer and so no longer unused. --Bencherlite ^Talk 23:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Withdrawn per Bencherlite (talk). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:1995 K-League Best XI etc

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete I concur. --Kumioko (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cities of Turkey

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Citizen corps

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Replaced by template:Citizen Corps partners --Guerillero | My Talk 20:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete per above.Smallman12q (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CityRail Western

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:City Verbs

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:City of Waterloo

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete per Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox --Guerillero | My Talk 20:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Citytrain fleet

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Citytrain railway lines

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Class box Beskytteren frigate

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Class box Ishikari frigate

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Class box Jeanne d'Arc cruiser

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Class box Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Claxton Shield Champions

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Clinton Impeachment

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Club de Deportes Cobreloa

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Coalition governments of the United Kingdom

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Coalyard Miniature Railway

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Coast Daylight

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There's talk about the Coast Daylight coming back at some point the future; I suspect the template is derived from this page. I can't think of a good use in the article namespace right now but it wouldn't hurt to userfy it somewhere. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cognition

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Collab-arch-image

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Collaboration

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Collectivism

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CollegePrimaryColor

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CollegeSecondaryColor

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:College Gameday (football)

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Colleges and universities in Central New York

Unused template? Please help clear the backlog at: Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_templates Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Colleges and universities in New York's Capital Region

Unused-template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Colleges and universities in the North Country

Unused template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Zamboanga City land usage

unused wrapper for yet another unused template. Frietjes (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cologne–Frankfurt

Unused template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Colombian Wars of Independence Battlesites

Unused template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Populate linked articles? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Colombian legislative election, 2006

Unused template, containing data that would be better as part of an article. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Colombo

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 Withdrawn. WOSlinker (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Unused template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn following Talk page concerns... Will populate to articles linked Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Coloradotasks

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 Withdrawn. WOSlinker (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Unused template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn - Task list for WikiProject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Infobox Royal London Asset Management

Don't need a template for one infobox, and article doesn't exist. Frietjes (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Mahjong

Delete: Stripped of its red links and with overlong blue ones pared back it has very little content, all of which is linked in the main article. There is already a category, with more articles but too varied to add. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:B1118

Arbitrary way to group settlements together, by a minor road that passes through them all. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete per above. Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 17:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:B1116

Arbitrary way to group settlements together, by a minor road that passes through them all. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete as per above. Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 17:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:B1079

Totally arbitrary way to group a collection of villages together. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox education in India

Unused infobox template. If this were ever determined to be necessary, it probably should be recreated using standard {{infobox}} formatting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Has no India-specific parameters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Idaho school

Unused very-specific infobox. Template:Infobox school would work just fine. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Template:Infobox school is the generally accepted standard infobox for US schools and already contains all the necessary parameters. School articles are mostly created by students and/or SPA - there is no need for school districts, counties, or states to go off and create their own, it just adds to the confusion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox education in America

Unused template. Essentially like Template:Infobox school, but with United States hard-coded as the country. Unnecessary. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Template:Infobox school is the generally accepted standard infobox for US schools and as the default box for other countries (except UK, Canada, Australia) and already contains all the necessary parameters. A special one with just a hard-coded country name is unnecessary and just adds to the confusion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:IoEurl

Unused external link template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I can't say why I created this now; its not used; similar to Template:IoE --Derek Andrews (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ColtsInvite

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 Withdrawn. WOSlinker (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Unused template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn - WikiProject invite Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Comics-trades

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 Withdrawn. WOSlinker (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Unused template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC) 'Withdrawn : Seemingly in use outside Article space? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Comicswikia

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 Withdrawn. WOSlinker (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Unused template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn - Now seems to be in use on a project? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Comments transclusion

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 Withdrawn. WOSlinker (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Unused template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn - tagged as {{substituted}} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:17thcentmin

Unused template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional, seemingly duplicates parts of {{English ministries}} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:100 Numbered subpages

Unused template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(Creator of template) I was asked to create this to match {{75 Numbered subpages}} for use on Portal:Somerset, which now uses a different format for one of the random elements. It might well be useful in the future for other portals, but I suppose if it's deleted without prejudice to recreation it will be possible to revive it if necessary. I don't particularly care what happens to it, but thanks Stan for letting me know about this. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ghana Law

This is a mess and only links a couple of articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Youth Empowerment

Appears to be a pet project template of a single person. Concept and content is not what could be called neutral (NPOV). Almost all topics within the template, coincidentally I'm sure, are heavily edited by this man ("Freechild"). Ratheton (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete - NPOV. Appears crafted to deliver a message Drenver (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

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) 03:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

note - Template author now notified. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for extending this courtesy Plastikspork. • Freechildtalk 04:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Youth empowerment is a field of study in higher education and a professional area of practice. The template is designed to reflect topics within that conversation. If its an incorrect usage of a navigation tool then it should be deleted. • Freechildtalk 04:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This is actually the second nomination for this template. I nominated it for deletion 4 years ago at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 14#Template:Youth Empowerment. --Orlady (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - I'm still not wildly supportive of this template. It still smells of POV. However, it's vastly improved from the template the version that I wanted to delete back in 2007, and I think it probably meets guidelines. --Orlady (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] May 2

[edit] Baseball rivalry templates

These templates serve no purpose. They do not provide any internavigability that is not already covered by the team-specific navboxes or within the lead articles. In addition, some are painfully colored. — KV5 • Talk • 23:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not voting yet, but might you want to also add the other similar templates? There are templates for Yanks/Mets, Yanks/Sox, Yanks/Dodgers, Yanks/Giants, and Dodgers/Giants (I might be missing one). – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't even know there were others. I don't know how to add them but they are all likely exactly the same as this one because they were likely created recently and by the same user. — KV5 • Talk • 23:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  - Maybe templates can't be bundled together, like articles can in an AfD. Here are the others, and yes they are from the same contributor: Template:Cardinals–Cubs rivalry, Template:Dodgers–Giants rivalry, Template:Mets–Yankees rivalry, Template:Yankees – Red Sox rivalry, Template:Yankees–Dodgers rivalry, Template:Yankees–Giants rivalry. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    - ~~I know that they can... I just don't know how.~~ — KV5 • Talk • 00:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    - Done now. All nommed. — KV5 • Talk • 00:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
      - Great work. As per usual. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
        
        Oh wait, I forgot about Template:Subway Series. Is that different enough? Eh. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom. An article that would belong in a "rivalry" template would also belong in the templates of both teams, making this redundant. As for the color issue, there was no good solution. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete There should be at most one baseball rivalry template listing all of them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is Template:MLB rivalries, which I agree should not be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Muboshgu here also; that template provides internavigability the way it was meant to be. Keep the main one. — KV5 • Talk • 00:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  - I've started to remove the templates from the affected pages. I agree to keep Template:MLB rivalries and merge the others into that template. – SNIyer12, (talk), 00:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    - Nothing needs to be added to {{MLB rivalries}} due to this deletion discussion. You probably shouldn't be removing them either until a final determination is made. — KV5 • Talk • 00:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
      - Yeah, I was about to say you should let this run its course before doing anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
        
        Too late. I'm going to roll back all of those changes in the interest of continuing the TfD process. — KV5 • Talk • 11:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete - If you have an interest in rivalries, a single MLB rivalry template will help navigate this ... NOUNS involved in each rivalry will undoubtedly be noted in the article, and don't need to be placed in a separate box. I think those boxes become magnets for a whole lot of thigns that are not really part of the rivalries. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete - I strongly agree with delete. We should keep the MLB rivalries templates. No need to have separate templates for each rivalry, as for the other sports leagues. – SNIyer12, (talk), 14:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Strong Keep What is up with all the baseball editors of this site being so delete happy? These templates serve as an extremely valuable navigation tool. Many articles refer to these rivalries and in order to better understand them people should have a place to access all of the relevant articles as it gives the reader a good clue about the extensiveness of the rivalries. Arnabdas (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Um... what? Baseball articles have more templates than nearly every other sport. And I love navboxes as a tool; it's rare that I think one should be deleted. But not in this case. "These templates serve as an extremely valuable navigation tool" - to what? The articles themselves already do everything that these templates do and more. The templates are also a resting place for information that's oftentimes barely tangentially related to actual rivalries. — KV5 • Talk • 23:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  - There are plenty of articles that are linked. Take the Subway Series template. We are talking about 3 different rivalries there and multiple World Series between them. Yankees-Red Sox has the multiple LCS, the Bucky Dent game, Victoria Snellgrove, things like that. I think some templates link to more articles than others, but to delete all of them seems very counterproductive to me. It doesn't help people really understand the true extent of notability of the rivalries. Arnabdas (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    - A navbox could have 84 different things linked in it but that doesn't make them related. The actual articles that have to do with the rivalries proper should be linked from the rivalry articles themselves. Others may not understand the notability of rivalries, but I do, and the template for that particular article does nothing that the article itself can't already accomplish. You'll notice also that the Subway Series template isn't included for the very reason that it does transcend multiple teams beyond just one versus one. — KV5 • Talk • 00:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- That amuses me. Baseball editors are generally considered the worst group for having too many navboxes. (not to reopen the debate your comment just struck me as amusing). -DJSasso (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  - I was referring to the articles themselves, not the templates. Arnabdas (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete: the articles in these navboxes are too loosely related to the rivalry; none of the links take you anywhere to learn more about the rivalry or are (barely) tangentially related. — Bility (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete The articles are far too loosely related to require a navbox. -DJSasso (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete all per WP:NENAN. Looking at the first, for example, there isn't even a single article in the template that is actually relevant to the supposed rivalry. There are links related to one team, there are links related to the other, and there are Easter Eggs, but nothing dedicated to the topic. These are effectively irrepairable failures of WP:SYNTH. An issue, I suspect, that plagues the articles themselves, but that is a different story. Also, I concur with not allowing SNyler to remove and redirect these templates as a means of shortcutting the discussion as he has a habit of quietly trying to restore at a later time. Reso lute 17:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well said. — KV5 • Talk • 00:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Hutton Grammar School

Unused template, seems to have been destined for use only in one article (?). Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete - looks like an experiment that was never completed. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete (or userfy, if the user still wants it for testing). Redundant to the template already used in the article, and title suggests use only in one article where a non-standard template isn't needed. Peter E. James (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Bus Route

This template has been superseded by {{Infobox bus line}} and is now orphaned except for links in non-article space. Bility (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Should we just redirect to {{Infobox bus line}} so that that one is easier to find? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calliopejen1 (talk • contribs)

