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) 03:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ir-MedScan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Having created this myself, and finding it unused I'm placing it up for TfD so that a firm decision on it and 'diagnostic' images can be made..

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Unused and of dubious value. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:42, 14 May 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, after substitution. The rationale for deletion is that (a) this leads to diffuse categories, (b) autocategorization could be handled at the level of the infobox, rather than having hundreds of individual templates, (c) templates should generally not be creating categories. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These templates were created in 2009 with two purposes: to link to United States when a region was added to a film infobox, and to categorise the page in question into Category:cinema of the United States. The first of these features was disabled in March 2010 as overlinking. The second has been objected to for at least as long on the grounds of WP:TEMPLATECAT: not only does this template add an often-unwanted top-level category to articles which belong in a subcategory, but it's difficult for inexpert users to figure out where the category is coming from and how to change it. Disabling this feature is therefore a good idea, but that leaves these templates useless: all they will do is output their own names. As such, they should all first have the auto-categorisation disabled and then be substituted.

As an additional closure step, deleting these will empty Category:cinema of templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all Chris doesn't understand the overall use within the Film Project (bless him). What he fails to state is that TEMPLATECAT states that it is only recommended not to do this. Not that it shouldn't be done. This adds one of the three primary film cats to all the film articles in a deal to standardize them. He's completly ignored the fact that the film infobox all populates the language and year from coding within the template, giving some piss-poor answer on one of the country templates as an answer to mask his incompetence. Lugnuts (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  For the benefit of the rest of the audience, I'm fully aware that the film project wants all films to be categorised by region, language and year. The question is how this is done: either by putting the categories at the bottom of the article, like every other page in the encyclopedia, or through its own template system (one which for some reason doesn't even get mentioned on WP:FILMCAT, the project's primary resource on categorising pages). The latter way has a number of rather serious disadvantages and "it's only not recommended" is hardly a persuasive argument not to move to the same system that the entire rest of the enyclopedia uses. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Still not really addressed the issues though, Chris. Other things to consider from this so-called admin:

  1. Has made zero attempt to raise a central discussion on the Film Project talkpage to reach a consensus. Consensus can change, but Chris has just gone in all guns blazing in a method that cries out WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
  2. He hasn't bothered to inform a single author of the the other templates about this nomination. Oh, wait, just one. Me. About the film template for Afghanistan. You know, that amazing film producing country with countless films released each and every year.
  3. Since listing these, he's failed to nominate any interested parties to the discussion. This is simply not acceptable.

  No doubt he'll dodge all these points, like the ones I've already raised before. Lugnuts (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  In order:

  1. This is a central discussion forum. However, seeing as the action that it took was in a discussion for which you yourself had already notifed the film project, it is disingenuous to suggest either a) that it was unlikely to be seen by project members or b) that there was any attempt to obfuscate this.
  2. You're the author of the majority of these templates, including the first five that I checked at random. If I were attempting to hide the discussion it would be illogical for me to inform the editor most firmly opposed to the change.
  3. To my knowledge, "nominat[ing] any interested parties to the discussion" is not a standard part of TfD, other than notifying the author. I've never seen the need for more than that in the past and never been asked about it, so if it's "not acceptable" that'd probably be news to the majority of editors who participate in TfD.

