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) 21:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IASO Backup Technology BV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template , which seems to be a clone of logo fur with a hard-coded article name, wider use unlikely. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 13:08, 9 May 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) 21:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template makes pseudo-lists, without HTML list markup, and which are thus neither semantically correct nor accessible. It is now redundant to the recently-improved ((Flatlist)), which uses proper list markup (and can accommodate ordered lists, too). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to template:do list. It doesn't work if there are newlines in the item list, so worse than template:do list, but syntax is same. Frietjes (talk) 20:31, 10 May 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) 21:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 English cricket season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not everything needs a navbox — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I agree, not everything needs a navbox, but this one is pretty useful: being able to navigate quickly between the articles for the different competitions in a single season is the main benefit from this: the addition of the international tours and individual county seasons is a bonus. Harrias ^talk 21:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not against having a navbox for this type of thing, I'm just against having a navbox that has 25 red links and only 5 blue links. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note there are also templates for 29 other seasons: you probably want to collect them all into this same nomination? See here: Category:English cricket seasons navigational boxes. Harrias ^talk 21:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - In its current state, with most of the links showing up as red, the navbox hardly seems worth keeping. But if someone can convince me that they intend to turn those links blue, I would change to a "Keep" !vote. – PeeJay 23:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, To be honest it's still fairly early on in the season and most things haven't got enough information to have the pages created, but I reckon they will be. For instance that Womens quadrangluar probibly hasn't been created yet because it's too soon for it and there isn't a lot of information out about it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:04, 11 May 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) 00:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Using this template is deprecated to new wiki syntax.There is no use for this template because [[File:Example.jpg|link=Link title]] will work exactly the same as ((Click|image=File:Example.jpg|link=Link title)).A520 | Talk me away! 10:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you offering to fix the 8914 affected pages? -- John of Reading (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - just because there is more than one way to do something doesn't mean that either method is wrong. The template is used on a great many pages, there is no good reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This nomination is senseless. It's a perfectly valid way to make an image clickable and the argument that there is "no use for this template" when thousands of pages have found one (and continue to find one) is beyond dubious. The history here is a bit more complex than what's being presented, but it's all largely irrelevant. There's no reason to actively kill off this template. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. The transclusions can be dealt with by a bot (and the template deprecated meanwhile), and providing redundant methods of achieving identical results simply means one more thing for new editors to learn, thereby raising the barrier to entry. There may be a use for this template, but there is no need for it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This template was originally created as a wrapper around a complex imagemap routine, which has since been replaced with the link= behavior. Since much of that imagemap complexity has now been removed, the template is somewhat superfluous, though perhaps more accessible to some of the editors. I don't really care either way, the thing doesn't hurt in my opinion. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Redundant. The less ways we have to do something, the more secure it becomes. The template can be vandalized, the image syntax can not. — Edokter (talk) — 21:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The perveived vandalism problem is easily dealt with by semi or full protection. Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 9 May 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) 18:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just used in userspace now as all over time all other uses have been updated. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Mjroots and MZMcBride. This does not need to be deleted. -- œ^™ 20:31, 8 May 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. Ruslik_Zero 08:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gl-PENDING (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template matches two reasons for deletion as listed at WP:TFD. "The template is redundant to a better-designed template" — Gl-PENDING and its counterpart template, ((Gl-DONE)), have both been superseded by ((Gl request)), which combines the two deprecated templates into one. Because of this, Gl-PENDING "has no likelihood of being used". However, Gl-PENDING is still in use within two archives: Illustration Workshop 2010 and Photography Workshop 2010. If there is no objection to deleting Gl-PENDING, then I will personally go through the archives and replace the old templates with the new template (a very simple matter that won't require too much time or effort) before the deprecated template is permanently deleted. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:TFD, "Templates are rarely orphaned (made to not be in use) before the discussion is closed", which is why I haven't subst'd or replaced these deprecated templates (including Gl-DONE, below) already. Since my TfDs haven't received any response of any kind, I think I can assume the templates are okay to delete. But I wouldn't mind having a "go ahead" from someone more familiar with this process to either update the template uses or to subst them (adding an incredible amount of bytes to each archive). I also would rather not close out my own nominations. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:11, 5 May 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) 17:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly. Are these templates cursed or something? Can at least one person say "delete" and then I can get on with getting these deprecated templates out of "deletion hell" please? Thank you! :D – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Removed from usage – All substantial uses of this template have been replaced by ((Gl request)). This template is no longer in use except if discussed on talk pages, etc. Deletion won't affect major pages. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:46, 14 May 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. Ruslik_Zero 08:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gl-DONE (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template matches two reasons for deletion as listed at WP:TFD. "The template is redundant to a better-designed template" — Gl-DONE and its counterpart template, ((Gl-PENDING)), have both been superseded by ((Gl request)), which combines the two deprecated templates into one. Because of this, Gl-DONE "has no likelihood of being used". However, Gl-DONE is still in use within four archives: Illustration Workshop 2010 and 2011, and Photography Workshop 2010 and 2011. If there is no objection to deleting Gl-DONE, then I will personally go through the archives and replace the old templates with the new template (a very simple matter that won't require too much time or effort) before the deprecated template is permanently deleted. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:12, 24 April 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) 17:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lightmouse (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Removed from usage – All substantial uses of this template have been replaced by ((Gl request)). This template is no longer in use except if discussed on talk pages, etc. Deletion won't affect major pages. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:47, 14 May 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, but only after support is added to change the link targets to specific links where are appropriate for women, and after the transclusions are updated. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National football team women (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no reason to have a separate infobox for the women's game. All but three parameters (Olympic apps, Olympic first and Olympic best) are included in the non-gender specific Template:Infobox national football team. If those three parameters were to be added to the latter template, then Template:National football team women would no longer be required. Jameboy (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, no need for a sepeate template when the current infobox can be quite easily improved. GiantSnowman 15:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A redundant template. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional delete, although in principle they should be merged, adding Olympic fields to the "main" nft infobox will encourage addition of data on men's teams that does not belong there, but in article for an age specific team. happy to support if some clear advice to avoid this can be included in the changes to Template:Infobox national football team. Kevin McE (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am not principally opposed to a single infobox, but there are several shortcomings in the nominators explanation. For instance, the women's template links to 'FIFA Women's World Rankings' rather than 'FIFA World Rankings', and further down it links to 'FIFA Women's World Cup' rather than 'FIFA World Cup' and 'UEFA Women's Championship' rather than 'UEFA European Football Championship', in addition to the men's template lacking links to the Olympics. All these issues need to be addressed before a merger, and it seems to me that keeping the current split with two infoboxes is simpler than creating additional parameters in the men's template, which will make the latter even more cluttered and difficult to use. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:07, 3 May 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) 17:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Fair point, I didn't realise it had different links. I don't know too much about coding templates but perhaps those links could be made to depend on an optional women=yes parameter. I concede that deleting this template is not as straightforward as I had first thought. --Jameboy (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would support that, though someone more experienced in coding than myself would need to do it. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:07, 21 May 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) 03:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Broken template not currently used for anything. Only edit was when it was created in 2008. Also not there are over 100 subpages that make up this template that will need to be deleted as well if determined. Kumioko (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Plus delete subpages. Lightmouse (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The full list of Subpages[edit]

• Template:USPlacePop/0
• Template:USPlacePop/1000000
• Template:USPlacePop/400000
• Template:USPlacePop/900000
• Template:USPlacePop/Alabama
• Template:USPlacePop/Alabama/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Alaska
• Template:USPlacePop/Alaska/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Arizona
• Template:USPlacePop/Arizona/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Arkansas
• Template:USPlacePop/Arkansas/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/California
• Template:USPlacePop/California/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Colorado
• Template:USPlacePop/Colorado/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Connecticut
