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) 03:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yakuza 3 Completion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One: Content being used as a template when it has only one possible use. Two: Would say this is in violation of WP:GAMEGUIDE. So I'm arguing for complete deletion without substing, due to the latter reason. Izno (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - agreed, this is excessive trivial information and violates WP:GAMEGUIDE. Robofish (talk) 15:54, 13 June 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) 03:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commander in Chief (video game) series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Only two actual entries. Izno (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not necessary at this time. Robofish (talk) 15:53, 13 June 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) 02:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest mosques in the world (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used in only one article, Mosque. It could easily be replace by a link to List of large mosques. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too big for a template . A redir is not needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Being located in the See also section, its purpose seems to be to replace the content of List of large mosques which, as you say, can easily be replaced by a simple link. It's unnecessary and too big, as noted above. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 22:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, a link to List of large mosques is enough. Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 19 June 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) 03:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb r width 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 11 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 12 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 13 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 14 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 15 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 16 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 17 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 18 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 19 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 21 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 22 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 23 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb r width 24 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I merged these into template:fb r width, so they are now all obsolete. Frietjes (talk) 20:06, 12 June 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) 02:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Lne/begin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lne/end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 12 June 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) 02:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KL KLIAT Line ID (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:KL KLIAX Line ID (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:19, 12 June 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 any desired features to Template:Portal (with discussion regarding such taking place on the talk page for said template or any other applicable areas). JPG-GR (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Basically a recreation of Template:Satop by same author (User:Buaidh) that was deleted before - (see:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 27#Template:Satop). Quote original nomination = "Part of a series of templates by the same author which together are almost entirely redundant to ((portal)) (which supports the same syntax and essentially the same styling) and whose additional features are occasionally undesirable". Moxy (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Please keep this template. It is used by a number of users. Template:Ports compliments Template:Portal and provides several additional options. As the documentation states: "Template:Ports should be used in lieu of Template:Portal for portal icons with diverse aspect ratios, evenly spaced portal links, more than 18 portal links, complex portal boxes, and links to proposed portals." Template:Ports is constructed very differently than Template:Portal, but is deliberately designed to look very much like the latter for compatibility. If Template:Ports has features that are deemed counterproductive, I will gladly remove or modify them. (The capacity for 60 portal links may be excessive. I used this number in case anyone wanted to link the portals for all 50 United States and the U.S. territories.) I will be happy to modify the format of this template as this forum may advise. I think it would be very silly to delete this useful template. Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacement with ((portal)) (note that it isn't a recreation of satop, since satop used this template). Frietjes (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep is perfectly useful in articles.Greg Heffley 19:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as an unnecessary duplicate of ((portal)). Where it isn't a duplicate actual problems should be fixed in ((portal)), though I can't see ever a need to add 60 portals to an article (even 18 seems excessive); the graphical options are unnecessary and run contrary to the guidelines on use of colour and formatting.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unnecessarily redundant template. Imzadi 1979 → 22:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JohnBlackburne. --Izno (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with Imzadi 1979 --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Comment – This template provides page layout options that the standard portal template does not. For example, in articles with images that extend into their See also sections, this template is useful to move the portal links to the left, rather than having them overextend on the right underneath images, which is sloppy in appearance. The deletion of this template would simply reduce page layout options, whereas retaining it serves to increase layout options. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Northamerica1000 - Dont you think it would be best we incorporate "that" parameter into the main template over having a second template?Moxy (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck my !vote above, see my merge recommendation below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and to give a that little increment in consistency throughout WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The previous nominations were leading up to this. This fork should never have been created: the features that it purports to introduce should have been discussed for inclusion into ((portal)) rather than unilaterally rolled out across whole series of articles, most of which are served perfectly well by that template as-is. Northamerica1000's comment appears to miss that ((portal)) has supported left-floating, for instance, since before this template existed. "Having options" is not an end to itself, and conformity makes for both easier editing (as editors do not have to choose between multiple nearly-identical templates to do the same job) and a better reading experience (as fewer templates makes testing significantly easier, a matter which has come to the forefront since the upturn in mobile browser use has highlighted the inadequacies of our current templates, and a more uniform and consistent layout). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I concur with Thumperward. This template started as a test bed for possible improvements to Template:Portal. It became an independent software fork when it became apparent to me that these improvements would most likely turn Template:Portal into a hapless Swiss Army knife. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of letting the infamous Portal:Satop (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 27#Template:Satop) invoke Template:Ports instead of Template:Portal which would have served just as well. This unjustly fouled Template:Ports with the stench of Template:Satop.