In this case a redirect would be sensible - and you can do that yourself, without having to TfD it. I'd suggest making one from {{Infobox bus route}} (lower case) too. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not being used, what's the point of redirecting it? — Bility (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  - Per the following comment, internationalisation; it helps users who use the "wrong" name; and discourages them for recreating a duplicate template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
"Bus route" is the usual phrase in British English, and it seems to be in other varieties - the US categories, and many of the articles in them, use it. "Bus line" is ambiguous - it may refer to either a route or a company (a search for articles finds a few pages such as North Olmsted Municipal Bus Line). The superseded template has a better title, and maybe Template:Infobox bus line should be moved to Template:Infobox bus route if it is only intended for individual routes. Peter E. James (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I believe "bus line" was chosen to mirror {{Infobox rail line}}. I just realized User:Calliopejen1 responded above, and they were the driving force behind the template (see the two threads here). It seems they favor a redirect as well, however if everyone likes "bus route" over "bus line", I'd support that as it's what I'm used to myself. — Bility (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I was asked to comment about the preferred name, and I have absolutely no opinion whatsoever. I'd probably use both terms in my day-to-day life. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Association football game sheet

Not a preferred format and agreed to not be used by this discussion. Digirami (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete - templates and manuals of style already exist with the same purpose. --MicroX (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox community

Unused infobox template. Not clear when this would be an appropriate infobox to use, as opposed to an infobox summarizing demographic statistics for a better-defined area. (See complaints on template talk page.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete. It's unclear where this is intended to be used. A search for links or references only finds discussion of an old template (deleted after it was superseded by Template:Infobox City) and an unrelated mention which suggests its title may be ambiguous. Peter E. James (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Area code AL

I just created Template:Area code box/states, which does the job of this template and every other state/territory/country-specific template that was essentially a subtemplate for Template:Area code box. Now these are all orphaned and should be deleted. This deletion request includes every template in Category:Area code templates except Template:Area code box, Template:Area code footer, Template:Area code list, and Template:Infobox Mass Area Code. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Primera Division Uruguaya playoff

Unused bracket MicroX (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete It's pretty much a duplicate of this. Digirami (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Round10-MLSformat

Unused template. MicroX (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Milan Metro/next

Unused template , Deprecated Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Then you also need to delete all the related templates; Template:Milan Metro/background color, Template:Milan Metro/eastern terminus, Template:Milan Metro/next special, Template:Milan Metro/text color, Template:Milan Metro/western terminus, for the same reason. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Taxonomy/Trimerophytina

Unused, deprecated template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Serves as a notice to inform the user they have entered a taxon no longer used in the automatic taxobox taxon database. Would use a redirect, but that causes errors with the whole system. Got a better idea? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Taxonomy/Heterokonta

Unused, Deprecated template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See above. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Taxonomy/Albuginales

Deprecated, unused template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See above the above. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:OPSI

Unused deprecated template, migrated use to {{UK-LEG ext}} or {{UK-LEG}} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Italian ethnicity

Simperseded by infobox at Italian people. Broken, and, consequently, unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Iraq-war

Superseded by {{Campaignbox Iraq War}}. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Istiea

Single use template that is superseded by the hierachical list in the infobox at Istiaia. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps

Superseded by {{IRGC}}. Not a clear-cut redundancy, but that one provides more pertinent links than this one does. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cleanup-jargon

Propose merging Template:Cleanup-jargon with Template:Technical.
cf Template_talk:Technical#Merge_with_template:cleanup-jargon Curb Chain (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. As I agreed on that talkpage discussion as well. Debresser (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Support as original proponent of the merge :) --Waldir ^talk 14:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ecozones

Unused, deprecated —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Taxonomy/Dictyoptera (2nd nomination)

Unused deprecated template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Serves as a functional disambiguation and placeholder to prevent creation of a duplicate entry in the taxon template database. By its nature, it is only transcluded when there is an error in the user-entry of an automatic taxonomy. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Taxonomy/Insectivora (2nd nomination)

Unused deprecated template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See above. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Taxonomy/Lipotyphla (2nd nomination)

Unused deprecated template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See above the above. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Canada_CP_2006

Deprecated template, all transculusions migrated to use {{Canada census}} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Use British English

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 Withdrawn. Without the topicon, I have no reason to continue the deletion discussion. I was unaware of the tracking category, which does seem useful, I was only bothered by the icon, which consensus seems very strongly in favor of getting rid of here. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for consistent grammar and spelling, but I'm not for these topicons. To be quite frank, they look disgusting, and really serve little purpose. New editors will be highly unlikely to see or care about language consistency requests, and experienced editors can tell just by looking at the spelling that is already there which version of English is in play on that page. Also, there's the talk page, which has it's own template. I would not be averse a message being placed in the editnotice page for these articles, as those would be seen by the editors and not by everyone else, however a change, I believe, is needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The flag probably shouldn't be there - it isn't in the other templates of this type. The main purpose of these templates is to put articles into a maintenance category, which may be useful. Peter E. James (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The flag topicon was only added very recently (see diff) and I would remove it myself if I knew I could do so without wrecking the template (maybe a template-savvy person will help me out here?). In any case, the purpose of the template is to place an article in a useful maintenance category, which it has been doing for over a year and no issues have been raised until the topicon was added today. Jenks24 (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Jenks24. The addition of the topicon can be discussed but we don't have to delete the template to remove it. Regards So Why 08:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment I went slightly bold and reverted the template to its state before the topicon was added, so consensus on that issue can be achieved. --Muhandes (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep in the form restored by Muhandes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep – The purpose of the template is not to add a flag, it's to add the page to a maintenance category. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep - Agree with everyone above. The template is much better without that pesky flag icon appearing at the top right of the articles. User:Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 11:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment I appreciated the version with the flag because by simply looking at the page you know what spelling and grammar you're supposed to be using. It's obvious on some pages, but less so on others, and especially if you go in to edit a section only, and make small edits, you're more prone to make these types of mistakes. The flag at the top of the page I find of particular value as an editor. I also find it of value as a reader because in case of wondering why things are spelled differently on different pages, there's a flag in the corner clearly denoting that it's article written in British English. 76.93.52.155 (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- We can discuss the use of the flag on the template's talk page but it's not crucial for its existence. Although, it would be better if the template's existence could generate a WP:EDITNOTICE for the article, explaining this (e.g. like the one that appears when you edit Grand Theft Auto IV). Unfortunately, I don't think that's currently possible, although a bot could be created to do so. I'll create a request at WP:BOTREQ. Regards So Why 11:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  - Flags != languages. Consider a Canadian flag. People living under the union flag also speak Welsh, for example. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep particularly useful for articles relating to Great Britain.--The copyeditor's corner 12:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep I agree the flag shouldn't be there. As creator, I conceived this as a maintenance task for consistent spelling going forwards, and I still see this a being a useful template going forwards. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep without flag as per the above. In particular, I support SoWhy's idea of using an edit notice to more clearly delineate the variety of English that should be used. Pfainuk talk 16:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh? I had the idea of putting it in the editnotice way before him. Regardless, I agree with him so I'm just mentioning this for the sake of mentioning it. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:16TeamBracket-TTProLeague

Exact copy of Template:16TeamBracket. TTPro League Template is not in use by any tournament article. Should be deleted. MicroX (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Digirami (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ScreenActorsGuildAward FemaleLeadMotionPicture 1994-Present

This template is redundant with Template:ScreenActorsGuildAward FemaleLeadMotionPicture 1994–2000 and Template:ScreenActorsGuildAward FemaleLeadMotionPicture 2001–2020. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] May 1

[edit] Template:Island Def Jam Recordings

Delete As far as I understand, there's no entity known as Island Def Jam Recordings or Island Jam Recordings. Although the management has been merged into The Island Def Jam Music Group, the various sub-labels still function with relative independence. A template covering all the activities of The Island Def Jam Music Group would have to include a list of artists too long to be of much use. (See List of current Def Jam Recordings artists, List of Mercury Records artists and List of current Island Records artists) Pichpich (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Aquaculture topics

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 Redirected. Procedural close. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Deprecated template, No Transclusions Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be redirected to Template:Fishing industry topics, as it was merged. Peter E. James (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Boldly redirected. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Biome

Deprecated template, Only 2 Transclusion which could be subst to an appropriate version. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to {{biomes}} ; clearly should be redirected. 65.93.12.8 (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Terrestrial biomes

Deprecated template, Only 1 Transclusion which could be subst to an appropriate version. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Major Towns of North Malabar

Propose merging Template:Major Towns of North Malabar with Template:North Malabar.
The two templates serve the same purpose are share most of the links. Muhandes (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge or delete, we now have template clutter which is mostly redundant.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Footballbox1

Unused fork of {{Football box}} WOSlinker (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note also {{Footballbox collapsible}}, which could be merged into {{Football box}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] April 30

[edit] Template:Caption2

Recently created and redundant to Template:Caption Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Image class2

Recently created template, redundant to the existing Template:Image class Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a copy of the Template but enables templates to hold a Coat of Arms image in Infoboxes, as I'm trying to role out on all the Pope related pages. This will also extend to all the bishops, cardinals and priests in the catholic church. Mangwanani ^(talk) 19:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The template has zero transclusions in article space, so I doubt it is needed. In addition, Template:Infobox manner of address, Template:Infobox settlement, and many other display Coat of Arms without using it. I see no reason why it is needed at all. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CoA

Appears to be a verbatim copy of Template:Image. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a copy of the Template but enables templates to hold a Coat of Arms image in Infoboxes, as I'm trying to role out on all the Pope related pages. This will also extend to all the bishops, cardinals and priests in the catholic church. Mangwanani ^(talk) 19:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If this is deleted, perhaps the person deleting it would care to properly format Template:Infobox Christian leader so that the deletion of this Template doesn't mess up every single page that the Infobox is used on.................? Mangwanani ^(talk) 19:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The template has zero transclusions in article space, so I doubt it is needed. There is nothing to properly format. In addition, Template:Infobox manner of address, Template:Infobox settlement, and many other display Coat of Arms without using it. I see no reason why it is needed at all. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Round16-2legs

Template is not being used (no transclusions) by any article/tournament. Should be deleted as it is no longer needed as better brackets exist. MicroX (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment — I proposed this template for deletion but I think I may have found a use for this template. --MicroX (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment - "not being used"? I suggest you check the following editions of Copa Libertadores: 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008. Garavello (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment — I put them there. Check the history of those pages. This is why I want to withdraw the nomination. --MicroX (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox VR station

Deprecated template, transclusions migrated to {{Infobox station}} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete - all migrated to the standard infobox. Sw2nd (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:BLP IMDB-only refimprove

Deprecated template, Transclusions migrated per depreciation notice Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Canada CP 2001

Deprecated template, No transculsions, as template has been migrated to {{Canada_census}} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I created this template back in 2004 just for the 2001 census data. The {{Canada_census}} template handles multiple census years so this specific year template can now be deleted as all uses of it have been migrated. RedWolf (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Strong Delete as all of this templates uses have been migrated to {{Canada census}} and this template has also been deprecated.A520 | Talk me away! 09:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Exit sign

Old template that is not in use. (The only transclusions were at the top of a section in a talk page archive that I have subst-ed.) Since the purpose of this template is to replicate the appearance of an exit sign, which is not something used in articles in place of an actual photo, its utility is non-existent. Imzadi 1979 → 06:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Template has no use. Dough 48 72 23:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Millennium Technology Prize laureate