  It's difficult to see what "issues" or "points" I'm "dodging" here, though some of it appears to stem from Lugnuts's belief that these can't be deleted without also removing the auto-categorisation by language present in ((infobox film)). As I've explained to him, while the underlying problem is the same there, the two are not actually interlinked and one can be resolved independently of one another. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "though some of it appears to stem from Lugnuts's belief that these can't be deleted without also removing the auto-categorisation by language present in ((infobox film)). " Wrong again, Chris! Dear lord. The central discussion should have taken place at the Film Project first, not here. It's not rocket science. Lugnuts (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: if these templates auto-generate categories "fooian films", how does one avoid unnecessary double-categorisation for intersecting categories which already specify a country? E.g. AKA: Girl Skater is categorised as Category:Australian films through the template ((Film Australia)) and as Category:Australian documentary films by direct categorisation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't, which is a big part of the problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's already been raised at the film project. Editors would rather monitor one category (EG Austrian films) then a dozen sub-cats. All of the top-level country cats state that they should have all film articles of one country grouped in the parent. Lugnuts (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  And that is a matter for the WikiProject. It is pefectly possible to retain the current result (double-categorisation) if there is consensus to do so: this TfD will not affect the status quo in that regard in the slightest. The only difference is that these categories will be explicit instead of implicit, and thus discoverable and easy to correct without having to know the intricacies of template transclusion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all and, if the Films project prefers non-diffusion, employ a bot to add the country categories manually. I made some arguments against these templates back in 2010 and was pointed to WP:DUPCAT. I can understand the desire for non-diffusion (I personally don't imagine that a category of over 17,000 articles is of much use to readers, though that's a separate discussion), but as Chris points out the parent cats can simply be applied manually. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A few of these are history sensitive. We need to keep the distinction between USSR films and Russian films since the fall of the Soviet Union. Same goes for the various German templates. MarnetteD | Talk 15:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reason that this distinction cannot be maintained through manual categorisation. Indeed, the task would be made easier, as categories would not mysteriously show up unbidden through autocategorisation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for pragmatic reasons. These templates might not be encouraged in WP:TEMPLATECAT, but help novice editors and those who only write about films sporadically to use the categorisation system in a desirable way. The point Michael Bednarek brings up is relevant, but not for the reason he mentions: the "fooian films" categories are extremely helpful to keep track of the film industries you follow by using the related changes button; the film country templates make these categories more likely to be added as opposed to only the country+genre categories, of which there are too many to give any meaningful overview of new edits. From experience, stub articles without infoboxes quite often lack basic categories when first created, and aren't discovered (and expanded/sourced) by the regulars until an infobox eventually is added and the basic categories appear. I'm certain the overall quality of film articles would be lower without these templates, since also new articles with infoboxes would take longer to be discovered. Smetanahue (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is diametrically opposite to the experiences which forged TEMPLATECAT. Editors who are unfamiliar with the nuances of Wikipedia are far less likely to be able to figure out that there are multiple parallel ways of categorising pages. Furthermore, template transclusion is historically one of the hardest concepts for editors (old and new) to get to grips with. I don't understand what "also new articles with infoboxes would take longer to be discovered" means. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all (with care). I came here because someone added ((Film Egypt)) to a new film article I created, and which has just appeared on today's DYK. I thought it odd, as this template does nothing except add the article to a category which is already stated explicitly at the bottom of the article, and - even more oddly - adds the template itself to the category. I add "(with care)" as some of the points above have some merit, but they can best be dealt with by bots trawling film articles - a better solution technically and easier for editors (whether newbies or not). It will need some care to specify and create the bots, but when that is done, we can then delete these templates. --NSH001 (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • further comment I think this review should be extended to the entire question of auto-categorisation throughout all the film templates. For example, ((Film date)) has an expensive-looking piece of code at the top to decide whether to put a film in an "upcoming film" or a film by year category. This shares the drawbacks already mentioned, but in addition, the categorisation will only be performed when the article in question is edited. Such categorisation is better done manually, possibly assisted by a bot-produced list of articles for investigation. --NSH001 (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what's the solution with this one? Can/should the coding be removed? If so, what value is the template without it? Or should it be nominated for deletion too? Or even merged into something like ((start date))? Lugnuts (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dislike templates that add mainspace categories to articles, for all the reasons stated here, so yes, I think the auto-categorization coding should (eventually) be removed. So effectively we are then left with a formatting template. There is nothing wrong with that in principle, as it means release dates in all film infoboxes are formatted consistently. That's good, and I think we can keep it, minus the cat code. If there are any other film templates which add cats to mainspace articles (I don't know, I haven't looked for them), they should either be deleted or have the cat code removed. Meanwhile, I've coded a new version of this template that allows named refs to be cited for each date/location, if desired. The new version is now in the sandbox at ((Film date/sandbox)), along with a new sandbox doc page. I've tried it out on a few test cases, and I believe it works, but it probably needs some more testing before being made "live". (I only did this because I was niggled by the ugly way of citing dates/locations on my new film article (see Asmaa for what I mean) - I don't intend to be involved in film articles (other than watching Asmaa) once this niggle is resolved; I simply happened to see the film a few weeks