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) 15:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baywatch Hawaii character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Baywatch character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox character)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can it possibly be redundant when infobox character does not have a matching yellow coloring to match the lifeguard uniforms? LOL. Delete per nom. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—clearly redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:56, 24 July 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) 22:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dad's Army character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All the Dad's Army characters are already using ((Infobox character)) as of Aug 2009 and this template is currently only used once on the project page as a demo. WOSlinker (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—another clearly redundant template. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:56, 24 July 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) 22:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dasavathaaram character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Basically redundant to ((Infobox character)), as demonstrated by the changes to the backend code. It was only being used on Cast of Dasavathaaram, so I replaced it with the standard. WOSlinker (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—how many X character templates can there be, without reason? Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:56, 24 July 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) 15:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AF character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Artemis Fowl family (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Basically redundant to ((Infobox character)), as demonstrated by the changes to the backend code. It was only being used on about six pages, so I replaced it with the standard. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—redundant, once again. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:56, 24 July 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) 16:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World's most famous beaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is POV, with no clear definition of "famous". Does not aid navigation as a navbox should, as none of the articles are related apart from being beaches. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 19:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—per WP:NPOV. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 17 July 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) 16:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:York Revolution roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Is used on only one page, and is unlikely to be used on any other pages in the future. Can easily be substituted in the article and deleted –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 19:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst. and Delete Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 17 July 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. I'm assuming from the arguments of the contributors who commented above where WOSlinker added three that they would not object to the deletion of these three either (since they were more general in opposing the existence templates of this kind). Definitely let me know if that's not ok. About the discussion around Template:Stella4D and Template:Great Stella, that seems to me to be tangential to the issue of the templates' existence here. What really needs to happen is we need to figure out what is up with the copyright for these images. delldot ∇. 22:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This conclusion isn't very well-thought out for the stella templates - you're basically replacing a template that probably needs correcting with mass-copy&pastes and losing a centralized list of images that are being affected. Oh, well, who cares. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it is possible to at least add something like [[Category:Stella software images]] in this mass conversion? Someone is apparently automating this deletion anyway! Tom Ruen (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right that it's not a good solution. Now that I'm going through those last two, I'm realizing I should not unilaterally be making the call about the copyright. I wasn't comfortable replacing them entirely because that removes the info, and substing is not a good solution because as you say they still need to be changed. So I'm going to go back and change the close: I'm not going to delete these last two, because the copyright issue still needs to be straightened out. If a mass FFD is needed then the images' copyright can be discussed there. If the software author's claim to copyright is not valid, the template can be replaced with a generic one. delldot ∇. 00:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Credit/Chluk2425 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Connormah SVG Logo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Nrbelex Photo 400D (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Nrbelex Photo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Hans-AC Copyright (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Stella4D (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Great Stella (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Userfy all - Image licensing templates that are each only specific to one user. WOSlinker (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Template:Connormah SVG Logo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages). Unused. Connormah • talk 20:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd like to keep mine - they are currently in use, and I continue to assign them as I add pictures... Nrbelex ^(talk) 05:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What are these, vanity badges? Are these commonplace? Do these provide any functionality beyond the generic attribution template? If not then they should all be removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—why should some users get custom attribution and licensing templates. That invokes an inappropriate feeling of ownership to me. Yes, these contributors own the copyrights to their work, but by uploading them, they agree to use an appropriate license. That license should be denoted using a standard template. The transclusions here should be replaced by the appropriate standard template and these templates purged. Imzadi 1979 → 09:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've found 3 more and put them all into Category:User-specific image copyright templates and added them to this nomination. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant to the standard use and attribution templates. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm happy for mine to be replaced with standard templates. SimonEast (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as redundant to standard attribution templates; also in the cases of ((Credit/Chluk2425)), ((Hans-AC Copyright)), ((Stella4D)) & ((Great Stella)), for stipulating requirements contrary to Wikipedia polices and generic licences; and in the case of ((SimonEastPhoto)), for being an advert. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Template:Stella4D and Template:Great Stella were created for use with images uploaded from this software. It's more efficient to put common information for licensing to a single source, and easier to change later if needed. If something in it is contrary to wiki media policy, then that's good reason to fix it, NOT delete it! Tom Ruen (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that such templates could be changed, and thus used to retrospectively rescind unrescindable rights, with no change appearing on the image page concerned, is yet another reason to delete them. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a silly assertion - it's more likely one of ~500 uploaded images could be vandalized unnoticed than a centralized template, and that's why histories exist! Tom Ruen (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The two Stella templates initially appeared as though they were user specific templates but it now looks as though they are not. Perhaps the red link on User:RobertCWebb should be replaced with just Robert Webb so that they do not appear to be specific to a single Wikipedia user. These two templates could then be removed from this nomination. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A reply to Tom Ruen, but if the template were edited, the image page history would have no record of that edit. A user coming along to the image page would be relying on the information presented and not know from the image page or its history of any alterations. The only record of the change would be in the template's history, yet the single change would change the licensing rights on ~500 images, not one. Imzadi 1979 → 09:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A query, but the templates seem to imply that the output of these programs carries a copyright or attribution requirement from the program's developer. That's quite strange, since Adobe doesn't require me to label the SVGs I create in Illustrator as being created with that specific software product. Basically it sounds to me like the software developer is requiring his users to advertise for him in order to use his product. This requirement seems to run contrary to how I understand the different Wikimedia projects to work. I'll leave it up to others, but it could very well be that if this situation is contrary to Wikimedia policy, the templates can't just be changed, as that would change licensing requirements against the requirements of the software developer. The image files just might have to be deleted until their status can be clarified, or the licensing requirements from the developer are changed. Imzadi 1979 → 09:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:RobertCWebb is a user account created by the author of the software, but was deleted/blanked so I agree that doesn't make sense to be there. I originally uploaded images from the author, emailed to me, and included a statement he requested for attribution. Later I purchased it since I was unable to make equal quality images on my own. The software can generate thousands of geometric shapes, and many are useful for Wikipedia. My personal opinion is attributions are important so if someone wants to know how the images were generated, they can go to the source website of the software or email him. I'm not convinced users of his software are required to give any attribution what so ever, and I didn't particularly read the fine print of the purchase agreement, but I figured I'd follow his request, and if there was a conflict, it could be corrected, HENCE the usefulness of the templates for mass-modification as needed. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would appear that the latter pair of templates are being used to make false claims of copyright ownership. Consider, for example, File:Linear antiprism.png where there are two, contradictory claims of copyright ownership; and the person whose claim appears to be valid has released the image into the public domain. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone with more expertise should check to see if the Stella license is compliant with CCA3. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:50, 25 July 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) 22:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Company-importance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hardcoded instance of ((Notability|Companies)). WOSlinker (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment created in 2006 as a separate template, merged into Notability in 2007. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—CSD T3 eligible. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:56, 24 July 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) 14:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No Prophet Muhammad Images (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Part of a blatant NPOV violation movement started at ace:wp. Has no conceivable value to the project being here. It's one thing to have an opinion in a userbox, it's another to use Wikipedia to push contentious ethnic or religious POVs in this manner - David Gerard (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it as it violates core policy. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:49, 17 July 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 and merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox china station

Template:Infobox china station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A newer and better version, copied and translated directly from zh.wikipedia, is now avaliable at Template:Infobox China railway station, rendering this template redundant. TEK (talk • e-mail) 16:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—the newer template has a flaw to me, it's not completely in English. I think it is fine to create a new template, but the labels on the new one need to be translated to English before it's used. Until then, the old one should be retained. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As of 18 July, the newer template only had one Chinese-language field, for stopping trains. It appears that this template is being actively worked on by User:TEK. However, the older template has fields which the newer one does not. Si Trew (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that it's being translated. When I commented though, it was about 50-50 in terms of the label names. I like the look of the new one, but until it's done and can fully replace the old template, my preference to keep still stands. Imzadi 1979 → 15:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Frankly I'm more inclined to delete the new one. Why do people do this? If the desired changes were applied to the existing template, there would be no redundancy, and none of the many existing instances would need to be replaced. As it is, the new template lacks the microformat found in the current one. I also note that the proponent here is the creator of the new template, which, at the time of writing, has only one article-space instance. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge. As per Andy Mabbett, it would seem a better idea to keep the existing template, merge the "look" of the new one into it (if desired), and then propose the new one for deletion. Si Trew (talk) 06:02, 25 July 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) 16:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Music-importance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hardcoded instance of ((Notability|Music)). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment created in 2005, merged into Notability in 2007. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—if it were orphaned, it would be CSD T3 eligible. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:06, 24 July 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) 16:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bio-notability (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hardcoded instance of ((Notability|Biographies)). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment created in 2006, merged into Notability in 2007. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—if it were orphaned, it would be CSD T3 eligible. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:56, 24 July 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) 03:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is essentially redundant to ((convert)). In addition, it is not even being used correctly. The transclusions indicate that it is being used to convert a change in temperature from F to C. This is not what is being computed by this template (see here). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—per nom. If it can't be used right, use the right template instead. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:56, 24 July 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) 17:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox regional government in Canada (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template which is basically redundant to ((Infobox region)) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—orphan the template and get rid of it. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There are plenty of other places where it could be used, but I agree that it is mostly redundant. The one thing keeping me from voting to delete is that ((Infobox region)) does not appear to have any way of showing how regions get representation in higher levels of government. Can this be done through the subdivision parameters; for example subdivision 1 is country, subdivision 2 is province, subdivision 3 is representation in country, and subdivision 4 is representation in province? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's exactly the way it works. I would be happy to make the conversion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:56, 24 July 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) 16:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPC copyright guide (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, and redundant to Template:WPOCopyright. EmanWilm (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to the other template. I can't tell the visual difference between them. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 17 July 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) 16:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VFL Seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, and redundant to Template:VFA/VFL seasons See: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 11#Template:VFA/VFL seasons EmanWilm (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per the discussion noted above, there were duplicate templates and this one is now redundant. Thanks to EmanWilm for completing the changes. Matt5AU (talk) 23:16, 18 July 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.