This is really not something that should be its own separate infobox. Template:Infobox person would be better, or any more other general infobox relating to the field in which the person worked. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Bay of Gibraltar

Was used only on a single article. Now Bay of Gibraltar uses the standard Template:Infobox bay. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Social indicators

Used only in one article, a rather haphazard selection of statistics to include, we already have Template:Infobox country demographics which does a better job. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] April 29

[edit] Template:Infobox adult industry news

Unused template. Template:Infobox newspaper would work just fine, no big reason to have a specialized template. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Click

Using this template is deprecated to new wiki syntax.There is no use for this template because [[File:Example.jpg|link=Link title]] will work exactly the same as {{Click|image=File:Example.jpg|link=Link title}}.A520 | Talk me away! 10:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you offering to fix the 8914 affected pages? -- John of Reading (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong keep - just because there is more than one way to do something doesn't mean that either method is wrong. The template is used on a great many pages, there is no good reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep: This nomination is senseless. It's a perfectly valid way to make an image clickable and the argument that there is "no use for this template" when thousands of pages have found one (and continue to find one) is beyond dubious. The history here is a bit more complex than what's being presented, but it's all largely irrelevant. There's no reason to actively kill off this template. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. The transclusions can be dealt with by a bot (and the template deprecated meanwhile), and providing redundant methods of achieving identical results simply means one more thing for new editors to learn, thereby raising the barrier to entry. There may be a use for this template, but there is no need for it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment This template was originally created as a wrapper around a complex imagemap routine, which has since been replaced with the link= behavior. Since much of that imagemap complexity has now been removed, the template is somewhat superfluous, though perhaps more accessible to some of the editors. I don't really care either way, the thing doesn't hurt in my opinion. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Redundant. The less ways we have to do something, the more secure it becomes. The template can be vandalized, the image syntax can not. — Edokter (talk) — 21:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Old discussions

[edit] April 28

[edit] Template:Infobox baseball stadium firsts

Orphan template, don't think this is really the best way to present this information. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Neajlov

Unused. Frietjes (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Pleasantview

Cut and past copy of Template:Big Brother endgame. No transclusions. Frietjes (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Cardiff Bus route

Overly specific template. Was used on three articles, and I replaced it with Template:Infobox bus line, which is a better solution. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox LPP Bus lines

Overly specific template. Was used on three articles, and I replaced it with Template:Infobox bus line, which is a better solution. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox West Midlands Buses

Overly specific template. Was used on one article, and I replaced it with Template:Infobox bus line, which is a better solution.= Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox SPT Bus

Orphan, overly specific template. Not sure which bus routes used to use this infobox and whether those articles still exist or have been merged.... Anyways, we have Template:Infobox bus line that does everything this template does and more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Glasgow Citybus

Orphan template, all Glasgow Citybus lines now merged into main Glasgow Citybus article, if we need a similar template we have Template:Infobox bus line. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox First Bus

Orphan, overly specific template. Not sure which bus routes used to use this infobox and whether those articles still exist or have been merged.... Anyways, we have Template:Infobox bus line that does everything this template does and more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:MLB Year

Unnecessary pipelink, violates the guidelines for use of pipelinks. Prone to misuse. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It's useful when used appropriately, and the idea that it's "prone to misuse" isn't reason to delete the thing. Anything can be misused, that doesn't make it invalid in itself. --Coemgenus 19:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Coemgenus. Prone to misuse is not a justification and this is wildly useful in writing complex and/or long baseball lists and articles. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep - All the points above say all that needs to be said. It's not an unnecessary pipelink if used in the appropriate context (when it's specifically spelled out to be used) and I could misuse an infobox or a navbox just as easily as an inline template. — KV5 • Talk • 21:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Baseball year

Unnecessary pipelink, violates the guidelines for use of pipelinks. Prone to misuse. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It's useful when used appropriately, and the idea that it's "prone to misuse" isn't reason to delete the thing. Anything can be misused, that doesn't make it invalid in itself. --Coemgenus 19:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Coemgenus. Prone to misuse is not a justification and this is wildly useful in writing complex and/or long baseball lists and articles. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep - All the points above say all that needs to be said. It's not an unnecessary pipelink if used in the appropriate context (when it's specifically spelled out to be used) and I could misuse an infobox or a navbox just as easily as an inline template. — KV5 • Talk • 21:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox TransLink (SEQ) train station

Orphan template, overly-specific/non-standard, all TransLink stations already use Template:Infobox station which is working just fine. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Also the clone Template:Infobox QR Northcoastline station, which is only used by a few articles. Sw2nd (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete both as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Brisbaneferries Wharf

Orphan template, overly-specific/non-standard, all Brisbane ferry wharves already use Template:Infobox station which is working just fine. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Governorate of Tunisia

Orphan template, overly-specific/non-standard, all governorates of Tunisia already use Template:Infobox settlement which is working just fine. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Maldives uninhabited island

Non-standard, overly-specific infobox. Was only used on about a dozen articles, and I replaced these uses with Template:Infobox Island. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:El Salvador Squad 2011 Copa Centroamericana

This is not a notable tournament such as the FIFA World Cup, UEFA Euro, CONCACAF Gold Cup or FIFA Confederations Cup GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 04:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject 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 all per T3 and G6, G8 does apply in this case. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I recently submitted this for speedy deletion but it was declined on the grounds it was a freestanding template. Sooo. There is no need for this template. It is an Invite to a project that has been deleted. Hence no need for the template. Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:NFL Year

The template turns a year's link to a link to the corresponding year's NFL season in articles (e.g. [[2000 NFL season|2000]]). Doing so violates our policies on pipe links. Such a template might be useful in a table, but making it a template like this gives the potential for pipelink abuse — I removed two egregious misuses from Monday Night Football and I'm sure I'm not alone. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment I have no opinion in this debate, but I should mention that similar templates for baseball (Template:by and Template:mlby) exist.--Giants27(T|C) 01:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete. These templates are consistently misused. FWIW I would also support the deletion of the baseball templates (they're even more misused than the NFL ones). Jenks24 (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep Though it appears these templates have been misused a few times, I think the other 90% of the time it is used is helpful. This template has been transcluded 8151 times, and I have to imagine about 8000 transclusions are used correctly. Every NFL player infobox uses the NFL Year template, (and, if it means anything, this discussion is disrupting every NFL player article with the notification) and I'm not sure misuse is a valid reason for deletion if it only occurs a select number of times. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's the thing. This template shouldn't be used in the player infoboxes. There is just no reason for to wikilink to the NFL season when the infobox is simply stating that the player was in a certain team from year X to year Y. Jenks24 (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  - But that isn't always misuse of a pipelink per WP:PIPELINK, as the IP says below. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep Personally, I find it quite useful to be able to link to the NFL season from that info box. It's always been one of my favorite parts about Wikipedia player pages. I know I'm not the only one who looks at what year the player's played in and wants to see more about that year. It would be even better if the year would link to that specific teams year. On top of that, it doesn't necessarily violate the pipe link rule (based on my understanding of the rule). The year links are very clear that they're taking you to the NFL related year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.42.100 (talk) — 76.215.42.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- It may be "useful" but it violates the precedent that we don't use such pipelinks in articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  - Well, there is nothing in the piped link rules against it. In this scenario, it's simple, and pretty much always leads to the expected destination. When looking at an NFL players page, neither I, nor anyone I know, would expect a link saying 2006 to take me to the general year 2006. I can speak for most people when I say it would be expected to bring us to the 2006 NFL season. That's just part of the genius ideas that Wikipedia's built on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SethB93 (talk • contribs) — SethB93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    - We don't link dates at all anymore, so why should we pipelink them which is doubly wrong? It's confusing: someone who remembers when we used to link dates might expect to be linked to 2006, but then gets more confused when they're at 2006 in baseball instead. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep I agree that these templates are quite useful and a few instances of misuse should not be grounds for their deletion. Particularly in the case of the individual team articles they can be quite helpful because they contain logic that directs you to the correct page for that year's article. This is significant for teams which have moved or have gone through name changes, in that the editor doesn't have to remember that, for example, prior to 1941 the Steelers were known as the Pirates (and thus the season article is "19XX Pittsburgh Pirates (NFL) season"). I don't see any specific prohibition to the use of these types of links in the policies or guidelines governing piping links.— DeeJayK (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] April 27

[edit] Template:Datt Ganagapur

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) 04:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This refers to a temple in a village in Karnataka, which has some regional significance. The contents are a single external link. Imc (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:NHL Draft progression

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) 00:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

unused and replaced by Template:succession box. Frietjes (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -DJSasso (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Unused, and shouldn't be used.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Copyedit progress/Part1

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) 00:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Old orphaned subtemplate. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Infobox Muslim Saint

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. G7. Creator agreed in my talk page on the merge/deletion. Magioladitis (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

~~Orphan, unused and~~ covered by {{Infobox saint}}. Magioladitis (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Its creator adds it now in some articles. Still it can be covered/merged to the generic one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Nearest star systems navboxes

The two templates {{Nearest star systems}} and {{Nearest bright star systems}} are overly large for navigation templates. Furthermore they are full of redlinks which are inconvenient in a navigation template, and the sheer number of articles linked completely overwhelms the "What Links Here" functionality. Browsing articles which contain these templates, particularly those with two templates, with JavaScript turned off results in a huge box taking up the bottom of the article. In my opinion, this type of functionality is far better served with links to list articles (which are already present as List of nearest stars and List of nearest bright stars) than these huge and bloated navboxes. The various {{Star systems within X – Y light-years}} and {{Bright star systems within X – Y light-years}} are as best as I can tell only directly transcluded onto the two aforementioned templates, so I've added them in this nomination as well. Icalanise (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete—I agree. Collectively these navboxes are much larger than many of the articles where they are posted. They add significantly to the download time and provide little value in return. I also suspect there would be little reason for a reader of a star article to want to find another star article via these boxes. In effect, they seem to be there only for the novelty. Possibly the content can be salvaged by migrating the templates onto another list article (such as List of stars in the local neighborhood).—RJH (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete brought up at WP:Astronomy and discussed for being problematic and extremely large back when they were created. Duplicates the lists for no good reason. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep and shrink to contain only the really Template:Nearest star systems, such as those within 10 light years, or so. The template have been bloated, but that doesn't automatically mean it should be deleted. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There are nine star systems within ten light years. Do we need a means to navigate between them?—RJH (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Modify Reduce to two templates. Nearest star systems - those within 15 LY, and nearest bright star systems - within 40 LY. 146.87.0.73 (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Why 15 and 40 in particular? Why light-years rather than parsecs? This would just be an arbitrary selection of stars - not really ideal navbox material. Furthermore it is not clear why the threshold for "bright" should be where it is. Not everything needs a navbox. Icalanise (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Modify Nearest star systems serve as a valuable research environment to test theories. The results of these tests become the information contained in many of the astronomy articles contained in Wikipedia. Delete all red entries. How about nearest stars per constellation, if there are too many entries in some or all of these? Marshallsumter (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's a rationale for having an article about the nearest star systems. Whether the usefulness of nearby stars for doing whatever science you want to do on them is a case for having a navbox is another matter. Icalanise (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete agree with nom that the articles List of nearest stars and List of nearest bright stars are the appropriate places to list such content. Modifying with a limited distance also isn't appropriate because it makes quite an arbitrary distinction between close-by star systems whereas the list articles can list all systems considered close-by. Polyamorph (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

