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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fact2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We have ((fact)) for sentences that need reference. If the sentence is really controversial it should be removed immediately. Magioladitis (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indeed. Also, the name itself is not helpful (the -2 does not add anything to the help or /doc or mental support). (If more disapprovement in such variants is desired, please take a look at Category:Hatnote templates). -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's somewhat troublesome that such an ill-advices template still has any mainspace transclusions at all, to be honest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otheruses-number (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

hatnote. The name is wrong: it is about a "year". More important: it reproduces standard ((about)) text. So ((about)) covers it, and most likely does so because this template was used once in 2000 years. See the only usage (I removed today): 1067. In general: we do not need or want to sustain (with documentation, botchecking, &tc) a template that is individual. DePiep (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I seem to remember alot of the year articles having something like this on them... 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's ((year dab)), which user:Ludde23 has apparently been rolling out across every single year article in the last month or so. See User talk:Ludde23#Year dab for further discussion. This feels like an appropriate time to ask Ludde23 to stop what he's doing until it's agreed that it's actually necessary to be honest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:34, 26 March 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) 02:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Germany/test-full (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old template test, not used anywhere, template loop on talk page (see Category:Template loop warnings). Frietjes (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 SEC Baseball Standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of Template:2011 Southeastern Conference baseball standings. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom, unused/dupe. Rehman 12:09, 31 March 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) 00:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 Cricket World Cup finalists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless. ashwinikalantri ^talk 18:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - In its current form, perhaps, but once the competition is finished, this navbox will perform a similar function to Template:2007 Cricket World Cup finalists and the rest. – PeeJay 14:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Yes, I agree with PeeJay2K3, that would also make it more informative.--Karyasuman (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Even in the finished form, it looks like a over-enthusiastic use of templates. The information is already present in the article. A template is supposed to be used if the same info needs to be used in multiple articles. I see no use of this info in any article other than the main World Cup article. ashwinikalantri ^talk 05:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if a decision is made to keep it, the name of the template is highly inappropriate for the information it provides (will provide). It needs to change. ashwinikalantri ^talk 05:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article text is sufficient to indicate other finalists, if relevant to the article. Too temporal to bother with a template. Make a link to a list or article with the current listing of participants not yet eliminated. This project is not a newspaper.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, also:
  • Template:2007 Cricket World Cup finalists
  • Template:2003 Cricket World Cup finalists
  • Template:1999 Cricket World Cup finalists
  • Template:1996 Cricket World Cup finalists
  • Template:1992 Cricket World Cup finalists
  • Template:1987 Cricket World Cup finalists
  • Template:1983 Cricket World Cup finalists
  • Template:1979 Cricket World Cup finalists
  • Template:1975 Cricket World Cup finalists

Harrias ^talk 23:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all "YYYY Cricket World Cup finalists" templates per WP:NAV and WP:CLN. None of the titles of these nav boxes are articles and the pages they link to are only related as cricket teams, not as specifically having to do with a certain World Cup, let alone certain World Cup finalists. — Bility (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, these are more summary than navigation. Per Yellowdesk, article text is sufficient. Frietjes (talk) 19:13, 11 April 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 to delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-mos4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 6. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if it's changed only be used to warn users for changing the style. If a user writes new content that has style errors then that is okay. If that becomes a problem AIV isn't the solution. A request for comment or some other noticeboard would be more relevant. -- Marcus Qwertyus 05:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I reckon we can do without this. As previously noted, we rarely consider MoS violations to really be blockworthy: if someone has gotten to an L4 over formatting disputes it's likely that they're misbehaving in other ways, and the generic L4 warning should work fine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per what I said at DRV, there are specific cases where this warning makes sense. There was the case of a now blocked and vanished user who acted in good faith but persisted in changing the style of articles again and again without any possibility to talk to them. There was real other misbehavior except this stubbornness though. As Marcus Qwertyus notes above, this warning is not for people who create new content with style errors, even if they do it often. It's for those who keep changing the style even when they are reverted time and time again. It's the logical follow-up to ((uw-mos3)) and while rare, I think it's good to have different warnings for different behavior. Otherwise we could just use ((uw-generic4)) for everything (the whole point of different warnings is so that people know exactly what kind of behavior is blockworthy). Regards SoWhy 20:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO that's answering the wrong question. Given that we do not typically block for MoS violations but rather for the social problems inherent in continuing to do so (i.e. for continuing to disrupt the project after being asked not to), the better approach would be to turn ((uw-mos1)) into a single notice template (and move it to ((uw-mos))) and get rid of the rest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It serves its purpose as a template. Whether it should be used or not is better discussed at WP:UW. — Bility (talk) 17:29, 11 April 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.