Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 8

< December 7	December 9 >

December 8

CanElec(t) 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CanElec11 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CanElec13 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CanElect20 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, without documentation Bulwersator (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on this and many other nominations by Bulwersator: Lack of documentation isn't an argument for deletion, unless something changed when I wasn't looking, but rather for documentation writing. If the template is unused and there isn't any evidence it's something actively in-progress (i.e., about to be used), that's enough to delete it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As regulars here will know, I prefer the terminology "purpose unclear". If there is no documentation, it often takes a bit of digging deep to find out what the template is supposed to be for. Sometimes it is impossible to uncover the intended use. If a template is of unclear purpose, this is a very good reason for deletion, and I suspect this is what Bulwersator is meaning to point out. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meh. This is a collaborative project. The present documentation system has been in place for a long time now, and there really is no excuse for editors writing reusable code not to leave at least some explanation of what it is at the time of creation (that doesn't apply to these 2006-vintage templates, but it does to new content). It's the only way that anyone other than the author will ever be able to use it in most cases. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused, and no development in years (though I have no objection to userspacing if someone still wants to try to do something with them). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment these are part of a set of similarly named Canadian Election templates Special:PrefixIndex/Template:CanElec . 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have informed WPCANADA. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it appears that none of these 3 are transcluded anywhere, whereas others in Special:PrefixIndex/Template:CanElec are. The 3 nominees appear to be unused duplicates. PK T(alk) 13:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other templates in this series that I've randomly looked at are only used in one or two articles, so they could be transcluded and then deleted too. If we wanted to keep them as templates, it would be easy to merge them all and use parser functions to control the small differences (like changing the word "election" to "by-election"). —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Züm stations

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 as CSD G7; deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). (non-admin closure) jcgoble3 (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, useless Bulwersator (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator, I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Note that it is NOT useless, just unused, so please stop using that expression just because you do not understand the purpose of similar templates. They are just not currently being used. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

More Turkish transit 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Üçyol-Bornova lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:İzmir Metro Route (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Üçyol-Bornova stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

Unused, useless, [most] without documentation Bulwersator (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused, unless they become properly used (i.e., there is no deletion rationale other than disuse), and with no prejudice against userspacing if someone still intends to do something with these (Secondarywaltz seems to imply this is the case, without being very clear). I have to concur with Secondarywaltz's comments that "useless" is subjective and unhelpful here; it's not a deletion policy kind of term. (In point of fact, it's actually false: Since we do have articles on at least Bornova and Izmir, an obvious use would be to write a section in the former about transit in the district and between it and others, and use this template there, and/or use it in the Izmir section about transportation.) This !vote applies also to the rest of the 5 or so transit templates nominated today by Bulwersator. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Templates in a series like these, suffixed with "lines", "stations" and "color" are used by S-line succession templates to interpret input. They are often nominated for deletion when they appear to be "useless", but they have been created for a very specific use. Reasons for this may be that they never been properly implemented, been renamed or become disused, but care must be taken that they are not just waiting to be brought to life. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Meh. If they were properly documented, this wouldn't happen, and if it does happen, WP:DRV exists for a reason. Most of the time, just explaining it to the deleting admin is enough. If someone shows that they are likely to be used, I'd change my !vote, but only if they were documented so people stop wasting their and my and your time TfDing them since they look like junk. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What I took exception to is the reason was give as "useless" and the note above was to let you know their usage. I have nominated many of these common kinds of templates myself, but first I investigated their potential use and taken the time to understand how they work. Where there is no doubt, I will tag them with {{db-t3}} for speedy deletion, as not being employed in any useful fashion. That does not waste any time here. Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:ŠK Slovan Bratislava Squad

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ŠK Slovan Bratislava Squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, duplication of the article Bulwersator (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policy against hiding article prose in templates. (I forget what the link is to that; it's so obvious I don't see anyone cite it very often; same reason we don't have subpages in mainspace). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Škoda timeline 1980 to date

