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. Magioladitis (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Eastern Washington (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by the |eastern-washington parameter of ((WikiProject Washington)) Admrboltz (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. – Allen4names 08:20, 16 January 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) 03:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AMAPro2004Header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2004HeaderFX (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2004Row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2004RowFX (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2005Header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2005HeaderFX (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2005Row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2005RowFX (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2006Header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2006HeaderFX (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2006Row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2006RowFX (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2007HeaderFX (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2007RowFX (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2010Header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:AMAPro2010Row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Set of templates for use on AMA Superbike Championship articles. The templates aren't actually used though. WOSlinker (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Unused "single-use templates" should be deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:05, 22 January 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. WP:NENAN covers cases like this one. Magioladitis (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The only template similar to this that is accepted that I'm aware of, according to WP:CFB standards, is starting quarterbacks for an FBS football school. This template seems like overkill and will set a bad precedent, as not all running backs at FBS schools are notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Per above rationale, compounded with WP:NENAN. Not only could this lead to the creation and maintenance nightmare of templates for RBs all across FBS (and FCS and NFL, etc), where would it stop? We'd have starting safeties, DBs, linemen, punters. The line is currently drawn at QBs and I see no need or rationale to open the box further. Fjbfour (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Maintenence nightmare" is reason enough for me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:20, 16 January 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) 03:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Not quite sure what this does but since it's not used could be deleted. Also nominating Curly & Bcurly as well since they are only used by AlternativeVersions. WOSlinker (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This smells like someone trying to use multiple versions of an article or page. This is disallowed for articles, very much frowned upon for userspace drafts (per WP:FAKEARTICLE), and such an index can be created on a per-use basis for other pages (this template is too specific). — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:05, 22 January 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) 03:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:College football Collaboration Notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CFCM article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not actively used since collaboration article hasn't changed since 2006. WOSlinker (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whoever tagged WP:CFCM as "inactive" was being kind. I would describe it as "failed" - it never got off to a proper start. Therefore, I support deletion of these associated templates, which are part of the failed collaboration. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:05, 22 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Metlink Display (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

