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 userfied to User:Crissov/Template:Kana table. JPG-GR (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kana table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wiktionary as wikt:Appendix:Kana 70.29.209.91 (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It’s unused because I’ve not had the last bits of time to make it ready for use. The articles Japanese writing system, Kana, Katakana, Hiragana, perhaps Hentaigana, those on romanization of Japanese and probably even more would benefit from a unified table design. I’m not claiming the layout currently used in this template is optimal (or traditional), but since the tables in the mentioned articles are changed frequently (thereby mismatch) I wanted the template to work well for all the cases before including it. Maybe I should’ve build it in my User space and then move it to public Template space. If people prefer I can temporarily move it there until I get it to work satisfactory. — Christoph Päper 11:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting in user space would have been the safer thing to do. Is the template usable on at least two articles in its current form? If so, it could be put into use and then enhanced later for use elsewhere. --RL0919 (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the absence of any response to my question, userfy so Christoph can work on it at his leisure. --RL0919 (talk) 14:55, 4 November 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) 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Radio-controlled vehicle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused and abandoned. The editor who was working on it back in 2008 has been on a self-proclaimed "long wikibreak" since December. --RL0919 (talk) 20:38, 29 October 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) 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Radio Programming (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. According to a comment at User talk:Thomasbthomas, the creation of this template was unintentional. (Not sure how that happens.) Anyhow, it is unused and abandoned. --RL0919 (talk) 20:34, 29 October 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) 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Prosecutor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:55, 28 October 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) 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Defense Attorney (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:52, 28 October 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) 17:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox 35mm film SLR camera (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Template is in use at Nikon F601m. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 09:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Appears to not be inuse, but the template page is listing it as used. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 09:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as duplicate of ((Infobox Camera)), should this template have any fields the latter doesn't, they should be transferred over. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 09:04, 29 October 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 keep. Nominator withdrew the nomination, and no other editors have recommended deletion. Non-admin closure. RL0919 (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Food panel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw since the original editor wishes to continue with it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I was working on it and never got back to it. Once I finish with a project I am working on I will restart working on it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:17, 29 October 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) 17:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Constatus name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused outside a few user sandbox pages, broken, and seemingly abandoned, with no edits since it was created in 2008. --RL0919 (talk) 00:11, 29 October 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) 17:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Constatus bgcolor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused outside a few user sandbox pages, broken, and seemingly abandoned, with no edits since it was created in 2008. --RL0919 (talk) 00:12, 29 October 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 userfied to User:Trevor37/Template:Budgerigar mutation blank page. JPG-GR (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Budgerigar mutation blank page (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template and does not follow template structure. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy. From the discussion at Talk:Cinnamon budgerigar mutation, I gather that User:Trevor37 used this as a way to quickly create articles by substing the template into a new page. Looks like he hasn't edited in a few months, and this doesn't belong in template space. But I see no harm in moving it to a subpage in his user space and leaving a note for him about it on his talk page. That way it is available for his future use without cluttering up template space (where it never should have been placed anyhow). --RL0919 (talk) 00:08, 29 October 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 userfied to User:Tadija/Template:Belgrade Architecture. JPG-GR (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Belgrade Architecture (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I started to !vote "delete" because this is incomplete and seemingly abandoned. Then I noticed that the user who created it has been blocked off and on for much of the time since it was created in mid-September. Their current block is until mid-November. I'm a little concerned that we might be deleting a work in progress that they will continue on after their block expires. Perhaps "userfy" would be the best solution? --RL0919 (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. It has potential, if the creator can edit constructively after the block ends. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:54, 29 October 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 ((CarDesign nav)) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Auto parts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused and seemingly abandoned, with no edits since its creation in 2008 (the ((Under construction)) banner notwithstanding). Visible auto parts seem to be well covered by ((CarDesign nav)). --RL0919 (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Template:CarDesign nav 70.29.209.91 (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it is likely page to be created in the future but since no pages use it there is no need for a redir. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to ((CarDesign nav)) per author's request. Sebwite (talk) 02:04, 30 October 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 deleted by Smith609 per db-author. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alga taxobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused and seemingly abandoned, with no edits since its creation. It is just a wrapper for ((Taxobox)), with no additions or even field name differences, so it probably qualifies for WP:CSD#T3. --RL0919 (talk) 23:51, 28 October 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) 17:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Started to work on it, then forgot about it. Will resume hopefully within the next few days. Shaliya waya (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It needs some work, but it should be a useful navbox for an area that does not have one currently. If Shaliya doesn't get back to it soon as indicated above, I will work on it myself. --RL0919 (talk) 16:26, 30 October 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) 17:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old, unused template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused and abandoned, with no links, no talk and no edits since 2004. --RL0919 (talk) 20:09, 29 October 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) 17:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old, unused template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused and abandoned, with no talk, no documentation and only one edit ever (in 2004) prior to TfD. --RL0919 (talk) 20:07, 29 October 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) 17:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old, unused template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused and abandoned, with no talk, no documentation and only one edit ever (in 2004) prior to TfD. Appears to be some sort of non-free image attribution, although the external link in it is redirected. --RL0919 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 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 withdrawn and redirected by nominator Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old, unused template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Template:Database models 70.29.209.91 (talk) 04:13, 29 October 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) 17:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old, unused template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, OK - I created this for my convenience years ago and haven't actually used it in ages. I don't think anyone else ever used it for anything. Feel free to subst it out of existence - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete since User:David Gerard is the only editor except for the TfD nomination and has endorsed deletion above. --RL0919 (talk) 13:03, 29 October 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) 17:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, old template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused and abandoned: no links, no talk, no documentation and no edits since the day it was created. According to the edit summary at creation, it was created for some sort of survey. That was in 2004. If it ever had a use, I think we can reasonably conclude that time is long past. --RL0919 (talk) 19:03, 29 October 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) 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment wouldn't this be used only when there's a problem? Shouldn't someone contact the developers to see if they would ever use it again? 70.29.209.91 (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused and abandoned. It contains a reference to servers being purchased and installed recently, and particulars about the behavior of watch lists. These statements have been in the template since 2004. If this template had any ongoing use, it seems likely that such statements would have been edited at least once in the last five years. --RL0919 (talk) 05:29, 29 October 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) 17:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and redundant to typing "I replied to you on my talk page". Could possibly qualify for speedy deletion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This isn't transcluded anywhere, and if substituted, it is almost as much effort to write "((subst:ROTP))" as it is to type the short line of text that it creates. --RL0919 (talk) 13:11, 29 October 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Symbols of Macedonia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Ugly, unnecessary and irredeemably POV navbox with unclear inclusion criteria. Who decides what mountains, what churches and what historical figures are national "symbols"? (Quite apart from the fact that it's linguistically untenable: a person isn't a symbol.) The only items that clearly form a class of "symbols" are the flags, coat of arms, national anthem etc. – but those can easily be organised through a category. We should not be caving in to the misconceived urge to duplicate the whole category system with a parallel navbox system just to make somebody's favourite POV items more visible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lock... I made the template by example of the Serbian template ... Here you can see it ((National symbols of Serbia)). So if the Macedonian template is going to be deleted, delete the Serbian too... or maybe the Polish which made on the same way as the Macedonian. I don't what's the problem in this template actually ... see the templates that i gave and then i will discuss and change the template if there is need of course. 1111tomica (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This appears to be a reasonable navigation template linking related articles that would not otherwise be clearly interlinked. As to "who decides", inclusion of this or that particular link as a "national symbol" is an appropriate topic for the talk page of the template or a related WikiProject. What links belong on the template should be based on reliable third-party sources, either in the linked articles or if necessary in the talk page or template documentation. As to the particular question of a person being a symbol, it is hardly unheard of for historical figures to develop into national symbols. I might question the inclusion of a contemporary person like Toše Proeski, but that is an issue of editing the template, not deleting it. The only way I would see a deletion issue is if so many of the links are unverifiable as "national symbols" that the navbox that results after their removal doesn't have enough links left to justify its existence. --RL0919 (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the other "National symbols of X" templates IJA (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good reason for keeping. I find the others that I've seen just as bad. But with this particular one, the case mentioned above by RL0919 is indeed likely to apply. Of the three persons, one is an – objectively unremarkable – modern singer who just happened to die recently and have a broad fan base – recentism at its worst. With the other two, even their belonging to the Macedonian nation is heavily disputed. Two other entries, "music" and "culture", are just nonsensical – those are survey articles covering many different things, and nobody could say that "music" as a whole is a "symbol" of this country. This is already half the contents of the template. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok look ... I made some changes in the template? Is it ok now?!? or what's the problem??? ... Ok and about the other templates I want to give them a nomination tag for deletion too... Because as you said they are bad too. 1111tomica (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's not have any WP:POINT-y nominations of other templates. --RL0919 (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not to nominate and the others... they are same as the Macedonian template was... As Fut. Perfect says the are not made as they should be... So deletion tag for them too ... And btw Fuut. Perfect What do u think about the template now!??!? 1111tomica (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a consensus to delete this template, then those other templates would probably get their turn as well. But so far this is only a discussion about the possibility of deleting this template. Just because someone recommends deletion doesn't mean it will happen. It is entirely possible that the consensus of the discussion will be to keep this template. --RL0919 (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is interesting that there are so many National symbols of X template(ie Serbia Poland), yet only the Macedonia template is being ridiculed. If Future really wanted to complain, then he needs to have ALL the template:national symbols of X deleted from wikipedia. If not, he should stop his bias complaining towards Macedonians, this isnt the first time. Mactruth (talk) 21:28, 31 October 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chicago Blackhawks roster navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per long standing acceptance within the hockey project, navboxes of teammates at any given time is not defining, and these templates act only as article clutter. Roster templates for championship teams have been deleted time and time again - a template that may or may not be accurate at any given time is even less notable. Resolute 03:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and per WP:EMBED which suggests navboxes should only include links to articles which would be included in a perfect version of the page the navbox is being used on. Every player on a team is not likely to be linked from each others page. Also WP:NAVBOX suggests that they not be used for a position someone holds. I think this would apply to members of a team. You will also note that Template:Chicago Blackhawks roster was originally a navbox which was repurposed by consensus.-DJSasso (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep every sport except for hockey has navbox's. It's a great way to know who is on a team, if a player is active or injured, and who all of the coaches are. It is organized correctly in numerical order. And Yes every player on one team IS linked to each others page, thats what a TEAM is. Draft fan22

• "Everyone else is doing it" is not a valid keep reason. As to the rest of your argument, that is all contianed at Chicago Blackhawks#Current roster. The TEAM article is the logical place to find information on the team. Resolute 13:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• When I say linked, I mean a litteral wikilink. You would not be linking each player on a team from every player on his team. -DJSasso (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This content belongs as a table on the 2009–10 Chicago Blackhawks season article (and it is), but not as a navbox on each of the player/staff bio articles. That makes no sense from a navigational perspective. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just article clutter. Garion96 (talk) 15:33, 30 October 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, and also note that the template was in no way tagged to point to this TfD. JPG-GR (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_4#Template:CatDiffuse.

• Delete. The function of this template can be done with a category on its own i.e. Category:Categories requiring diffusion. There is no need for a notification at the top of the category that needs diffusion. It is a maintenance function that readers, who are the largest majority that visit WP, do not need to see. A hidden category is sufficient. Also, I have come across a number of instances where there is no need for this template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is a maintenance template it can be moved to the talk page. A separate version can be split to make a cleanup template for categories that need diffussion and which are oversubscribed. 70.29.209.91 (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess moving it to the talk page is an option I guess but I still think having a hiddencategory with all those categories that need diffusion is sufficient. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Move it to the talk page if its a problem with readers. Which I am not sure it is. I do think its an important template which is no different than the various ones we have for articles themselves. As mentioned above this is probably the equivalent of the cleanup tag in article space. -DJSasso (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that marking the cats that need diffusion is important but it does not have to be a template stuck at the top of the page (and cluttering it up for readers). For editors it is often quite obvious if a category needs to be diffused. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess when it comes to categories, I don't consider a box at the top to be clutter. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Categories get a much lower number of page views but we need to concider the reader. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right and I think this is counter to that. -DJSasso (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with the position taken by others that if the main problem is that regular readers don't need to see this, it can go on the talk page, although I'm not sure even that is necessary. Editors are also readers and vice-versa. Seeing a cleanup tag can while doing unrelated reading can spur action, while having this only in a hidden category would require editors to make an intentional effort to work on category diffusion. (If putting it on talk pages is the consensus, the documentation of the template should be updated to reflect that.) Finally, while consensus certainly can change, I note that the previous discussion was an overwhelming "keep". --RL0919 (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree about being spurred into action butsuch action can be prompted by an overpopulated cat that is able to be diffused (some cats cannot be diffused of course). Also, have the hidden cat Category:Categories requiring diffusion is a clue that work is needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that you can't see a hidden cat, and an unfamiliar user might not be able to see that a category is over populated since the first page of a category only shows so many articles. They might not think to look for or see the small single sentence that mentions the total number of articles in the category. -DJSasso (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and keep on category page, not talkpage. It serves its function best there. Moreover, category talkpages are seldom visited. Even Wikipedia itself warns about this. And people actually sometimes take action because of this template, you know. Nominating maintenance templates is generally a bad idea... Debresser (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As I read the template my understanding was that it gives instructions to the readers/editors not to place basic pages within the category, but to select one of the subcategories instead. In another words, the category was created a an intermediate category meant to organize subcategories and not necissariy to contain pages. Because of that understanding it made sense to have it on the basic page of the category and not within the talk page. Even though my understanding seems to have been wrong, I think the template still has that reader instructional quality and should be retained in its present form unless there is another template that already has only the instructional apsect. Pknkly (talk)
• Strong Keep - per User:Debresser. If you get rid of this, then we'll have to get rid of all the other "sofixit" maintenance tags for articles too. Because that's what this is. It's simultaneously a reminder and a maintenance tag. And for categories, it's a nice combination, that. - jc37 22:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Debresser and Pknkly. Oppose moving template to talk pages or turning into a hidden category - thus ensuring next to zero visibility. If not seen by editors/readers then it fails in its purpose, which is an important one. --Xdamr^talk 23:55, 29 October 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.