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Škoda timeline 1980 to date (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, without sources Bulwersator (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused (with no prejudice against userspacing if someone want to still do something with this). Lack of sourcing isn't a template deletion rationale, it's a content inclusion issue; each fact would need to be sourced in the main article prose, i.e. at Škoda Auto, or would be subject to deletion under WP:Verifiability, regardless of whether it appeared in a template or in main prose in an article, just like alleged facts in infoboxes and navboxes. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Vro li

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

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

Unused, useless, without documentation Bulwersator (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete per ~~WP:CSD#G1 (fails the "coherent non-English material" test, being unexplained non-English; it even has code to pop up a "?" cursor suggesting one clicks to get an explanation, but there isn't one).~~ WP:CSD#T3 (it is an unused duplicate of Template:Vro icon, the only difference is code to pop up a "?" cursor indicating "click here for an explanation", but it isn't clickable, so the difference is worse than meaningless). Failing speedy deletion, delete as unused. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC) [updated 02:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)][reply]

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

Template:TFLsound

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

The result of the discussion was keep for now Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, useless, without documentation Bulwersator (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. It's reserved for the WP:TFL process, which intends to one day feature sounds on the main page. —WFC— 19:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. That the project "intends to one day" use it isn't a strong reason to keep this, but it doesn't hurt anything, and I can't see a reason to think that the intended use won't materialize "soon-ish". I'm hard pressed to think of any technical or other reason that sound file links on the front page would cause problems. That said, there's no indication that the nomination was disruptive point-making or otherwise bad faith, so "speedy" doesn't apply here. WP:TFL isn't magically immune to having TfD discuss (and even delete) templates related to it. If this template returned to TfD after a few months of still not being used, I'd go with "delete", per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. We're not a MediaWiki code archive for templates that might conceivably be used some day by someone for something. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do wish people wouldn't put code into templatespace until it's actually going to be used. Still, as SMcCandlish says, we can just lay down a marker here and use it to establish the level of dust gathering on said code at some later point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

T-bane icons

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) 01:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:T-bane 1 icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:T-bane 1a icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:T-bane 2 icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:T-bane 3 icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:T-bane 4 icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:T-bane 5 icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:T-bane 6 icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, useless Bulwersator (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems somehow related to {{Infobox Oslo Metro station}}, so I notified Template talk:Infobox Oslo Metro station of the discussion. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brighton transit 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brighton & Hove Bus Metro 7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Brighton & Hove Bus Metro 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless, unused Bulwersator (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with same caveats as for the Turkish transit templates nominated today. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Blue ribbon winner

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per G7. -- Menti fisto 17:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blue ribbon winner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless, unused - there is no need for this template as filename is not complicated (File:Blueribbon icon.png) Bulwersator (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was playing around with spacing, didn't work, forgot to delete it. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

English bishop navboxes

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bishops of Wells (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bishops of Bath (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox, different templates this are used on articles Bulwersator (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed this issue by adding these templates to the concerned articles D B D 18:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since now used properly. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And now it duplicates (IMHO better) the succession box system. Bulwersator (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the same mind. Navboxen of this kind always do the job better. I've just been leaving them in situ because of the quo D B D 23:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Bellmare H

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, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Useless, unused, without documentation Bulwersator (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused, and it also fails long-standing precedent against templates that just insert a link (this one outputs "Bellmare Hiratsuka" and does nothing else). Category:Typing aid templates is one thing, but this is just unbelievable laziness. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete boilerplate link. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:FTA

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.

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

Unused, useless userbox Bulwersator (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Moved it to {{User FTA}}, the standard naming pattern for userboxes. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unused. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close discussion, since user boxes go to MFD. Frietjes (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK Bulwersator (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:FlagO

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems broken; old; unused; purpose unclear. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. I can confirm that it is non-functional, too, though fixing it would be trivial. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Flags of Africa

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Flags of Africa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used: {{Africa topic}} (with appropriate parameters) is used in its place. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Flash Gordon (Queen album)

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) 02:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Flash Gordon (Queen album) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Covered sufficiently by the "Flash Gordon" row in {{Queen singles}}. Not used and not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Fleet Listing

