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. Garion96 (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BSu-anleitung (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, looks like it was copied from another wiki, as it has documentation in German -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused in article space; but this template is not intended for use there, but on documentation pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you forgot, the whole BSicon system was copied from German wikipedia ... or do you consider the name of ((BS-anleitung2)) to be English? As long as it is used anywhere ... keep! axp_de^Hello! 19:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - not sure why it was copied from German Wikipedia, as I can't understand any of it. As it is, only a template talk page links to the template, so it's orphaned. Airplaneman ✈ 05:15, 9 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) 19:37, 9 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 will userfy upon request. Given that the author is blocked, I don't foresee any immediate future use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DA1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused image attribution template (should have probably been in userspace anyway). WOSlinker (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:51, 10 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 I plan to recreate it to match its usage on commons, and per ((en)).  Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Useless, rarely used template PleaseStand ^(talk) 16:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its purpose [1] no longer applies, so it can be deleted.--Patrick (talk) 21:24, 9 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 Redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is redundant with ((oldid)) since that template can accept the same parameters as this one. Furthermore, it is not used on very many pages. PleaseStand ^(talk) 15:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If action is the same, and parameters are the same, redirect one to the other. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the other one, certainly a good name for an alias. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect seems like a good idea. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 14 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) 15:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPGEOBOT Logo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No obvious purpose for this little-used logo template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:34, 9 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 could be added to ((icon)) if there is an increased usage (or need). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Barnstar-icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

used only once on the author's usespace. subst and delete. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:31, 9 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 after replacing all uses with ((check mark)) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused; redundant to ((check mark)), but of course that's green, so keeping this as a redir would be silly anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with ((check mark)) by adding a color option. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment all the check-marks/ticks should be merged together with size and color parameters. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is a colour parameter actually needed here? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:39, 10 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. Garion96 (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:All-services (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in one article; seemingly redundant to article prose. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and document seems like a good thing to add to infobox settlement as a summary of info in the article. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it isn't a "summary"; it's just a static image, used on one page to note that four sets of service information are available. Were it to be added to an infobox the code and presentation would be fundamentally different. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a graphic summary of information which should be in prose form in the article; it symbolizes information in a quickly digestible format. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I rather think that it implies this functionality, but it's presently just a static image with an optional town name label. There's no scope for using this code (or that image) to add functionality to an existing template. As such, it's not something which needs to be kept around in templatespace waiting for an angel editor to completely overhaul it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete use redundant to article prose and purely decorative. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The existence of this template implies that there are other community articles being tagged with similar images. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:18, 21 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) 21:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Little-used icon embellishment. If really required, can be substituted for a simple asterisk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (as the template's creator). It was a half-assed interim solution to begin with; it really is useless by now.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 17, 2010; 14:25 (UTC)

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 after replacing all uses with ((check mark)) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Red tick (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant to ((tick)). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (changed to Merge: excellent idea !)- In truth, it is used out of ns0 in this sandbox. Its use means "item present, but non fully WP:MOS compliant". --EH101 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's only used in a userspace sandbox then it should be moved to userspace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into ((tick)), with a color option. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment all the check-marks/ticks should be merged together with size and color parameters. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Why? Are we running out of templatespace or something? –xeno^talk 16:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having multiple templates which differ only slightly in functionality from one another is confusing and makes it harder to make bulk adjustments to template code in future. This is why we prefer people to add options to templates rather than forking them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:18, 20 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) 21:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seldom-used image transclusion template which doesn't seem to be used on any pages covered by the documentation purpose. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redundant with the talkpage template ((Slipknot Project)), which is where this kind of template should reside (on the talk page of the article that received project attention, not the article which links to an article which has received attention) 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:02, 10 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 Restrict usage to outside of article space. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thumbs up (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Thumbs down (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seldom-used embellishment. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (chamged to Move) - Same of above. Looking in this sandbox we can see their use for situation report tables. These template are not ns0 ones for sure, but could help for maintenance page, by helping to figure it up how a topic is covered --EH101 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If people want to invent their own symbol sets for use on userspace then so be it, but the templates required need not live in templatespace for such limited use. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was not the autor of the templates, I just used them finding them around. The moving to user space option is absolutely reasonable for me too. Restriction against misuse, i.e. main namespace, is useful too.--EH101 (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment not for article space use, so Icon-decoration doesn't apply. Someone should restrict it so it does not work in articlespace. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving it to userspace would be acceptable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not intended for use in articles, and actual use reflects that. It probably would be a good idea to add some namespace-checking code just to be safe, but there's no good reason to delete. --RL0919 (talk) 16:48, 11 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 Restrict to usage outside of article space, and the same applies to ((No mark)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yes check (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:No mark (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

per MOS:ICONDECORATION, the tick here is superfluous. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment not for article space use, so Icon-decoration doesn't apply. Someone should restrict it so it does not work in articlespace. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:04, 10 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) 21:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FA-star (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FFA-icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FAC-icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FFAC-icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FL-star (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FFL-icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FLC-icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FFLC-icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:GA-icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:GAR-icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:DYK-icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:DYK-icon2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These really all fall under T3 as hard-coded instances of ((icon)), and should all be subclassed there. The documentation even says as much, so I don't really know why this hasn't happened yet. Note that TfD notices haven't been added to any of the transclusions as they're all fully protected. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only two of them are protected. I've added Tfd notices to all of those and for the two protected ones, I've added the notice on the doc page. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Most of these are unused outside of their own documentation. The ones that are used should be replaced with the appropriate instance of ((Icon)) prior to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all; replace all instances (other than the doc) with ((icon)).

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 ((Expand section)) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template creates a little clock icon which is supposed to represent a page section (usually empty in present use) being "work in progress". The problem is that this isn't meant to be short-term like ((under construction)), so they end up staying around for a long time (think "under construction" GIFs on old GeoCities pages). There's no precise analogue in the existing cleanup templates, but I don't think one is really needed here; the template can be deleted and then people can choose to work on the marked areas or not as they see fit. The whole project is a work in progress, after all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add to the bot work list, so that it is removed the same as ((under construction)), and rebuild to look like a section template. (ie, the small box, like ((expand section)) ) 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - could we just redirect it to Template:Expand section? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:05, 18 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) 15:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:(1) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:(2) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:(3) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per MOS:ICONDECORATION, these embellished numbers are unnecessary and should just be replaced with the number in parentheses. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restrict to non-article-space use only. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These see almost no use (a handful of transclusions in portalspace) outside articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not appropriate for use on content pages (article or portal), per MOS:ICONDECORATION. The few uses elsewhere can be substituted. --RL0919 (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, rightfully unused (well, virtually) and no real reason to hold onto them.  f o x  08:14, 18 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) 21:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Redundant to ((British American Football)), which is more comprehensive and carried on more of the articles that ((BUAFL)) lists. Any article that carries ((BUAFL)) currently also carries ((British American Football))
2. This template is for British University American Football teams. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durham Saints, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh Predators, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swansea Titans, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essex Blades (American football), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEA Pirates and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NTU Renegades, most of the articles on this template are probably un-notable anyway. With a small number of exceptions (say perhaps 10 or so) British University sports teams are not notable. The ones that are being pretty much isolated to mainstream British sports such as soccer, cricket and rowing (American Football is extremely niche interest in the UK).Pit-yacker (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant to ((British American Football)). The fact that few if any of the entries are notable is significant, but ultimately it's up to AFD to deal with those. Pfainuk talk 17:19, 12 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.