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. --RL0919 (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-weighted (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:POVRedundant to Template:Generalize Mhiji (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I used it just last week, and its removal gives some indication that it works - and I've just used it again. It's not redundant to POV - if an article is supposed to cover a broad subject and only covers part of it, then that doesn't necessarily indicate a point of view problem, it indicates that the article needs to be extended in a specific way to cover other aspects of the topic (this should have been explained u=in the /doc page, but until now, one didn't exist - mea culpa). Grutness...wha? 00:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is this better than using Template:Expand? Is this really a "cleanup" issue? --Bsherr (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand tends to mean expand overall - it takes no account of whether the article is unbalanced in any specific way. Expand is also rarely used on long articles, yet long articles can still be unbalanced. Perhaps calling this template ((Expand-weighted)) would have made more sense. Grutness...wha? 21:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Template:POV is generally to be used if the article is deliberately lopsided (i.e. the article contains information that directly advances a given opinion). This template is used if there is just plain not enough information about a sub-subject, possibly due to a lack of information. Further requests are listed below:

1. Delete ((Generalize)) in favor of this template. This template is more general and can be more widely used than ((Generalize)).
2. Rename ((Cleanup-weighted)) to ((Weighted)). Imbalance of information is not really as much a "cleanup" problem (like ((Copy edit)) is), as it is a general content problem.
3. Add a parameter to allow people to tell what sections need to be improved.
4. Add a section to the documentation saying that this template should be used in tandem with ((Expand section)).

--vgmddg (look | talk | do) 22:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I often come across many instances where this template would serve well. And keep ((generalize)) too, both have their strong points. -- œ^™ 23:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — as of now, it is being used. This is not the same as ((POV)), which has to do with biased coverage of a subject, rather than bias in which subjects are treated. It's also slightly different from ((generalize)). Spacepotato (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2010 (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. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Dubstep is not a wide enough genre to warrant a navbox. Dubstep is already included in Template:UK garage. Mhiji (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2010 (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. Unused navbox of seemingly unrelated links. --RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Education in Wales (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. No useful links. Links are to articles about the places rather than education in those places. Also, random links to Spain, US etc. Mhiji (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Specifically due to it's random links, seems as if it could be improved or better reworked through another template.--ForgottenHistory (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2010 (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. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Education in Barrie (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Nearly all red links Mhiji (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2010 (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. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Segunda Divisão A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Segunda Divisão B (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Segunda Divisão C (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Segunda Divisão D (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2010 (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. --RL0919 (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. All of the links end up redirecting to the same place. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 22:56, 21 December 2010 (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. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Racial demographics begin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Racial demographics end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Racial demographics Mixed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Racial demographics Hispanic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Racial demographics Black (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Racial demographics Islander (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Racial demographics Other (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Racial demographics White (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Racial demographics Asian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Racial demographics Amerindian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2010 (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. --RL0919 (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary Mhiji (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Other methods on userpages and for article content, template not needed.--ForgottenHistory (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. I really don't think people should be giving out their personal information where everybody can see it, and either way I don't think you really need a template for it. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:01, 21 December 2010 (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. Mhiji (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Department of National Defense of the Philippines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As the creator of the templates (I suggest you notified me ((subst:Tfdnotice|TemplateName)) ~~~~ via my talk page, as a sign of courtesy, eh?) I vote for keep. Now, if your only reason is those templates are unused, well, now, it's on the articles now. According to this, "The template is not used, (...), and has no likelihood of being used."--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    04:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as now used. Mhiji (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2010 (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. Mhiji (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Department of Education of the Philippines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It still seems a part of a necessary nav-box for Philippines info.--ForgottenHistory (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's not used on any articles... Mhiji (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a supplement template that could be used for the same purpose? --ForgottenHistory (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. Implement it if you want. Mhiji (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As the creator of the templates (I suggest you notified me ((subst:Tfdnotice|TemplateName)) ~~~~ via my talk page, as a sign of courtesy, eh?) I vote for keep. Now, if your only reason is those templates are unused, well, now, it's on the articles now. According to this, "The template is not used, (...), and has no likelihood of being used."-— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    04:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry did it using Twinkle, so it should have automatically notified you - obviously didn't... Didn't see that it was very likely to be used since it's been around over a year and not being used. Why do you think it has a likelihood of being used then? Do you have any plans to use it? Mhiji (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess the links contained on the templates speak for themselves now. And, those templates are now in use. Off-topic, I suggest not to use TW when nominating templates, because the template-TFD script is not working for me very well since last year.--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    04:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, it's on them now. It wasn't when you wrote that... Please don't write "it's on the articles now" if it's not at the time you are writing it... But, keep as now used. Mhiji (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2010 (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 Mhiji (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Department of Agriculture of the Philippines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As the creator of the templates (I suggest you notified me ((subst:Tfdnotice|TemplateName)) ~~~~ via my talk page, as a sign of courtesy, eh?) I vote for keep. Now, if your only reason is those templates are unused, well, now, it's on the articles now. According to this, "The template is not used, (...), and has no likelihood of being used."--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs    04:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as now used. Mhiji (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2010 (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. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roscommon Senior Hurling Championship (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no navigation. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2010 (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. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cork Hurling Team of the Millennium (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

