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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as CSD G7. IronGargoyle 00:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Missouri's At-large congressional district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Created by accident. —Markles 21:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, WP:CSD #G2. –sebi 00:21, 11 August 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Singularity 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Belgrade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. This infobox was for the municipalities that make up the city of Belgrade proper. It was standardized to Infobox Settlement. So now Belgrade and all of its parts use the standard infobox. — MJCdetroit 19:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nominator's reasoning. –sebi 00:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 07:39, 11 August 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was already speedy deleted by Wafulz. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's salted. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uncyclopedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I thought we weren't supposed to link to Uncyclopedia. — Ideogram 12:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this template keeps coming back. Can we salt this? (Is that the term?) --Ideogram 12:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll request salting. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 15:08, 10 August 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was replace with ((usertalkpage)) and redirect to ((talkheader)). Black Falcon makes a good point that the title of the template is not wholly appropriate for its current usage. More work is what AWB is for... IronGargoyle 01:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talkpage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A rather stupid template, not really needed, and is redundant to ((Usertalkpage)). The WMF logo placed on the template violates Wikimedia's visual identity guidelines. All current uses of the template should be replaed with ((Usertalkpage)). –sebi 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to ((talkheader)), which is the a general-purpose talk page header template (for a general-purpose-sounding name, ((talkpage))). No need to delete this template's history, though. (In my opinion.) Gracenotes^T § 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((Usertalkpage)). — xaosflux ^Talk 23:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This template is currently transcluded on approximately 100 user talk pages. So, either redirect to ((usertalkpage)) or replace all transclusions with ((usertalkpage)) and redirect to ((talkheader)). The latter involves more work but would, in my opinion, be a more useful redirect. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:36, 17 August 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was boldly redirected to Template:Infobox Waterfall, as it was not used and entirely redundant. Melsaran 11:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Waterfall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant with ((Infobox Waterfall)), which people agreed looked better. I changed all usage of ((Waterfall)) to ((Infobox Waterfall)), so this template can now be deleted. Thanks! — hike395 06:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Alternative template was around longer, is documented better, has the same functionality and (to trust the nominator) better looking. --Kjoonlee 08:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:14, 10 August 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ongoing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template fails to be a useful by failing to state or highlight a noteworthy aspect of an article, as there are hundreds of thousands of articles the template could be applied to. Every living person, every governmental topic, any topic about any organization, entity or social experience--and any process that is presently taking place, and continues over several days, weeks, years or decades or centuries could have this template. It is fundamentally an unmanageable template, and it cannot say anything about an article that cannot already be ascertained about the article. Every article about a present-day topic is ongoing. The template is basically a copy of ((current)), which was created for the purpose of informing editors that an article might at the present moment have many editors simultaneously editing the article. The "ongoing" template should be deleted, not redirected. It was last deleted (as far as I can tell) in July 2005, discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/July_2005#Template:Ongoing
-- Yellowdesk 00:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundancy to ((current)), and not for the other reasons you stated. –sebi 11:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—the template is, literally, a modified copy of ((current)), and the difference doesn't appear that significant. The problems that the nominator refers to apply also to ((current)), so... I can't say that the template should be deleted because of said reasons, although these are valid concerns. It should be noted, though, that the previous TfD debate related to a template with a different function. (In fact, we might want to redirect this template to ((current)) so that its spot will be "taken" unless someone wants to use it for something else.) Gracenotes^T § 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. I half-buy the rest of the nomination, as "current event" carries different connotations than "ongoing event", which could well last years. A redirect after deletion would discourage recreation.--Chaser - T 01:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Template:Current. Since there is only one transclusion, deletion will not require substantially more effort. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:42, 17 August 2007 (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.