At WT:TFD, Kleopatra (talk · contribs) said: "((Metlink Display)) is being used to post bus schedules (sources, destinations, routes, times of operations) on hundreds of wikipedia articles about Melbourne. The template includes externally linking every instance of every bus route in every article to the Metlink website. Essentially, it is being used to post Metlink's bus routes in wikipedia articles. The template is linked to half-a-dozen other templates that have hundreds of parameters in switches with external and internal links, some show up broken in articles." See also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_82#Publishing_public_transport_schedules_on_wikipedia. The user doesn't seem to have made the nomination that they were planning to, so I am doing this (it's kind of a procedural nomination). — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think Kleopatra's description above is rather disingenuous - the information being posted is hardly a transport timetable, but simply a reasonably easy to read link to the bus company's website. I had a look at some random transclusions of it and it seems to do the job fairly well. If there's problems with the linking, those who maintain the template should be contacted, but in 8 articles all of them appeared to go to the right destinations. I personally believe the template could be simplified, for the record. Orderinchaos 07:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Each line, in every article, for thousands of lines, externally links directly to the bus schedule on various bus lines' web sites--requiring that some 3-4 templates coordinate switches with 374 labels! including the one with the 374 labels to external websites for specific busroutes, external links that are not being maintained. "Disingenuous?" Thanks, but there's no simple way to describe how much unmaintained code and how many external links to direct bus schedules this template puts in wikipedia, and I think calling them bus schedules, the intention of the template being to externally link directly to specific bus tables for 374 routes, is not an attempt at fraud. Oh, with the exception that where the bus line has changed their link, a line of red text indicating the link is broken appears in the article instead of a link to the bus schedule. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is one I advised Kleopatra and others that I would put up for discussion next week after the holiday period, and I will do so, but not today. It is rather more complicated than just this template; more about the way bus routes are handled in articles, and I think that would be the best place to discuss in a couple of days (when I will start a discussion and advise those involved) But please wait until we all surface after New Year. (Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
• Comment [previously posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Melbourne] Regarding the templates, the aspects that appear unsatisfactory to me are the embedded external links, difficulty for editing, taking up too much space (a lot of white space on the right), rigidity in format discouraging integration with prose, and the distracting orange boxes. Having said that, I do believe that a detailed discussion of public transport serivices, including buses, should be included in suburb articles but in standard paragraph format with inline citations to reliable sources. Melburnian (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Wikipedia is not the Melbourne bus company An article describing the various routes with a single link to the bus company can be written instead of these multiple templates with 374 label switches with 374-maintenance-required external links that post thousands of external links in hundreds of wikipedia articles is more appropriate. Each article can list appropriate bus routes in paragraph form, as described well by Melburnian, above, then link externally to the bus company. It is not wikipedia's job to provide residents and tourists of Melbourne and surrounds with a directory of local transport. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, concur with Kleopatra. Rehman 08:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Kleopatra has removed relevant information on public transport information in over 150 Suburbs articles with the edit comment removed bus schedules, Wikipedia is not a directory, nor a bus line; feel free to add back list of lines or discussion without schedule. I can find no prior discussion of this matter before these edits occurred. Shouldn't this have been agreed to before all these changes were made? Kleopatra did not remove bus schedules, but removed an external link to a pubic transport method relevant to a particular suburb. Anyone who disagrees with his edit is told to feel free to add back list of lines or discussion without schedule. Why should I spend time fixing some other editors mistakes. If this deletion is not agreed to, I hope that Kleopatra will revert all his edits of the Metlink template. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 23:59, 14 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 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete still And response to Cuddy Wifter: these are 374 individual, non-maintained, external links to the individual bus schedule and route of each bus in the Melbourne area. I can't even argue against it, because there is no reason at all to think there is a place for this on wikipedia. You created a template that links to some 4 or 5 other templates and include no less than 3! switches with 374 labels each in order to post an individual external link to each individual bus schedule for each individual bus route in 100s and 100s of wikipedia articles. Really? No, that goes on the bus company web sites. --Kleopatra (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you for the compliment that "You created a template...". I consider template creation as a black art which is beyond my capabilities. In no way did I contribute to this template. I did however contribute to the Transport section in a number of Melbourne Suburbs articles which provides details of tram, train and bus services, and even Bike Trails where appropriate. It's a common section in Melbourne articles and I object to one editor removing part of those sections from multiple articles without discussion. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Since the community consensus is that wikipedia is not a directory, my actions are in support of the already established and discussed community consensus. If you want to change the existing policy, it's your job to do so by raising a discussion that results in gaining community consensus for the change. I don't need consensus or discussion to enforce the existing policy; it is the community consensus. That's why it's only the Melbourne articles that have these bus schedules. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:56, 20 January 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 Magioladitis (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CME Group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not very useful link. WOSlinker (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No conceivable reason for wanting this link in a template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:05, 22 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Tibetanvideoproject monasteries in Eastern Tibet documentation project (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Content not very template orientated. Looks more like an article. WOSlinker (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content in wrong namespace. As an article, it qualifies for WP:A10 as a dupe of Kumbum Monastery. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:05, 22 January 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 redirect. JPG-GR (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pull quote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Although designated as a pull quote template, there are no stylistic elements of a pull quote; redundant with ((quote box)); one use -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: quote box looks a lot better now. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((quote box)). — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:05, 22 January 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) 03:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mac OS X web browsers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No need to split up the browsers in operating systems. This template is redundant since Template:Web browsers include all. Also see discussion for Template:Mac OS X HTML editors that was removed a few days ago. mabdul 11:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No need for two navboxes that do virtually the same thing. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant. ((Web browsers)) already covers its function. Fleet Command (talk) 11:29, 20 January 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. WOSlinker (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RegioneIT (Cities and towns category) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Just add the category to pages (the template name is so long that you end up typing more than if you had just added the category manually.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:09, 15 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Regional Science High Schools (Philippines) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Superseded by ((Philippine Science High Schools)). I would T3 this, but I am not confident enough in this case. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:08, 15 January 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. WOSlinker (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Region MLA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unknown, old. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:06, 15 January 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. WOSlinker (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reflist/editprotected (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old sandbox subpage. Not worth keeping. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:20, 16 January 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. WOSlinker (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reenactment alliance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Purpose is very, very opaque. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I think this was intended as an infobox for higher-level reenactment groups, such as (I think) The Vikings NA, where the membership consists of smaller groups rather than directly of individuals. (To the extent that the Society for Creative Anachronism is a reenactment group -- which is very little -- it could also be included in this, and I think that American Revolutionary War Reenactment largely consists of two big umbrella groups like this.) But this is now included in Template:Reenactment group, so this template is not needed. cmadler (talk) 11:19, 15 January 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. WOSlinker (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redundant taxobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. Are redundant taxoboxes still in use? If so, this can stay around. But this is an old template, so it may have finished its job. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this referring to the old taxobox with ((Taxobox begin)) etcetera? If so, delete as no longer necessary. Ucucha 10:35, 15 January 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. WOSlinker (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redistribution box begin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. Purpose unclear. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:32, 15 January 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. Magioladitis (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redirect9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Seems a bit specialised, with little scope for use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indeed. Not used in article space, not documented. -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my notes (doc) below, the Delete stands even stronger: there is an alternative, it is only a shortcut in a very very specific situation (so you don't need type type the word "(disambiguation)" - great, if you remember the required situation well), and it behaves different from the ((redirect)) (~15500 uses in mainspace) sometimes. -DePiep (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Document and use it used to be documented... wonder why it was delisted? 65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Notes:

