< March 23	March 25 >

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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Team no longer exists, so navigation box listing current riders is deprecated. — Severo^TC 22:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why have a template for a team that dosn't exist? Ctempleton3 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 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 debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depth charts templates are not helpful. Plus, see similar nomination that was deleted. Crzy cheetah 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added more templates similar to the one nominated.--Crzy cheetah 21:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subst & Delete The template is linked to one page. Subst on that one page and delete the master template.Ctempleton3 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template should be posted on the team's article, as well as the team's current season. That's why it is fitted into a template. ● 8 ~Hype ^@ 11:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all This template shows the depth chart information on the team and season articles. I am not sure why the nominator claims it unhelpful. Chris! _ct 21:15, 27 March 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 debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depth charts templates are not helpful. Plus, see similar nomination that was deleted. Crzy cheetah 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subst & Delete The template is linked to one page. Subst on that one page and delete the master template.Ctempleton3 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The template should be posted on the team's article, as well as the team's current season. That's why it is fitted into a template. ● 8 ~Hype ^@ 11:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template shows the depth chart information on the team and season articles. I am not sure why the nominator claims it unhelpful. Chris! _ct 21:15, 27 March 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 debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depth charts templates are not helpful. Plus, see similar nomination that was deleted. — Crzy cheetah 18:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subst & Delete The template is linked to one page. Subst on that one page and delete the master template.Ctempleton3 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The template should be posted on the team's article, as well as the team's current season. That's why it is fitted into a template. ● 8 ~Hype ^@ 11:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template shows the depth chart information on the team and season articles . I am not sure why the nominator claims it unhelpful. Chris! _ct 21:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When I use the "What links here" link, I only see one article listed.--Crzy cheetah 08:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it should be linked to the team's current season, as well. So two links. ● 8 ~Hype ^@ 12:08, 29 March 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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template which just so happens to conflict with ((SpellCheck)). Notice small spelling difference. I would have just redirected it myself, but it's protected. . The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought they performed different functions at first. Looking at the history, this looks like a redundant template which has been replaced by more advanced templates. The ((SpellCheck)) is used for messages, and internet browsers now have numerous ways to check spelling before/while uploading. PeterSymonds | talk 17:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand that Wikipedia is completely psychotic these days, but this nomination is obviously far from sincere. The new addition of ((SpellCheck)) is not amusing. The Spell check feature is NOT available on common browsers, such as IE - only on Firefox. Check the dates (particularly the year) of the history. Yes, this feature is used; it would be more than slightly stupid to presume some inconsistent name (with other English projects) due to a new preposterous user warning template. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 08:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from not liking the other template, why do you want to keep this one around after you (presumably) requested Pschemp delete the script it uses? —dgies^t_c 18:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Looking at the dates in the history ((SpellCheck)) is even older (May 2006) than ((Spellcheck)) (Oct 2006), so it is not a new addition. Also note ((SpellCheck)) was moved to ((Uw-spellcheck)) in Jan 2008, however, SpellCheck redirects to Uw-spellcheck -- Tsuite ^T/C 10:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of the sincerity of the nomination, availability of browser support, or usefulness, this template does not work. The script it invokes, User:Connel MacKenzie/spellcheck.js was deleted 18 months ago shortly after the template was made. As a result, this template is only a source of confusion. It should either be deleted or redirected to the new Template:Uw-spellcheck. Now whether Template:Uw-spellcheck is a good idea is another matter. —dgies^t_c 18:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it dosn't work then delete it. Ctempleton3 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Cite web. Ctempleton3 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template is as simple to use as ((cite web)), with almost the same syntax. I have converted the ~20 articles with ((web reference simple)) to ((cite web)), so currently there are no remaining articles that use this template. It is much better if we keep using the same syntax for citing sources, and if we use ((cite web)) it is much easier to extend the citation with information about author, publisher, publish date, etc. --Kildor (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favour of ((cite web)). I've used cite web many times and never come across ((Web reference simple)), and I agree that ((cite web)) is just as easy to use. PeterSymonds | talk 11:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This served its purpose back in the day when I created it, but it's been superseded now by cite web, so there is no reason to keep it around. -- RM 11:35, 24 March 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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, unused, superseded by Template:Triple J -- Tsuite ^T/C 01:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favour of ((Triple J)), which appears to contain more information and is better presented.As long as the bottom of the article isn't crammed full of dropdown templates! :) PeterSymonds | talk 11:14, 24 March 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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally redundant with ((cite web)). Why do we need to have a second template that when the major mainstream template can be used. — Ctempleton3 (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a handy shortcut for citation of this extensive resource. There is no compulsion to use ((Cite web)). MRSC • Talk 06:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template produces exactly the same text as ((cite web)), with the only difference in syntax that a publication parameter is used instead of work. --Kildor (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favour of ((cite web)). Cite web produces the same, is more easy to use, and more well-known than this template. PeterSymonds | talk 11:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pre-filled citation templates, such as ((IUCN2007)), can be useful; however, this template is simply a version of ((cite web)) that takes fewer parameters. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to these comments I am gravely concerned that a template that simplifies or expedites citation is being considered for deletion, given the drive to improve referencing in general. MRSC • Talk 12:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I made my comment above, there was nothing in the template that made citation any different from ((cite web)). But now I see that you have made some changes and included the text "British History Online". If that is the intended use and appropriate citation text, the template might be useful and should perhaps be kept. --Kildor (talk) 16:03, 25 March 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 debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single item in the template is a link - only the heading. It is highly unlikely that the individual books in the "Where's wally/waldo" series will get their own articles given the lack of, shall we say, plot development between editions. . Witty Lama 13:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They all do :) but they were linked to the wrong place. Apparently it's Where's Waldo? instead of Wally now. I think it's quite a useful template, quite comprehensive in the Where's Wally/Waldo? series. Perhaps something can be added to the title explaining the Wally/Waldo thing, but apart from that I don't think it should be deleted. PeterSymonds | talk 13:57, 24 March 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.

March 24

Template:REG

Template:2007-08 Minnesota Timberwolves depth chart

Template:2007-08 Houston Rockets depth chart

Template:2007-08 Los Angeles Lakers depth chart

Template:Spellcheck

Template:Web reference simple

Template:TripleJ

Template:Cite british history

Template:Waldo-nav