• Template:USPlacePop/Connecticut/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Delaware
• Template:USPlacePop/Delaware/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/DistrictofColumbia
• Template:USPlacePop/DistrictofColumbia/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Florida
• Template:USPlacePop/Florida/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Georgia
• Template:USPlacePop/Georgia/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Hawaii
• Template:USPlacePop/Hawaii/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Idaho
• Template:USPlacePop/Idaho/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Illinois
• Template:USPlacePop/Illinois/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Indiana
• Template:USPlacePop/Indiana/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Iowa
• Template:USPlacePop/Iowa/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Kansas
• Template:USPlacePop/Kansas/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Kentucky
• Template:USPlacePop/Kentucky/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Louisiana
• Template:USPlacePop/Louisiana/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Maine
• Template:USPlacePop/Maine/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Maryland
• Template:USPlacePop/Maryland/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Massachusetts
• Template:USPlacePop/Massachusetts/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Michigan
• Template:USPlacePop/Michigan/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Minnesota
• Template:USPlacePop/Minnesota/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Miscellaneous
• Template:USPlacePop/Miscellaneous/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Mississippi
• Template:USPlacePop/Mississippi/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Missouri
• Template:USPlacePop/Missouri/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Montana
• Template:USPlacePop/Montana/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Nebraska
• Template:USPlacePop/Nebraska/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Nevada
• Template:USPlacePop/Nevada/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/New York
• Template:USPlacePop/NewHampshire
• Template:USPlacePop/NewHampshire/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/NewJersey
• Template:USPlacePop/NewJersey/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/NewMexico
• Template:USPlacePop/NewMexico/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/NewYork
• Template:USPlacePop/NorthCarolina
• Template:USPlacePop/NorthCarolina/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/NorthDakota
• Template:USPlacePop/NorthDakota/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Ohio
• Template:USPlacePop/Ohio/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Oklahoma
• Template:USPlacePop/Oklahoma/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Oregon
• Template:USPlacePop/Oregon/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Pennsylvania
• Template:USPlacePop/Pennsylvania/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/ref
• Template:USPlacePop/ref/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/RhodeIsland
• Template:USPlacePop/RhodeIsland/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/SouthCarolina
• Template:USPlacePop/SouthCarolina/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/SouthDakota
• Template:USPlacePop/SouthDakota/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Tennessee
• Template:USPlacePop/Tennessee/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Texas
• Template:USPlacePop/Texas/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Utah
• Template:USPlacePop/Utah/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Vermont
• Template:USPlacePop/Vermont/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Virginia
• Template:USPlacePop/Virginia/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Washington
• Template:USPlacePop/Washington/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/WestVirginia
• Template:USPlacePop/WestVirginia/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Wisconsin
• Template:USPlacePop/Wisconsin/doc
• Template:USPlacePop/Wyoming
• Template:USPlacePop/Wyoming/doc

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, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Template:TC stats table start1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Not used. Lightmouse (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.A520 | Talk me away! 12:40, 7 May 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) 02:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Largely redundant to the variable ((NUMBEROFARTICLES)).A520 | Talk me away! 09:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Too many transclusions, deleting would have a largely unknown, but likely detrimental effect on the many pages where it's used. I'm guessing there are technical uses for it too, where the variable wouldn't work the same way. -- œ^™ 05:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are several templates like this, to take care of instances where people mean to use the magic word, but make a mistake (like using a pipe instead of a colon to add a parameter [((BASEPAGE|Wikipedia:Afd)) should be ((BASEPAGENAME:Wikipedia:AfD)), but if someone uses the former, it will still work because of the ((BASEPAGENAME)) template]). There's a tracking category, Category:Pages which use a template in place of a magic word, to make sure this is caught and fixed, I'll make sure ((numberofarticles)) puts pages into that category so instances of the template can be changed to the magic word. The template should have a /doc that explains magic words, though. As far as deleting this template, put it this way: Would you rather have a redlink show up when someone uses ((numberofarticles)) instead of ((NUMBEROFARTICLES))? — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, also keep per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 3#Template:BASEPAGENAME, a TfD I started on this same issue a long time ago about this (I later withdrew it and changed my mind). It's got some pretty good arguments. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:59, 9 May 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.