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) 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Project U.S. Roads East (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per conversation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#old_USRD_news_bar no longer updated or used regularly. Admrboltz (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Dough4872 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Succeeded by ((USRD Announcements)). --LJ (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:29, 12 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) 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Project U.S. Roads West (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per conversation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#old_USRD_news_bar no longer updated or used regularly. Admrboltz (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Dough4872 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Succeeded by ((USRD Announcements)). --LJ (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:29, 12 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) 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Project U.S. Roads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per conversation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#old_USRD_news_bar no longer updated or used regularly. Admrboltz (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Dough4872 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Succeeded by ((USRD Announcements)). --LJ (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:29, 12 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 per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:One source (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template serves little purpose but to litter articles with a pointless warning. The reader may well tell that when a single reference is cited. I don't see anything in our policies forbidding articles based on one source. Worse, this template automatically categorizes the article as lacking reliable sources, i.e. puts it in Category:Articles lacking reliable references. This is by no means a logical conclusion stemming from the use of a single source. Many math or science stubs usually cite only one source, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as the source is reliable. So I don't see the point of this template. If the source is unreliable, other templates are available, e.g. ((unreliable sources)). If inlines are requested, again other templates are available, e.g. ((nofootnotes)). Pcap ping 22:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - perhaps the associated category is inappropriate, but I think the template is useful. It draws attention to cases when an article is sourced, but only to a single reference - which can point to issues with WP:COI, WP:POV or WP:Notability. Obviously, it shouldn't be used on articles about maths or science topics, but in other cases it can be quite appropriate. Robofish (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Further comment: perhaps this should categorise articles into Category:Articles needing additional references instead? Robofish (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • (ec x 2) That's basically a vague allegation. If you suspect one of the policy violations you mention, there exist explicit templates for all those issues, like I wrote in my rationale. I hope it's obvious to everyone where to find those. Pcap ping 22:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I basically agree with Robofish. The category should be changed, but the purpose of the tag itself is fundamentally sound and not redundant to others. --RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's used quite a bit and deleting the template would require a lot of cleanup. Eeekster (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are over 3000 articles using this template. Although the associated category should perhaps be changed to Category:Articles needing additional references. Although not always the case, most articles using only one source tend to have issues as pointed out by Robofish. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The templates own instructions even say "some sections based on a single source may not be a problem, so no tag is necessary." Category may easily be changed. Mathman1550 (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Assuming the category is changed as suggested by multiple editors above, wouldn't a redirect to ((refimprove)) achieve the same result? Pcap ping 22:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article can have an adequate number of citations (contrary to refimprove's exhortation that additional citations are needed), but if they are all from one source then the article may be skewed. The only way I could see the two merged is if the wording were made more general for ((refimprove)) or if an argument was added to allow the wording to be changed based on the situation. --RL0919 (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Very useful template when used appropriately. Any template can be misused, but that's not a reason to delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Robofish. Debresser (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very useful if an article does mostly rely on a single source. Fences&Windows 02:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per reasons given above... useful, widely used, and any issues are fixable. ++Lar: t/c 10:13, 9 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) 02:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sonic characters (other media) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The majority of these are redirects, and the rest of the articles will be merged soon enough. TTN (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now - at the time of writing, a few of the links, such as Dr. Robotnik (Sonic the Comic), Freedom Fighters (Sonic the Comic), Drakon Empire and Commander Brutus are still articles. When all have been merged or redirected, I will support deletion. Robofish (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete, insufficient useful links remaining. Robofish (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as unnecessary. Eusebeus (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too few links worth keeping. Robotnik and the Freedom Fighters are most likely to stay due to their centrality to the plot, but beyond that everything should be merged anyway. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and list any left over characters on Template:Sonic characters? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:01, 10 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) 05:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cfr-speedy doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same as below. Nice template that is not being used any more by the people that work with category maintenance. Closing admin will have to delete 1 redirect leading here as well. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as useless, per nom. -- œ^™ 00:33, 10 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) 05:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cfr doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same as below. Nice template that is not being used any more by the people that work with category maintenance. Closing admin will have to delete 1 redirect leading here as well. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Histmerge to Template:Cfr/doc 76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as useless, per nom. -- œ^™ 00:36, 10 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) 05:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cfr-working (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is not a bad template. It just isn't in use any more by the people that work with category maintenance, as testified to by the fact that it contained a category redlinked since January 2007! Closing admin will have to delete all 4 redirects leading here as well. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as useless, per nom. -- œ^™ 00:36, 10 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) 05:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unified WWE Tag Team Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Already covered by two other templates, by itself this template offers no extra information, and will simple cutter four pages. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems to be redundant to ((WWE Tag Team Championship)) and ((WWE United States Championship)). Robofish (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly redundant to ((WWE Tag Team Championship)). --RL0919 (talk) 19:43, 10 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) 05:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reference List (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, with very specific list of references. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and possibly redirect to ((reflist)). PC78 (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete T3. Hardcoded version of ((reflist)). May want to redirect just to discourage any future use of the name. --RL0919 (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and recreate as a fully protected redirect to reflist, as people seem to keep on creating "list of references" as a template that is unusable outside a specific article. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and either WP:SALT or protect and redirect to ((reflist)). --Cybercobra (talk) 03:01, 10 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) 05:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heroes discussion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

((Notaforum)) exists. There was a consensus not to create show-oriented templates redundant to other ones. This has to be replaced with ((notaforum)) and deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Duplicates existing generalized template. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per pom. clear-cut. --King Öomie 19:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per pom. Duplicate template. — Edokter • Talk • 16:46, 10 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) 06:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heroes recurring (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't believe this survived all these months. Navboxes to connect actors are inappropriate. This one is the worst I've seen. It connects "recurring cast". This is a candidate for speedy deletion. Magioladitis (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A better way to put it would have not to say that this is the worst one you've seen and you can't believe it survived, its likely to upset people. Maybe you should rework your wording as it seems to be offensive to editors (myself). I ask if "some" of these can be inserted into the template as stated above. Some of these actors played a significant role, Brea Grant comes to mind. If not, like I said, we are going to have to remove all the cast from all TV templates. Also, like I said before, I understand removing them from the actors' pages, I'm not saying place it on all their pages either. If the argument comes up that the template would be too big, I ask you to look at Template:Characters on The West Wing, that template is very large, and this one wouldn't be that large I assure you. Ejfetters (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You are right. "Worst" is not the correct wording. English is not my mother language and sometimes my sentences are a bit... you know. I meant that this templates is inappropriate and if you could add some cast certainly a template with only secondary characters is not a good idea. I think there is already a discussion to complete remove show navboxes from actors pages and/or remove actors from these navboxes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The nomination wording is a bit overstated, but still it isn't desirable to have a navbox specifically devoted to actors with recurring roles on a show. --RL0919 (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as I commented here [1], I think these templates are acceptable. Yes, this one is a bit large, but I don't see where we have a policy or a consensus against templates listing TV show cast members. Robofish (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these aren't regular cast members. They are "recurring" cast -- that is, actors who appear on the show from time to time. Whatever one might think about navboxes for regular cast members, the connection for recurring cast seems rather tenuous for a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't do this, per WP:UNDUE (why would we give that much space for one show an actor has appeared in, and not another?), amongst other things. --Conti|✉ 18:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The main character template is going to be deleted/merged. This doesn't need to exist. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:56, 10 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.