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) 22:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TLS-A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, CSD G7. --GW… 18:01, 15 May 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, no objections. delldot ∇. 22:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SJFA football league system (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox isn't necessary when a maximum of three links will be present. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:26, 15 May 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 to delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Usher singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominating here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:Usher singles; the nominator of which gave the following cryptic reason:

I take it to mean that that template is redundant to ((Usher)); procedural nomination only, I am neutral. Tim Song (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Enough singles to warrant own template. Candyo32 (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't see anything significantly wrong with this template. Ive seen far worse ones. There is plenty enough albums, singles, ect... ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 03:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - With out singles and featured singles in, there is nothing in the actual Usher navbox..--L.Geee 09:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleGee (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 Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Southampton Stags staff (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template was used on single article, I have subst it into article. Article that it was used on is itself the subject of a current Afd. Pit-yacker (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Pfainuk talk 10:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not needed. Kubek15 ^write/sign 17:44, 15 May 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) 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Southampton Stags roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template was used on single article, I have subst it into article. Article that it was used on is itself the subject of a current Afd Pit-yacker (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Pfainuk talk 10:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not needed. Kubek15 ^write/sign 17:45, 15 May 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) 01:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Harlequins RL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are two navboxes for the same subject. Template:Harlequins Rugby League should be retained. This template (Harlequins RL) should be deleted. Jameboy (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one pre-dates a new one, and has different information than the additional one. A possibility is to incorporate the new one into this one.86.149.209.142 (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and delete – ((Harlequins Rugby League)) is in the standard navbox format and contains more info (at first glance). Merge any info not found in Harlequins Rugby League into it and then delete. Airplaneman ✈ 21:30, 1 June 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 Redirect to ((Di-disputed fair use rationale)). The discussion has stalled, the template is not in use, and the reason why the standard "disputed fair use" template won't work is not clear. If there is a new compelling reason why this should be used, then that can be discussed elsewhere. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comic-questionable-use (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Such a template shouldn't be used for disputing a file's fair use. One should either use Wikipedia:Non-free content review or Wikipedia:Files for deletion, as this is much more likely to receive some attention. Not heavily used, so a deletion shouldn't create too many problems. The Evil IP address (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There's also ((Comic-questionable-use-article)), which should be a co-nomination. I agree that I'm not sure that WikiProjects should be inventing their own processes for dealing with fair use. If there's reason to believe that generalising these would be a good idea then so be it; otherwise the same process as is used elsewhere on the project should be followed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

• A few issues:
  • The "limited use" is due to the template being project specific. It was designed to be used within WP:CMC which is a project that tends to have trouble shaking images that buck WP:NFCC points 3 and 8 as well as decoration in galleries or lists. Mostly with image being restored with an chide of "Where was the warning/reason/discussion?"
  • The template is designed to be precise on the image page. Yes, most images are only used in 1 article. It gets dicey though when looking at images used in multiple articles. FfD is a "blanket" solution that may not fit all uses of an image. Using this template at least narrows it down the the problem article(s).
  • Like most maintenance templates, the idea is for it's tranclusions to tend toward "zero". It's a tool to point to problems - ones that hopefully will go away.
  • Looking at NFCR... to be honest, that looks like a level of bureaucracy to try and avoid as an initial solution.
  • The use of this template and ((Comic-questionable-use-article)) was intended as a polite way to get either a discussion going, prod a correction/expansion of the FUR to clarify why the image is being used, or explain why the image was eventually removed.

Basically the template does have a low grade use which it should be kept for. - J Greb (talk) 21:36, 21 April 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) 17:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there some way to merge this into the standard FFD template as a parameter to somehow categorize it with all other images with questionable use? This would solve the traffic issue. It seems like a useful template otherwise. Airplaneman ✈ 17:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose ((Di-disputed fair use rationale)) could be made compatible, but is it really worth the effort when this current;y has no filespace transclusions? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:41, 15 May 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!} 06:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Thumberward makes a good point with ((Di-disputed fair use rationale)). Any problem in simply usiing this template? --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:11, 23 May 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 to delete. delldot ∇. 21:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete. An orphaned template. Also, it includes both content and project links and so it is not of use on content pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't see ever using a template named "glossaries" on content pages, so how is that a problem? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not actually orphaned; it's used on Portal talk:Contents/List of glossaries. That said, there's no real reason that it can't just be substed there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a wikiproject navbox (like ((dabnav))), and is only intended to be used on the project pages that it lists. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:03, 15 May 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) 06:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox hurricane season active (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant to Template:Infobox hurricane season and is only used for the current Atlantic and Eastern Pacific seasons which means for 6 months of the year it is not transcluded on any articles Jason Rees (talk) 00:27, 15 May 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.