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) 23:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only links to one album and one song; along with two past bands that Waite was apart of. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 20:24, 10 February 2011 (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) 23:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OHHouse1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:OHHouse99 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:OHSenate1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:OHSen33 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm listing this template, along with the 104 others in the Ohio House of Representatives members navigational boxes category for deletion. Pretty much all of them have been created and solely edited by OSUHEY (talk · contribs), who is blocked for repeatedly socking, and his socks. I suppose they could all be taken by CSD G5, but I wanted to list it here first and get some consensus. It seems to me that the templates are entirely too heavy. We don't have templates for lists of people who have served in US congressional districts on a per district base; rather we have congressional district articles and lists in them, and we use the ((USRepSuccessionBox)) template. So really then, having a separate template for each district and including it on the page of each person who served seems to be going a bit far. If I'm off-base with this then let me know, but I just don't see a need for these templates. (As a side note, I'm not going to list all 105 templates here, but I'm listing a few as a representation.) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, HelloAnnyong's points about congressional districts make sense. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I do not disagree with the other comments, but having the "OHHouse1" template on my watchlist, it does serve quite well as a "sockpuppet detector". WuhWuzDat 08:01, 17 February 2011 (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) 23:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redirect-otherplaces (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hatnote. Resulting text already fully covered by ((other places)) and ((other places3)). DePiep (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2011 (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) 23:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gryffindor infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. This is a ghastly-looking template. It rather curiously states that it is an "archive of the [above] debate". Not sure what it's for, anyway. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2011 (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) 23:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Purpose unclear. Looks unnecessary. The creator added "fds" at the end for no apparent reason, suggesting this is more of a test than anything else. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2011 (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) 23:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Grand Rapids Rampage roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Roster of a defunct football team. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2011 (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) 23:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greek myth (aquatic titan) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be superseded by ((Greek mythology (deities))). — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2011 (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 request. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greek love (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another <anything>-box. Unused. Unneeded. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Why not. If it has no use then go for it.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2011 (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) 23:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Not a template, but a category link. Just write the link instead of using this template which is not even an infobox. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The template used to be used, but the TC project is much better now with organization and handling thingies. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might I also suggest deleting Template:Infobox typhoon season nopic, as that has similarly been deprecated. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2011 (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 request. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox domus (Roman house) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another one of these fun <anything>-boxes. Unused, zero scope for use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As the originator of this box, I can tell you it was used as a temperory infobox until the proper box could be located. If there is a good reason to object to it's use. I say toss it out.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2011 (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) 23:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox food festival (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Too specific. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's actually impossible to use, the way it is currently written. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2011 (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) 23:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox locomotive builder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Purpose unclear. If used, if would need to be fixed, but I really can't see it coming into use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2011 (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) 23:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox merged sports league (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. Seems unnecessary. Probably superseded, but I don't know enough about American football to know where to look. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2011 (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) 23:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox region GR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Superseded by ((Infobox Peri GR)) and ((Infobox Pref GR)). — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2011 (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) 23:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox taxi spacecraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. There is no article about taxi spacecraft, leading me to think this couldn't have any use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was intended to be used on the many articles (like Soyuz TM-8), which are about the individual one-time-use spacecraft which take astronauts to and from space stations. It was intended to replace the current infobox ((Infobox space mission)). It's unused now because there is an effort going into expanding ((Infobox spacecraft)) for all spacecraft articles. There's no article on "Taxi spacecraft", because all such spacecraft so far were either Soyuz (spacecraft) or the Space Shuttle. Maybe I should have called the template "Infobox Soyuz spacecraft". Mlm42 (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2011 (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 per user request to User:Xyz7890/Infobox tefilla. Redirect deleted per G7, G6 and T3 (!). Thanks. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox tefilla (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. This looks like an infobox for use on articles about different Jewish prayers. But it seems to be broken. If it is decided that such an infobox is needed, it should probably be redone from scratch, rather than using this non-standard one as a basis. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy per creator's request (G7). I haven't had time to work on it, and I want to at a later date. Xyz7890 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2011 (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) 23:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Details4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used once, probably could be replaced with ((details)) WOSlinker (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Indeed can be replaced by ((details)), see example on template:details/doc. -DePiep (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2011 (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. Original author agrees with delete. WOSlinker (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main outline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused hatnote template. WOSlinker (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused for a reason: auto title construct by PAGENAME, how cumbersome. ((Main)) does the job. -DePiep (talk) 10:20, 10 February