- Earlier TfD Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_3#Template:Redirect9.

- Added example to documentation.

- Essence: the templates adds "(disambiguation)" to pagename and 2nd pagename. Same effect can be reached by ((redirect)):

• ((redirect|RPAGE|TOPIC2|Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 15 (disambiguation)|and|RPAGE (disambiguation))) →
  "RPAGE" redirects here. For TOPIC2, see Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 15 (disambiguation) and RPAGE (disambiguation).
• ((redirect9|RPAGE|TOPIC2|PARAM3)) → ((redirect9|RPAGE|TOPIC2|PARAM3))

- Note the different behaviour re the bullet (bad difference).

Conclusion: it only adds the word "(disambiguation)" twice in a very specific situation (and behaves different sometimes). -DePiep (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just adds confusion. Unused. — sligocki (talk) 05:04, 20 January 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. Magioladitis (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redirect right box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Use the ((redirect)) family instead; no consensus for using this kind of template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Confuses Hatnote-guidelines and -text with box. Use ((redirect)). Unpropagate. -DePiep (talk) 16:08, 16 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recent death presumed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Something feels wrong about this template; is it somehow in violation of policy? — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Like Template:Recent death, just for cases when death is only presumed. Nothing fishy about that as long as there are sources for the presumed death. It isn't in use because there aren't that many recent (up to three days usually) presumed death of people who also happen to have a Wikipedia article. Debresser (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This template freaks me out. IF something is presumed we shouldn't add it in Wikipedia. Wikipedia should work with facts and not assumptions. I am in favor of deleting to discourage these phenomena. -- Magioladitis (talk)

If a presumption is duly sourced, not only may we have it, but if it is notable, we should have it. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What it actually does is help us keep to BL{P policy buy making clear that additional information is still needed. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 22 January 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 rejected - templates were not appropriately tagged. JPG-GR (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unlikely to be used. Mhiji 04:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. At present, articles only exist for the 2008 primaries. These should probably stay around until articles exist for the earlier primaries. But, on the other hand, they may not be useful for creating such articles. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:05, 22 January 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) 03:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-u1/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-u2/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-u3/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-t2/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-t3/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-r1/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-r2/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-r3/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-g1/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-g2/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-g3/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-g4/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-g5/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-g7/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-g8/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-g10/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-g11/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-g12/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-c1/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-c3/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-a1/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-a2/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-a5/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-a7/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer required. Redundant to ((db doc)) Mhiji 04:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all to the new documentation location. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. Thanks for tidying up, Mhiji. I've checked some of them, and as far as I can see you're right. I presume the purpose of redirecting rather than deleting would be to preserve the history for GFDL attribution. I waive the requirement for attribution for my own contributions; I have a template at the bottom of my userpage stating that my contributions are in the public domain. For many of these, there are just my edits, maybe some edits which were reverted, and the placing of the deletion template; those can be deleted. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Is GFDL attribution really an issue for template documentation pages? I'm tempted to delete the lot. If, however, GFDL attribution is deemed to be an issue, then delete some per Coppertwig. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:00, 23 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Realtime worlds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. 3 links. WP:NENAN. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:24, 15 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems to be a way to "pre-fill" e-book reader articles. Not used, not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:14, 15 January 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 rejected. Templates were not tagged. No prejudice toward future discussion. JPG-GR (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reactionbox Catalyst (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Reactionbox Name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. Simple enough to write the code instead of using this. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)))[reply]

