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) 00:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Start United Kingdom Supreme Court composition (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:End United Kingdom Supreme Court composition (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

a standard navbox works just fine, this one is not used. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:20, 17 October 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) 00:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Start U.S. Senator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:U.S. Senator row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:End U.S. Senator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

don't need it. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is part of a set of three templates, Template:Start U.S. Senator and Template:U.S. Senator row. Deleting this one on its own would be bad. 70.24.251.158 (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, so I added it to the list above. Frietjes (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've asked the relevant wikiprojects about this, since after looking at the lists currently used in (a few) senator list articles, they could use templates instead of bare wikitable code. 70.24.251.158 (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Why? A table requires fewer keystrokes and is easier to understand. This is just templating for the sake of templating. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of the political projects use templates for table rows to format tables in a more presentable manner. As we already have the beginnings of such code here, they might want to use it. For instance, you can code for republican, democrat with auto coloring the row. 70.24.251.158 (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as unnecessary and unused. I'm a frequent editor to a lot of Senator lists, and I've never even seen these templates.—GoldRingChip 13:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Responding from a message left at WikiProject United States. I also agree these are uneeded. --Kumioko (talk) 15:32, 21 October 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) 00:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Datu Lakandula frigate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

NENAN 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a "go nowhere" template. Only one ship was in that particular class and no other ships will ever qualify for inclusion. Brad (talk) 19:50, 18 October 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) 00:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Courtice Cougars roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

the only Courtice Cougars that I can find is Courtice Secondary School. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:43, 17 October 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) 00:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Climate of Crawley and Gatwick (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

repeat of Crawley#Climate. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:35, 17 October 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) 00:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cities of Bosnia and Herzegovina (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete better as a category;unused;no clear definitionCurb Chain (talk) 04:40, 18 October 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) 00:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cities in Republic of Ireland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete better as a category;unused;no clear definitionCurb Chain (talk) 04:40, 18 October 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, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nutrition Facts/Boo Koo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused subpage. Frietjes (talk) 21:11, 17 October 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, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zamboanga City land use area breakdown (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

we already have this table in the Demographics section of Zamboanga City. Frietjes (talk) 20:18, 17 October 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, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zodiac date sidereal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An unused Zodiac date computation template. Frietjes (talk) 20:03, 17 October 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, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alaska Railroad stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and not needed. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:39, 17 October 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 for now. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of publications intro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