• Delete - Unused for eons. I don't even remember what it was for. The Transhumanist 18:33, 10 February 2011 (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) 23:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

For the one place were it is used, could be replaced with ((see also)) WOSlinker (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no such thing as a "main disambiguation page". -DePiep (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2011 (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) 00:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

For the three places where it is used, could be replaced with ((for|discussions about this topic|ONE)) WOSlinker (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom, and no need for each textual variant having a template. The /doc says: "experimantal stage" (since 2007). -DePiep (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2011 (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) 00:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old, unused, abandoned, apparently personal template. Unnecessary - no consensus for use of this kind of template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unstandardised template; no consensus for it. --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 01:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm saying this not just because absolutely nothing at all links to this template, but simply because there are so many other more specific templates that could be used instead of this one that such a general template just removes specificity. For example, if the factual accuracy of an article is currently being discussed, instead of this general 'MoreTalk' template, we could use ((Disputed)), which is far more specific. Think about this: if a visitor comes to a page and sees the 'MoreTalk' template, they might think it has something to do with the consistency of sources throughout the article or a whole host of other issues and just keep reading. If they see the ((Disputed)) tag, for example, they'll know exactly what the problem is and be able to act accordingly. Arctic Night 02:52, 10 February 2011 (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) 00:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mos3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mos2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mos0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by ((uw-mos2)) (or another level of that "uw-" set). ((Mos4)) was deleted in 2006. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete deprecated, unstandardised user warning template. --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 01:03, 10 February 2011 (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) 00:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Monarchs of the United Kingdom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Superseded by ((English, Scottish and British monarchs)). — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There's only one author here really. Is this another? Nightw 12:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:10, 10 February 2011 (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) 00:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Unnecessary - just apply the individual licenses with maybe a manually-written notice above them. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:10, 10 February 2011 (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. While well intentioned, it appears that it has not caught on. If you feel strongly about having this as a part of standard procedure, I am happy to userfy it so a thread can be started at WP:VPP or a related page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vandalism watch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Used only 10 times over the past five years. I don't know why a log of the IP's vandalism needs to be maintained - this is a case of WP:DENY, I think. And besides, vandalising IPs should be blocked. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know where you got your statistics from but they are not correct. I personally used this dozens of times in 2006 and 2007. Note: I'm not saying it's still used - I stopped after a few years and don't know if anyone else ever used it much. I'm just saying that your statement of 10 uses in 5 years can not be correct. Perhaps your statistic is skewed by the fact that this can only be used in substitution mode?
  As to the purpose of the template, I think you misunderstand. The intent is not to create a log of the vandalism but to make it easier for other good editors to know how much of a potential vandal's history has already been evaluated. Merely blocking a vandalizing IP doesn't solve the problem - blocks run out. ... Hmmm, that explanation was as clear as mud. Let me try to explain by example. An anon editor vandalizes a page on my watchlist. Being a good editor, I check the anon's contribution history for other vandalism. Finding a pattern, I revert the vandalism, warning and maybe even blocking the anon as I go. Months later (after any theoretical block has run out), you see vandalism on a page on your watchlist. You start checking the contribution history and reverting the vandalism. As you work backward, you notice that some but not all has been fixed but eventually you get to the range of contributions that I already reviewed and fixed. How far into that list do you want to keep duplicating work that's already been done? Wouldn't it be nice if there were some kind of flag that says "stop here" - that all the older edits have already been checked? This template was an attempt to fill that need - to record the work that I (and now you) have done so future anti-vandalism patrollers can be more efficient with their time.
  Having explained the intent, I am not going to try to defend it. As I said, it was an experiment that never seemed to catch on. Its use also flies in the face of a wiki-principle held by many editors that users, even anon users, "own" their Talk page and can be blanked. Personally, I do not believe that accounts with a history of vandalism should be granted that leeway but others do and the templates and patterns of warnings such as this get wiped when a vandal claims to have rehabilitated him/herself. Rossami (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My statistics were from this full-text search using a unique phrase from the template. Only ten substitutions turn up, as well as two other results. The subject of maintaining IP user talk pages is somewhat foreign to me. I believe they should not be permitted to blank them, but some editors may have good reasons for giving them this option. My concerns here were that the template is not as harsh as the "uw-" templates, it may (in some vandals' views) glorify their vandalism (which is what WP:DENY seeks to avoid), editors may not bother to update the log as they review contributions, and (as you mention) it has not gained widespread acceptance (which is possibly quite unfortunate, but still a true statement of fact). — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. Rather a lot of them must have been wiped over time.