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) 01:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Modify Like what Marshallsumter said, It's best if we know which stars are closest to us. However, Please delete "Nearest bright star systems." The only bright stars I can think of that are close to us are Sirius, Alpha centauri, Altair, Vega, ε Eridani, and ε Indi. It's just a branch off of Nearest star systems, and it's use is quite redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clammybells (talk • contribs) 03:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Could you please be a bit more specific here: it is all very well to say "modify" but without saying what you think it should be modified to there's no way this is going to help the editors. For example, Rursus has suggested 10 light years as the cutoff, while 146.87.0.73 has suggested 15 light years. (And if we go to the scientific literature, the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars takes a 25 parsecs cutoff, which encompasses an enormous number of stars!) Marshallsumter is also unclear on how to prune down the list beyond getting rid of redlinks. Fundamentally these templates suffer from the problem of unclear cutoff: there's no real indication where to draw the line of "nearest" stars. And yes, it is a good idea to know which stars are closest to us but we've got the article List of nearest stars that surely adequately handles that better than a navbox could? Icalanise (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Shrink and Keep. Navboxes of a reasonable size are not only useful, but highly encouraged. I can see the point that this navbox has become bloated beyond reason (the need for sub-templates ought to be a clue that something has gone awry), but rectifying that doesn't require deleting the template (although deleting the sub-templates seems like a good idea).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Another vote for some unspecified shrinking. Sorry but unless there's some agreement on what to shrink it to, where to draw the line of when a star should be included in this navbox and where it shouldn't, this kind of suggestion is useless. Icalanise (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you personally feel that "all or nothing" is the only approach here. Clearly not everyone agrees with that, and some willingness to compromise induces less stress and conflict amongst everyone. I don't understand how "Nearest stars" (with or without "systems" included) is itself problematic. Differing limitations can create different issues, but there's a happy medium someplace. 10 light years (9 stars) seems reasonable to me. There's obviously some interest in the idea behind nearest stars, and a navbox serves the purpose of giving people links to the List of article as well as a handful of specific articles, which is useful.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not feel that it should necessarily be "all or nothing" (though I am yet to be convinced that this set of articles is not better handled by a list), but I do want this issue with these overly-bloated templates to be resolved. The problem is that "nearest star systems" does not by itself imply an obvious cutoff (you now say 10 light years, but with your initial post there was no way anyone but yourself would know you meant 10 light years). If someone says "keep and modify" without specifying what they feel it should be modified to then we must go through another discussion to determine the necessary modifications. Clearly there is a consensus that something should be done, but if this closes with "keep but do something to it" it would be nice to know what the something to be done is. Icalanise (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that xFD discussions are the best forum to discuss a page's content, so I'm trying to avoid real specifics. There are several things that could improve the situation, though. Getting rid of the mass of sub-templates would probably help, but coming to some sort of compromise about what should be in the navbox is something that we should talk about on Template talk:Nearest star systems. We could, and probably should, post a note on WikiProject Astronomy, as well as several users talk pages (those here, and those who have contributed to the templates in the past). There's obviously some interest in this, so I wouldn't worry too much about nothing happening at all here. It may take some time, but... there's no rush, and this has already take up a bunch of time.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Strong Keep - But with Separation/Modification. --

My points for consideration are as follows:

1. Icalanise’ proposal for the deletion of the nearest star and nearest bright star navigation bars is absolutely ridiculous. Just because the good intentions of Chermundy who originally prepared these have now become cumbersome is not justification for deletion. Deletion is the extreme approach in this case and not warranted. Modification or re-application in how it is applied may be necessary so that it becomes useful once more. I strongly disagree as to the deletion of all 15 nested navbars existing in two major groups. It is rather obvious to me that Chermundy may well have spent at least 500 to a 1,000 hours doing this altogether. The best solution I believe is made towards the end of my Point 9.

The amount of hours Chermundy may or may not have spent making these is totally irrelevant to whether these templates should be deleted or not. If you disagree, please show me the policy where the amount of effort a user spends should be a consideration in the deletion. Icalanise (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is relevant. You have knowledgeable people who contribute great quantities of time and then just give up when all that effort is just hacked and slashed so quickly. Wikipedia has lost many excellent editors that way. Most of this did not need to happen if issues like this were taken to the item discussion pages and worked on over time. You chose the extreme approach as the solution. The creative process is very time consuming; critics on the other hand can burn something in a few minutes. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Truly, my heart bleeds. Show me the policy. Icalanise (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How about showing me the policy that navbars should be deleted. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if Wikipedia had a policy that an editor would have to make 100 articles or major contributions to articles per 1 deletion proposal. If 2 deletions were proposed then the person would have to have done 200 major contributions. If one wants to delete 1 template then the nominator would have to have added 100 helpful templates. This would change the whole scenario and cause people to really contribute and/or edit positively. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well it doesn't. Therefore your warm fuzzy bleeding-heart inclusionist feelings are irrelevant. Icalanise (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

2. It should be pointed out that Chermundy’s sub-navbox entries were never formally entered as a template into the general Wikipedia; they are nested into two primary templates. One will note that the “v” and “d” both appear red in the sub-navboxes. If the navboxes are kept, which I support, the subnavboxes should be separated and entered into the general Wikipedia as noted in my Points 6/9 below.

I nominated the navboxes as well for exactly this reason: that they are only included in the two main templates. Icalanise (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The nested navboxes were an excellent idea at the time they were created. At this time they have become cumbersome as a collective whole only. They can still be separated, kept, and applied where relevant. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

3. Icalanise’ argument as to “What Links Here” is overwhelming is totally irrelevant. There is no restriction as to the number of pages that link to a template. I would not recommend that as a way of searching for an article.

Really makes article maintenance quite difficult though, especially when dealing with redirects and article moves. Icalanise (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

When the navbars are separated the burden will be reduced. But this only concerns editors. General article reading users are not concerned with this. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

4. Icalanise does not have to use navboxes if he does not want to. These particular navboxes are already hidden - - one must directly click on them to use them.

I specifically mentioned browsing with JavaScript disabled. There is also the question of the amount of download by users of mobile phone platforms (increasingly common on today's internet) where strict download limits are the norm. Have you tried browsing these articles in a mobile browser without JavaScript? I have. Icalanise (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Finally, now we are getting at the real truth here! You are using a cell phone. Cell phones are small and limited by their nature. Save your real searching when you have access to a regular computer. You will have to be patient if you are desperate for that desired piece of knowledge when using your cell phone. I would like to say the mobile systems are better but they are just not there yet. Perhaps Finland or South Korea could give us a few hints. I think the best solution would be to get a small netbook computer in your case. It would cost 1/3 that of a laptop, or less than a desk computer. Hook that up for mobile usage. Then you could have everything. I am sorry about the download limits. Unfortunately, information access costs for airtime. The various companies are enjoying the profits on overly priced access. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

WRONG. I am not primarily using a cell-phone, don't jump to assumptions. Actually these navboxes first came to my attention when running in my default configuration on a desktop browser with JavaScript disabled. I then switched to a mobile browser to see what the effect was there and was unpleasantly surprised. But your argument seems to be that we should screw all the users who are using anything other than a traditional desktop browser with JavaScript turned on, in deference to Chermundy's efforts in creating these bloated monstrosities of navboxes. Out of interest, have you investigated how this navbox works in a screen-reader? Would you tell a blind or partially-sighted user to save their real searching for when they can see? Icalanise (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Save yourself the agony, turn your JavaScript on. Or get a separate computer setup for your Wikipedia only use. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So blind and partially-sighted users should save themselves the agony and get themselves some proper eyesight? You do realise that there are laws against discrimination against the disabled in many countries in the developed world? Icalanise (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

5. I disagree with RJH’s view. Searching procedure is determined by the user. One can search an article specifically, by wikilinking from an article, by category, by a list, by a navbox, or by a sidebar. I have used all forms personally in various article searches, including these actual navbars from time to time. If the navbars are dropped it would be equivalent to dropping search methods in a library catalog, that is, deleting search requests by author, subject, etc. and only leaving a title search. In all, it would definitely render searching rather difficult or useless.

Where did we suggest dropping all navbars? This is a discussion about these specific navbars. Each of these methods of navigation have their own strengths and weaknesses: I would argue that for the subset of articles that these templates link, navbars are not the most appropriate navigation method. There's no requirement to provide all forms of navigation. Icalanise (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We are only talking on the germaine navbars to this subject. But now that we know you are having problems with a cell phone it brings the issue of all navbars into question. I believe that navbars are very important. Perhaps there exists an application that strips navbars, pictures, or anything that would eat up data download capacity. If not, then Administration in Wikipedia should consider an alternate access method for cell phones or e-book readers that addresses this, creating MobiWikipedia or something like that which would strip the data down to text only. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually most navboxes are great. Navboxes work best when there is a natural grouping of a small-to-moderate number of articles. This is not the case here: there is always going to be an arbitrary cutoff involved, and the number of articles here (at least with the present state of affairs) is huge. Icalanise (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Denested navbars will help. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

6. I disagree with 65.93.12.101's view. The purpose of the navbar is different than lists. Lists can be far more comprehensive. The purpose of the navbar is to get you to a specific article in less time or in a summarized format. I agree that they may have become too cumbersome. A solution to this would be to eliminate the nested navbar situation as it has now become burdensome. Each navbar could link to the other ones. Each navbar can be utilized directly to those star systems within in.

7. I am in agreement with Rursus in that it should be kept. Rursus thinks consolidation would help. I think the solution would be that as listed towards the end of Points 6 & 9.

8. I disagree with RJH’s point under Rursus’ entry. Yes, we should be able to navigate amongst star systems within ten light years using a navbar.

But why should we not also be able to navigate among systems within 10,000 light years using a navbar? Where do we draw the line? Icalanise (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone might be interested in that, but I do not see this having been done in this case. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

But presumably if someone went to all the effort to make the huge navbox that would contain all such stars, the effort involved in its creation means it should be preserved at all costs, despite being incredibly cumbersome and so large that it would overwhelm even an article of featured-article size? Icalanise (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

9. I agree with 146.87.0.73 in that modification is necessary, but not necessarily in two templates. Two groups are dealt with - - bright nearest stars, and nearest stars (which include faint brown dwarf systems discovered in recent decades). I think separation of the navbars as noted in Point 6 would take care of the problem. One could then have systems progressing from the Earth in 10 light years or so spherical shells. That would be helpful to those stellar astronomers and searchers in the field.

