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 speedied WP:CSD#T3. Note that the template was deleted just prior to your nomination ;). Redeleted. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dead Nedry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template of a non-notable musician whose pages have all been speedily deleted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:36, 12 December 2008 (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.

Merged the discussion with the one below. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an example of creating a template for the sake of creating a template. It does not provide enough functionality to make it worth using. This template saves a single keystroke if you were to otherwise do everything manually. ie Instead of typing "* '''Delete''' " followed by your reason and signature you type "((TfDdelete|reason)) ~~~~". It also adds an unnecessary image. AussieLegend (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2008 (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 redirect --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 12:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate of Template:Not a ballot, and of Template:!vote that was deleted recently. I suggest redirecting to Template:Not a ballot -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Template:Not a ballot, same wording. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with ((Not a ballot)) - I don't really mind which one we keep, but we don't need them both. Terraxos (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2008 (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 all. JPG-GR (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

This is an example of creating a template for the sake of creating a template. It does not provide enough functionality to make it worth using. This template saves precisely 3 keystrokes if you otherwise do everything manually. ie Instead of typing "* '''Keep''' " followed by your reason and signature you type "((Keep|reason)) ~~~~". It also adds an unnecessary image. AussieLegend (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, votes images in deletion discussion should be avoided. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to no pic. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 14:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don't think it's useful at all, as AussieLegend said it's simpler to just type the content. I know votes templates sound like a good idea, and they are often created, and deleted. You can find a good overview of the discussions about them at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 3#Voting_templates_yet_again. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding two similar templates to the discussion, they were created at the same time as the previous incarnation of ((keep)) that was G4ed -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Don't we go through this like once every other month on average? Consensus has been long since established that keep/delete/whatever !vote templates aren't necessary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete all - Template clutter. Garion96 (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe it's time they're salted as well, so we don't keep running around the same circle. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The templates are redundant, unnecessary and useless. We do very good without these templates, and nobody is going to need a template to voice their opinion. These templates seem to only be here for easiness. We can already voice our opinion very easy and efficiently. If we had a template that made it easier to make talk page posts, that would fall under the same category as these templates. It would be the same thing as we are already able to make talk page posts efficiently without templates. I know templates have great use, but having templates for deletion discussions to voice your opinion is ridiculous. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - is it really so hard to just type 'keep' or 'delete'? If these are continually recreated, and consensus is consistently against them, I agree that maybe they should be WP:SALTed. Terraxos (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - easier just to type 'keep'. PhilKnight (talk)
• ((TfDdelete|I can't envisage ever using something like ((TfDdelete))))

(sorry, couldn't resist it!). Seriously, delete per nom —  Tivedshambo  _{(t/c) (logged on as Pek)} 15:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt at least the Keep template. Has been recreated 6 times in the last 2.5 years, and consensus is trong to not have such templates. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:39, 16 December 2008 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Powerpuff Girls (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems a little small for a template. Not much you can add here; I tend to believe that templates should have at least five "main" entries. I don't think even adding Craig McCracken or Genndy Idon'tknowhowtospellthatname onto here would save it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Four articles are always borderline for the necessity of templates. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to keep I can obviously neither count nor read, but I agree with Terraxos. Also, even if two of the articles aren't major, not having this template would likely lead to SeeAlso sections, which aren't any prettier than a template. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 04:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this template actually does link to five articles, because it links to the main Powerpuff Girls article as well. I agree it's marginal, but I'd err on the side of keeping this one. Terraxos (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am currently redesigning this template. [[User talk:Anikin3]] (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Keep I've finished redesigning this template. I've added links to all of the main characters along with an episode list and also miscellaneous references. [[User talk:Anikin3]] (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2008 (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) 23:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template no longer needed. See discussion here: Template_talk:DANFS#Problem_with_category_inclusion —G716 <^T·_C> 03:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion of this template. A recent change to the PD-text attribution template Template:DANFS (for article pages) now includes the hidden category that the talk page template Template:DANFS talk incorporates, making "DANFS talk" unnecessary. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per Bellhalla. Parsecboy (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per above. --Brad (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2008 (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.