The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are already plently of edit link alternative templates. (See the see also section in the docs of this template). There doesn't seem to be a need for this one as it is not very widely used. WOSlinker (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge this and other templates with ((edit)). Make having +/- as link text an option in a parameter of ((edit)). ((ed)) lets you make an edit link for a template without typing Template: in front of the page name, but that can be coded into ((edit)), with a |t=yes or |t=y parameter. ((ed2)) is the same as ((edit)), except it has fewer parameters and the text is small. An option for small text can be added to ((edit)) with a |sm=y or |small=y parameter. The right align provided by ((ed right)) and ((ed right2)) can also be put in as a parameter of ((edit)), as can be the edit section feature. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've merged ed & ed2 together, ed right & ed right2 together and editsection & editsection2 together. Any further merging would take more work and complicate things with the additional parameters needed. If you wish to do further consolidation then go ahead but it shouldn't affect the deletion of the edi template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Rehman 08:41, 14 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) 02:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't seem much point in having this table styling in a template. Colud easily be substituted for the few places where it is currently used. WOSlinker (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. HeyMid (contribs) 16:03, 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) 02:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another pointless navbox for a small village in Kent: Sissinghurst.

It is padded out with two redlinks, which should be removed per (WP:REDNOT, and with 4 separate links sub-sections to the article River Beult, for various apparently non-notable mills (no separate articles, so I assume consensus has been that they do not meet WP:GNG)

Apart from the river, there are two blue links to places: Sissinghurst Castle and Sissinghurst Castle Garden. We don't need a template to link those entities, and the rest of the links are all people: all of those links should be removed, because they are all either people connected with the castle, who are adequately linked to and from that article, or people who neither form a notable part of Sissinghurst's history nor does Sissinghurst form a part of their notability.

Strip away the irrelevancies, and we are left with 2 or 3 links. No need for the template. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:08, 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, after replacement. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox sidecarcross world championship rider (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox Sidecarcross world championship rider (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 16 transclusions. Covered by ((Infobox motorcycle rider)). All parameters from the top to |bike number= already exist in the main template and parameters similar to |SBK foo= can cover all "unique" parameters. I suggest updating the main template and delete this one. This ws also indicated in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 3#Template:Infobox AMA Superbike rider. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Magioladitis (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Will you be the one to change the 16 articles, Magioladitis, if the template gets deleted? If so, no objection to the proposal. Calistemon (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could do it. We also have a Holding Cell so before deleting we also take care of the infoboxes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the transition is a clean one and the articles don't suffer, I'm pretty indifferent to the matter. Go ahead from my side. Calistemon (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added support to sidecarcross world championship to the main template. Tomorrow I'll finish the job. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:34, 14 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. T2 +T3. Magioladitis (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Do not edit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia anyone can edit (unless a page is protected)... If a user doesn't want someone working on their article revamp, they can just revamp it in their userspace and then copypaste it into the article. Additionally, the template's kind of hostile ("you are barred from [this page's] construction"). I would say WP:T2, but I can't think of a specific policy it violates, it's more the mission/intent that it contradicts. cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 07:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It does violate a specific policy: WP:OWN, which says that All Wikipedia content is open to being edited collaboratively. So a WP:T2 deletion is appropriate. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Alzarian16. Also redundant to ((In use)). Mhiji 11:22, 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 Speedy delete. G8: page dependent on a deleted or non-existent page. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scent Of Winter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox for a deleted article, and the navbox only has one link. cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 06:43, 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. WOSlinker (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Team Milram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cervelo TestTeam (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Two now-defunct cycling teams, whose navboxes have therefore been rendered useless. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused with no potential for use. Severo^TC 08:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Templates now depopulated: there are no longer, and never will be again, members of these squads. Kevin McE (talk) 09:39, 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 keep, now that the template has been modified. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Park episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is too big to navigate. It should be broken up by season to be useful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This template was created as a result of one of the South Park FAs or FLs. Part of this was because the WikiProject South Park decided we should not have full season lists in the infobox because they became too long and cumbersome. I think it is useful to have a template for other South Park episodes like this. If we were to break it out into fourteen different templates about each season (with a section in each linking to the other seasons) I'd be cool with that. But I wouldn't like to see it deleted altogether. — Hunter Kahn 04:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Split into separate templates for each season, seems uncontroversial enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But why delete the template. Who is the bastard who propose the deletion of the template?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.84.58.153 (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me I proposed it. You can find out more about me on my userpage. Why not delete it? Where is this template going to be transcluded? Which articles will use this template if it is split into 14/15 templates? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• All the season 1 articles would have the season 1 template; the season 2 articles get the season 2 template; season 3 for season 3 episodes; etc. etc. — Hunter Kahn 23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep template has been altered to accept a parameter which defines the season and only shows that season's episodes. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I'm content with the new template. — Hunter Kahn 23:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the new template is perfect. Nergaal (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep added the parameter and I think I have implemented it on every article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn This makes sense. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Split, there were separate season templates, but they were deleted. This template should be split. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railer-man (talk • contribs) 01:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Split templates into seasons, as that would be a very efficient way of dealing with it. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 04:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't that precisely what the template was changed to do? The concern was utility and clutter; the parameter option addresses both. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the template has been effectively split by adding the additional season parameter. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nominator, and as a result of the insightful addition of the season parameter. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:55, 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. Unused. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 03:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airline codes/All (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Mhiji 03:21, 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) 01:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Avengers Academy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete - The template is all but unused, and even in use it is redundant to the degree the very few articles listed are already inter linked. J Greb (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This comic series is very new, and it may not be long before more content is created here. Other Marvel Comics series have navboxes, and this one does not, IMHO, have "too few links". For some reason, this navbox is not placed on the pages it links to; this linking needs to take place if this discussion is closed as "Keep". It should not be a reason to delete this template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things... Just because other Marvel topics have, rightly or wongly, a navigation box does not require all Marvel topics to have a 'box, A navibox is a tool to help navigate large or scattered topics. If articles on a Marvel topic, or any topic for that matter, can be easily navigated amongst by links in the article, a 'box isn't needed. This topic falls into that category. Ther other is "future content"... if, in time, the topic has enough articles to justify a navbox, creating one at that time may be a good thing. May be. It depends on what tenuious content is added along with core content as well as which existing articles along with the non-existant. - J Greb (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, I count 10 or 11 links, which seems like enough. Now, if all the characters were merged into one page, that would be a different matter. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 16:45, 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) 01:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template transcludes a deleted image with the caption "This file is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted at any time." Since the image has already been deleted, this really isn't necessary.. cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:14, 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 Speedy delete. Mhiji 17:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Navbox for an article that has been deleted. Made up of only redlinks. cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not in use, redlinks only, author doesn't seem to be planning on finishing nor re-using this either. Krinkle (talk)

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) 22:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per WP:NENAN. Also, the navbox is full of redlinks cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:11, 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.