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) 02:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unsigned4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The purpose of this template is to date undated, but signed, comments; it is, therefore, an inferior duplicate of ((Undated)). Despite being created in 2006, it has been used only ~30 times. All transclusions of the template appear to be from ((User information templates)), from which it should be removed when it is deleted, and user sandboxes. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:39, 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) 02:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Being updated (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Under construction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Being updated with Template:Under construction.
The purpose appears to be so similar that the recently-created ((Being updated)) is surely redundant to the long-established ((Under construction)). Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An update is not a major restructuring or expansion. It is different from the Under Construction template. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not merge - Unlike ((Under construction)), which invites editing by others, the purpose of this template appears to be the prevention of edit conflicts ("Please hold on for some time..."); if this is the case, then it is redundant to ((In use)) and should be deleted. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per Black Falcon. Also, ((Being updated)) requests that the template only be removed if the page "has not been edited in several days," which is just too long of a time period to swallow. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 17:18, 29 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 withdrawn. Magioladitis (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox GAA dualplayer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is the same with ((Infobox GAA player)). Magioladitis (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. The Dual player box covers players who have played both football and hurling . Look at Shane Ryan or Lar Foley dual players and compare to Alan Brogan a footballer Gnevin (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it possible to merge them? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Form what I remember from when I was creating these merging isn't really possible Gnevin (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I close this TfD. My mistake. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:48, 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 Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Track listing/testcases (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Similar to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 23#Template:Track listing/testcases3 - the temnplate is an additional (unneeded and unused) sandbox since Template:Track listing/sandbox exists. mabdul 13:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope: the sandbox is for testing new versions of the code itself. The test cases page is for seeing how it looks, and comparing the current and sandbox versions of the code. That split was established several years ago. It's quite obvious that the two serve different purposes by looking at them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand: there are so much subpages of this page that are not in use. Several documentations, sandboxes and other are unused. (I don't say that they weren't in use, but at the moment that doesn't look like that they there useful!) mabdul 16:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's as may be, but /testcases is not one of them. Using /testcases for this purpose has been established for several years now. Feel free to mass-nominate anything except /sandbox and /testcases if you wish. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do I miss something? With the exception of a dab-correction the last "useful" edit was 17 May 2010. Again: there is a separate sandbox for this edits. mabdul 18:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see WP:TESTCASES. Sandbox pages and testcases pages go hand-in-hand, but they have different purposes. The sandbox holds the proposed version of the template page; the testcases shows how both the sandbox version and the current version would look when transcluded into a portion of a sample article page, using various combinations of parameters; typically one is shown above the other allowing easy comparison. If the parameters of such sample transclusions are carefully chosen, the testcases page may remain valid for a long period even if the sandbox is periodically revised. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comment above: testcases are valid pages for template development, and a long period since the last edit is no indication that it is no longer valid. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:21, 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) 00:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 Independent Football Standings (OHSAA) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Unutilized. There doesn't appear to be a need for a 3-team standings template for a high school conference. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:38, 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) 00:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 Perth Heat roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Unused template. Rosters of a single point in time don't seem to be in wide use or even used on Australian baseball teams pages, just current rosters. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:28, 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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge with the more widely used ((US Chief Executives)). Cybercobra (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They serve two different purposes though; one links to the main articles, one links primarily to the list articles. The list one is more widely-used because the articles are (<ownhorntoot>) better. There's a list article for ever state, but there's not a main article for every state. It would make my life much more difficult, as I maintain the featured governor lists, if we were to drop the list template altogether. So, how would we merge it? After each state, have a second link to list? Or keep separate templates, one for the offices, one for the lists? --Golbez (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The former sounds like a better option so long as separate articles continue to exist. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:49, 1 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) 02:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually like this one better than the ((US Chief Executives)) template, since all the main articles (should) have links to the lists on them. If there's no support to replace the list template with this one, I think one that combines them could be done, maybe like California (list). As a side note, the template is pretty redundant right now since most governor articles are redirects to the lists. Why isn't the information in the list articles being used to create main articles? They seem to have more information than is required for lists. — Bility (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a good issue to have identified. It's not just about templates. The relationship is muddy between "main" articles on US chief executive offices and stand-alone lists of the holders of those offices. It seems to me this TfD should become a broader discussion among WikiProject US members. The two templates we're discussing make a distinction between the "general" articles and the lists, but as Bility notes, it's common right now for the list to carry the role of both the main article and the list. Do we need both? If so, what should each look like? -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 04:01, 19 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) 02:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless of whether the associated WikiProjects need to sort out their excessive listitis or not, there is obviously no need to maintain two different navboxes which share the vast majority of their links. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Chris Cunningham. 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 Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mitcham 1994 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded, unused citation template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No need for one single work to have its own citation template, especially when it's not even used. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 17:22, 29 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.