I feel that Template:Ports deserves to stand on its own despite the just concerns of Thumperward. I have offered to reformat this template. If a consensus wishes to delete this template, I feel that at least two functions of this template should first be added to Template:Portal:

1. The option to evenly space links, and
2. The option to hide redlinks.

This will, of course, complicate Template:Portal, perhaps making it harder to use. Since Template:Portal is invoked on more than 4,000,000 pages, we should seriously consider whether we wish to burden it with any more functions. Yours aye,  Buaidh  14:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding redlinks doesn't seem worth the effort: we should flag errors so that they can be fixed. And "evenly spacing links" is only a problem if the images used have non-standard heights: that, too, is best addressed directly, by fixing the images. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic portals most commonly use flags for portal icons. Flags seldom have the 8:7 aspect ratio used by Template:Portal (the flags of the UK and most of the Commonwealth have aspect ratios of 2:1) and are not amenable to editing to a different aspect ratio. The Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes both look horrid either stretched or trimmed to an 8:7 aspect ratio. Template:Ports accommodates images that cannot be neatly stretched or trimmed. (Please see Template:Ports#Comparison with Template:Portal.) This function would be rather easy to add to Template:Portal. Yours aye,  Buaidh  14:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we have ((portal)) and this has nothing to do with ports. I see nothing concerning ports in this template at all. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name "Template:Ports" was chosen because "Template:Portal2" was already taken. I suppose I could have named it "Template:PortalWithExtendedFuncions".  Buaidh  14:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ((portal4)), ((portal3)) were also taken? This has nothing to do with ports, and there doesn't seem to have been a good reason to call it that. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why don't you register with Wikipedia? You seem to have many ideas for us.  Buaidh  13:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because duplicate of ((Portal)). Adjkasi (discuss me) 06:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge – the features of this template to Template:Portal that are not currently part of the Template:Portal configuration options. The Template:Ports has many useful features that are not part of the Template:Portal, and hence, isn't technically an exact duplicate. Merging the layout options to the Template:Portal will also improve that page and the template's options. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Buaidh makes a good offer at the onset. Good point on flag sizing. Please let him continue his "Ports" work. Thank you. LanceBarber (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • His point concerning flag sizing was "This function would be rather easy to add to Template:Portal", so why not merge? 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any changes to Template:Portal will need to be very thoroughly tested. We could keep Template:Ports for now, and see if this functionality can be added to Template:Portal without significantly degrading performance. Yours aye,  Buaidh  02:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't like how this was recreated after a previous discussion. Much of Buaidh's work on Wikipedia has focused on standardization of footers across various articles, and that's fine, but its much better to work with the community consensus than to try to create and enforce new templates like this unilaterally.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 21:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated several times before, Template:Ports has nothing to do with the Template:Satop. I've spent perhaps 1% of my Wikipedia efforts working on article footers.

I'm not trying to impose any notion of what Wikipedia should on anyone. I'm more than happy to work with anyone interested in these templates. Yours aye,  Buaidh 

• Merge – the features of this template to Template:Portal that are not currently part of the Template:Portal configuration options. --Enok (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the features of this template to template:Portal that are not currently part of that template configuration options i.e. same as many people above Tom B (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per opinion of users above; the template is redundant. Mar4d (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge If the creator is concerned that performance of an old template could be significantly degraded by the functions of the new one, then they shouldn't be replacing the old with the new over a slew of articles. CMD (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern is that a merged template needs to be thoroughly tested to determine that it won't degrade performance. I believe we can add equal spacing of links with very little loss of performance. Yours aye,  Buaidh  23:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant per Frietjes and Alan Liefting. Explicitly against merge in the interest of consistency across the project. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merger of Template:Ports into Template:Portal would assure consistency across the Wikipedia. Yours aye,  Buaidh  23:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant with little additional functionality. Also against MOS:LAYOUT and the usage guidelines for "See also" sections (3.3). GermanJoe (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. As you can see here, ((ports)) better handles images of different shapes. That functionality at least should be merged. The non-standard color scheme functionality should specifically not be merged per WP:COLOR. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:00, 3 July 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) 03:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

currently unused, after I rewrote the article lead. Frietjes (talk) 16:47, 12 June 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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

