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) 14:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 11:19, 31 January 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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redirect7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Following a declined prod some months ago I ll repeat the same argument: Unused and redundant template, way to many redirect templates already. Magioladitis (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This one has valid uses in the redirect hierarchy of templates, and it is not redundant with any of the others I could see (meaning it didn't exactly duplicate the functions of any of the others). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't know if there is an easy way to check whether this template is currently unused. It was definitely used at Input/output until it was removed by the user who next proceeded to prod the template as being "unused". Like Nihonjoe, I don't see how its function is subsumed by other redirect templates.  --Lambiam 18:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  How many article you know that have 3 redirects and all need disambiguation? -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Nihonjoe, and restore uses that were removed. And I have seen articles that have three redirects needing disambiguation, though they had three ((redirect)) templates on them instead. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One use case isn't enough to justify a template of this weirdness. If it were really needed at some article, just subst it and delete the template. The lone example given, however, is atrocious, and should just have a simple DAB hatnote going to a DAB page that lists all of these things, not a disambiguatory mess at the top of the page that is longer than many article's leads. PS: All the pro/con stuff about the prod is irrelevant, since WP:PROD is only for articles. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was the one who PRODed it originally (guess I don't quite understand how this all works yet). As Lambiam mentioned, it was used in Input/output, I made this edit to simplify and remove it. Does anyone actually think that that edit was a bad idea? We shouldn't keep these hatnote templates around just because they could be used or because their functionality is not exactly replicated by another template, but because they are actually useful and do something notable that other templates can't. Also, for those interested in pages which need 3 redirects, see ((Redirect10)). Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirect 10 adds a disam note. , which will not always be symmetrical. It would be nice to have a template that could be used for any arbitrary number of pages to replace all of the multiple Redirect templates, but, while we don't, having this as well as Redirect 10 is part of the systematic workout of the templates as a whole. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per 日本穣, DGG and 76.66.197.17. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 31 January 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) 14:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images from Flickr should be uploaded to Commons, not here, where there is a process for verifying that the images are licensed on flickr under the same license as they are claimed. All existing uses have either been deleted or are awaiting deletion. Therefore this template is redundant. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doublecheck for any uses and delete. --Chinasaur (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, encourages the uploading of images here where they don't belong. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 5 February 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 as there is no need to wikilink to the Manual of Style from the article text. A talk page box may be a better idea. Ruslik_Zero 11:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A pointless and unjustified "this article does not follow the manual of style" hat note, with a big juicy cross-namespace link to boot. Sounds a bit pointy to me, adding a simple hat note should not trump the manual of style. Rehevkor ✉ 16:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If this is suppose to link WP:MOS, another option is to convert it to a talk message box to put on talk pages, similar to, for example, the varieties of English templates which reference WP:ENGVAR. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalisation used in trade is often mentioned in the article, usually in the lead Rehevkor ✉ 19:29, 30 January 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 Merge with cite comic, cite web, cite web comic, ... Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite penny arcade (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm having a hard time where we would ever accept a Penny Arcade comic (note, not commentary that Jerry and Mike make about the comic's theme or the like) as a reference for anything outside of an article about Penny Arcade and the occasional other use. This encourages bad referencing otherwise.