10. Icanalise wants to know why 15 and 40 light years. From the person who made them this really is from some catalogs that were used by him. This is not necessarily defined officially in astronomy. Most catalogs are not like that. Ultimately, all articles in Wikipedia when properly done should also have appropriate navbar(s) for quick navigation. An excellent example would be the navbar used in the Warriors (novel series) sets of articles [recommended reading for those who like animal adventure stories (cats in this case). The stories interweave in a mystical way the Milky Way which is referred to as Silverpelt in the series’]. Bright stars are different than near stars as noted in Point 9 above. As to parsecs, this is not used by most in astronomy - - light years is the general term used.

Actually parsecs are the more common unit in the scientific literature. But this is irrelevant to the deletion discussion. Nevertheless "nearest star systems" or "nearest bright star systems" are not synonyms for "stars within 15 light years" or "bright stars within 40 light years", I want to have some idea why we should choose a particular arbitrary cutoff. Icalanise (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Both the terms light years and parsecs are used in the literature. Parsecs especially for extragalactic astronomy. But we are dealing here with nearby stars to Earth/Sol. I am comfortable with both forms. One can just divide by 3 in your head. We could always put parsecs in parentheses. These articles are also for the general reading user who has to be able to relate to the subject. I think the general public would be more comfortable with light years than parsecs, but we digress on a whole separate issue. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

11. I agree with Marshallsumter as to modify. I disagree as to removing the red link entries. Categories should not have red linked articles. This situation is not the same for navbars. The navbars should contain a complete list. If the red links get overwhelming until articles are generated then one can delink them and leave them as black entries for the time being. Since progress is being made progressively over time on article creation I do not think this really is a critical thing that needs to be done. The red links can still be maintained for the interim. I disagree with Icalanise’ subpoint thereunder.

Per WP:NAV, red links should generally be avoided in navboxes. Icalanise (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A minor matter. We just get rid of the red and leave it black. But this is insufficient to propose deletion of the navboxes. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

12. I disagree with Polyamorph’s sustaining of the article deletion nominator. Lists will handle all the detailed information. Navigation is still necessary with navbars, but limited as noted in my Point 9.

There's no compelling argument that navbars are required for navigation. We also have in-article links, list articles and categories that all can do navigation. There's no requirement that every form of navigation should be employed for every set of articles. Icalanise (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have found navbars to be the most useful of all searching methods, particularly from an editing point of view. I think they help and improve articles immensely. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

13. I agree with Clammybells’ modify proposal. I disagree with his belief that the bright stars are redundant. Icalanise seems confused thereunder by various responders. Ultimately Icalanise chose to propose deletion rather than do the work. Icalanise should be building up the encyclopedia not wrecking it or making it less useful. In this case it would be a lot of work. It is best that it be left as is and worked on as the time permits.

I would kindly ask you not to tell me what I should or should not be doing on the Wikipedia, there's no need to be condescending. I know some people get all religious about this kind of thing, but deletion of a navigation template is not wrecking the encyclopaedia: as has already been pointed out other forms of navigation which are perhaps better suited to this set of articles already exist. If deletion were actually about wrecking the encyclopaedia, we wouldn't have a deletion process. I don't get how you interpret me to be "confused" - I am merely trying to find out how people want the templates to be modified - this is NOT obvious from the template names/purpose. Is "nearest stars" a synonym for "stars within 10 light years" or "stars within 15 light years" or "stars within 40 light years" - last I checked this is not the case. Icalanise (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

When the navbars are separated and modified it will become more defined. As to condescending, yippee! I finally made it to a new adjective! I will just have to celebrate with a party. Yours truly, your Overlord (Childhood's End - Arthur C. Clarke), Thor Dockweiler (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

All joking aside, the bottom line is you do not care for navigation bars because you access Wikipedia from a cell phone. Well how about the mega millions of others who use regular computers? You do realize that all of this will take time. Wikipedia entries and modifications are done by people on a volunteer basis without pay. I would like to say that this could be instantly fixed in a day but even I know this may take a few hundred hours. You could send a check along for US$15,000 and I could hire a few of the long-term unemployed JPL/Cal-Tech (CIT)/STSCi people on a short term basis. Believe me some of them are getting desperate. It might get done faster. I am willing to do this project, but I was also working on other astronomical related Wikipedia matters that I am committed to. I will have to delay that in order to speed this project along. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, just because I mentioned cell phones does not mean my objection stems from me primarily using a cell phone. In fact this is not the case, I usually use what you term a "regular computer" and had noticed the problems with these templates well before I began investigating how they would interact with non-traditional setups. I do happen to like to try other setups though so we can be sure that Wikipedia, which is one of the web's primary resources is accessible to all users, even those who are not blessed with a complete lack of visual impairments and those who happen to be using non-traditional ways of accessing the internet (ways which I should inform you are becoming more and more common). You seem to have convinced yourself I do not like navbars as a general rule: this is not the case, I like them when they are used appropriately. A navbar is not a universal tool: it has its strengths and weaknesses and sometimes they are not appropriate, especially when they grow overly large. And it also seems you only recognise creation of new content as having value to the encyclopaedia, while disregarding those who undertake smaller-scale maintenance work that is less flashy but helps maintain quality in the encyclopaedia. I'm willing to do this maintenance work despite the fact it is often disregarded by those who make sweeping statements about the evils of deletion and how these maintenance processes distract them from their lofty goals of content addition. You are saying my aims are unrealistic but you are the one who seems to want to change Wikipedia's entire model to one where contributors are paid for what they do, a far more radical change to the Wikipedia philosophy than anything I am proposing. Icalanise (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

14. I agree with -V=IR to keep. Rectifying does not necessitate deletion. Points 6/9 in my opinion are the best solution. For the time being it should be kept but people need to work on separating the navbars and appending appropriately to the various articles.

I am willing to do my part. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit]

Admin - Not responding to bleeding heart/blindness/inclusionist puffery. At least we both like blind people and both are conservative encyclopedists. Awaiting decision so can begin denesting/modification processes. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Former possessions of Norway

This template is problematic: it restates ancient territorial claims over current independent nations. What would happen if we did this all over the place: we would have a template Template:Former possessions of Germany which would include both Norway, Denmark, France and Poland. Somehow I don't think that would fly. There is no reason to make a precedent for replaying territorial disputes through wikipedia templates by allowing this template to exist. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Listify it should be a list with explanations about their loss and acquisition and extent. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is problematic as it is, and it was a mistake to add it to articles covering current countries/territories. It could perhaps live on in articles covering former territories and settlements, like Erik the Red's Land and Western Settlement, but in hindsight I wouldn't mind if it was deleted. You are right than such templates could set an unfortunate precedence. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 11:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Yes, there is a danger that such a template may inflame nationalist politics, but I am a practical person and it is hard to imagine anyone is going to be unduly threatened by a modern form of Norwegian imperialism. The Viking incursions into Ireland, the Isle of Man and the islands of what are now Scotland, may have been very unwelcome at the time, but this was long ago and these territories have not been Norwegian for half a millennium or more. I recently came across this statement made by the Shetland authorities in a letter to King Haakon VII when Norway became independent again in 1906: "Today no 'foreign' flag is more familiar or more welcome in our voes and havens than that of Norway, and Shetlanders continue to look upon Norway as their mother-land, and recall with pride and affection the time when their forefathers were under the rule of the Kings of Norway." Comparisons with Nazi Germany are not apt, these territories are not matters of genuine dispute (to the best of my knowledge) and no ancient territorial claims are implied. It is a history template not a political one. Have there been actual objections - or are we imagining them on behalf of those with a connection to these places, who may be more likely to see this history in a positive light? Ben Mac Dui 12:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There are no similar templates for any other nation. This does set a precedent for making those. The statement of a Shetland official is largely irrelevant. I don't think the People of Iceland and Greenland are thrilled at being called "former possessions of Norway".·Maunus·ƛ· 12:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: You might care to look at Template:British overseas territories, which includes a sizeable proportion of the entire planet in its listed former territories. It is not the "statement of a Shetland official" but a letter from elected representatives on behalf of the people of Shetland. Do you have any evidence that it did not reflect their views? Ben Mac Dui 10:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland. Ben Mac Dui 12:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete or restructure: The current template is unhelpful and historically inaccurate, linking to modern states and everything Maunus has said. If this template exists, each territory needs to link to an appropriate article. The row titles need to link to different articles as well, which cover the time periods. Maybe it should just be merged with Template:Overseas territories of Norway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: It would be easy enough to link the template to History of Iceland, History of Shetland, History of Orkney etc. and even the sections within them on Norwegian rule, which would emphasise the historical rather than modern aspect. Ben Mac Dui 10:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete; the concept isn't widely-used, and if it was widely-used it would be impractical (almost every nation in Europe would have a flurry of "former possessions of X" at the bottom). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The purpose of the navbar is to quickly connect with other related articles on a particular aspect. This one does that. The current title is correct. Changing the title might help but what would one suggest? Perhaps: Historical contact with Norway, and then note within the navbox as to a former possession historically to Norway either as a footnoted number or a section to the left. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:American Social Conservatism

Navigation template fails several tests: There is no article on the topic of the template, the topics do not refer to each other to a reasonable extent, the subject of the template is not mentioned in each article. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Over-enthusiastic templating.
Keep The article is Social conservatism. All of the items under "Principles" are listed there. Conservatism in the United States is also relevant. This template is a regional implementation. Social conservatism is a crucial topic in Conservatism; it is one of the schools {{Conservatism}}, and assisting users in navigating this topic is of great utility. Lionel (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep, with recommended improvement: The number of different articles which this template holds links to and their collective importance to conservatism justifies the retention of this navbox. However, there has to be some way to gain consensus for the names of individuals listed in the template. There are more prominent social conservatives in the United States than just Mike Huckabee, Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan, William Bennett, William F. Buckley, Jr., and Robert P. George. What about Sarah Palin or commentators like Rush Limbaugh? I feel it may be just the feelings of the template's creator alone (Lionelt, whose thoughts appear directly above) that determine who is and who is not listed. But there really needs to be something a bit more defined than just that to justify names of individuals being included. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent recommendation. I agree those names are more representative.Lionel (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What would be a fine idea is ruined by requirement found at WP:CLN that articles in a nav template "refer to each other to a reasonable extent". This is not found to be satisfied in the majority of articles in the template. Taking the first one, a pipe link from Judeo-Christian values to Judeo-Christian (already a red flag here), we see that the Judeo-Christian article does not say one thing about pro-life, the nuclear family, family values, the prohibition of drugs, the anti-pornography movement or school prayer. It also says not one thing about Mike Huckabee, Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan, William Bennett, William F. Buckley, Jr. or Robert P. George. See how we are trending? This kind of problem goes on and on throughout the members of the nav template, where most members do not discuss most of the other members "to a reasonable extent". This is not a cohesive grouping. I say delete the nav template and go with categorization. Binksternet (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not a requirement. It is a guideline per WP:CLN. And anyway it's rendered toothless by "to a reasonable extent." And the nav box passes guideline #1, many articles demonstrate #2, and in reference to #4, two articles discuss the topic at length. If these guidelines were strictly applied to all navboxes 50% of them would be at TfD. Lionel (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you start ignoring Wikipedia behavioral guidelines you will be ignoring WP:COI, WP:AGF, WP:CANVASS, WP:Etiquette, WP:Gaming the system, WP:POINT, and WP:Disruptive editing. Guidelines are not lifted without extraordinarily good reason. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about behavior: we're talking about content. It's completely different. See WP:NOTLAW. But more importantly, I wasn't saying "refer to each other" is an official WP:GUIDELINE, but that it's a guideline. The actual text explains it best: "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines..." Lionel (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Better handled as a category than a navbox. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment Cats, lists, nav boxes are complimentary, not exclusionary. Lionel (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep Reasonable start at a topic-specific navbox. Objections seem to be primarily WP:IDONTLIKEIT, focusing on narrow interpretations of guidelines that don't actually reflect consensus on how such navboxes are actually used. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom & my own reasons given at the discussion over Template:Pro-life movement. User:Lionelt seems overly devoted to promoting conservative causes at the expense of a neutral encyclopedia. I would also like to note that Jclemens seems to hapharadly invoke the 'I don't like it' essay in order to dismiss others' legitimate points. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Accusing someone of POV pushing and also of showing a disregard for improving the encyclopedia are very serious charges. Are ad hominem attacks all you got PrBeacon? Lionel (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

