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 history merge based on statements made and each article's history. JPG-GR (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template has been replaced by Template:Charmed Companions. All links have also been moved.
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  00:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant to both the new version and to ((Charmed)), although I wonder why this template wasn't just edited rather than replaced with a new template that is so similar. Can I vote to delete the new version also? --RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question is that when I first constructed the newer template at Template:Charmed Companions, the older template was still in use by its linked pages, and I wanted to build the new one as a true Navbox template. I thought this was the only way to make the template easy to edit, with the v-d-e at the top left. The older template doesn't have these options. I was also unhappy with the name of the old template, so it was effectively moved to the new page. Then I found that there were problems in the new Navbox template with spacing instability across skins, fonts and browsers. About that same time I discovered how to make the Table Class Navbox easy to edit (installing the v-d-e option). Since the Table Class Navbox did not have the spacing instability problem, I opted to go back to the original design and then make enhancements. As for deletion of the new template, this has already been suggested, and I have responded with explanations at Template talk:Charmed Companions. You are welcome to go there and discuss your views if you like. Thank you very much for your input!

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:35, 1 September 2009 (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) 01:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Greek-Catholic Church (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems redundant ((Infobox Roman Catholic diocese)). I don't know very much about this topic but they share most of their parameters, replaced in the only article calling this template. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 22:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:17, 31 August 2009 (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 : In the interests of easing SFD's pain I will consider myself duly chastened and withdraw. Perhaps I can cook up some suitably strongly-worded injunction against using these at CFD (possibly including dire threats of violence), plaster it up prominently and thereby feel a rosy glow of real achievement. Ho hum... --Xdamr^talk 23:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Trying to close debates at WP:CFD/W I find these to be the bane of my life, often leading to what seems like hours of pasting '[[:Category:' in front of category names. I can't for the life of me see the reason for using a template to list a category over simply using a colon and typing Category:Woo Hoo. Given that they are transclusions into the bargain, they simply add to server load for no purpose. Is there a technical/practical reason to retain them which I am hugely missing? If so then fine, I'll get back in my box and suffer in silence...

Xdamr^talk 22:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Extremely strong keep for ((cl)), no opinion on ((cat)). You probably can't see the need for ((cl)) because you're not involved in pages where the difference in space between a couple of hundred instances of "Category:" and a couple of hundred instances of "Cat:" becomes an issue - which I and others are aware of. ((cl)) is extraordinarily useful, one of the most useful templates on Wikipedia from that perspective, and deleting it would simply result in a huge amount of problems for some pages. If you need to replace them regularly for the work you're doing, then that's what bots are for - don't make work harder for others when you could make your task simpler in other ways. Grutness...wha? 22:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS - have a look at this page to see what sort of a mess that this nomination has caused. ((cl)) is used as a regular part of ther WP:SFD process page - with no problems at all, i hasten to add... Grutness...wha? 23:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and don't worry about the servers. I use ((cl)) often and find it useful for formatting category links. I'll admit that there is far less of a need for it than related templates like ((tl)) or ((ul)), but I also don't see what the problem is. I don't see why both of these are necessary, though. PC78 (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though I agree that it would be nice if people who started (non-stub) CfD nominations would stop using them in the part of a CfD nomination where the proposal for the category is initially set out. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 30 August 2009 (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) 01:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Flags of Venezuela (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

orphaned navbox with many redlinks and many flags that have been removed from it due to license status. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's a sea of red Cocoaguy ここがいい_contribs^talk Review Me! 17:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Skier Dude (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2009 (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. Ruslik_Zero 18:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned and single link navbox —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - useless, there is nothing to navigate! Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 20:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is only one link Cocoaguy ここがいい_contribs^talk Review Me!
• Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless massively expanded Skier Dude (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2009 (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) 23:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Support unknown (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Uncategorized, seemingly un-used, no written purpose; very little history...? Mjquin_id (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 16:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unused template with unclear purpose. PC78 (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - ((purpose unknown)). There's a see also pointing at WP:SUPPORT, but there doesn't appear to be anything there right now. (Sadly, if it's been deleted, the creation of the WP: pseudonamespace makes it impossible to check deletion logs.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no mentioned purpose Cocoaguy ここがいい_contribs^talk Review Me! 17:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --RL0919 (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as its use is ((Support unknown)) - sorry, couldn't resist. Skier Dude (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2009 (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. nominator and creator agreed to redirect. Ikip (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant with ((weasel-inline)). No difference. Already survived a TFD Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep I wish nominator would have contacted me before putting this up for deletion. The last TFD was saved keep. If necessary, this can be redirected to ((weasel-inline)) without the drama of a TFD. Wouldn't everyone agree that weasel-inline is rather more difficult to type than WW? 04:26, 30 August 2009 (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 redirect. JPG-GR (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant with ((Citation needed)), same link, same category, the only difference is that this one adds a "s" to the word "citation". Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A redirect should be enough. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per nom. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 09:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((Citation needed)). It's obviously redundant, but also an easy typo for ((Fact)), so a redirect would be good. --RL0919 (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((Citation needed)). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above Skier Dude (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2009 (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. Ruslik_Zero 18:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphan, covered by ((Infobox VG character)). Moreover, ((Pokeinfobox)) has been orphaned and archived. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it has been completely replaced. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 20:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It was meant to make the Infobox VG Character template shorter, which was unnecessary. Then there was a big discussion about not using it, and it then got abandoned. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while not technically abandoned this template is apprently unwanted by the people currently in control at WT:POKE and the amount of time wasted in discussing it probably exceeded any time it could have saved people. original creator --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unneeded by the project & redundant. Skier Dude (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2009 (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. Ruslik_Zero 18:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fact t (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template implies to modify someone's else comments to ask a source or explanation for their claims (see doc). I can't really imagine what's harder: putting this template or ask what s/he is referring in a specific sentence. We are not machines and this template would make discussions sooo impersonal. Old template (1 year) and still unused. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 01:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I created it as a tool in mediation, as explained here. You are right that it makes discussions less personal, but that was precisely what we needed at the time: It helped people focus on the issues, instead of the person. It also helps deescalate discussions: I often experienced the situation that a questionable statement by one editor begets a harsher, longer statement by the next. By giving people a tool at hand that reduces the need to be wordier and harsher than the previous person opens one path to deescalation of conflicts. At the same time, it reminds everyone to stick with the facts, instead of personal opinions. As for the use: It has at least been used once, as per Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Fact_t. I'm not sure how often it has been used beyond that as it lends itself to substitution, which would not appear in whatlinkshere. — Sebastian 01:53, 30 August 2009 (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 to ((BLP sources)). Any list is still an article, so this template is redundent. Ruslik_Zero 18:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant with ((Blpdispute)) (and ((BLP sources))). Created since more than a year but still unused. No transclusions. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 00:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A use is possible, just because it is not being used does not mean it will not be used. Cocoaguy ここがいい_contribs^talk Review Me! 17:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unused and redundant to ((Blpdispute)). PC78 (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2009 (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.