orphan. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2010 (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. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clare Hurling Team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

orphan. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2010 (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. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Pu'er (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Unused with links that are a subset of Template:Yunnan. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2010 (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. All unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Group logo alias NOAA Commissioned Corps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Group logo alias US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Group logo alias US Public Heath Service Commissioned Corps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2010 (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. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Golden Horse Awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. Nearly all red links. Mhiji (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2010 (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. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Park seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and could be replaced by a ((succession box)). 134.253.26.12 (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2010 (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. Unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Park location (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Category:South Park locations was deleted, template not in use. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2010 (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) 21:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is nothing close to an "automatic" entitlement to use screenshots in articles. While a generic rationale for infobox covers and logos and things in infoboxes may be useful, this template falsely implies that if you slap it onto non-free screenshots, they're fine to use. J Milburn (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed that screenshots do not have as consistent a rational as cover images, and that users should take more care to write a proper working rationale. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, this template is misleading. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Blatant Delete for reasons stated above. I also find it humorous to find such cut/paste rationales; "The image meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic." ...and I guess because it's in a template that is automatic? It passes because you say it does? Same goes for "The image meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy". Back to the point; we don't allow screenshots for every episode article. There has to be more than a boiler plate rationale for including the image. A screenshot is not a title card, it's not a cover for the physical release of the work, etc. It's a sub element of the work, and not one associated with its wide distribution. There is no way in which this template can work. Note that this template is in use on several hundred images. If it's deleted, a lot of work will need to be done to tag the images with ((nrd)), notifying uploaders, etc. That of course isn't a reason to not delete this template. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. If we're going to use a screenshot, we need at least some more specific explanation of what elements in the shot explain why that particular shot has been chosen, what it reveals to the reader, etc. It needn't amount to very much -- our standards for accepting screenshots are comparatively inclusive, reflecting how limited the realistic copyright taking is, at least compared to some other images, such as eg historically important photos; in many cases it may not need much further to be added than just identifying what it is that the frame shows that is distinctive -- but nevertheless, there needs to be something that identifies what it is that is relevant about what is being shown; not just "illustrating the subject of the article", but showing what that helps the reader better understand the topic of the article. Jheald (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree with Hammersoft that if the template is so widely used, it will make sense to proceed in some kind of managed way if/when the decision comes to delete it. Things that might help:

  (1) Notifying relevant wikiprojects now of this deletion discussion, if the template is being used for images on pages they have an interest in.

  (2) Perhaps mark the template as "deprecated, soon to be deleted" for a period, say 2 weeks, before it's actually deleted; with a corresponding message also under images on pages, to give some notice as to what's about to happen; before

