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 substitute and delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Buenos Aires elections, 2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Catamarca elections, 2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Salta elections, 2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:La Rioja elections, 2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One-use templates; used only in Argentine provincial elections, 2011. Should be substituted and deleted. Robofish (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with "substituted"?--Andres arg (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Substitution. Basically it means copy the contents of the template directly into the article. Instead of having the data in a template, you would have the data directly in the article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm fine with it, I think I did the template because I saw in another page that it was done on that way. Greetings.--Andres arg (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Templates such as this can be used to clean up the source of the page. Rather than wading through a large, bulky table, editors only see the template markup. This doesn't impede editability because of the edit and discuss links on the template. Ryan Vesey 20:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after merging the contents with the article. having the content in the article is easier to maintain (in my opinion). Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 10 September 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) 08:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant template with ((Totd)) and ((Styletips)). It only used one place and can easily be replaced by Totd. Creator is okay with it being deleted [1]. meshach (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC) withdrawn by nominator meshach (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure I'm seeing the redundancy, since both other templates are autocontent templates, while this one is customizable manual entry content -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Merging into ((notice)) might be good, with a selector for "type=notice" and "type=tip" -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First, note that this is User:Ryan Vesey editing from an IP. You can leave a note on my talk page to confirm it. I don't believe ((Tip)) is redundant because it's use is that you can customize the message. The example you linked to cannot be replaced with ((Totd)). That examples uses ((Tip)) for its intended purpose and the only way to replace it would be to remove the template entirely. I see use in this template, in fact, I might incorporate it into my adoption program.174.25.220.81 (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just verifying that the above was in fact me. Ryan Vesey 20:17, 29 August 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) 21:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, unless someone wants to merge it with ((notice)). Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I can actually see some ongoing value for this: the particular presentation used is very common in print manuals and the like, and could be deployed more widely throughout our projectspace tutorials. I don't think an appropriate merge target has been identified. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I can see that there is no consensus for deletion so I am okay with keeping it. Sorry for wasting everyone's time! meshach (talk) 05:31, 12 September 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) 08:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zeb and Haniya (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner _talk 17:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: insufficient links to justify a navbox. Robofish (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; this navigates too few links to be useful at this time.  Gongshow ^Talk 01:16, 9 September 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, author moved the template to List of Aztec deities, so I suppose take it to AfD if it should still be deleted? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aztec gods (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Plain text, used in only one article. Text can be included there. The Banner _talk 17:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete. (It is also used in Portal:Aztec mythology, but it doesn't seem particularly useful there when it could just be linked instead.) Robofish (talk) 22:51, 8 September 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) 06:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.M.N. Network box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless external link to a Wikia Wiki. Only used for Xenosaga characters, and thus only two have actual articles (Shion Uzuki and KOS-MOS), it's hardly even used. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 04:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems like an unnecessary template to me. We don't need to link to every other Wikia site out there, and even if these external links are useful, we don't need a specific template for it. Robofish (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Site-specific extlink templates are only of clear utility when they're going to be broadly used. In this case ((wikia)) more than suffices. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 11 September 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.