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) 02:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused; purpose unclear. Airline articles get by fine without this. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused (if it remains so), or userspace if requested. This could actually be useful if it were deployed. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Fires by 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 delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fires by year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by {{catnav fires}}. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Feedback

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) 02:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems to be a one-time-use user talk page message from 2007, about who-knows-what. Not needed anymore. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment it might be useful as a redirect to {{talkback}} ... provided all current transclusions are nulled. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment it is not at all a user talk page message. It is for placement at the search result pages of User:AlexNewArtBot. Colchicum (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That bot is blocked. It appears that the template was used twice in 2007 and has not been used since. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Numbers 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Numbers (10s) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Numbers 20s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Numbers 30s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Numbers 40s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Numbers 50s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Numbers 70s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Numbers 80s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Numbers 90s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Numbers 110s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Numbers (120s) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Numbers (130s) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Unused navboxes [Template:Numbers with 2 links] Bulwersator (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment superceded by template:Infobox number 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused and obsolete. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Notasocialnetwork

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) 02:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, malformed, ugly user warning Bulwersator (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it was kept last time but it replicates {{uw-socialnetwork}} -- 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty silly close last time; redirect is plainly the right result here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged under T3 Bulwersator (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I untagged it. The idea that it could be considered a WP:CSD#T3 candidate was raised at the previous TfD, which closed with "keep", not "speedy", so the speedy deletion idea has already been rejected. And speedy wouldn't apply anyway, unless the template had changed radically from the version that previously survived TfD, to be even more of a useless clone of another template. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:Uw-socialnetwork, which is the same idea, if not precisely the same wording, but uses a more WP:UTN-standardized appearance, and is actually listed at UTN, unlike this template. Really, this didn't even need to be a TfD, since just swapping the code out for a redirect would probably never have been noticed by anyone, nor been controversial if it had been noticed. However, the template is not "unused", nor is it "malformed" in any way meaningful here. "Ugly" doesn't have anything to do with deletion policy and isn't a TfD rationale. This template is simply not used much and is similar enough to another that they can be safely merged (by way of redirection), this one into the better-known one. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Notfound

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, useless, without documentation Bulwersator (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no apparent use, or it advises against WP:REDLINK ? 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 70.24.248.23. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Central Michigan Chippewas football roster

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete under CSD G7; deleted by Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). (non-admin closure) jcgoble3 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Central Michigan Chippewas football roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As an intended single-use template, it should not exist. Content appears to be substituted at 2009 Central Michigan Chippewas football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it was an idea that didn't go anywhere. Mackensen (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Mackensen's comment. I've tagged it for G7. The only contributions by others consist of adding a link, so this should still be eligible. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Notability-inline

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) 02:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notability-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no need for YA cleanup template. Bulwersator (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have {{notability}} and {{notability-section}}. There should be an inline version of that. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per anon. We need more families connected {{xxx}}, {{xxx-section}}, {{xxx-inline}}, rather than less. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as much as I personally feel that content matter should be examined for notability in articles, that's not the consensus position. This tag misrepresents the notability guideline. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Redirect to {{importance-inline}}, then, as {{notability-section}} redirects to {{importance-section}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that, but then I'm strongly in favour of rewording {{notability}} so that it basically does what {{importance}} used to do pre-merge. Whether that is workable or not really depends on what way the wind is blowing. {{importance-section}} is rather fortunate to still exist given the fate of {{notability}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{importance-inline}}, cleanup after, then delete and salt. As a co-creator of WP:WikiProject Inline Templates, I'll obviously agree with Arthur Rubin strongly that we need more, not fewer templates of this sort (accurate ones), and increased consistency. Bulwerator's nomination rationale wasn't sound. Thumperward, however, was quite correct that {{notability-inline}} does misrepresent WP:N, but that's since been fixed by Rubin as {{importance-inline}}, so we can redirect. However, if we have a redirect going from Template:Notability-section to Template:Importance-inline, that implies that a subject of inline content can be a notability issue, and that still isn't correct, is very misleading, and is likely to result in continued confusion.
All existing cases of {{notability-inline}} should be replaced with calls to {{importance-inline}}, and the page at Template:Notability-inline should be deleted and WP:SALTed, since (unless longstanding policy radically changes) it's impossible for an inline issue to be a notability issue, but someone meaning well would almost certainly but wrongheadedly re-create the "missing inline version". The notability version will serve no purpose. The {{Importance-section}} template serves the same function as {{importance-line}}, at a larger scale, and the wording of the two should be kept synchronized. The redirect from {{Notability-section}} to {{Importance-section}} should be deleted and salted for the same reason I propose doing this with the inline equivalent. The redirect from {{Importance}} to {{Notability}} is fine, because it's impossible for an entire article subject to be notable yet also be unimportant (i.e., unencyclopedically trivial; relevance, the other aspect of "importance" here, doesn't apply at the whole-article level, since there's no context for the article to be relevant within).
I suggest that this just be closed as "redirect", here, and further discussion moved to Template talk:Importance-inline#Importance and notability template cleanup for consensus, and then deal with the hopefully to-be-salted redirects at WP:MFD after that discussion. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And trying speedy while nominated? Well done for your contribution to policy nominator. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Nobel icon