This is completely replaceable with a cite web use. Alternatively, if someone wanted to make a generic "cite web comic" template (there's a "cite comic" but that's for printed comic books) that is more than just Penny Arcade, I could see that. But for one specific comic is way overkill. MASEM (t) 14:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A merge of sorts, but more of a delete - A citation template for a single comic is overkill, yes. But as far as I know, no comic template has a url parameter. Couldn't the parameter just be added to ((cite comic))? Is there any need for a separate "cite comic" and "cite web comic"? Maybe there is... Lord Spizzilizounge, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and revisit later, with a notice of eventual depreciation Since most of the references in Penny Arcade use the template, reciting the articles will be a pain. We also might want to edit the template to note the transition from the old citation template to the new. ShawnIsHere (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I built this template as a time saver to reference either the Penny Arcade comic or the blog. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Create and Merge with "cite web comic": I'm with Spongefrog/ShawnIsHere on this one. There should be a generic citation for webcomics rather than using "cite comic". Then this one can be deprecated in favor of the "cite web comic" and eventually removed completely. 99.67.162.83 (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Some-course-of-action-that-results-in-the-template-not-being-used-including-any-necessary-acts-preparatory-to-that-end. No reason why this can't be replaced (by bot or by translation in-place) with a more generic template. No opinion on whether this should be ((cite web)), ((cite comic)) or a new creation. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:55, 9 February 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. Ruslik_Zero 11:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This recently created template has a limited selection of random parameters with non-standard and sometimes ungrammatical names, is designed for use in articles which are not even districts, and can't do anything beyond what an already existing ((Infobox Russian district)) can.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:03, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

• Keep at least for now. It is perfect for large cities and has some parameters that are not present in the template mentioned above like the nearest Metro station.SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 17:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have a template for larger cities (((Infobox Russian inhabited locality))); not to mention that Russian cities and districts are entities of completely different types and should not be codified via one overly generic template. The "nearest metro station" info is too specific to be included in an infobox of such broad scope anyway—how can there be a "nearest metro station" for, say, Southern Administrative Okrug, which covers close to 10% of the whole territory of Moscow? I wouldn't object to making this template specific to the administrative okrugs of Moscow (instead of deleting it outright), but even then it will need to be re-thought as there is currently no rhyme or reason to why certain parameters are there and some are not.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:30, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, I am planning to include the template in the present articles about districts of Moscow, not only okrugs.SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 19:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that's going to be another problem... Administrative okrugs are different from the districts, so they shouldn't be using the same infobox. For the districts, on the other hand, there already is a template (((Infobox Russian district))). If that template is missing something that you feel is important to include, you are more than welcome to make a suggestion to include it (just please let it not be "nearest metro stations" or "average annual traffic density" :)). There is no need to make redundant infoboxes if just one or two parameters are missing.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:53, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I thought that replicating ((infobox settlement)) was a bad idea? 76.66.197.17(talk) 07:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As a general-purpose template about a geographic area, it seems to be redundant to ((Infobox settlement)). Currently the template is only used for Russian entities, and there seems to be more accurate infoboxes for this purpose than this template. I don't think stating the nearest metro station is really something that needs to go in a infobox (though it can definitively be discussed in the prose). Arsenikk^(talk) 22:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In many cities the nearest train station is very much a defining attribute of an area. Rename to something starting with Infobox though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This template was not developed to be used in articles about "many cities"; it is used exclusively for the districts and the administrative okrugs (which, by the way, are not districts) of Moscow. Each administrative okrug of Moscow covers about 10% of the city's territory, and there are quite a few metro (not train) stations on each such chunk, which makes the "nearest" moniker quite useless. Even with the districts proper, there could be several metro stations, none of which could be designated "nearest" or a "defining attribute". As for the other functions of this template, they are available via other, more comprehensive templates already, and even if the "nearest metro station" field were to be of use, it would have been simpler to add it to one of those templates instead of creating a brand new one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:53, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant to ((Infobox district)), ((Infobox Russian district)), ... Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to existing templates. There is already an over-proliferation of templates related to settlements and political divisions; there's no need to add more without a compelling justification. --RL0919 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reason why this needs a template separate from ((infobox settlement)) (or its various aliases and relatives). 