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) 05:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Johnny Colt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inappropriate use of navbox. None of these are Johnny Colt albums, but rather Black Crowes or Train albums which already have sufficient navboxen of their own. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TPH. Unnecessary duplication of the Black Crowes and Train templates, with no solo links at all. 28bytes (talk) 21:47, 7 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) 01:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Wikiportal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All the portal links point to the old places. Since no-one has updated it, there doesn't seem much point in keeping it as obviously it is not needed. WOSlinker (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with the points brought up by the nominator; more than half the links are dead, and none of the portals still exist. This template hasn't been updated in years, and keeping it around is pointless. Epass (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment perhaps it should be converted into a banner template for WikiProject Portals .. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's already ((browsebar)) and other template which do this job. We don't need another. Mhiji 14:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • replace with ((WPBANNERMETA)) for WikiProject Portal ? 184.144.161.119 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we already have categories and hierarchies of WikiProject pages for this sort of thing. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 16:43, 13 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) 05:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Created in 2005 but there has never been set to any article for the Collaboration of the Month. If not deleted then could be substuted on the one page it is on. WOSlinker (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless. In fact, the ECOTM portal subpage could also be scrapped. I might do that. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:59, 9 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 withdrawn due to incorrect venue selection. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User TwinkleOn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The main thrust of this box was a graphic showing the Twinkle man urinating on a stick figure. As the Twinkle man's body was clearly a derivative work of the non-free "Calvin urinating on [whatever]" graphic, the graphic had to be speedily deleted. Without the graphic, this template makes no sense, and honestly, this is a little bit beyond my comfort zone, because (A) I don't think that we should really equate "Twinkle" with "urination", and (B) urinating on vandals? Seems a little childish. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Userboxes should be listed at MfD (see WP:Templates_for_discussion/Header#What_not_to_propose_for_discussion_here). Mhiji 20:13, 6 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) 01:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Central America topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Nearly all red links Mhiji 16:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as too broad, and too few links. I could see a place for a "Central America Geography" template, but not this one. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 16:42, 13 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) 05:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox battles of the Palatinate campaign (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Duplication of Template:Campaignbox Palatinate campaign Mhiji 16:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per T3 --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:49, 7 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airlines of Mauritania (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless navbox Mhiji 16:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete... obviously useless with only one airline on the country. —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- unlikely there will ever be enough entries to merit a template. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep There are more airlines, let me try and write some more articles. [1] Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 16:36, 13 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) 04:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colombian Primera A seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Colombian Primera A Mhiji 16:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused. You're saying the template is redundant to itself? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Mhiji meant Template:Colombian Primera A. I have fixed the nom. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies. Thanks, yeah that is what I meant. Mhiji 14:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant. Almost T3 material. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:46, 9 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) 01:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Combined HTML background and text color names (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 16:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The three 'U's - unused, unnecessary, and useless - just about sum it up. It could almost be a CSD... "Pointless orphaned templates". (I don't think it would be accepted, unfortunately.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per T3, as a duplicate of Template:Combined. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 16:35, 13 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) 05:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unused. Redundant to Template:Commission on Elections (Philippines) Mhiji 16:06, 6 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, comic categories use ((Year by category))  Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Redundant to ((Year by category)). Mhiji 16:03, 6 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) 00:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commercial mollusc topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Blanked in November 2009. Unused since Mhiji 16:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No content. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I created this template. It has been superseded by Template:Commercial fish topics, which combined a number of templates. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:53, 10 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) 05:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CommonsSpeaker20thC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Speaker of the British House of Commons Mhiji 16:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly now redundant. Jdhowens90 (talk) 15:27, 11 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) 05:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CommonsSpeaker21stC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Speaker of the British House of Commons Mhiji 15:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly now redundant. Jdhowens90 (talk) 15:27, 11 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) 05:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Community enforced administrator recall (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used. Mhiji 15:55, 6 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 userfy Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Communist Albania derby (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 15:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needed in future keep for usage later --Vinie007 18:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What later usage? How about userfying it in the meantime? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy if it's being kept for possible use in the future. Mhiji 15:50, 11 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. Mhiji 04:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comparison of Apple Inc. logos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. Apple_Inc.#Logos exists. Mhiji 15:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not unnecessary. Mono (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as now used. Mhiji 04:27, 7 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) 04:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comparative military ranks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Blanked in June 2009. Unused since Mhiji 15:52, 6 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) 00:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Company Information (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 15:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems to be something that could be replaced by ((infobox company)). I can't tell however, as the code is in Japanese (possibly Chinese, I don't really know enough to differentiate between the two scripts). Either way, it's unused and unusable. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Not English, it is Japanese and codes for Japanese category names. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Template code should be in English I guess we already have enough company related templates. De728631 (talk) 22:50, 11 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) 04:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 15:50, 6 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 Speedy delete. Mhiji 02:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 15:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per G2. Seems to be a test page. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:34, 9 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) 04:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Computer info (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary Mhiji 15:48, 6 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) 04:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 15:47, 6 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) 04:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Conduit series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Conduit Series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navboxes. Only links 2 articles Mhiji 15:45, 6 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, with some history merged. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary Mhiji 13:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused, and don't see any use. Rehman 15:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and navboxify; could be useful to include in linked articles. —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we already have Template:Rubidium compounds which links them all. Mhiji 04:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge history if possible, otherwise delete. The template is obviously superseded by Template: Rubidium compounds. I created this template in 2005. --Deryck C. 14:11, 9 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 ((MBTA two lines style)), but delete the rest. If the appearance of ((MBTA infobox header)) is not acceptable, or if ((MBTA two lines style)) is now redundant, a new discussion can be opened at Template talk:MBTA infobox header or here. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MBTA two lines style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Back Bay name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Boylston name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Chinatown name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Downtown Crossing name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Forest Hills name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Government Center name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Haymarket name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Malden Center name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Park Street name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Porter name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ruggles name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:State name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tufts Medical Center name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