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

The result of the discussion was delete after moving talk page to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Nobel_icon. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Useless, unused, without documentation (I was unable to place TfD template on this template, as page is fully protected) Bulwersator (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete template page only, not talk page. It appears that the purpose of this page's existence is to prevent the associated talk page from being speedied under G8. According to the header on the talk page, it was deleted when the previous TfD resulted in deletion of the template, but restored on request to preserve the discussions. I say delete the template page, ~~slap {{G8-exempt}} on the talk page, and if anyone wants to pursue deletion of the talk page, let them do so through MfD.~~ jcgoble3 (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Argh. Why can't the talk page simply be moved to an archive of something which isn't going to be deleted? There's no need for weird hacks here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Move to subpage of Wikipedia:Perennial proposals? Integrate with Wikipedia:Perennial proposals? Bulwersator (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  I'll support any solution that doesn't result in the talk page being deleted through TfD or CSD. ~~I don't really care how it's accomplished, though a subpage of Wikipedia:Perennial proposals might be a better idea than what I suggested.~~ jcgoble3 (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pseudo-template and Move talk page to subpage of WT:Manual of Style (icons), and make sure it appears in the archive box there. It's important to keep the discussion but not important at all to keep it where it is; if we did that for every bad idea that triggered MOS:ICON problems, we'd have junk like this all over the "Template talk" namespace. PS: I think it's far too trivial and too highly particular to rate a WP:PERENNIAL entry, though that page could benefit from a single entry about icon image matters like this one (sports medals, etc.). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points. I agree that the talk page should be an archive of what SMcCandlish suggested. Consider that my official !vote. jcgoble3 (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand anything you guys are talking about (not because you guys are being unclear--it's just that all this backstage stuff confuses me). I only know this: I want that discussion on the talk page to be easily available to anyone down the road who gets the same idea about planting that icon on all those pages. I don't want to have that discussion all over again. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't really be an issue to keep the talk page, should it? I mean, don't we have a template that actually says that? --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:No drama

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) 02:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No drama (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless, unused Bulwersator (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems usable, since we have the essay Wikipedia:Drama. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it could be used is not greatly relevant. It isn't used, and is formatted misleadingly as a cleanup template. There's no reason to retain this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Nnote

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per T3. Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Useless, unused. There is no need for YA cleanup template. Bulwersator (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicates {{notability-inline}} . 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, tagged under T3. I will nominate also {{notability-inline}} Bulwersator (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete. Bulwersator, for templates that are obvious duplicates of others, it's a waste of time to file TfDs on them. If they're not used at all, just speedy them. if they are used, redirect the less-used version to the more-used version, and this will rarely be controversial (esp. if you properly merge their documentation, if any). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to do this :) Bulwersator (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:No-inv