81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:51, 9 February 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, but creating one universal template as suggested by Lord Spizzilizounge is a good idea. Ruslik_Zero 16:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Created with GIMP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Similar to situation of another template recently deleted: there is no need to know what software product was used to create an image, so this template serves no real function other than to promote the software. Used on only one file. RL0919 (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see the problem. What program was used to create an image is sometimes useful information.--Apoc2400 (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per prior rationale. If there is a particular procedure which was used to create the image, that can be documented on the file's page. However, simply stating that a particular program was used as an advertisement is not particularly helpful. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: We also have a "Made in Inkscape" one so it sort of forms a weak series of templates related to the same subject.Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 03:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or delete but previous rationale is wrong rationale for AI was not correct. Specifying original image editor for content might be useful. Of course there are standards for document standards, yet not all applications follow same standards for same document format version. Especially some specific functions and the image viewed might differ between applications. Kasaalan(talk) 06:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I wish I'd seen the aforementioned TfD, since I would've voted to keep that one as well. I don't really share the belief that knowing the software program used to render the image is "not useful information." The same argument could/would be applied to a template stating the camera model — if it weren't already included in the metadata.—DMCer™ 19:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It currently has only one transclusion: File:Logo-pntcd.svg. If you look at how it is being used, it's entirely superfluous. The source section states "Software used for this SVG version: GIMP, Inkscape and KColorChooser on Linux", thendirectly below that are two boxes that state the exact same information, but as advertisement boxes. Hence, it's entirely duplicated information to what has already been stated. I think it is useful to have a "how this image was created" information box. It could state the software used and the procedure followed in creating the image. However just stating that a particular program was used is not very helpful for someone wanting to either (a) recreate the image, or (b) create a similar image, or (c) modify the image. Instead of creating a whole gaggle of "Created with FOO" templates, why not just have one template which can be used to not only list the software used, but the procedure used in that creation process? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite delete. Well, sort of. More of a Comment - I think this is a useful sort of thing to have, but why have an individual template for every software used? Why not just the one template that says "This was created using [insert software here]"? This is helpful, but not that helpful. Adding the procedure used, as Plastikspork said above, would be a big plus. Template would be typed like ((name of template|software|procedure)) Though that might not work, I don't know a lot anything about image uploads etc. This is really just a per PlastikSpork !vote, now that I think of it. Lord Spizzilizounge, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:46, 30 January 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) 14:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nanotech Age (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete as crystal ball. We cannot know if the future will even be called a "nanotech age", let alone which specific technologies will flourish. And how is space colonization defined by nano-tech? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The epitome WP:CRYSTALBALL vio. Maybe in a hundred years or so... Lord Spizzilizounge, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are already templates for navigating nanotechnology articles, and the idea of a "nanotech age" (including colonization of Venus!) is pure speculation. --RL0919 (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If there is already a template about nanotechnology articles, why don't we try to merge this template with the other nanotechnology template? GVnayR (talk) 03:10, 31 January 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:John Hamburg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Hasn't really directed much, by the looks of it. Too few links for a template, and the information is easily found in the article (yes, I know, it's a navbox, not a display-all-relevant-information box. Just thought I'd say), Lord Spizzilizounge, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, has been converted to navigate between many more than four articles. Nyttend (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep more than four. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:13, 8 February 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 mark as ((historical)). A pagemove to Wikipedia:Popular pages/Articles (a subpage of Wikipedia:Popular pages) may be appropriate, but would require more discussion that takes into account subpages of the template. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC) (Revised 21:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Template:Popular articles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is not being updated. Can we revive it? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Leaning towards delete. I'm not sure a real person would be willing to update this every hour, but could a bot be programmed to do it? I don't know anything about bots, so this might be a bad suggestion, Lord Spizzilizounge, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as historical, but don't delete. There used to a be a bot updating this hourly (just look at the history), but it stopped in October. We don't want to mislead people into thinking this is current, but it would be good to leave it in case someone wants to revive it in the future. --RL0919 (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to project space I don't see this as a template in any case. Wikipedia:Popular pages/articles seems the place to put it. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment you could make a WP:BOTREQ to ask for a bot to maintain it? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as historical per RL0919. No reason we can't ask for a new bot to maintain it. Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 5 February 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.