IMO, it looks unnecessary, redundant and unprofessional to have the infobox header, listing the article's subject, multiple times. For example, when these templates are currently transcluded on Downtown Crossing (MBTA station), the "Downtown Crossing" infobox header appears three times in a row in three different colors.[2] If you want to have the infobox header indicate that a rail or train station serves multiple lines, a better solution is to have color boxes or symbols instead, like 14th Street – Union Square (New York City Subway) or 7th Street / Metro Center (Los Angeles Metro station). Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I encourage you to view the discussion at User_talk:Gfoley4 on this issue. Bottom line, is that like the systems you reference, these templates follow system signing conventions. The MBTA doesn't use symbols and actually duplicated the signage for each line at a station. I understand your concerns about this and encourge you to work with those discussing this issue at his talk page, before moving to delete these templates. --Enfiladekh1 (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Replace with ((MBTA infobox header)). Unlike those for which you provide examples for, the MBTA uses color as opposed to numbers and symbols to denote its lines. I too took part in the discussion that Enfiladekh1 refers to and agree with him. Please see this image for what we are replicating. Grk1011 (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC) I changed my preferred choice to redirect as this one template can take the place of the multiple templates. Grk1011 (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace - One name should be added to all colors bars in each template, and for the record, Enfiladekh1 and Grk1011 are 100% correct about MBTA's color schemes. I may originate from the New York City Metropolitan Area, but that doesn't mean articles about other commuter railroad and transit systems look like thise in NYC, when they don't in real life. ----DanTD (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify DanTD, are supporting the current template or do you prefer something more like this User:Enfiladekh1/sandbox/templatetest. Personally, I think this would work as well, not giving one line precedence over the other, still looking like a MBTA sign, and less cluttered. If we can get some consensus, I'm happy to help implement this template instead.--Enfiladekh1 (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither. What I'm supporting is something closer to the original plan, which includes User:Gfoley4/Sandbox 2. I wish I could find the previous version with single text going through more colors, but I can't. ----DanTD (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My problem with that plan was simply that signs don't look like that. Also, there would be issues where a station with more than one line does not have a name that could span both colors. Grk1011 (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace - There is no need for so many templates. One template with 3 parameters, title, color1 & color2 would work for all those instead. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This would be a great idea if someone could whip one up. Grk1011 (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, see ((MBTA infobox header)). -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks great! Thanks. Grk1011 (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Regardless of the convention at subway stations (I live in Boston myself), this is ugly and unprofessional-looking. We can do better than repeating a station name in ginormous capital letters. It looks like it's yelling at the reader. We don't have to mimic subway signage exactly. Let's come up with something better. (But yes, delete - having nothing is better than having this.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that using these types of headers looks great at a single line stations. The only station that looks truly weird is downtown crossing (and to some here, the two line stations). Regardless of whether you like the way the MBTA signage looks, this is how they do it. Articles from the NYC Subway, to Netro North, the LA Metro, etc, try to emulate their system's "look". BUT, I think, to propose another idea, (if possible, I'm not sure how to do it,) we could split a one "line" header into two or three color columns with the name of the station across all three rows. So it only lists the name once, gives the transit lines equal "weight" and doesn't take up two much space. Thoughts? --Enfiladekh1 (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hence my call for a single station name going through all the colors, as was originally planned. ----DanTD (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace with ((MBTA infobox header)) That template is much simpilar and it still will show the names as they appear on signs. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 16:41, 12 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) 03:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atlantis The Lost Empire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Small template with only 3 articles: the main film, its sequel and a fictional element. WP:NENAN. --LoЯd ۞pεth 03:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. Rehman 15:15, 6 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) 03:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Animal mass death (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template linking two articles that probably both fail notability. I removed a third link because the material relevant to the template was removed from that article. As such, it doesn't navigate any better than a single wikilink in each article would, and falsely implies that there is some connection between these events that makes them a single topic. There isn't any need for this. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I personally think the linked articles are notable, but on the other hand, this template has only a few links, so delete. Rehman 15:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's a reason to have this template: 2010 - 2011 Midwinter animal mass death events. Even though these events aren't necessarily related, they are noted by the international media as a continuing phenomena, sometimes called as the aflockalypse. The semantic name of the article might change in the future, and this template would be a good additional link between this event to other similar events which do not have generally accepted names. Probios (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The articles themselves are notable, but the placement, name, and idea of a template like this is not. "Animal mass death" sounds like extremely broken English and inandofitself looks bad. Placing the template at the top of the page is just plain wrong and a template for two or three articles would be better suited as a template. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NENAN Regardless of whether the articles are notable, we don't need a navbox with 2 links in it. And it's subjective too, what is a mass death? It's not helpful either, how does a reader benefit from being linked to from one page to the other? Mhiji 23:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not everything needs a navbox. Also, inclusion is subjective, and the two things are very narrow in the whole universe of large amounts of animals dying. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:27, 10 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 no consensus, feel free to renominate after technical issues have been resolved. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxonomy/Lipotyphla (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxonomy/Insectivora (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxonomy/Dictyoptera (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template is deprecated, yes. What's the best method for displaying the data shown on this page? The idea is to prevent accidental recreation, provide a system for checking for links to the template, and direct the client to the appropriate template. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a 1-to-1 replacement without a change in field names, then a redirect is really all that is needed. And it the old name was widely used for a good chunk of time, keeping the redirect would be a very good idea. If the old template was split into multiple new ones... Best idea I've got is to pick one to serve as a redirect target and use #switch to sort the "wrong" ones into tracking categories for clean up. That is assuming that there is a field that would have a unique value/set of values for each of the "new" templates. - J Greb (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's a template that's highly likely to be used again. See, the ((automatic taxobox)) uses a large number of templates beginning with Template:Taxonomy/, and the ones presented here are some that have been used before, and likely will be referenced again. The three presented here all represent taxa which have been tossed by the wayside and split up into multiple unrelated taxa, so the message serves as a sort of disambiguation to point to the two likely needed candidates in this case. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned before that the template is deprecated-- it's not really deprecated in the same sense as most deprecated templates-- it serves as a disambiguation page for a highly complex template that is extremely likely to call upon it if a client types an outdated taxon name. Hope that makes a little sense. If it doesn't, consider this example. Let's say I want to create an automatic taxobox for some hypothetical taxon called "Test-30". I'd do so by typing this:

