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 --Magioladitis (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template-space is not a place for quick shortcuts to long terms. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 17:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete See Truthbearer#Statements for an example of what not to do. Suggest speedy subst and delete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 18 May 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template-space is not a place for quick shortcuts to long terms. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 17:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete See Truthbearer#Statements for an example of what not to do. Suggest speedy subst and delete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:22, 18 May 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template-space is not a place for quick shortcuts to long terms. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 17:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete See Truthbearer#Statements for an example of what not to do. Suggest speedy subst and delete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:22, 18 May 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/Linux (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:CSD#T3: Unused, redundant template, Template:Latest stable software release/Linux template doesn't exists anymore, better to use Template:Latest preview software release/Linux kernel KDesk (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Definitely not a CSD T3. Template is still in use and the Linux infobox is currently broken by the transclusion of the deletion template. Tothwolf (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There appears to be some disagreement and POV pushing about including the version information in the Linux article. See the Talk:Linux talk page. I also left Night Gyr a note on his talk page because he deleted the companion Template:Latest stable software release/Linux template as a CSD T3 while it is still in use and under discussion. Tothwolf (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - used only in one article, so no need for a template here. If the information is needed at all, the template can be substituted and deleted. Robofish (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's quite clear you don't have a clue at all how these templates function. They are transcluded by Template:Infobox OS(edit talk links history) and it is not possible to subst: them. In any case, the reason the nom even listed it here is because he did not know how to fix the silly things and ((Infobox OS)) also needed to be fixed as it lacked a parameter commonly used by other Infobox types for these version templates. Tothwolf (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've untangled the mess with all these templates:
  • Template:Latest stable software release/Linux(edit talk links history)
  • Template:Latest preview software release/Linux(edit talk links history)
  • Template:Latest stable software release/Linux kernel(edit talk links history)
  • Template:Latest preview software release/Linux kernel(edit talk links history)

There is no reason to delete any of these for things to work correctly, and in fact deleting any of these will break the Linux kernel article (and did before, the article was using hardcoded settings in the Infobox because one of the files had been CSD T3'd (and has since been restored). Please see Talk:Linux#Version number for details.
--Tothwolf (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is no reason to delete this, and the TFD template is currently breaking the Linux infobox (which is how I found out about this TFD). -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 00:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At least it isn't transcluding the regular ((tfd)) template into the infobox now (which is what it was doing that when I discovered the mess). ((tfd-inline)) is at least designed to be transcluded into an article but it still looks horrible when transcluded by the Infobox templates. Tothwolf (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• subst and delete - Why would it not be possible to subst this template? If the reason for that is the coding of the infobox, it should be changed. Garion96 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because the code in the various Infobox templates directly transclude these files. In any case the original problem was fixed but the nom hasn't come back here nor followed up on Talk:Linux. Tothwolf (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This template is no different from any of the other 800-1000+ of these templates in use by software articles (and not all of them include the categories); Category:Latest stable software release templates Category:Latest preview software release templates. Even Microsoft Windows uses them; Template:Latest stable software release/Microsoft Windows and Template:Latest stable software release/Windows NT. Tothwolf (talk) 00:17, 26 May 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 Speedy delete (CSD G2) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Darian L. Smith Jr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

pointless template Gurch (talk) 13:13, 14 May 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. Garion96 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template simply inputs a particular flag and player name into a standardised format. This is easily done manually, however, and therefore there is no need to have a template to perform such a simple function. – PeeJay 01:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 01:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: How is this any differnt than templates that format the output of external links or award names which seem to be allowed for and perfered in most cases? Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 10:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those templates are not what is being discussed here. To be honest, I'm against the use of templates such as ((soccerbase)), but I've not gotten around to nominating that one yet. Also, it's hardly relevant. – PeeJay 17:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Robofish (talk) 08:38, 20 May 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 --Magioladitis (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RfCheck-nom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The proposal failed so this template is useless. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 08:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - not needed at this time. Robofish (talk) 08:39, 20 May 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.