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) 05:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1974 Xenia Tornado Fatalities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's not a template, and it's not suitable for namespace Delete Secret ^account 23:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Substitute per nom. --NYKevin @234, i.e. 04:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not template-like, it's just a list of fatalities. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 21:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator/kept. –xeno^talk 22:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Useless template; appears unlikely to be used for anything other than leaving off-topic and uncivil comments on discussions, and is likely to simply attract further unconstructive comments on threads. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator. The template is a humorous way to convey a serious message. It is neither off-topic nor uncivil. See Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Death_by_sub-paging for full discussion of how this template came into being. Jehochman ^Talk 13:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no different than many other humour pages/templates we have. Not uncivil in the least. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a user. Just ran across this somewhere, and i think it's a better way of saying "maybe it's time to stop" than the more aggressive archiving or collapsing of a thread. If someone says something mean using this template, it's their fault, not the template's. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and thicken up the skin a bit. This is harmless. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its humourous style has the potential to diffuse heated debates and get editors working together again. In this sense, it's actually quite a useful template. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 278° 10' 45" NET 18:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - can be used uncivilly, but isn't intrinsically uncivil. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I think people have talked enough; I wish they'd stop. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw: clearly consensus disagrees with me, and the fact that so many find it useful seems to contradict my main argument, so I'll withdraw the nomination gracefully. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 05:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template that duplicates the functionality of the zillion zillion Bible link templates. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This was intended to provide easy access to multiple versions of a verse thus allowing articles to be NPOV in the links provided to the bible. This is unlike most Bible link templates that link to specific version favored by some denomination or group. However, it has not gained traction or been utilized widely so I don't oppose deletion. --Trödel 13:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((Bibleverse)) links to zillions of translations. For example, see Matthew 3:5. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While Bibleverse can be used to link to many different translations it only links to one at a time. Thus, the editor decides where the link goes, and it does not provide options to the reader regarding translation, this template was intended to resolve that by linking to specific traditional or widely accepted translations and letting the reader click their preferred. --Trödel 15:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... no? Bible verse links to several versions, and you can pick the one you want. See, as previously mentioned, the example of Matthew 3:5, which lists 75 versions of it. I don't know where you get the idea that it only links to one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the "other" link in this template is a 404 Not Found error. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Convert to a wrapper template, and potentially rename. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, orphaned, and redundant. If there's some way to make it redirect to ((Cleanup|section)), then I suggest that.

Note: Cannot be tagged for deletion, as it's protected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• transclude (redirect through transclusion) I'm sure I used that just last week. Did something go through usages and change it? 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, The template was orphaned by the nominator prior to this discussion being filed. Convert to wrapper template. –xeno^talk 14:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to ((Cleanup section)). Check ((Wikify section)), ((Expand section)), ((Empty section)) for similar section cleanup tags. On the actual deletion I have no strong opinion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to wrapper template It's easier to substitute such a template than to transclude one while putting the date in manually to achieve the same result. I would only support a rename to ((Cleanup section)) if the other three templates are converted as well, so that they are standardised. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 280° 9' 30" NET 18:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't substitute If ((cleanup)) changes, this needs to reflect that, and subst:ing will break that. --NYKevin @218, i.e. 04:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment can build a ((section issues)) template? (with the small left-aligned style that section templates are supposed to use) so that multiple section tags are in a single box? 76.66.203.138 (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the issues template can be modified to point out specific issues with particular sections?—RJH (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the cleanup tags are nothing without comments of how to fix anyway. On the "section issues": How often does a section hs more than 2 issues than need to to be fixed? I think not that often. Better use the explicit cleanup tags instead. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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