As per Template:PBox, &c. (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 27#Template:Pbox) another attempt to complexify and confuse inter-article links, making adding and adjusting such an exercise in arcane template syntax JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per before and above. Template already being mass added to articles along with Template:ports.Moxy (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: (Please see below): I ask you to keep this template which has only been in existence for three days. I created this template expressly in response to the concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 27#Template:Satop. This template groups links to topic overview articles in a single linkbox and separates them from the links to specific subtopics. Please see Afghanistan#See also for an example. Although this template has 14 optional parameters, it is most commonly invoked with no parameters as merely ((cto)). This template was designed to reduce maintenance by automatically searching for all standard topic overview articles. I will be happy to modify the format of this template as this forum may advise. I think most users will find this template to be a significant step towards simplification. Yours aye,  Buaidh  16:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a simple plain bulleted see also section is fine. we don't need the coloured box or the unnecessary complexity. Frietjes (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment actually template:Sar would seem to be the one that this is a recreation of; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April_6#Template:Sar.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- I disagree with Frietjes here. The box is easier on the eyes and it helps lazy people like me who hate making a bullet for everything.Greg Heffley 19:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fritjes. Imzadi 1979 → 22:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fritjes. We don't need pretty boxes for simple linking in a see also section. --Izno (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point with this template is that there is an inherent difference between topic overview articles such as an outline or index and a subtopic article such as Mountain ranges of Colorado.  Buaidh  00:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I dislike the way it has been mas added! --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stopped all changes before I was asked to.  Buaidh  00:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Buaidh -- penubag  (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It's disappointing that even after significant consensus has been shown to exist in opposition to these omnibus utility templates, the author apparently sees fit to continue to create and unilaterally deploy them (as noted by the author himself, this template was apparently created in direct response to a TfD which deleted a predecessor of it, then deployed by said author to over 300 articles without any apparent discussion). What's worse, in this case the template creates an entirely new style of layout for the links it includes, thus making articles less consistent for readers. Over the years we've successfully consolidated the various ways that we present templates into a small number of broad utility classes; we should not create new ones lightly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wanted to get this template into view so that common users could judge whether this is something they wish to have in Wikipedia.  Buaidh  13:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace (from above): Please examine Template:Tol, an alternative to Template:Cto. Template:Tol automatically searches for all standard topic overview articles as Template:Cto does, but it produces a list of standard links instead of a linkbox. Template:Tol is simpler, faster, and more conventional than Template:Cto. If a consensus wishes to replace Template:Cto with Template:Tol, I will be happy to make the replacements. Yours aye,  Buaidh  14:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So addressing none of the concerns I raised in the nomination, and additionally creating yet another pointless template in need of deletion? And why the obscure names, 'sar', 'cto', 'tol' etc.? They offer no indication at all what the template(s) is/are for.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how ((tol)) "complexifies" anything. Tol stands for Topic Overview Links. Cto stands for Conditional Topic Overview linkbox. I don't think that takes too much imagination. Template:Tol is merely Template:Cto stripped of most of the features this forum finds objectionable. Template:Tol is only invoked by its documentation. I will personally remove Template:Tol if this forum so decides. Yours aye,  Buaidh  15:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you still making these templates? Now we have Template:Tol that you plan to spam all over because this one looks like it will be deleted? Can we get an admin involved!Moxy (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my preceding comment. I have no plans to deploy Template:Tol unless this forum approves such. Template:Tol and its documentation took me all of two minutes to create. I don't know how I can be more cooperative. Yours aye,  Buaidh  13:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Buaidh and Greg.LanceBarber (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: If the consensus decision is either to replace Template:Cto with Template:Tol or to keep both templates, I will personally replace all invocations of Template:Cto with Template:Tol. I'm convinced by this discussion that Template:Tol is the better solution. Yours aye,  Buaidh  15:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have stricken your second 'replace' !vote as you had already !voted 'keep', on the assumption that that was your preference, unless you yourself want to clarify which it should be.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize for the confusion, but I really am convinced by this discussion that a topic overview link list is far preferable to a linkbox. Template:Cto is only a few days old and probably would have evolved into something like Template:Tol if given the chance. I've spent a few more minutes cleaning up Template:Tol and its documentation.

