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 --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St John's, Cambridge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is a duplicate of Template:St John's College, Cambridge. Better to retain template with 'College' in the title, therefore propose deletion of this one. Johnhousefriday (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. It might be prudent to ask whether ((St John's College, Cambridge)) should be deleted as well. IMHO, it verges on "uni cruft" - it is transcluded by a single page (St John's College, Cambridge) and consists of links to two categories and a pile of external links, almost all of which break WP:EL in some form. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I created the second template to replace the first, but forgot to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieRCD (talk • contribs) 18:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Also nominated Template:St John's College, Cambridge. ninety:one 21:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Deletion The template links to other pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieRCD (talk • contribs) 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You may well have created more articles to go on the template, and given that, I might be more inclined to change my vote on Template:St John's College, Cambridge (choosing that one for reasons ourtlined by Johnhousefriday), if WP:EL issues, etc (equally the use of categories as a link for alumni, etc seems to be a way of abdicating the need to write a properly written and well referenced section on alumni in the main article) are addressed. However, that doesn't change the fact that this one is still little more than a copy of Template:St John's College, Cambridge. Why do you need two templates where one would suffice? Pit-yacker (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I neither need, nor want two templates. For some reason, trying to edit the new template opens the edit panel for the old template, which has become awfully confusing... and since I'm not an administrator I can't seem to delete the new one. Just go ahead and delete the old (less appropriately named) template, please!(talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:31, 6 January 2009 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not transcluded anywhere, all characters were redirected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as suggested. Totally redundant box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhousefriday (talk • contribs) [1]
• Delete Unused template consisting of only redirects. ☺ Spiby ☻ 11:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The list replaces the template. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:55, 8 January 2009 (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.

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 --Magioladitis (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to the standard, easier to use and more flexible ((location map)). Last transclusions replaced today. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm surprised that (a) the template hadn't already been deleted as redundant, and (b) that there were still articles using it. The new location maps are superior in all ways, and there is no need for GBthumb at all now.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: But Orford Ness needs new location map. --palmiped |  Talk  16:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Have put a location map on Orford Ness Pit-yacker (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: it's been a long haul to remove all the transclusions, but thanks to Pit-yacker, it's now redundant to the far superior location map template. Warofdreams talk 21:30, 4 January 2009 (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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((Infobox Settlement)) (only 20 instances in article space). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone start replacing Infobox Montenegro with Infobox Settlement in the 20 translusions befire we close that, please? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redundant. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 15:37, 13 January 2009 (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.

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 Never mind This is 2/3 procedural nom, 1/3 misinterpretation on my part, so I'll close. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Misleading, not backed by policy. I can't see any reason why an image should be uploaded in a lossy format like jpeg. (Was listed at MFD but closed as "wrong venue"). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:IUP#FORMAT says that photos/scans/screenshots should be in JPEG format. Kelly ^hi! 04:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, TenPoundHammer, have you actually read the image use policy? Keep. —David Levy 04:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I must have misunderstood something. I should also quote User:Shoemaker's Holiday's reason from the mfd: "This template gives horrible advice, saying that photos must be stored in a lossy medium, instead of an appropriately lossless one for archiving. It gives no advice about quality, and could remove the original lossless photo from the use of any image editors." Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Near as I can figure, JPEG is the preferred format on WP. As to "lossy" - that is something under the control of the person converting an image to that format, and is not, per se, a reason to object. Collect (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2009 (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.

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 --Magioladitis (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dance 'Til Dawn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template used to navigate around group of articles related to film, which were ultimately all merged into one article. So, the template is no longer used. Rob (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, all links redirect.
• Delete per nom - single-film templates are generally unadvised anyway. Terraxos (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - such a template is bad idea for a single film that is not particularly notable. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:58, 8 January 2009 (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.