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) 01:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Albany Great Danes women's basketball season navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nothing links to this template and all of the links in the navbox template are redlinks. Just not needed. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems to be part of an abandoned project by User:Ogmsmith. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:42, 30 October 2012 (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) 01:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pussy Riot member (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a template of boileraplate text (with references and categories) used in the lede section of 3 articles on members of the band Pussy Riot. Use of this boilerplate material impedes editors from developing the articles in the usual way, so it should be substed and deleted. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete after substitution. Frietjes (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• substitute and delete The Banner _talk 18:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and substitute. It's inconvenient to have to go to the template to make amendments and it only affects three articles. Makes it more difficult to reorganise the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. It provides a convenient place to keep the common text of the 3 articles in one place so that if any changes are needed they only need be done once. Hgrosser (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles are not Lego models: they should not be constructed from prefabricated blocks of text. Doing so makes for worse prose, makes it harder for inexperienced editors to edit articles, and can result in unwanted side-effects when the text is changed without consideration for every individual transclusion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and Delete Creative idea, but that's not how we write articles around here. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:43, 30 October 2012 (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) 01:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox air force wing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been superseded by ((infobox military unit)). It was previously used exclusively for Swedish air force wings but I have now replaced those instances with infobox military unit. If this gets deleted, please consider also the redirect ((Air Force Wing)). De728631 (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2012 (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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NENAN. With just 4 links (one of them a red link) there is just no need for a navigation template. The Banner _talk 11:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ensemble has over a dozen albums, and the four articles do not all link to one another without the navbox.--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the number of albums that counts, it is the number of working links that counts. And the fact that even the three albums don't link to each other, can be solved by normal wikilinking. No need for a navbox. The Banner _talk 20:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even though the four original articles can be connected by linking, the navbox is still helpful as a centralized and conspicuous location for all of the links. If you feel that wikilinking is the solution, then maybe you should link the articles together.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a valid navbox with a potential for expansion once there are articles on the other related albums. De728631 (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are now 7 links in the navbox.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• if kept rename to ((integrity (band))) since we have a different article at integrity -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment is there a reason why such a low transclusion template has ((SA)) on it? (it's such a low count that the template was nominated for deletion as being too low) -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - The navbox had 5 articles at the time of nomination, and now it has 7.--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction, it had 4 albums linked (after solving the link to a disambiguation page). As you know the backlink does not count for the number of useful links, although you pretend otherwise. And I guess, that the "several articles"-template is added to create confusion during the deletion-discussion. BTW: this template was created by Jax 0677 and is now nominated for deletion. The Banner _talk 19:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Reply that's a bundle less than 100. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Where did the number 100 come from? Also, unless I am asked to create more stubs, I feel that the verdict should be Keep.--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2012 (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) 01:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Snowball keep (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:SNOW is a conclusion: it is not an argument. Appears to stem from a misunderstanding of both what SNOW signifies and how to apply it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as I stated at Template talk:POV#New NPOV template, the admin who closes an AfD is supposed to primarily consider the arguments put forward at the AfD - putting notices such as ((Snowball keep)) on the article itself is essentially a fork of the discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This template entirely misunderstands what WP:SNOW is. SNOW is a principle which may allow an admin to close an XFD early, and not an argument against the existence of an XFD discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete The Banner _talk 18:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Forking discussion and misunderstanding SNOW. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep - just because. Rich Farmbrough, 21:04, 5 November 2012 (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) 01:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Speedy-contested (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Editors who disagree with a speedy tag should just remove it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Contradicts the methodology of speedy deletion. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You should give arguments, not hammer a template in. The Banner _talk 18:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What Thumperward said. De728631 (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Speedy deletion is supposed to be resolved ... speedily. This template moves in the opposite direction. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep people give out vandalism notices for removing speedy deletion notices. So this is useful. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article creators are supposed to comment on the talk page, but there are no statistics on how often those talk page comments are missed/ignored. A tag on the article may save a valid article. Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 5 November 2012 (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) 01:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stub further (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused fork of ((stub)) intended for articles which have sources. This would be better handled by a new parameter in ((asbox)). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not needed, any sources not referenced in an article can be listed on a talk page if necessary, this is just messy. -- Patchy1 04:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC) (Member of WP:WSS)[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) 01:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and trivial specialty of ((copyedit)) that was previously deleted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to ((Copy edit)). Anna|talk 22:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "merge"? Is there content in ((spellingminor)) that you think should be preserved? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anna edited ((Copy edit/sandbox)) to include a how-to. The how-to was based on ((Spellingminor)). 96.50.22.205 (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is lame. If the article contains a minor spelling mistake, it is easier to correct it than to add this template! -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm... people are always asking for more specific tagging..... Rich Farmbrough, 21:06, 5 November 2012 (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) 01:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Orphaned custom templates replaced by ((S-rail)) and ((S-line)). Sw2nd (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused. Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
22:59, 5 November 2012 (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.

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) 01:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Vline Railway Station  (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Victoria closed railway station  (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Melbourne railway station  (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:MelbourneRailwayStation-Mini  (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Replaced by or an unused wrapper for ((Infobox station)). Sw2nd (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2012 (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.