((automatic taxobox
|taxon = Test-30
))

Now, if the parent I set for Test-30 when I create the Template:Taxonomy/Test-30 is set to a deprecated taxon, such as "Lipotyphla", here's what happens. Ugly, yes, but the orange box in the middle tells exactly what went wrong.

I see there's an error when I set up this taxobox, so by navigating to the template's page, I can see that I need to work out for myself (by doing some research) whether Test-30 actually belongs to Erinaceaeomorpha or to Soricidae. I've set up Test-29 to reflect a proper taxonomy with Soricidae as the parent taxon instead of Lipotyphla. Here's a properly-constructed taxobox.

Does that make any sense? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my first demo (test-30) was mislinked. It should be fixed. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:23, 9 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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deprecated taxon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not deprecated. It's regularly subst'd onto newly deprecated pages in the Template:Taxonomy/ realm. It should always be subst'd in order to get the date to display correctly. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see no evidence that this deprecation template is itself deprecated. Are you confusing a template that deprecates something else as being itself deprecated by reason of it having text saying "deprecated"? 64.229.103.44 (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment doesn't this duplicates the functionality of ((Tdeprecated))? If a date timestamp is needed, then a dated version of Tdeprecated should be created. 64.229.103.44 (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  To an extent, but it adds functionality such as checking for orphan taxa and eliminating the need to type out the long version of the template names, as well as being careful to place the deprecated taxon templates into a deprecated taxa category instead of a deprecated template category, allowing them to be more easily maintained by the ((automatic taxobox)) support team. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:41, 6 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) 02:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Extreamly small template, unlikely to be expanded, inclusion of tangential or tenuipusly linked articles, and dubiously include real people based on similarly themed projects. J Greb (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Consists of random links. But note that the template is currently in use... Rehman 15:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Rehman. --LoЯd ۞pεth 03:45, 9 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) 02:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rugby League International Competitions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:International Rugby League Mhiji 02:34, 6 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) 02:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rugby League Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:NRL Rugby League Series Mhiji 02:33, 6 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) 19:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. A user's signature. Delete or userfy. Mhiji 02:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. Userfication is unnecessary per transclusion/substitution issues at WP:SIGN. Rehman 15:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. User seems to have gone. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We don't need user-specific templates. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:27, 9 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) 02:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unused. Redundant to Template:RoySoc Mhiji 02:30, 6 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) 02:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Romanian cable, satellite and IPTV providers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:CATV Europe Mhiji 02:27, 6 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) 02:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Delete or userfy. Shouldn't be in template space Mhiji 02:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as unused. Rehman 15:22, 6 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) 02:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rinkai Main Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. All red links Mhiji 02:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not only has this template been largely unused for nearly four years, but it is also extremely unlikely that the red-link articles in it will ever be created, since minor freight terminals like these are rarely sufficiently notable to justify self-standing articles. --DAJF (talk) 05:18, 6 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, redundant to ((Userboxtop)) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Mhiji 02:22, 6 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) 02:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Richard Lederer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless navbox. All red links Mhiji 02:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: too few links, plus WP:NENAN. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:29, 9 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) 02:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Richard Barone (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. Pretty useless Mhiji 02:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All the info in the box should be covered in the main article. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:30, 9 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Redundant to Template:Perissodactyla Mhiji 02:20, 6 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) 02:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Revolutions of 1989 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless. Mhiji 02:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. Rehman 15:22, 6 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) 02:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pointless navbox! Mhiji 02:18, 6 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) 02:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Retired Lords of Appeal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Lords_of_Appeal_in_Ordinary Mhiji 02:18, 6 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) 02:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused cleanup template. Mhiji 02:16, 6 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 Speedy delete. A page the avowed purpose of which is to enable blocked users to evade their blocks most definitely misrepresents policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Remote speak (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Don't really understand how this template works. But the initial edit summary was "The purpose of this template is to allow people to speak in different places from their talk page while blocked.". Don't think we need it really... Mhiji 02:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per T2 blocked users aren't supposed to be able to edit anything other than their talk pages, and they're not supposed to ask people to edit for them, right? This is essentially the same thing, making this template a misrepresentation of policy. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 06:57, 6 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. Speedy G7  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Refresh page (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Purgebox Mhiji 02:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:17, 6 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) 02:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Religious and ethnic edit wars (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to ((controversial)) Mhiji 02:09, 6 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) 00:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comic rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Comic panel rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A generic rationale for any images from comics or webcomics is not appropriate, as each usage will be different and specific. A generic rationale for comic book covers for use in infoboxes is a possibility, but that already exists with Template:Comic cover rationale, meaning neither of these serves any useful purpose. As with the recent discussion on Template:ScreenshotU, images using these templates need to have useful rationales written or be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - completely agree, but would prefer to also delete ((comic cover rationale)) while we're here. PhilKnight (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it should go, but I thought there may be different arguments in its defence than for these two, and I didn't want to confuse the discussion. J Milburn (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as there is no standard allowance for single comic frames/pages/strips in NFC, there is zero need to have a standard rationale. I do agree that comic covers are a different matter (per NFCI#1, currently under RFC discussion at WT:NFC) and shouldn't be included in this discussion. --MASEM (t) 02:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not so much because they are generic, but that they are intended to be "substitute and forget". I wasn't too thrilled with it them `09, but ATM they seemed close to SOP. In hind sight they should have gone then. - J Greb (talk) 02:31, 6 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 no consensus, once technical issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((anchor)), except this one doesn't have the ability to create more than one anchor (if desired). Either redirect to Template:Anchor or delete Merge this with ((anchor)) (see 64.229.103.44's comment below). This template just duplicates ((anchor))'s code. cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unlike the template Anchor, this template can emit a visible second parameter. I've never used it that way, but others might have.