      Personally, I feel the UW-series of templates do more to violate WP:DENY than this log did since the UW templates document the specific pages which were vandalized. The log merely showed the range of pages checked with the pages not necessarily being either good or bad edits. This was intended to complement the template warnings, not to compete with them. I still think the project needs something like this. Rossami (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:10, 10 February 2011 (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) 00:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Euronext 100 companies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Superseded by list at Euronext 100. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:10, 10 February 2011 (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) 00:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Single-use templates. No scope for further use. Should be substituted in the one article that they are used in and then deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:10, 10 February 2011 (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 It was a mistake on my part to relist this again as there are 2 good arguments on the keep side. (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 03:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_26#Template:2_and_Template:3. The consensus there was to delete these templates (which displayed superscripted numbers), so if a parameter (({2))} was mistyped ((2))} a redlink would appear instead of the small number. No mention was made there of this template. I am wanting to establish consensus on whether either Template:1 through Template:5 should all exist as similar error messages, or whether Template:4 should be deleted and salted like the others. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I actually find this template quite useful. It has helped me numerous times when I was programming templates. I think we should do the same for the rest of the single digits as well. This comes up quite a bit in football articles as well, where editors who don't understand the template ((0)), think that you should change the "0" to another number to change the number of goals scored by the player. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as further anecdotal evidence that this template is working as intended, the last dozen times I went through and cleaned up transclusions of digits 1 to 20, this one had zero transclusions, unlike the many of the others. I do this about once every three to four weeks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and salt, since it engenders confusion with parameters. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is kept, it needs to be renamed.... say to ((sup4)) . 65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you even click on the template to see what it does? Renaming it to "sup4" would be entirely pointless. The entire purpose of this template in its current form is to warn you that you shouldn't be using it. It is doing the trick, since no one is using it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand the range to ((1))..((9))! Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Sporkify per Railwayfan. Rich Farmbrough, 01:01, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  
• What about ((8))? 134.253.26.10 (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as example for redoing Template:1 to 9 as similar: I am glad this TfD arrived, so more people can consider and discuss the issue of debugging templates with mismatched braces on parameter (({4))} and other numbered parameters. Numbered parameters are often passed as:
       • ...|(({1))}|(({2))}|(({3))}|(({4))|(({5))}|(({6))}...
  Hence, note how parameter 4, in the list above, has mismatched end-braces, with only 2, as "(({4))" which would invoke Template:4 before invoking the template using those 6 numbered parameters. Unless Template:4 explains the error, some people might (or have) created Template:4 as the next step in trying to debug why parameter 4 is not being passed as expected. I agree with Plastikspork that this template should be kept, and used as the basis for Template:1 to perhaps Template:9 as helping to debug insideous mismatched braces in templates and footballer (soccer) scores in the 34,000(?) footballer articles. Also, we could have the template show a note about ((0)) in footballer scores, as not having "{4}" to mean 4 scored goals, but that should be discussed further at Template_talk:4, not here. Also: Discuss renaming ((0)) as "((z))" at the Template_talk:0 talk-page. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2011, revised 12:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, about footballer scores: In footballer scores, some people have put "((0))0 ((4))(0)" for "((0))4 ((0))(0)" because use of Template:0 caused confusion of 4 "0" in zero scores: ((0))0 ((0))(0), unsure which "0" should be "4" to get the output "4(0)". With 34,000 footballer articles to update, people have been editing quickly, and perhaps not seeing an invalid red "Template:2" but the message for invalid "4" is larger and gets attention to be corrected. Long term, I advocate using "((z))" as the new name (redirect) for "((0))" so people can easily see where to insert score "4" when changing "((z))0 ((z))(0)" into "((z))4 ((z))(0)" to display: 4(0). It was unwise to name a template "((0))" to be used near millions of instances of count "(0)". -Wikid77 14:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 05:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with nom this helps catch newbie mistakes and typos. Also agree that ((1)), ((2)), ..., ((9)) should be like this. --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 01:07, 10 February 2011 (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.