disregard for improving the encyclopedia are your words, not mine. I don't pretend to know you well enough to discern whether you realize the imbalanced POV pushing, and discussion of such bias is not ad hominem as it is relevant to the topic. I also agree with the nominator for other reasons given. And while you're certainly allowed to respond to criticism, I think you've crossed the line into badgering everyone who Opposes (here and at the other TfD. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete Over-categorization. TFD (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not a category. I think you're looking for CfD. I guess this kinda bolsters Jclemens' point, eh PrBeacon? Lionel (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note to closing admin A few irregularities have emerged from this discussion:

The nominator views the CLN guidelines as "requirements"
An editor cast his vote based on "over-categorization"

I think this underscores a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of nav boxes by some of the participants here. Their value is not gauged by "requirements", but by guidelines, and nav boxes are not for categorization, they are for navigation. And we cannot overlook the fact that this discussion has begun to devolve along political lines, objectivity has been thrown to the wind to further ideology.Lionel (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nav templates are for navigating existing WP articles, but there is no article written for American Social Conservatism. There is an article Conservatism in the United States and also one for Social conservatism, but neither of these present a cohesive understanding of the topic which this template is supposed to map out. I continue to see that deletion is the answer, that is, until someone writes a coherent article on American Social Conservatism and works the topic tastefully into all the representative articles.

I would like to point out that, though the template author complains of arguments falling along political lines, he has not submitted any templates relating to American liberalism, populism or centrism, only American conservatism. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I support nav boxes for all ideologies. Nax boxes can be expanded, they can be improved. In fact, I would vote "Keep" for this nav box:

How many articles in the above box refer to one another? None. Hmmm... What about a template without a matching article. Let's see what the fascists are up to... This should work:

The communists have one too {{History of Communist Nations}}; it's a side bar!!! Based on your interpretation of what should be kept these boxes would be deleted. There are hundreds if not thousands more nav boxes constructed in this fashion. Your nomination here sets a chilling precedent for mass deletion of nav boxes. Starting with these 3. I say "keep, keep, keep!" Lionel (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Two of your three example templates are not used in a single article. Only the Swedish nationalism one is in use. I think a Tfd regarding the other two is perfectly appropriate. However, we are here discussing the one you authored, not these other three. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. No existing topic article. Not a cohesive collection of articles. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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) 00:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep as many of the articles listed here such as social conservatism and Conservatism in the United States are relevant. This template allows users to navigate through the relevant articles easily. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 06:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete totally useless template. What reader is actually going to read the article on Eagle Forum and move to Anti-pornography movement or America's Independent Party? Useless. Ridiculous, just will make articles harder to navigate. BelloWello (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Right on point despite diverse subject matter as this political group actually has these views. More importantly, the template originates from a user page which means that it can be kept in the end by that user. A user is welcome to create something for themselves. If the decision is to delete then only the links to the non-userpage articles should be deleted. The title of the template could be changed to "Conservatism in the United States" which is an article that exists. User Lionelt's page has the navbox title pipe-linked to this, but it is not transcluding properly on the article pages. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User WP Cheers

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) 04:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Associated with this template was deleted so there is no need for the template at this point. Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Captain

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) 01:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus at WP:Footy is to have plain text linking to Captain (association football) instead of an icon. Digirami (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete nothing to do with a ship's skipper, or a company commander. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete image is slightly confusing due to its similarity to the copyright symbol. Plain text is much clearer. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete - symbol is ambiguous and as far as I'm aware isn't actually used anywhere in football - other than on Wikipedia, of course ;) Giant Snowman 15:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Given that the general consensus is not to use this symbol in the first place, having a template for it is completely superfluous. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Plain text was agreed upon. The use of a symbol is ambiguous and unnecessary. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
There are better reasons not to use this. Captaincy is a largely organisational issue rather a matchday one; whether one is captain or not is no more relevant to the actual gameplay than what shirt number one wears. The number of times that the captain's armband can be transferred during a game is not limited in any way by the game's rules, and so multiple players can be captain in one game. Furthermore, captaincy is not a one-off event: one is captain while one retains the armband. As such, it doesn't match the use of the other icon templates in this set, which all concentrate on critical matchday events. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] April 26

[edit] Template:Celebrity Clean Water Ambassadors of the Global Water Foundation

Only used on one page. Content should be merged with parent article. There is no way we are going to put this at the foot of each person on the list. Frietjes (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete: Agreed. Likely created in good faith, but unnecessary. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Neighbourhoods and Suburbs of Tiruchirappalli

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) 13:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Procedural nomination; template had been inappropriately listed at AfD. Rationale copied from AfD was as follows:

A template explaining more about the place exists Thalapathi (Ping Back) 12:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

~~For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)~~

Perhaps I should have done some more research on this, like by clicking the "History" tab first. Speedy delete as G7. Article creator was the one who listed this at AfD, and no other editors have made substantive contributions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Deadliest earthquakes

I asked on the talk page why this was a template but got no response. This template was only transcluded once at Lists of earthquakes, which I subst'd. I don't think it needs to be maintained consistently across articles (which might justify a template) since it was only used once. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The intent was for it to be included in multiple articles, as is done with similar hurricane tables. But it has since been edited and expanded to be way too large for that to be feasible, so in it's current form it's not useful. — jdorje (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying that. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Subst and revert substitute into the list article, and revert to the small form, then add documentation about why it is small, and a see also to the {{deadliest hurricanes}} template. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete or merge, as appropriate. Student7 (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete now that it has been merged. Frietjes (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Tiruchirappalli

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, template has been substantially modified. Please renominate if you still wish to have it deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Another template explaining the about the city which included neighbourhoods and suburbs exists. Thalapathi (Ping Back) 12:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I have restored this template to its 24 April state, as that appears to be the last good version before the navbox was replaced with a transclusion of a smaller template. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Infobox ice sledge hockey player

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) 02:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Covered by Template:Infobox ice hockey player. Magioladitis (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirect parameters appear compatible. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:KK Bor RTB

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) 02:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Outdated roster; superseded by list at KK Bor#Current Roster. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:KIEVMETRO style

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) 02:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Unused. Purpose unclear. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Kylexywiki

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) 02:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Unused interwiki template. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] April 24

[edit] Template:Retsam nav

Unused and useless. 2.83.162.197 (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

subst and delete user's personal single use template should not occupy templatespace. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ProjectNav

Unused and useless. 2.83.162.197 (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete copyright violation. This seems to have been lifted from WikiEducator. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: WikiEducator is licensed CC-BY-SA and compatible (the same license) with Wikipedia. I added attribution.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:River Song chronology

Taking the unusual step of nominating a template I created for deletion. It was a nice idea, but I don't think it's going to work. Taking the latest episode ("The Impossible Astronaut"), River suggested that she will appear in a more-or less linear backwards way from her timeline, making this pretty much redundant. And these new episodes, although placed on the template by another user, are unclear whether they take place in River's timeline. I was wrong to assume we'd be able to place River in her personal timeline every time she appeared. U-Mos (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete for the time being anyway. It does Have a little bit of WP:OR involved at the moment. Perhaps when, or if, her storyline is brought to an end there will be a source (or more than one) that will allow you to recreate it with more accuracy. Thank you U-Mos for bringing this up. I hope that you are able to restore it down the road. The minute I heard those lines last night I was reminded of the way that Merlin is presented in T.H. White's The Once and Future King. MarnetteD | Talk 23:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't Doctor Who (in his future) identified as Merlin in a Seventh Doctor episode? Now it's River who's acting like Merlin? Coincidence? I say Delete and talk about the chronology in the River Song article.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct about the Seventh Doctor being called Merlin. It was in the story entitled Battlefield. Good job on the memory front. MarnetteD | Talk 01:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete not a chronology of the real-life river. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Reorganize and rename to Template:River Song stories I agree that creating a chronology might be hard (see File:River_Song_timeline.jpg for a try) but I think we should at least have a navbox of her episodes like {{Dalek stories}}, {{Cybermen stories}} and {{UNIT stories}}. Regards So Why 17:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
delete cruft and original research. Type of fan-boy stuff is best suited to wikia.--Scott Mac 18:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Boy oh boy, River Song's story is going to be a nightmare to explain in a cogent and readable manner. Agree that this isn't the best way to do that. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox 5linx

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. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently spam Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete - advertising and nonsense.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Welsh National League Division One teamlist

Navbox containing links to non-notable football club articles. The only bluelinks in the article are currently in the process of being deleted. – Pee Jay 17:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Unnecessary navbox. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I've challenged proposed deletions on two of the three given that they appeared a division higher the year previous and that division is widely populated with links. matt91486 (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete - 3 blue links out of a possible 13 is still not enough for a template IMO -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User zionist

I understood that POV userboxes were consigned to userspace by community agreement. I'm nominating this for deletion, but without objection to it being userfied (if someone wants it) and the redirect deleted. Scott Mac 15:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep and move it to userpage space. (i'm in favor of giving my userpage for that matter if it helps.) --Oren neu dag (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S.