I apologise for surrounding the ((Tfd)) notice in the template with noinclude tags, but the notice and an extra line break played havoc in pages with massive usage of this template, e.g. any of the List of Latin phrases (A). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep does not duplicate ((anchor)); it is closer to ((visible anchor))... 64.229.103.44 (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment ((section)), ((anchor)) and ((visible anchor)) should be merged. The new ((anchor)) template would take a parameter called "label" and "visible", that would print out like in the other two templates. "visible"=Y/N would mean that all parameters are printed as in "visible anchor". "label" would be a string parameter that is printed like in "section". "visible anchor" and "section" would then become wrapper templates to the new "anchor". 64.229.103.44 (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good idea. I hadn't thought of it before, but it definitely makes sense. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 07:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I wonder if it would be possible to hold off any action on these anchor templates? There are some pretty fair challenges here. I have been unable to get ((Anchor)) and ((Section)) templates to work in my IE8 and FireFox browsers the way it's described on the ((Anchor/doc)) page. I did a fix for it, and my sandbox codes work well. But it still doesn't address the major problem. As you know, there are 3 ways to intall an anchor...

1. Some editors place the anchor(s) below the section title,
2. Other editors like to place it above the section title,
3. Recently, it was advised to install anchors within the section title, like this:

==((anchortemplate|anchor name))Section title==

There are problems with all of these...

1. When an anchor is below the section title, a click brings the user to the line just under the title, so the title is actually one line above the top of the user's visible workpage and cannot be seen unless the user scrolls up one line.
2. If an anchor is placed above the section title, then it cannot be seen by an editor who pulls up just that section to edit. And worse, if an editor decides to move the section to another part of the article, the anchor might get left behind and would be rendered useless.
3. When an anchor is installed within a section title, then it appears in the editsummary when the section is edited. Aside from this being not so elegant, if there are several anchors, then most or all of the editsummary space will be filled, and an editor might not have enough room to type in the reason for the edit.

As for solutions, "still workin' on it, boss". Meanwhile, if anybody here has a different browser other than IE8 and FireFox (or earlier IE/FF versions), please pay a brief visit to my testcases page, and see if my sandbox codes work for you. Any and all help and input is appreciated!

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  17:45, 8 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.