  (3) the final deletion, and consequent roll-out of ((nrd)) on images where it still hasn't been replaced. Jheald (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In a lot of cases, this has been subst'd, so that wouldn't be necessary. But yeah, if there are cases where it has not been, that would be a good idea. J Milburn (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Deprecate then delete, principally per Hammersoft and Jheald. Because it is so widely used, and the nature of the template implies that it is all that is needed for a fair use rationale, we could lose some very valuable images that are perfectly fine to use if we proceed recklessly. I propose a course of action similar to Jheald, but with a longer deprecation period of four weeks, during which time all new uses would be invalid (explicitly marking the template with the cut-off date). An effort to identify an active wikiproject for all cases where the original uploader is no longer active should be made. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2010 (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. --RL0919 (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Socialist Party of Chile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It hasn't been used in over 2 years, and it's not likely to be used. Ruodyssey (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused, and seems pretty unnecessary. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hmmm, surely it's easier to type Socialist Party of Chile rather than ((Socialist Party of Chile)) or ((subst:Socialist Party of Chile))?! Mhiji (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd have voted keep if it was a navbox or something like that, but it is just text! ¡Sáquenlo de aquí! Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most likely created in error by some trying to fix a redlink created by entering ((Socialist Party of Chile)) rather than ((Socialist Party of Chile/meta/shortname)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it belongs to those? And why aren't these linked? Are they even used? - Ruodyssey (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2010 (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. All unused and no objections to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ISO639ANC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ISO639EXT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ISO639COL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ISO639CON (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ISO639HIS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ISO639MAC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:ISO639SPC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Superseded by ((ISO 639-3 style)). Unused. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2010 (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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The content of the template is already stated on the main page in a brief manner. User:Jeromesandilanico User talk:Jeromesandilanico 16:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This appears to be a viable navbox that is used on a number of articles. --RL0919 (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2010 (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. --RL0919 (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-attempt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Can always be substituted with a more specific template. Triggering the edit filter is not a reason for blocking someone. Marcus Qwertyus 06:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If the user has no edits, then just leaving a standard warning template such as ((uw-vandalism)) can be confusing - it's better to leave a template that explains the situation and links to the edits which triggered the edit filter. Also, triggering the filter can be a reason to block someone, which is why we have ((uw-efblock)). PhilKnight (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This template provides a clear explanation of what the problem is. People who have triggered the filter but don't yet have edits are in most cases very close to being blocked. Somebody else seeing their page and wondering what's up will be puzzled if they have no edits, since all the attempts have been refused by the filter. Marcus argues that triggering the edit filter is not a reason for blocking someone. It is highlly associated with blockable situations. An admin is hardly going to block without looking at the filter events, since it might be a filter anomaly. If Marcus thinks the WP:DE policy should be updated to clarify, he might suggest some new policy wording. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, actually, many of the filters indicate that serious vandalism was attempted or is about to happen. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have to agree with many of those above and say that as it is a template to better warn for a certain action of nonconstructive editing, it is needed.--ForgottenHistory (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2010 (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. --RL0919 (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Volusia County Roads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Most of the links are redlinks, and will always be redlinks as the roads in question aren't notable. The links that aren't red mostly redirect to List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida, itself nominated for deletion. The template therefore violates WP:N (does not cover, or assist coverage of, a notable topic) and WP:DIRECTORY (Wikipedia is not a directory). (This is my first TfD nomination, if I've messed up or I've misinterpreted policy I'd appreciate the feedback.) DustFormsWords (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Red links shouldn't be there per WP:REDNOT and WP:NAVBOX#Properties. Only actually links 7 articles (the rest are redirects), one of which will likely be deleted. Per nom, the notability of all of them is questionable too. Mhiji (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm not so sure I can disagree with this one, partially since the list itself is fine, and should NOT be deleted. ----DanTD (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While the list will survive AfD, the template needs to go per the reasoning of Mhiji. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Gamweb (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Gamweb (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2010 (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) 21:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stuart Baird (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigates only three articles. WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A navbox is un-necessarily clunky when there are so few articles in the set. If there are only three articles, it only needs two links in the text of each one to interlink them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 30 December 2010 (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) 21:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vicky Jenson (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigates only three articles. WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A navbox is un-necessarily clunky when there are so few articles in the set. If there are only three articles, it only needs two links in the text of each one to interlink them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 30 December 2010 (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) 21:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Frederik Du Chau (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigates only three articles. WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A navbox is un-necessarily clunky when there are so few articles in the set. If there are only three articles, it only needs two links in the text of each one to interlink them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 30 December 2010 (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) 21:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:David Slade (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Navigates only three articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A navbox is un-necessarily clunky when there are so few articles in the set. If there are only three articles, it only needs two links in the text of each one to interlink them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 30 December 2010 (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. --RL0919 (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Topaze class cruisers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless navbox. Nearly all red. WP:NENAN Mhiji (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Only one of the links is blue, and since there are only 4 links anyway, the template would not be needed even if all he articles existed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

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 per G8. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Cameras (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No reason to keep. The project pages was deleted some years ago! Magioladitis (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no article/talk pages that link to it either. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2010 (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. --RL0919 (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New to Wikipedia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. The only transclusion seems to be accidental anyway, since the link to it was created in April and the template was then created a few months later in September. Red-linked Mhiji (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It seems to be a joke template, so maybe we should userfy it instead. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Poor formatting and unclear initial purpose.--ForgottenHistory (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, unused and so unnecessary template. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:45, 22 December 2010 (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 redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location map United Kingdom Cardiff (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Red-linked Mhiji (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Template:Location map Wales Cardiff..♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Template:Location map Wales Cardiff per Dr B. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 20 December 2010 (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. --RL0919 (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Global cite a (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and apparently non-working template. CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is a matched pair with ((Global cite b)) 65.95.13.158 (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is not functioning properly, whatever its intent was. 65.95.13.158 (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2010 (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.