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No-inv (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, without documentation Bulwersator (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the related template {{yes-inv}} has also been nominated for deletion. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:NoAdd

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Useless, unused Bulwersator (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to have no point in existing. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. It was clearly intended for some nomination process, but wasn't deployed. There's no need to hyperbolically characterize it as "useless" and "hav[ing] no point in existing", since we are not omniscient, nor is there any evidence on the template creator's talk page that anyone asked. And it was actually pretty clear that it did have a point, from its own simple wording. "Unused" is enough, and pejorative characterizations like that of templates the purposes for which you don't understand have a tendency to imply negative things about their creators. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's nice to see that civility can be present even in XFDs. Magister Scienta ^talk (Editor Review) 22:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:NoClue

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Navbox with a single (!) link. Bulwersator (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely useless, links to one article with one link, there are no section links to that article, it doesn't link to that article multiple times, it's a single link to a single article. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused. If used, delete anyway, as a violation of WP:REDLINK (everything in this navbox would be a redlink if actually coded properly so that the things it attempts to navigate to were navigable). This is someone playing crystal ball: "Maybe this artist's single will be notable enough for articles and maybe someone will write them and maybe this template can then navigate between them." — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:NkWiki Featured Picture

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NkWiki Featured Picture (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Outdated template Bulwersator (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete useless and unmaintained. Picture of the Week which was updated yearly, for two years. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Nn-test1

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nn-test1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, useless user warning template. Bulwersator (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect superceded by template:Uw-biog1. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and delete: WP:UTN-type templates are always supposed to be substituted, so do this with any transclusions, then eliminate it. It's not catalog[u]ed at WP:UTN, so there's no reason to keep a redirect from it to {{uw-biog1}}. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Michigan county highway navigational boxes

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alger County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Baraga County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Chippewa County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Delta County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dickinson County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gogebic County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Grand Traverse County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Houghton County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Iron County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Keweenaw County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Luce County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mackinac County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Marquette County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Menominee County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ontonagon County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Presque Isle County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Schoolcraft County Highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Category:Michigan county highway navigational boxes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All are unused, and haven't been used in some time. The articles all have Category:Transportation in Marquette County, Michigan, etc., categories to bind them together without using navboxes to do so. As an example, M-28 (Michigan highway) would have nine navboxes at the bottom of the article if these were redeployed to the articles, and if the other 66 Michigan counties had them made, Interstate 75 in Michigan would have 15 navboxes. The category will be emptied if these templates are deleted, so it has been nominated here as well. Imzadi 1979 → 00:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too specific. Most of the ones I checked contained only five or so links. No reason to spam highway articles with a dozen or more of these templates. jcgoble3 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused and as unhelpful attempts to replace category functionality if there were. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused, not particularly helpful for navigation where categories have same contents, and too unwieldy to add multiple navboxes to articles. -- LJ ↗ 05:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough functionality. --Rs chen 7754 20:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Behindwoods

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recently created, unused, and unnecessary template for creating external links to a non-notable movie site. Redlink in the template is there because the article was deleted via PROD. Author spammed several talk pages to try to get people to use it, and (s)he has been warned for this and told by several users that the template is not needed (see User_talk:Yjenith#Behindwoods_news_template and subsequent sections on the same page). Delete. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Totally unnecessary. The user claims that it is for linking articles from the website Behindwoods (which is sometimes considered an inappropriate website for citations) under 'External links' sections in articles relating to Tamil cinema or Indian cinema. This however is not favourable to WP:EL. EelamStyleZ talk 06:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a vehicle that can only be used for inserting inappropriate wp:ELNO's. - DVdm (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; it's a self-serving spamming tool, basically. And there are way too many templates like this already that make citation to generally rather unreliable bloggish sources easier. There's not point making it easier to add citations that just have to be replaced with something that actually satisfies WP:RS. PS: "Recently created" is not a template deletion rationale (in fact, with templates, it's frequently a reason not to delete, since a template's purpose, anticipated uses, actual eventual uses, reworkings to be even more useful etc., will not have happened yet). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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