Moving it back here would seem to be a good idea. --Oren neu dag (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

- Happy for it to be moved to your userspace. However, the transpositions should be re-pointed there and the cross namespace redirect deleted. This would be in line with what's happened to other such boxes.--Scott Mac 21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Userfy per the above. In the future, however, deletion discussions involving userboxes, regardless of namespace, are placed at Miscellany for deletion. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Eh? This is templates for deletion, isn't it? Is this some kind of counter-intuitive rule someone has developed?--Scott Mac 18:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  - It may be a bit confusing and counterintuitive, but listing userboxes at MfD instead of here is standard Wikipedia practice. For a list of what types of items should be listed at the seven different discussion pages, see Wikipedia:Deletion discussions#List of deletion discussions. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    - Well, it isn't my practice. It looks like a silly rule, best ignored. I don't usually nominate things, but when I did I use common sense and intuition, I don't go looking for WP:CREEP rules, and I'm not about to start.--Scott Mac 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
      - Userboxes are listed at MFD because they can be in multiple namespaces - some template, some wikipedia, with the vast majority in the userspace. Since userspace pages go to MFD, other userboxes in other namespaces go as well. Indeed, it says that right at the top of this page, and it's been that way since 2006. Not a new CREEP policy, in other words. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
        
        It is still CREEP, and the type of nitpicking, counter-intuitive instruction that makes Wikipedia inaccessible to new users. If the existence of such an instruction would never occur even to an old-hand like me, what chance has anyone, other than the clique that hang out on XFD stuff got. No, it is an instruction best ignored.--Scott Mac 14:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Userfy per the template's author, above. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Nocrap

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. Deleted by author. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

BITEY and unnecessary. We've got proper warning templates. Sure sometimes a sharp message is understandable, but it hardly needs a template. Scott Mac 15:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good lord. It's been five years since I wrote that. Really unnecessary, and in retrospect not the best idea; I've deleted it. DS (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:West Papua (Indonesian province)

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) 02:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Redundant to {{West Papua}}. {{West Papua}} is at a better name, so it should be kept. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate template, so Redirected. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Thanthi group

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 withdrawn Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

With only three working links this navigation template serves very little purpose which can't be easily served by inline wikilinks and see also sections. Muhandes (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear muhandes, I am in process of adding more pages related to this. In a week or so I would do it. also i had renamed the page by substituting caps G in Group--Mahizhini1977 (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn. for now, letting the editor populate it, while keeping watch. --Muhandes (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Multidel

Appears to be largely deprecated in favor of {{Old AfD multi}}. I don't see this template serving any useful purposes that couldn't otherwise be served by the aforementioned template. At less than 500 transclusions it's not commonly used anymore, and it wouldn't be especially laborious to switch the rest to {{oldafdmulti}} if we needed to. elektrik SHOOS 03:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep oldafdmulti doesn't support all deletion processes. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Which deletion processes doesn't it support? elektrik SHOOS 05:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, anything that wasn't AfD. Only AfD links with "page", there's no option to select a deletion process for each entry. If it was changed to support all deletion processes equally, then it should be renamed oldxfdmulti. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You should probably check again. It supports most any other discussion via parameters which allow you to specify custom links and/or captions for non-AFD processes (and DRV if necessary). You're right, the template title may be a bit misleading, but that's a separate discussion. elektrik SHOOS 22:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I don't see any benefit to deletion. It's still in use, and 500 transclusions does seem laborious, especially when it's unnecessary. -- œ ^™ 01:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep per above reasons. (I'm clearly to lazy to explain, aren't I!) --The copyeditor's corner 18:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Gl-PENDING

This template matches two reasons for deletion as listed at WP:TFD. "The template is redundant to a better-designed template" — Gl-PENDING and its counterpart template, {{Gl-DONE}}, have both been superseded by {{Gl request}}, which combines the two deprecated templates into one. Because of this, Gl-PENDING "has no likelihood of being used". However, Gl-PENDING is still in use within two archives: Illustration Workshop 2010 and Photography Workshop 2010. If there is no objection to deleting Gl-PENDING, then I will personally go through the archives and replace the old templates with the new template (a very simple matter that won't require too much time or effort) before the deprecated template is permanently deleted. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:TFD, "Templates are rarely orphaned (made to not be in use) before the discussion is closed", which is why I haven't subst'd or replaced these deprecated templates (including Gl-DONE, below) already. Since my TfDs haven't received any response of any kind, I think I can assume the templates are okay to delete. But I wouldn't mind having a "go ahead" from someone more familiar with this process to either update the template uses or to subst them (adding an incredible amount of bytes to each archive). I also would rather not close out my own nominations. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Gl-DONE

This template matches two reasons for deletion as listed at WP:TFD. "The template is redundant to a better-designed template" — Gl-DONE and its counterpart template, {{Gl-PENDING}}, have both been superseded by {{Gl request}}, which combines the two deprecated templates into one. Because of this, Gl-DONE "has no likelihood of being used". However, Gl-DONE is still in use within four archives: Illustration Workshop 2010 and 2011, and Photography Workshop 2010 and 2011. If there is no objection to deleting Gl-DONE, then I will personally go through the archives and replace the old templates with the new template (a very simple matter that won't require too much time or effort) before the deprecated template is permanently deleted. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] April 23

[edit] Template:Aihealue/taustaväri

Unused, and purpose unclear Plastikspork (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Inspector 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Recommend delete. Appears to be more of an articles content and even then it would need a lot of work. Doesn't appear to be notable. Kumioko (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete This isn't a template. It's an opinion piece that fails to meet any Wikipedia standard. Not even a debate here. --CPAScott (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Human Weapon

This template is useless. It links together the articles for the show, the hosts and several sketchy articles for episodes of the series, none of which are notable on their own and which I have proposed for deletion. Even if any of the episode articles survive the main article on the series links the contents without needing the enormous template. Harley Hudson (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete I agree per nomination its un needed and this listing of episodes could easily be done by incorporating into the article. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:National football team women

There is no reason to have a separate infobox for the women's game. All but three parameters (Olympic apps, Olympic first and Olympic best) are included in the non-gender specific Template:Infobox national football team. If those three parameters were to be added to the latter template, then Template:National football team women would no longer be required. Jameboy (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom, no need for a sepeate template when the current infobox can be quite easily improved. Giant Snowman 15:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete. A redundant template. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Conditional delete, although in principle they should be merged, adding Olympic fields to the "main" nft infobox will encourage addition of data on men's teams that does not belong there, but in article for an age specific team. happy to support if some clear advice to avoid this can be included in the changes to Template:Infobox national football team. Kevin McE (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep I am not principally opposed to a single infobox, but there are several shortcomings in the nominators explanation. For instance, the women's template links to 'FIFA Women's World Rankings' rather than 'FIFA World Rankings', and further down it links to 'FIFA Women's World Cup' rather than 'FIFA World Cup' and 'UEFA Women's Championship' rather than 'UEFA European Football Championship', in addition to the men's template lacking links to the Olympics. All these issues need to be addressed before a merger, and it seems to me that keeping the current split with two infoboxes is simpler than creating additional parameters in the men's template, which will make the latter even more cluttered and difficult to use. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox National beach soccer team

Serves no purpose as is identical to the preferred Template:Infobox national football team. Jameboy (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
It's unused, so I've boldly redirected it. Still no harm in deletion as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete. A redundant template. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Letter-NumberCombination

Adds bloat to disambiguation pages by adding links that aren't helpful. Bxj (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Example: FF (disambiguation) --Bxj (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete : Template does not add any value to the disambiguation articles, and I've noticed many editors moving (e.g. AB), or removing the template after a bot placed them. +mt 20:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete: utterly useless gimmick. -- Theoprakt (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
reformat as a see-also template. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete: can't see how this helps anything. Rwessel (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete: useless addition to dab pages (used for letter-letter combinations too, despite its name). No need for "See also" either: if I want PD I don't type PC or QD. PamD (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Lack of utility, bloat. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Many letter/number combinations reference things that come in sequences - A77, A8, A9, and so on - and it harms no one to have an easy link to the next item in the sequence. The appearance of these templates on disambig pages may be somewhat remediated by putting them in a see also section. bd2412 T 14:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Many things come in sequences, but the elements in the sequences are not ambiguous with each other. If I'm looking for A1, B1 and A2 are irrelevant to my navigation. The appearance of the template on a disambiguation page where there is no ambiguity should be remedied by removing the template. If there is a useful place for the template for exploration (instead of navigation), then it could be kept for that (and still removed from the disambiguation pages), but I don't know what that place my be. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And the "sequence" is not always obvious - see this use of the template. PamD (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep; useful navigation template, small and introducing minimum clutter. The issue of whether such a navigational aid should be used in particular articles is an issue for the articles, not for the tmplate (which is currently transcluded int 1471 articles. TJRC (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've only seen them on the two-letter dab pages (which should account for about 1296 of those 1471 uses). There I think they're pointless. I'd be happy to get rid of them there, and let other people worry about their use on those other 175 pages. Rwessel (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete Provides no useful information for disambiguation of a given letter-number combination and especially when placed at the top of the page it is nothing but clutter. older ≠ wiser 00:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Scandals in India

This template consists only of about 20 redlinks and 2 blue links. This is not a good use of a template, especially since many of these links are highly unlikely to ever have enough information for full articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Strong keep: There are many templates where the article for other geographical locations are still to be created. A template is needed to group those similar articles. There are 100s of scandals in each state in India in last 60 years. So there is enough content that can be put in those red links. I cannot make all those articles and list all those scandals as i am not from those geographical areas. But keeping this template will help in article creation and listing all scandals in each state. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete Serves no useful purpose. Can be recreated if and when the articles exist. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete - if there are really hundreds of notable scandals in every Indian state then a category for them would be a much better approach to a template that could potentially have thousands of entries. Harley Hudson (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

comment: There is nearly one scandal every week for fortnight, but in absence of documenting that at one central place, the people forget about them after some time. Each state must be at least having more than 100 scandals. But one person (me) can't have enough time and energy to list all those and collect from media of past. The template inspires the person visiting to start the article for his geographical location. In india corruption is the burning topic in news and India is one the verge of making a strong anti corruption law( can be checked from media news in past one month), so there is every and high possibility of all articles being created in next four months. At least the template should be given time till then. Thanks Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Then the template can be recreated at that time. As I commented on your talk page, we can't have a template with 24/26 links being redlinks. Furthermore, look at List of scandals in India by state. Most states have only a few (or even zero) scandals listed. Right now, almost none of those would actually qualify for an independent article. While redlinks can be used to help inspire new articles, I don't believe it's appropriate to actually create a template for that purpose. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, The template can be deleted, if others feel so. No problem Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Delete: per nom. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 17:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Hang on

No use after the button. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There is currently one transclusion, but obviously the neat new button resolves this in a better way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep. I occasionally see it used, with a parameter, by experienced users. Also, newbies may have become accustomed to using this template for delaying speedy deletions. While it is not nearly as useful as it once was, it still has its place. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Surely anyone visiting a page with a speedy tag can see quite clearly the large button which has supplanted this template, and which does not require any special skill to use? TMTOWTDI is often a bad idea UI-wise. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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) 01:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Especially for newbies, there may be some considerable time (minutes, hours) between when the editor wishes to contest and is able to put together an articulated statement of why. "hang on" means that the rationale is coming. It does not interfere with the speedy deletion if it's truly warranted, but if it makes an admin think, "hey, this was just posted 10 minutes ago, I think I'll hold off for a while," it's worthwhile. TJRC (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Procedural Keep as defective TfD listing. This TfD discussion is still not properly listed after over 3 weeks, Step 1 has never been completed. This is a long standing and at times widely used template, so proper notification of the community is critical. If we still think it should be deleted, open a new TfD and tag the template next time. Monty ₈₄₅ 23:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutral It might be better just to put a deprecated notice on it and keep it for historical reference. It wouldn't clog up the tubes. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ACC Wrestling

