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) 01:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Apple models (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, seems redundant to existing succession boxes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2012 (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) 01:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite manual (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

TfD May 21, 202

Propose to merge ((cite manual)) to ((cite book)). There are only three differences between these two templates:

• Citation class=manual vs. Citation class=book
• ((Cite manual)) supports section as an alias to chapter
• ((Cite manual)) supports sectionurl as an alias to chapterurl

Specific proposal:

• Update ((cite book)) to support the two aliases
• Redirect ((cite manual)) to ((cite book)) — Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ((Cite book/sandbox)) updated to support section and sectionurl. Comparison of cite manual and cite book/sandbox. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and modify ((cite book)) per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and modify per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I don't see the point of keeping this one separate. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and modify per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: Even this discussion generates many times more effort than this template generated in the last years. And: Who changes all links ??? I hope those who support it know a good bot? Any sense discussing about 5,314 bytes? Tagremover (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional reason: Manual is much EASIER to use because of less options. Tagremover (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read the specific proposal: no links need be changed, as the template is redirected— you can keep using ((cite manual)) with no issues. ((Cite manual)) has the exact same options as ((cite book)): the only difference is that ((cite manual)) supports section as an alias to chapter and sectionurl as an alias to chapterurl; that is, both section and chapter already work in ((cite manual)) and mean the same thing.
    • As the proposer, it is incumbent on me to make the changes happen. I have outlined a plan to migrate this template, and this one does not require any changes to articles. If changes were to be needed, I would do so, or request help as needed. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But: "no links need be changed, as the template is redirected": As far as i know, Wiki does NOT support redirect, tried it with NAVBOX template (without javascript).

If you have other experiences, i'm interested. Or: Make a quick, temporal redirect (probably in your user-space), as i expect thousands of link-changes. Tagremover (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can be done easily with AWB. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 18:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 1081 transclusions, and we don't usually change talk pages or archives. But, we don't have to. The redirect will work. For example, ((cite paper)) still works because it redirects to ((cite journal)). ((cite paper |last=Last |title=Title |work=Work |year=2012)) → Last (2012). "Title". Work. I just can't explain this any better. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nomination. No demonstrated need for a separate template. Mackensen (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2012 (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) 01:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R. A. Shiomi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, only two blue links. Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 10:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:55, 2 December 2012 (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) 01:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thaden aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

3 articles, main subject has no article. doesnt need a navbox. i added "see alsos" to each of the 3 articles. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep standard aircraft company nav box used to navigate aircraft articles, refer Category:Manufacturer-based aircraft navigational boxes which includes 642 navboxes in this family. Current navbox family is used by consensus instead of previous scheme which used now depracated links in Template:Aircontent. MilborneOne (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep most aircraft articles have these navbox to lead to others from the same manufacturer even when the manufacturer's article is yet to be written. If anything, these are more useful when this is the case than when a manufacturer's article exists.TSRL (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This nav box has a complete list of notable aircraft by the same manufacturer. There is no need to delete the box just because the manufacturer itself doesn't have an article at the present time. Keep in mind that these nav boxes are primarily here to be useful to the readers and in linking to all other aircraft types made by this manufacturer this nav box is definitively useful to readers. If the redlink is really that much of a bother then remove the redlink rather than the nav box. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2012 (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) 04:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

replaced by ((jcttop)), which actually works with ((jctint)), where this one does not. Frietjes (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:52, 2 December 2012 (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) 04:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2012 (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) 04:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused and redundant to ((Location map)). Frietjes (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:29, 1 December 2012 (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) 04:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redundant to ((flag)), etc. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:28, 1 December 2012 (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.