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. delldot ∇. 15:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Province Cambodia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was only being used on about a dozen pages, and is redundant to ((Infobox settlement)). As such, I replaced its usage on the individual province pages with the standard settlement infobox. Note that the only good article in the group, Ratanakiri Province, was already using the settlement infobox, and my replacement of this infobox was in an effort to make the other province articles better. If anyone objects to my orphaning of this template before nomination, let me know, and I am happy to do whatever is necessary to reverse this (or replace) with whatever is deemed best. However, in my opinion, there is no reason to use anything other than the settlement box in these articles. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Redundant. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. delldot ∇. 15:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((Survivor contestants)), and the succession boxes at the bottom of each winner's page. If it is necessary to further distinguish the season winners, bolding or underlining can be included in ((Survivor contestants)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Winners are too redundant on this template, the list is now already on contestants template. ApprenticeFan ^work 05:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: I am swayed more by the delete arguments--the remaining template can be reorganized if that's agreed to be the best thing. delldot ∇. 15:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template is redundant, as the main template for The Office already contains the entire character list. Ωphois 18:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - This template is more organized and designed specifically for Office character articles. —C Teng^(talk) 18:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reader doesn't need to know from a template if a character works in management or reception. The regular template is sufficient enough, or can be reorganized if needed. Having two templates that serve the same purpose is highly unnecessary.Ωphois 15:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the additional detail is not necessary for a navigation template, and as far as I can tell, all the articles transcluding this one are already transcluding the main template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MLB hitting coaches by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm nominating this for deletion based on this discussion from January, where it was determined that these templates have little utility without a lead article to link them all together. It's identical to the other, previously deleted templates. Please note that ((MLB managers by team)) is different due to the existence of a lead article and shouldn't be deleted. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -DJSasso (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 00:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template. The template duplicates the function of ((mikm)) and not in use. Imzadi 1979 → 07:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Dough4872 18:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The title implies that it does more conversions than just miles to kilometers; however, if you look at the code it doesn't. On the other hand, this template also can convert kilometers to miles, which ((mikm)) currently does not do. I'll say this, though, if there was a market, if you will, for a kilometer-to-mile conversion table template, this template would be in use by now. Since it isn't, I say delete it. – TMF 20:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 to delete. I'm not seeing terribly strong reasons for keeping, and I'm more swayed by arguments that there are better ways to deal with this problem and that this is a workaround, but I'm not seeing strong enough support for deleting to declare this a decisive delete. delldot ∇. 15:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template makes reference tags smaller. Please see Talk:Prime Minister of Canada for a discussion on it. In short, it makes page display better in IE6 (possibly IE7) by preventing the reference superscript from increasing line spacing. It also makes the reference numbers too small for the visually impaired. It also makes editing of references more cumbersome. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (for now) The template hasn't even been finalised or tested yet, so it remains a mystery as to how the nominator knows its effects on inline citation tags. It still has a chance of resolving issues with the present appearance of the tags. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A mystery? It function is explained [Talk:Prime Minister of Canada]].

As to what Template:smref does, it just makes it easier to write, instead of <small><ref>...</ref></small>. I saw the small ref tags used on Monarchy of Canada and thought they looked better than Wikipedia's normal size tags. Hgrosser (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result of this altered formatting is also explained in that location. There are two ways to correctly deal with the "incorrect" formatting of ref tags:

1. change Wikipedia's CSS
2. upgrade your browser

Neither of these involve modifying tags so that they change the display in browsers of all users. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That misses my point completely. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If there are bugs in the way reference superscript appears in old versions of Internet Explorer then they should be fixed directly, not hacked around in some nonstandard manner using a brand new template on random aeticles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If you don't like the way it looks, then don't use it on your articles. But don't delete this template or I will just re-create it. Actually, for online use, the standard ref tags are probably better and easier to click on. But for printing, a smaller tag size would be desirable as it would more closely match the tag size usually seen in printed material. Hgrosser (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That isn't actually an argument demonstrating why this template should be kept. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better for the editor to choose what the references look like. See Help:Cite messages#Customizing (which I am considering forking to Customizing the reference display). ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to point out that for the references section itself, in addition to the standard sized <references/>, there is the template ((reflist)) which produces a references section with smaller type. Although I feel that an article with few references should use the standard-sized section for easier reading, some editors insist on using ((reflist)) just for consistency. Hgrosser (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((reflist)) incorporates features such as column support and hides the intricacies of the required CSS from editors. I would also suggest that at this point it's more commonplace than a raw <references/> tag is. But it's not exactly the same case as here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 00:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, a parameter of ((U.S. Roads WikiProject)) now handles the need. Dough4872 01:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Fredddie™ 01:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. – TMF 02:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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