• Those are not stand-alone templates, but both part of the template:Reactionbox - would consider a keep while the main box still exists, but since the main box never really gained traction, maybe the whole set should go. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:23, 17 January 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. Magioladitis (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Loyalist and Republican designated terrorist organisations in the UK and Ireland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to ((IRAs)) for Republican. No template required (WP:NENAN) for Loyalist organisations. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ~Asarlaí 12:22, 16 January 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, followed by move, as requested JPG-GR (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NBL player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete and replace with ((Infobox NBL Player)) which is similar and has more transclusions. Then rename back to ((Infobox NBL player)) to fix capitalisation. Magioladitis (talk) 03:43, 15 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems to be intended to display "medals per capita" for an Olympic country. I don't think this is encyclopedic information. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:15, 15 January 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. WOSlinker (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Purpose unclear. (However, it is probably not broken; it requires a "start=" parameter.) No reason why a numbered list (#) couldn't be used. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:14, 15 January 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. WOSlinker (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rays SBS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unknown purpose. Not used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:12, 15 January 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. WOSlinker (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Raleigh climatebox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Other, seemingly better, climate data exists at Raleigh, North Carolina. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment are climateboxes even supposed to be templates? 65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. We have plenty of other block templates which can cover this. This one doesn't specify the time frame for which a user is blocked - it would be better to use one of the other templates which do. Mhiji 02:25, 15 January 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. WOSlinker (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, no longer necessary. Mhiji 02:24, 15 January 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. WOSlinker (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Qibla map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 02:22, 15 January 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. WOSlinker (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

No longer used. Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 02:21, 15 January 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. Navbox with only 2 pages that re well-connected to each other Magioladitis (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NENAN. Enough said. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:08, 15 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rajasthan State Highways Network (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See of readlinks. Sea of redlinks. (In use on blue-linked articles.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unneeded. --Admrboltz (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—as unneeded. Imzadi 1979 → 00:59, 16 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:02, 15 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Railtour start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. Unnecessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is one of a group which start succession boxes, and the basic function is similar to ((Heritage rail start)) etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:16, 16 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not used. Unnecessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is another of a group which start succession boxes, and the basic function is similar to ((Rail start)) etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rail two line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's similar to ((Rail line two routes)) but without the coloured bars. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:22, 16 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rachel Corrie (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Essentially a concordance of links from the Rachel Corrie article. Not useful as a navbox. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:18, 15 January 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. WOSlinker (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Usage doubtful. It is better to tag each page individually for CSD G7, or ask a friendly admin to do the work specifically. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:15, 15 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RTA Red, Blue and Green Lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not useful - information exists in infobox at Blue and Green Lines (Cleveland) and Red Line (Cleveland). Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The templates already exist. Was this a failed effort to show how the Red Line connects to the Blue and Green Lines? ----DanTD (talk) 04:24, 17 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RREV-nolist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer necessary; belongs to a finished project; see notice at end of Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:54, 15 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RNoAF Squadron (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. It seems that very few Norwegian air force squadrons have articles (and those that do don't need this infobox). — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this seems a useful infobox. The more article that use it, the more editors will become aware of it. The infobox should be added to those articles which is is proper to. Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Couldn't the more general Template:Infobox military unit (as is used for RAF squadrons for example) be used instead?Nigel Ish (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Template:Infobox military unit is the standard infobox for military units so this is redundant Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Nick-D. Needs to be replaced in articles where it is used, however. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:42, 21 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RNA structure key (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. I can't see how this could possibly be used anywhere. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:51, 15 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused external link template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unused with a single external link. Rehman 12:59, 22 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:RIint/I (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:RIint/RI (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

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. Rehman 13:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RHI93Bracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. Purpose unclear. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Superseded by ((1993 RHI Murphy Cup bracket)). — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:46, 15 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Purpose unclear. Unused. 5 years old. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, old and good to go. Rehman 13:07, 22 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RFCNno violation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used by WP:RFCN. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:42, 15 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

No longer used by the WP:RFCN process. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:42, 15 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Purpose unclear. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:30, 15 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another one which would be subst'ed, but which I don't think is actually used. Most optional questions in RfA have a lowercase "q" on "question", and do not include "thanks for your time", leading me to think that this is in fact not used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:28, 15 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Purpose unclear. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:26, 15 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RBAG-nom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. This would presumably be subst'ed, but it is very hard to tell using full text searches whether subst'ing use actually occurs, because the text is almost identical to a similar RfA nomination template. No docs and in wrong category; it may be forgotten. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:24, 15 January 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:River City (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All links go to Brodie family. In use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't seem that useful IMO. Rehman 13:05, 22 January 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) 04:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. All links go to List of River City characters. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above. Andrewmc123 14:28, 15 January 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.