Unused navbox with all red links. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I made this template with the intention of eventually creating the articles to go with it. If it's deleted now, I will just remake it at a later date when I get around to making the articles. Dincher (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] April 22

[edit] Template:Denver Public Library public domain images

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. Misleading tag. Will replace existing transclusions with appropriate public domain tags, or PD status can't be confirmed, appropriate fair use tags or WP:FFD nomination. RL0919 (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no arguments why the files from Denver Public Library is public domain. http://history.denverlibrary.org/images/copyright.html#copyright says: "All images from the Denver Public Library collection are copyright © protected and may not be reproduced in any way without permission from the Denver Public Library. Commercial use of images is subject to service fees." MGA73 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The original template in 2006 included a link to http://photoswest.org/ which now redirects to http://digital.denverlibrary.org/ -- it seems plausible that in 2006, photoswest.org hosted only public domain images, but that's clearly no longer the case. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Do list

Despite the name, this does not "do lists", in the HTML sense, but makes pseudo-lists, which are neither semantically correct nor accessible. It is now redundant to the recently-improved {{Flatlist}}, which uses proper list markup (and can accommodate ordered lists, too). If the choice of separators is really required (this is debatable), these could be added to {{Flatlist}} by way of a switch. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete, per accessibility issue and redundancy with {{Flatlist}}. With 382 transclusions it shouldn't be too hard to make the changes either way, but could a bot replace {{Do list}} with {{Flatlist}}? Dodoïste (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see why not. Here's a sample conversion - note though, that there is talk of embedding the class in {{Navbox}} (see that template's talk page), so {{Flatlist}} may not be needed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
You guys realise the absolute mess this proposal is making of the live site, right? See, for one example, Template:Intel processors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LionsPhil (talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Now fixed with the use of a noinclude -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Replace with {{WrapItemsAfterSeparator}}. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Flatlist compact

Fork of {{Flatlist}}, used to apply a different style. If that is needed, a better solution would be to add a switch to {{Flatlist}}, or to add conditional CSS to Common.css Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As the creator of this template, I agree completely that a switch in {{Flatlist}} would be a much better solution. The extra class ("hlist nomargin") already exists in common.css, but {{Flatlist}} does not make use of it at present - hence this template. I would request therefore, that this template is not deleted until after {{Flatlist}} is modified to make use of the "nomargin" class, so that we retain a template that is usable directly in navboxes, etc. Having looked, this template is now unusable because of the tfd notice associated with it renders it worthless for use as an example in navboxes. Delete. --RexxS (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. If you need it for demonstration purposes, may I suggest a copy in your user space? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:USdollars

Propose merging Template:USdollars with Template:Coinage (United States coin).
I think it is better for the reader to have a single unifying template. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Coinage (United States coin) should probably be moved to Template:Coinage (United States).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Support I would have thought "USdollars" would also cover dollar bills... 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Support —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:46pm • 10:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Support I like the dollar coin template, but the generalized one seems to cover the topic just fine. I still think that all U.S. denominations should be included, though. An "other" (20 cent, 2 cent, 3 cent, platinum eagles etc) and a "gold" section would cover everything nicely without making the template much larger.-RHM22 (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, either extend it or have one for obsolete coinage. Frankly, I think, like RHM22, it could all be put in one template.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. Seems pretty solid to me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Do not move to commons - copyright subject

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. Redundant to other fair-use tags that are already required. RL0919 (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally, photos of a copyright subject are copyright; I don't think the English Wikipedia follows different rules than Commons. The only files this is applied to are tagged as non-free, fair use images, which it is no more necessary to say can't be on Commons than with copyright covers of books and magazines. —innotata 13:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep Useful tag; reminder and wakeup call - serves a useful purpose. Good template...Modernist (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why is it needed here, and not with every other copyright image? —innotata 14:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This template is a failsafe, it is useful and needed...Modernist (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, the same could apply to all copyright images. —innotata 14:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't need a big banner for such a basic prerequisite. Anyone moving images to Commons should already understand the requirements. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete Redundant, the notice itself is used on VERY, VERY few pages. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:48pm • 10:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete Redudant as (1) copyrighted files could only uploaded under a non-free license and (2) Commons doesn't accept copyrighted files. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 02:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:LOSS UN

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) 00:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Unused. Purpose unclear. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete Redundant. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:49pm • 10:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete It's unclear for what it should be used. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 02:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Irreligious people

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) 00:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete This template is rather misleading in implying that agnostics, humanists, deists, pantheists are all necessarily irreligious, which is factually untrue. Additionally, we already have Template:Irreligion and Template:Irreligion Sidebar, so this template is duplicative anyway. Cybercobra (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

*Neutral I created the template, but i wished Cybercobra discussed this with me before proposing deletion. I am wiling to change my vote to delete if you propose an alternative heading. Pass a Method talk 09:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete - i changed my vote to delete. I am gonna make an identical temp but with a new name. Pass a Method talk 08:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Duplication & problematic - Template:Irreligion already has atheism & agnosticism; Template:Irreligion Sidebar has a section on "people" which has the same items & makes the same problematic presumptions this template makes. That template also needs fixing, but we do not need to compound the problem by needlessly duplicating its problems. The whole topic of irreligion is problematic and needs review - see Talk:Irreligion#we must specify for each study what IT included. Hardly any 2 studies use the term in the same way --JimWae (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete as redundant. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Completed discussions

The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell (edit)

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)'.

[edit] Closing discussions

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

[edit] To review

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

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 2
- Template:Infobox place Ireland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - JPG-GR (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011 January 5
- {{NavigationRepYears}}, French Republican Calendar/Y1, French Republican Calendar/Y2, French Republican Calendar/Y3, French Republican Calendar/Y4, French Republican Calendar/Y5, French Republican Calendar/Y6, French Republican Calendar/Y7, French Republican Calendar/Y8, French Republican Calendar/Y9, French Republican Calendar/Y10, French Republican Calendar/Y11, French Republican Calendar/Y12, French Republican Calendar/Y13, French Republican Calendar/Y14, French Republican Calendar/Yx, French Republican Calendar/Yx-1, French Republican Calendar/Yx+1 — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 14:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- {{CURRENTFRCMONTHNAME}}, {{CURRENTFRCDAYNAME}}, {{CURRENTFRCDAY}}, {{CURRENTFRCYEAR}}, {{CURRENTFRCTIME}}, {{LOCALREPYEAR}}, {{LOCALREPDAY}}, {{LOCALREPMONTHNAME}}, {{LOCALREPDAYNAME}}, {{LOCALREPTIME}}, {{RepDnr}}, {{RepDnr/1}}, {{RepDnr/2}}, {{RepDate}} — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 14:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 10
- Template:Infobox given name (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Template:Infobox given name2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)- JPG-GR (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 21
- Template:Tweet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) into Template:You've got mail (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 5
- {{Infobox AFL player 2}} and {{Infobox AFL player}} should be merged into {{Infobox afl player NEW}}, preserving the format of {{Infobox afl player NEW}}. A better name should be selected after the merger.
- {{Infobox Red Bull Air Race Pilot}} into {{Infobox aviator}}

[edit] To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories, lists or portals are put here until the conversion is completed.

None currently

[edit] To substitute

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

None currently

[edit] 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

[edit] 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. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason. See also {{Deleted template}}, an option to delete templates while retaining them for displaying old page revisions.

None currently

[edit] Archive and Indices

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

[edit] How to use this page

[edit] What not to propose for discussion here

[edit] Reasons to delete a template

[edit] Listing a template

[edit] Discussion

Contents

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] May 6

[edit] May 5

[edit] Template:2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup

[edit] Template:Infobox Thessaloniki

[edit] Template:Hang on

[edit] Template:WikiProject Nature

[edit] May 4

[edit] Template:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

[edit] Episode list unused sub-pages

[edit] Template:Spinout

[edit] Template:Commercial logo rationale

[edit] Template:PD-art-uk

[edit] Template:Biopic fur

[edit] Template:WhoseMap

[edit] Template:WhoseData

[edit] Template:Uw-photo-advisory

[edit] Template:USgovt

[edit] Template:Sofades

[edit] Template:Actinium

[edit] Template:Academic degrees of Denmark

[edit] Template:About plugcomputer

[edit] Template:Abkhazian railway

[edit] Template:ARD-12 class floating dry dock

[edit] Template:APRA party

[edit] Template:ALeague AIS colour

[edit] Template:ALPB roster

[edit] Template:AIM 50 companies

[edit] Template:AFL player statistics legend

[edit] Template:AFL event

[edit] Template:AFLCA Champion Player of the Year

[edit] Template:AF1 team

[edit] Template:ACTAFLclubs

[edit] Template:AB-Kreuz

[edit] Template:AB-FedRep

[edit] Template:Chloride

[edit] Template:Chlorides

[edit] Template:Chopin works

[edit] Template:Christian Democratic MP 2006-2010

[edit] Template:Cite Audio

[edit] Template:Cite Compert Con Culainn II

[edit] Template:Cite TBDD II

[edit] Template:Cite gni

[edit] Template:Cite note-15

[edit] Template:A-PL-nr

[edit] Template:A-PL-header

[edit] Template:2010-11 Hockey East standings (men)

[edit] Template:2009–10 AIHL Champions Cup bracket

[edit] Template:2009-10 OUA hockey East standings

[edit] Template:2007–08 Big 12 women's basketball standings

[edit] Template:2007 Vanderbilt Commodores baseball game log

[edit] Template:EmperorsCupBracketR1R3

[edit] Template:EmperorsCupBracketLast16

[edit] Template:USSCOTW

[edit] Template:AtlantaCollaboration

[edit] Template:Arizona Spring Training

[edit] Template:3~

[edit] Template:5~

[edit] Template:Copy to Wiktionary

[edit] Template:PD-PRGov-IPC

[edit] May 3

[edit] Template:2010–11 Austrian Football Bundesliga table

[edit] Template:2010–11 Cleveland Cavaliers pre-season game log

[edit] Template:2011 AFL Rising Star

[edit] Template:2011 Rugby Super League Table

[edit] Template:2011 Torneo Intermedio

[edit] 2011 USA Sevens Fixtures Pools

[edit] Template:2011 WNBA schedule

[edit] Template:3. Liga top scorers

[edit] Big 12 women's basketball standings

[edit] English cricket seasons

[edit] Template:1995 K-League Best XI etc

[edit] Template:Cities of Turkey