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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian Racing Driver (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No current mainspace transclusions. Duplication of existing infobox coverage, ((infobox racing driver)) in particular. Speedy was declined by author, but I don't believe the rationale given (that the template has a unique scope not covered by existing templates) is correct. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The mainspace transclusions were removed by the above editor immediately prior CSD nomination. No current is perhaps misleading. Additionally it was created from the V8 Supercar driver template as a template which could be used generically across a large number of non-v8 supercar Australian drivers, without the inherent complexity of infobox driver template. --Falcadore (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was only one mainspace transclusion, and all attributes were directly copied from the template(s) it was forked from. "Australian drivers" is an arbitrary and inappropriate subset to base an infobox on, and "complexity" is not a reason to fork a template (furthermore, I don't think that argument holds weight with the templates in question anyway). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a direct copy as an attribute was added specifically to aid in making the template more generically useful across several categories rather than the V8 Supercar category that it was forked from. With the deletion of Fujitsu series and Formula Ford driver templates, this template would be ideal to cover those other transclusions rather than the factually incorrect V8 Supercar driver the above edittor has replaced with. The number also increases rapidly with a number of ongoing biographies within the Australian motorsport wiki. --Falcadore (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's a duplication of an extant template, and the minor edit doesn't justify forking. Further, Falcadore you may not be aware of this, but the creator of a page is not permitted to remove CSD tags from that page. //roux   12:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Roux and nom. Eusebeus (talk) 17:14, 25 November 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! 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Beyoncé Knowles singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant given the existence of Template:Beyoncé Knowles. It was speedy tag as being redundant but original author removed the tag. Aspects (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it works well on the pages and makes it look alot neater, save.Wneedham02 (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, considering that plenty of other artists have their own templates for singles. It will grow quickly since she just released a new album. Jdot01 (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just felt since other artist use templates separately for singles that Beyoncé could use one as well. Ratizi1 (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed some artists use template separately, just like Britney and Mariah, but they have released over five albums that's why it would be practical to separate the singles. --Efe (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Beyonce has released enough singles to need a separate template. It's not redundant, since they are no longer listed on the Template:Beyoncé Knowles template.Jdot01 (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Not redundant, helps navigate the singles articles. Louis Waweru  Talk  21:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Exactly how many singles are needed to create a separate template for an artist's singles? DiverseMentality 07:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's a matter of opinion. Basically, if you think the template is too huge to have albums and singles, split the singles off to a new template. For instance, ((George Strait)) would be monstrous even if just his Number Ones were on it, so a singles-only template would make perfect sense. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - useful navigation tool. //roux   12:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' - Is a useful template, if all the singles were added to the main Beyonce template then i could see why this would need deleting But at the moment it doesnt and trying to put all the information on one template would be less user friendly.BritishWatcher (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not redundant. The main Beyoncé template would be insanely huge if all the singles were kept on it. We also have an established set of singles-only templates. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Makes perfect sense to split them off, then there is less clutter CloversMallRat (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Template:Beyoncé Knowles A template with singles listed on it is necessary for easy navigation. The singles were there before, and need to be added back after this debate is over.  AcroX  16:18, 27 November 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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not only is the current pic very non-wiki-'professional', in light of prior discussions on this, I'm asking also to consider salting this so as to prevent re-creation before re-creation again. Skier Dude (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WE used to have a proper (ambox style) spoiler warning and it got deleted since this is a encyclopedia and its meant to document all information and people should know that. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 00:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - General consensus appears to be against having spoiler tags. See also currently deleted tags that I occasionally remove from articles, Template:Spoiler, Template:endspoiler, and Template:spoiler-end. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt consensus has established that spoiler templates are ugly and useless. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt if needed. The most recent deletion debates for ((spoiler)) and ((current fiction)) established fairly conclusively that we don't want this type of template, for many good reasons. As such, this is essentially a speedy deletion candidate (criterion G4), though a full debate won't hurt. Moreover, even if we wanted one of these, the current one is just plain lousy. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt as noted above: why have this one when previous ones were deleted? Let's not close this one early, to avoid any chance of someone saying that it somehow has less authority because it was speedy closed, or anything like that. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. //roux   12:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt We've been over this too many times, and spoiler warnings aren't coming back any times soon, especially not without prior discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - For above reasons stated BritishWatcher (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - I don't see any reason why wikipedia can't have this template. Tissuebox (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. There's firm consensus that spoiler warnings are inappropriate; we shouldn't be encouraging users to use them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with prejudice and salt This is a settled issue. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this is salted, could the same be done with other ex-spoiler templates (if they aren't already)? I think I've got most of them, thought probably not all, listed here. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment. If this does receive saltation, I would love to see the controversy when that brand new and ingeniously so enthralling and wickedly popular that it lasts for a number of seasons and becomes the new Lost only with times ten hundred thousand more popularity with lots of colourful characters each requiring their own article played by lots of unknown actors who each require their own article spawning a number of spin-off TV shows, novels, comic books, DVDs, soundtracks, movies and annual conventions (draws breath) US TV series, Spoilers is written into existence... --➨Candlewicke  ^{:) Sign/Talk} 02:12, 1 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 debate was Delete ((Disambigtalk)), ((Disambig-talk)) and ((WP DAB)) and Keep ((Dbp)) and ((DBP)). The shortcuts may be useful.Ruslik (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Disambig-talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

Template:WP DAB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, nothing now redirects thru these Skier Dude (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep one ((WP DAB)) is a common form found for many WikiProjects 76.66.195.63 (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, these are redirects, don't they go through WP:RFD ? 76.66.195.63 (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep the short ones as shortcuts. Delete first two. Shortcuts are useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 30 November 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. Ruslik (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Now that ((Lifetime)) can be substituted as well, this template is useless. The "b=", "d=", "k=" make it more difficult to be used and it's far less popular than Lifetime. I suggest we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge -- When the RFD discussion on BD/lifetime is closed, I would suggest that this one be substituted with whatever emerges from the outcome of that debate. I presume your YOBOT will be able to be set up to do this. After doing so, please delete. However, the effort applied by editors in applying this template should not be wasted, by deleting out of hand. This is another unnecessary duplicate of Lifetime. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lived is subst only, so they are not articles transcluding it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am still worried that because this template is mentioned on some pages (Wikipedia:Template substitution) editors will continue to use it; and they will be confused when they find that it does not exist anymore. I think all links to it should be removed form pages in Wikipedia space before it can be deleted. Ruslik (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it in three cases. The think is -and this holds for the BD as well- that we can first decide that a template can be deleted and then orphaned it. We don't delete only orphan templates. Secondly, in the BD case: Maybe it's heavy linked and some users use it but this doesn't mean it doesn't cause problems. We can decide that we have to orphan it and delete it after some time to give everyone the chance to know that the policy has changed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:33, 2 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 debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 00:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asians in the UK (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant given the existence of Template:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom, to which it only adds a (potentially controversial) classification of which groups are considered "Asian" and some unreferenced population estimates. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. //roux   12:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Template on ethnic minorities stated above offers far more information and detail than the Asians in the UK template, and also lays out the information in a better way (in my opinion). There for ethnic minorities template should be used instead for Asian Brits, taking away any purpose of this template. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Note that this template is widely used. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 02:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Substitute Template:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom (possibly merging some). However Anglo-Burmese and Anglo-Indian should not appear (sicne they are repectively Indian and Burmese ethnicities, not UK ones. Ulster Scots should not appear in the target, since this is an American ethnic classification, and not used in UK, where it would be Northern Irish (with the alternative of Ulsterman - which has a Unionist politcal connotation). Ther may be some other minor ethnicities that need weeding out. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:20, 30 November 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 01:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:About lists of countries and territories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Limited participation in the previous TfD; argument to delete still stands. The template serves no role traditionally fulfilled by a header template in an article, it contains explicit self-reference to Wikipedia and the text contained within would be wholly more appropriately inserted in a context-specific form in the articles in question. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I made an edit to the template today on the basis of a talk page consensus that the list of countries should be redirected to lists of countries (leaving the list of sovereign states as the relevant article here) - rendering the first part of the old template pointless. But it looks like I jumped the gun a bit on that list's FL status. It's not like we're working at a deadline here, so it strikes me that it might be worth holding off deletion until the redirect actually gets done (assuming it gets done) in this case. Pfainuk talk 00:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  There's already been a stay of execution on this one. The question is whether this template is currently a positive addition to the articles it is transcluded on. I believe not for a number of reasons. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, sure. I just feel that it might be easier procedurally if we knew for sure exactly what the consequences of keep/no consensus would be. The status quo will not last for very long. If this template is kept, either the list of countries will become a redirect and the template will become pointless, or (if for some bizarre reason the WP:FLRC overturns the local consensus) my most recent edit to the template will be reverted. Personally, I'd say "strong delete" in the first case (by far the more likely of the two outcomes), and stay neutral in the second. Pfainuk talk 18:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm you make a good point Pfainuk, it might be worth just waiting for the outcome on the future of the List of Countries page just incase they reject the requested removal. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FLRC is now over, so I will now confirm that my !vote is strong delete as a pointless template. Pfainuk talk 12:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close per wp:Deletion policy#Discussion. Comment. Nominator should really, at least try to, start a discussion at the talkpage first. It's bad wp:Etiquette to jump here immediately. Twice in a row is just rude. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not a valid reason for speedy closure, and there's nothing to discuss - the template is inappropriate, and cannot be repurposed such that it would be useful. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Speedy struck. I'll comment further below when I have more time. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete it. I'm going to work on the actual problems from a different angle, instead of trying to provoke discussion (no time). -- Quiddity (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. Now we have agreement on list of countries and lists of countries this template is redundant. --PBS (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discussion at all at Talk:Lists of countries. What agreement do you mean? -- Quiddity (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_countries Agreement was made on this page to remove the list which is now awaiting approval for it to lose its featured list status so it can be deleted and redirect to "lists of countries" page. Once this page is gone there isnt realy a need for the template as there wont be conflicting lists. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. This debate has been gone into extensively on the Talk page of the countries list. It was agreed that the Sovereign States list is by far the better list and so having a separate countries list simply confuses people. The agreement that seemed to have consensus on the page was that List of countries be redirected to Lists of Countries where people are able to choose from a collection of lists, including the sovereign states page. The current list offers no use, simply creating more and more debate on the status and definition of “countries”. There is nothing included on this current page which can not be located with ease if it was redirected to Lists of Countries . - People should actually read the comments made on the talk page of the selected article before jumping to conclusions about others. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry misread what this delete was for, still agree no need for the template as the question of country lists has been sorted out on the list of countries page. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. No demonstrable need for this. Eusebeus (talk) 17:11, 25 November 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. JPG-GR (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rice Residential Colleges (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-notable individual residential colleges have been merged into a single List of Rice University residential colleges Madcoverboy (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- as no longer useful. //roux   12:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clearly no need for a template now that all the colleges are on the same page.BritishWatcher (talk) 12:38, 25 November 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The X Factor (UK) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used in any article anymore. A more detailed template, Template:The X Factor is used instead of this one. An anonymous user brought this up here. Chamal ^talk 04:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I just flag up again that there seems to be only one talk page for the two templates: Template:The X Factor (UK) and Template:The X Factor. We need to retain this talk page and have it associated with Template:The X Factor (which then ideally needs renaming to Template:The X Factor (UK)). Matt 04:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

• Delete - The second template clearly provides more information and is now used on all the X-Factor pages (from what i can see), no point in keeping the old version. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No opinion - but could the talk page be treated like an archived talk page on the target talk page? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 30 November 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.