"Templates should not do the work of article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." Cybercobra (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The rationale given above is problematic: the main purpose of the template is to standardize the text in question, to make it easier to make changes across all the "List of important publications" articles at one time. Thus it is being used to "place recurring messages (such as those to denote stubs, disambiguation pages, etc.) into articles in a consistent manner". Yes, the content of the template is highly specialized and not as general as stubs or disambiguation messages, but the spirit is the same. Full disclosure: I created the template and edited some of the articles it's used on (I mean, beyond just adding the template to them), but this was over 5 years ago, so I have no particular attachment to them. Still, I wonder if a more elegant solution is being considered in place of the template? - dcljr (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in part for the reasons given above. Also, this is not the time to discuss this. Several of these lists have recently been proposed for deletion, and there is considerable discussion about inclusion criteria. Removing it now is not helpful, but it may be removed after those discussions have progressed. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I see two such nominations that also mention the other similar articles. - dcljr (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bduke, I think it is perfectly relevant to discuss this template now. The discussions have no reason not to be concurrent.Curb Chain (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but it seems to me that the content of this template might affect whether it is deleted or not and I was expecting that there might be discussion on inclusion criteria now the AfDs have all been closed as keep. I would like to see that discussion. In response to other points, it could go on the talk page, but my experience is that people add items to these lists which are totally inappropriate without reading the talk page. Its presence has probably cut that down, so I think it has been helpfull. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, there has been a tendency for people to simply parrot "Breakthrough / Topic Creator /Influence" as their statement of importance. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Cybercobra, are you aware of the history of this template? It was created because there were frequent AfDs for the articles it is used in. It was an attempt to standardize the criteria for inclusion in these lists so they would satisfy the notability criteria. My impression is that it helped. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps the same end could be pursued using a template like ((Stand-alone list)) on the Talk pages. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is the text in this template really "content"? It's more like a preamble or meta-content. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intro text clarifying an article's scope is content, IMO. Partially self-referential, but content nonetheless. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I don't see how this template fundamentally differs from an infobox in purpose. It may be more appropriate to have different text in each list, but I'm not convinced that uniform wording is inappropriate either. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Cybercobra is quoting a guideline, not a sufficient reason for forcing a change on all these articles from the outside. Editors could just as well edit the articles to remove the template, or better yet discuss a common strategy on the talk pages or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:08, 22 October 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. Article-cv is actively used, although it may not have appeared so when the nomination was created. At least the nomination meant that some useful documentation has been added. Looking at the edits, Article-cv2 appears to have been a test by Dcoetzee but since it was nominated together, will close as keep for both. Can re-nominate it on it's own if anyone wishes to. WOSlinker (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Article-cv (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Article-cv2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There have been no proper instructions. Both created in 2005. No purpose of using this template and of the existence of it. Also, no categories either. Who knows and what is the purpose of creating both templates? Are they hoaxes or forgotten potentials? —Gh87 (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Still seems to be in use according to the instructions on the page for listing copyright problems. Angela. 05:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep substitution template. And it has instructions old templates having instructions on their talk pages, before the system of docs was developed. Nominator should have checked the talk page. 70.24.251.158 (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have informed WP:CP about the deletion request for their process template. 70.24.251.158 (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Still in continual use at WP:CP. The fact that these templates were nominated says something about the low profile of WP:CP and the unsung dedication of Moonriddengirl and her minions. :-) —RP88 ^(talk) 08:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They're in constant use. Take a look at the COPYVIO notice on Hardwired control under "Instructions for filing" (placed today) to see only one example. Every single article thus tagged uses it. There are currently 61 of them. Voceditenore (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I have notified two of the most active members of the WikiProject Copyright Cleanup (User:MER-C and User:Moonriddengirl) of this discussion so they can explain how and why these are used. Deleting these templates has the potential to cause a real mess. Voceditenore (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Thanks for the heads up, User:Voceditenore. :) ((Article-cv)) is a quiet workhorse. I can see the confusion, as it does lack the kind of directions we've become used to on the template page, but the directions for using it are actually incorporated into ((copyviocore)) under "instructions for filing". (It's helpful in determining how a template is used to check "what links here"; although it is substituted, it does lead to WP:CP and Wikipedia:New pages patrol, both hints that it may have an important function). I'm happy to add a bit more information on the template itself to avoid future confusion. I'm not entirely sure what ((Article-cv2)) is all about, but it wasn't actually created in 2005; it was created in March 2011 by one of our most active tool generators. You can determine this by looking at its history. I don't know if User:Dcoetzee still has need of it, but since he's an active contributor and the template is relatively new, I think it might be best to hear from him before drawing any conclusions about it. We don't want to break WP:CP or any of our remaining tools. With CorenSearchBot, Zorglblot, and Dumbbot all down, we've got quite enough of that going on. :/ (Thank you, User:RP88 :D) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What links here shows Wikipedia:Copyright problems which is sufficient reason to recognize that any problems the templates may have need to be resolved through means other than deletion. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The reasons for deletion have been sufficiently falsified such that I have no more to add. MER-C 10:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep templates are actively used, as explained above. As documentation is now added I think we can snow close this. Yoenit (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Moonriddengirl.4meter4 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 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) 00:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only used once in an article, and states something that is obvious. This template does nothing to promote improvement of the article or denote anything of much use. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks to me it can be replaced with Template:Current.Curb Chain (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no reason from the nomination or the above vote to delete it. The Supreme Court decides 100 cases a year, basically all of which are notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Of those, maybe a dozen will have sufficient interest that an article will have been created ahead of time. This template quickly and succinctly explains the situation to an uninformed reader; ((Current)) does not do this with the same clarity. NW (Talk) 19:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But anyone interested enough to search a particular future case will know that the case is pending and realize that obviously more info will be available after the decision is issued. Also, such articles are usually brief enough that someone can easily read that the case is indeed pending and so not much info is available. I agree that ((current)) isn't a good alternative, but I just don't think that a template stating something so obvious is necessary enough to clutter the top of an article. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, I think you are probably right. The first sentence of the article does essentially say the same thing as the template. NW (Talk) 15:29, 22 October 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.