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. RL0919 (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and unneeded for any obvious purpose. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Read Template talk:Docpng to see what this is for. Users should be substituting it, so you never will see any inlinks. It's a tool. It isn't worthless because you don't see it used. Hurts you? No. — Xiong熊talk* 21:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  My bad; I had expected the documentation to be included properly in a /doc page. I've moved it there. I still don't understand why this is at all necessary; why would it be important to emphasise that an image is transparent? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There should be no such expectation. Any old template will have it documentation on the talk page, since these predate the "/doc" convention. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - harmless, no argument advanced for deletion. –xeno^talk 03:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The argument is that it doesn't serve any practical purpose, and that it's essentially an overwrought reimplementation of the thumbnail code. From what I can see, the only reason it exists is to highlight that an image has a transparent background. Without having seen an example of a useful application for this feature I'm given to believing that it isn't actually useful. For that matter, I don't actually understand why it's intended to be substituted either. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is harmless, but I don't see the real use. You could do the same thing with ((quote box)). I'm with Chris— let's see this in use. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:11, 21 May 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) 23:48, 24 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) 04:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite flightglobal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One use in four years; base on ((cite web)) -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:42, 24 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) 04:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite Letters to Editor David Summers Exposure Magazine Vol5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned hard-code citation -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:04, 24 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) 04:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite Plan for Completion of Combined Bomber Offensive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

List of appendices for a book used as a references; used in two articles, including Plan for Completion of Combined Bomber Offensive where it is half the article -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:02, 24 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) 04:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite Sm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Simple free-form cite template that gives the same output if you remove the braces and pipes; thus you enter more characters than it outputs -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:56, 24 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) 00:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Key press/Switch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, deprecated meta-template. The Evil IP address (talk) 20:47, 24 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, but no objection if someone wants to recreate it as a redirect. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite reference (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Simply calls ((citation needed)) -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 13:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Not setup to pass the date parameter, and I don't think the bots are set up to recognize it. I updated this and don't think it is a useful redirect. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:18, 28 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 Speedy delete, the author most likely had a typo when keying in the citation template, then clicked on the red link and filled in the citation there. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite paper= (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hard coded citation; two uses; ambiguous name -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:35, 24 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 Userfy until more fully developed, but even then it's not clear that this is necessary, since Twitter is probably not a reliable source, and discouraged per WP:ELNO. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite tweet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

New; uses ((cite web)) as a meta-template with a hard-coded title -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - will eventually have its own guts, but I wanted something down and dirty to start off with. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• When you think it's complete and may be used for articles, then maybe we can use it. But for now, move to user subpage. Sorafune +1 00:31, 26 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) 16:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite web2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Cite web)) only difference I can spot is that the title is not in quotes -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:17, 24 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) 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ecuador NFT results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant. All the links redirect to links in the template Template:Seasons in Ecuadorian football. Digirami (talk) 20:04, 24 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) 15:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rarely used, and there's no point in using a template to track section links. We have a working bot that tells people on the talk page about incorrect links. I agree it would be great if MediaWiki could track this, but we shouldn't use complicated templates to get this feature. The Evil IP address (talk) 20:02, 24 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 Keep for usage with visuals which are not videos or episodes. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite visual (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((cite video)) -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is also being used to cite other, non-video visual works on several pages. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 22:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Example please. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few.

• 68-pounder 95 cwt
• St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao
• Underwater Archaeology Centre