ago, and thought it deserved an article.) --NSH001 (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice one. Looks good to live. Speaking of Asmaa, I've removed the generic Egyptian cinema template from the article. Please see this. And probably this, too. Lugnuts (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Slightly off topic, but the new version of ((Film date)) is now live, and I have commented at the discussion link you mentioned re the navbox. --NSH001 (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, especially the United States template that currently does nothing. The templates overcategorize films by adding parent categories when the films are already listed in subcategories. Manual categorizations can compensate for "sensitive" countries like Russia/Soviet Union and Germany. These templates make it harder, not easier, for novice users to help categorize films. As an example of Template:Film UK, if I was looking at Barry Lyndon's categories, I would wonder why Category:British films is located there since it is not located in Category:American films and it is also located in both Category:British drama films and Category:British war films. Also it is currently placed between two number categories, Category:1975 films and Category:1970s drama films. If I wanted to remove the Category:British films that is listed at the end of the categories or if I wanted to place the categories in alphabetical order, I would be confused why my edits were not being shown in the preview. Before I read this discussion, I would have never thought to look in the infobox for a template. Aspects (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the use of non-diffusing subcategories can be justified on film articles (see WP:DUPCAT), but it needs to be properly documented on category pages, as well as on WP:FILMCAT. However, the rest of your points are very valid. --NSH001 (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per thumperward. mabdul 11:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• So close as no-consensus and open up a more indepth debate as part of the Film Project, with a neutral admin to oversea. Lugnuts (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all after adding any necessary categories to the articles, and replacing with plain text, per thumperward and others. Frietjes (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to admin. Only one of the templates nominated for deletion, Template:Film Afghanistan, has been appropriately tagged with the ((tfd)) tag. Thus, only readers of the Afghanistan films in which this template is transcluded would be aware of this tfd (plus those who visit TFD and the Film Project page regularly). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I will have them tagged, and relist the discussion. Thanks pointing this out. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:49, 12 May 2012 (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) 19:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Immediate reaction: Delete all. Sorry, Lugnuts; it seems odd to be disagreeing with you.
  For a software designer, this scenario is very familiar. What you are describing is an optimizing composite subroutine call; it bundles together disparate side effects, in order to reduce code size primarily. That's its value, code size reduction.
  That's acceptable if you are the only programmer on a project, or you have a small team. But in general, it's poor programming practice; it's structurally unsound. It does not "scale" well, as we say. More trouble than it's worth, that sort of thing. You end up with the sort of issues described above.
  Here at WP, we effectively have millions of "programmers", not just one. Avoiding a composite call means more "grunt" work, but then again we have millions of grunts.
  Varlaam (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to argue one way or the other in this discussion, but the design value here is not just code reduction, it is also consistency: one would aim to bundle together disparate but consistent side effects, i.e. one would like the categorization to match what is displayed in the infobox. Of course, this is a very minor point. Same as in software design: in the end, the cure can be worse than the disease. GregorB (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Do not delete! --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all (after adding the relevant categories directly and replacing with plain text) There's no good reason for the categorisation to be done with a template instead of normal categories. - Kollision (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all This will also keep test and user pages out of inappropriate cats. It will be an easy (if possibly time-consuming) process to subst: and delete these templates. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - These templates are an inferior method of implementing categorization regardless of one's position on the use of template-generated categories in articles. I prefer manual categorization, for reasons already stated by others; however, even if one prefers template categorization, it should be possible to accomplish the same thing by modifying the code for the country parameter of Template:Infobox film. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  And that's the point everyone's missed completly - the infobox already adds a category to the article - the language. So that's OK, but this isn't? Lugnuts (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a topic for a separate discussion, I think. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches – manual categorization and template categorization – that should be discussed and considered at another venue (Template talk:Infobox film seems the most logical). However, deletion of this group of templates is warranted in both cases. If consensus favors manual categorization, then of course these templates should be converted and removed. If consensus favors template categorization, then the infobox parameter should add the category (without transcluding additional templates ... just like the language parameter does) and these templates still should be converted and removed. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:46, 21 May 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) 03:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ayreon guest musicians (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not adhering to WP:Navbox: "4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template" and lacking notability. — Quibus (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I saw this template by coincidence last week. My reaction was, "Mikael Åkerfeldt, Ton Scherpenzeel, and Thijs van Leer are in a single template. I will need to look up the rest of the guys listed." Maybe the most informative and compelling musical template I've encountered in 8 years. This Ayreon fellow evidently only uses major musical figures as sidemen. Varlaam (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, noting the removal of redlinks and per Varlaam. Full discloure: I'm a fan of Ayreon. Having said all that, I'd also be perfectly fine if this template was collapsed by default wherever it is used. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I agree on the value of the info in this template, so would a merge with Template:Arjen Anthony Lucassen be a solution (with a link to the full List of Ayreon guest musicians under 'related')? I still think it's overkill to have a guest musicians template on it's own. — Quibus (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed, List of Ayreon guest musicians is the 'lacking article', so there goes that argument... I still am for merging — Quibus (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ayreon guest musicians. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:49, 18 May 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 wrong venue for two reasons (1) this is a redirect, and redirects are discussed at WP:RFD, (2) the redirect is to userbox in userspace, and userboxes are discussed at WP:MFD. However since it is now an unused cross namespace redirect, I have deleted it per WP:GUS. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User taiwan legit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template says "This user believes that the Republic of China is a legitimate nation." So I suggest Rename to Template:User ROC legit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibicdlcod (talk • contribs) 13:55, 12 May 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 after substitution (single use template) which is not commonly presented as a navbox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ancestry of James I of Scotland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Is there a point to having a template that will only ever be used on one article? I would recommend subst and delete. Jenks24 (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete after substitution. the same could be said for about half the navboxes in James I of Scotland. Frietjes (talk) 15:53, 18 May 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) 05:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:An Ghaeltacht Football Team 2004 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Don't think a runners-up side is notable enough for a navbox. Telling that the category it's in is Category:All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Winners templates. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, we don't need a navbox for runners-up. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:00, 23 May 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) 03:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amman Roundabouts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one link, no article space transclusions. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This template used to have a bunch of links in it. The linked articles were since consolidated to the sole present linked article and the template became redundant. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 16:04, 12 May 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 nomination withdrawn. Now navigates four articles, thanks Mjroots. Jenks24 (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ames ships (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two bluelinks and two transclusions. "Ames Shipbuilding & Drydock Co" does not appear to be a notable company, does not have an article that I can find. Better handled by a see also. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Ames may not have been a major shipbuilder (29 ships built in total), but that doesn't make them non-notable. The template illustrates that there are still articles to be written on the other 27 ships. I wouldn't want to see a "See also" section listing another 28 ships when that can adequately be handled by an unobtrusive navbox. Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give some evidence that Ames is notable? Also, there would not be 28 links in a see also, there would be only be one. The template can be recreated after it actually has something to navigate. Jenks24 (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Mjroots. Red links are not a reason for deletion. Brad (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Red links are not evil. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is saying they are, but it is pointless to have a navigational box that doesn't navigate anything. Jenks24 (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bit of searching has revealed articles on two more of the ships were already on Wikipedia, so there are now four blue links. Mjroots (talk) 18:05, 18 May 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) 05:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ameriprise Financial (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Link spam, consists almost entirely of external links to the company's website. Only one transclusion. Jenks24 (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. I removed the linkspam, but still think it should be deleted. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 15:58, 23 May 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) 05:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only two bluelinks, surely better handled by a see also or wikilinks within prose. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as a somewhat arbitrary grouping. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 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 userfy Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American quick links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one transclusion and that's in userspace. Doesn't really seem to be useful. Jenks24 (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't object to that. Jenks24 (talk) 11:52, 12 May 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) 04:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Failed proposal without documentation, that is not used, and having an opaque name not consistent with the content of the template. The system was discovered as abandoned by Zzyzx11 as documented at Template talk:Membership. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment can someone with AWB access tag the several tens of templates in this system? Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Membership/ -- 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If deleted then Wikipedia:International membership templates should also go. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Massively overwrought and unused. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. To me, it looks like a programmer's utility program. It tests the organizational information stored in a country's container.
  So, in this specific case, it's telling me France's Interpol date is not defined when it probably could/should be?
  Do I have that right??
  That might be a useful tool which should be stored wherever useful tools are stored.
  Presumably I can confirm that Somalia is established as a member of the Arab League, without having to load the Somalia page, which could take forever on this PC.
  I have written utility programs like this myself to check the internal data store of whatever project I was working on for the office.
  Varlaam (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that we are unlikely to decide that this tabular format should in fact be rolled out to the country articles. Each country article already explains which international organisations a given state is a member of in the prose. Should we wish to add it in a more structured manner it is far more likely that we'll do it in the infobox, rather than in an entirely new (and seriously overengineered) format like this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as unused. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 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.