I recommend that Template:Tol replace Template:Cto, and I agree to do the replacement if we have a consensus. Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed your first "Replace". It's clear to anyone participating that you've changed your !vote to "replace" but someone reviewing this discussion to e.g. close it might see it twice and count it twice without noticing the posts were from the same editor.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool.  Buaidh  02:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My main concern is how this totally overcomplicates what should be a simple section. "See also" links should be minimal, and only for other Main Namespace links that really don't go in the text or below section headers. This sort of interwiki linking could go somewhere, but shouldn't take over the footer, which I think should be left to be customized on a page by page basis.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 21:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Topic overview links are not intended to supplant any other See also links. Please see New Mexico#See also. Yours aye,  Buaidh  13:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with Template:Tol. Patrickneil makes a good point, but it seems to me that it doesn't apply to deletion ("this sort of... linking could go somewhere"), but to replacement with something perhaps better suited to the purpose.Marikafragen (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fritjes. --Enok (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Graham11 (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume this means delete Template:Cto but not necessarily Template:Tol.  Buaidh  17:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If ((tol)) is not deleted as part of this process it should be speedy deleted under probably criteria T3.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why, pray tell, criterion t3? Template:Tol is only a few days old.  Buaidh  16:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or G6 or G7; you pick one. It was created as part of this deletion process, so unless the outcome is 'replace' it should be deleted. You should not have created it as a copy of the page under discussion for deletion; see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. So certainly it should not be kept around or become the subject of yet another lengthy, pointless discussion with a foregone conclusion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • This discussion is about Template:Cto and Cto alone. I have offered a replacement suggestion. Several users have backed my suggestion. If you want to delete the suggested replacement Template:Tol, then we should indeed have "yet another lengthy, pointless discussion with a foregone conclusion".

The following manual code will replace most functions of Template:Tol:

*Topic overview:

**((ll|Topic))

**((ll|Outline of Topic))

**((ll|Index of Topic-related articles))

**((ll|Bibliography of Topic))

**((ll|Book:Topic))

If you feel this manual code is simpler than ((tol)), then there is certainly no need for Template:Tol. Yours aye,  Buaidh  23:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Several? I count only one other editor suggesting replace. This discussion is about ((cto)) but you created a new version of it while the discussion was in process, to show how it could be improved. If the consensus is against that being used it should also be deleted. Insisting we hold another lengthy discussion over it, having already !voted to delete and not replace, would be disruptive--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two users voiced replace and three keep. The primary complaint of most of the users inclined to delete was the creation of a new linkbox. I concur. I created Template:Tol to eliminate the linkbox. I have tried to avoid any actions that could be potenially disruptive and to incorporate as many diverse opinions as possible. I feel your all or nothing stance smacks of elitism. Yours aye,  Buaidh  14:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I noticed that before it could be deleted this template was being replaced with yet another template, ((ll)), which has the same problems identified above. I have therefore nominated that for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 25#Template:Ll.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Ll has nothing to do with Template:Cto (please take a look.) I'm truly sorry that John is confused by Wikitext, but I seriously doubt that even the most inexperienced users are confused by Template:Ll. Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A non-standard "see also" template. The convention for "see also" sections is well-established and should be changed by consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:47, 1 July 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) 03:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Barako Bull Energy Boosters current roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Barako Bull Energy Boosters went defunct in 2011 so a current roster navbox is no longer useful. Jenks24 (talk) 09:15, 12 June 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.