There are more, but that's sufficient to prove my point. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first article cites Guns of the Crimean War— if it isn't a book, then I can't figure it. The second is a sign, the third a plaque— not strong sources. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The first one clearly states "Interpretation board". The third one is a plaque mounted on the wall of a museum relating information about its re-opening. The reliability of the sources isn't at issue here, the use of the template is. As it is, this template is in use and should not be deleted unless an appropriate replacement is available. Cite Video is not a suitable one. Ranger Steve (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this template is to allow the citation of information boards and signs in public places. It is not intended for the citation of videos / CDs / DVDs etc. Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 3 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 Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite web3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned; appears to be a test -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:43, 24 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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite your edits (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant; used on one article talk page -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose. Although not much used, it was intended to be used to help keep articles undergoing active improvement (as opposed to incidental improvement), on track and focused on adding material demonstrated to be verifiable by the inclusion of citation, a problem still seen all over the project. Instead of deletion, I think more use of the template would be a better outcome. I see it's placement at a banner topping a call for tightening up the factuality of an article as a reasonable, productive use of the template. Finally, the comment that it is 'redundant' seems random, because no template to which it is redundant is linked, and claiming that it's redundant to the core ideas is irrelevant because we are all aware that most new editors do not stop first to read all those, and article undergoing lots of revision and improvement in short periods often attract newer editors watching the recent changes. ThuranX (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This attempts to use an article talk page banner to fix a social issue. Someone who is not citing statements is not going to read or heed this message. The proper course is to tag or delete suspect entries, add welcomes to new user pages and discuss issues on user and article talk pages. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we have plenty of other maintenance and warning templates for dealing with these issues. This is simply redundant. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:51, 2 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 delete. JPG-GR (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite wolfram alpha (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Specific-source template that uses the Wolfram Alpha answer engine as a source; can't see how this could ever be considered a reliable source; two uses -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "not reliable"? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Unlike other search engines, Wolfram Alpha has a great deal of content built into its search function such as mathematical functions. While I think there are probable better ways to cite information, it's not unreliable in the slightest. A better argument for deletion would be that it may be considered a primary source but even then may still be used occasionally. OlYeller^Talktome 03:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a search engine, it is an answer engine. Where does it get the answers? What makes it reliable per WP:RS? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wolfram Alpha is a tertiary source, an knowledge aggregator that has a staff that vets its facts, like an encyclopedia or almanac. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation needs some explanation on how to obtain relevant answers. These are all articles I have worked on recently, and none get any meaningful return:

* ((Cite wolfram alpha|title=Arthur Eldred|input=Arthur+Eldred|accessdate=2010-05-30))
* ((Cite wolfram alpha|title=Arthur Rudolph|input=Arthur+Rudolph|accessdate=2010-05-30))
* ((Cite wolfram alpha|title=Pershing missile|input=Pershing+missile|accessdate=2010-05-30))
* ((Cite wolfram alpha|title=Boy Scouts of America|input=Boy+Scouts+of+America|accessdate=2010-05-30))

This actually gets a very short bio, but shows his real name as Green Bar Bill instead of William Hillcourt (which returns the London Stock Exchange quote for William Hill):

* ((Cite wolfram alpha|title=Green Bar Bill|input=Green+Bar+Bill|accessdate=2010-05-30))

It might be OK as a research tool, but not a source.---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was going to vote "keep" because I think that the Wolfram search engine is great, and that this template idea is excellent. It would make citing easier. Then I ran a search for New York City population, and checked the source information. Wikipedia is listed. Using this template could mean that Wikipedia is being cited. NYCRuss ☎ 13:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. This is an excellent search engine, and a great research tool for gathering sources, but it should not be used as a source, especially since Wikipedia is one of their sources. Using this would frequently lead to a circular citation network with no reliable sources. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As stated above, use it as a research tool, but due to the risk of circular citation of Wikipedia and possible presence of other non-reliable sources in their aggregation, I can't see how this would pass WP:RS. --RL0919 (talk) 01:48, 4 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 Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned; saves only a few characters if you use the pipe trick -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to ((C)) and ((Cl)). --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete badly named. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (author's request) – Chuck (talk) 14:11, 28 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 per author approval Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite-require-one-or-none (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cite-require-all (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cite-require-both-or-none (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, documentation does not explain what these are useful for. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke 'em. I created them several years ago when there were too many separate implementations of citation templates, and they've been rendered obsolete in the interim. RossPatterson (talk) 01:31, 25 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 Deleted by Dragons flight. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite book3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned; appears to be a test, if still needed then it should be moved to userspace -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:41, 24 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) 15:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template is linked from pages besides the talk page. However, it is used on only one page, Wikipedia:Haiku about Wikipedia policy. It's use in that one page could easily be replaced by a header notice. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 00:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Replace with ((notice)) ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:12, 2 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.