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 no consensus per no consensus of discussion of Template:CTableStart. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used in only one article. Redundant to other templates; or Wikimarkup. Content is |}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• provisional keep convert to redirect to ((end)). As long as ((CTableStart)) exists, the complementary template should as well. (as this wasn't a combined nomination for both templates, this is my !vote for this particular template) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pairs with ((CTableStart)) (below). Cannot be replaced by bare Wiki markup (the table end marker) because there are bots that acting in good-faith can (and do) actually break it. When such bots find a Wiki markup table end marker without a corresponding Wiki markup table start marker, they believe the table end marker to be superfluous and remove it - breaking the table and thus the page. The ((end)) template can be used instead, but it is common practice for the end template to have a name that is similar to the start template, to aid in visual matching when looking through a page source. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, but restrict it to non-articles, since that's where it is being used. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and do not redirect to ((end)) since it makes it harder to find mismatched begin/end table templates, and breaks any hide-in-print features when they are not matched. Frietjes (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to ((end)) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2014 (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 no conensus to delete. There is some consensus that it's not all that useful, and could maybe be replaced with other collapsable templates, but lacking a migration strategy other than subst'ing (which has no consensus due to clutter) there isn't (yet) a clear way forward for this template. No prejudice against re-nomination with a suitable proposed specific migration proposal other than substituting current uses Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used in only one article. Redundant to other templates; or Wikimarkup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support subst and deletion as functionality already provided by other collapsible templates. SFB 09:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no requirement that a template has to be used on more than one article. This is used extensively (several hundred pages) in user talk: space, often because of substing ((User:Brambleclawx/wel)). You don't say which templates it is redundant to: we need to know these things so that the advantages and disadvantages can be fairly considered. It might be redundant to wiki markup, were in not for the fact that the wiki markup that is emitted occupies four lines - this cannot be reduced because it starts a table having a header row and leading into the first cell. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, but restrict it to non-articles, since that's where it is being used. note, I replaced it in this article. Frietjes (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2014 (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 Speedy delete by RHaworth per speedy deletion criterion G6 after attributions moved to Competitive Enterprise Institute/IRS form 990 table by Frietjes. Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Competitive Enterprise Institute/IRS form 990 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use; article content template. Subst: then delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• move to a subpage, substitute, and redirect to preserve history behind the redirect. Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2014 (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 Speedy delete by RHaworth per speedy deletion criterion G6 after attributions moved to Cornerstone Policy Research/IRS form 990 table by Frietjes. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cornerstone Policy Research/IRS form 990 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use; article content template. Subst: then delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• move to a subpage, substitute, and redirect to preserve history behind the redirect. Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2014 (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 with no objection against userfication for subst: use Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Money Management International/IRS form 990 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. If needed, should be Subst: in article or draft space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete or userfy, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2014 (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 Speedy delete by RHaworth per speedy deletion criterion G6 after attributions moved to Money Management International/Texas Secretary of State table by Frietjes. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Money Management International/Texas Secretary of State table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete or userfy, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2014 (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 Speedy delete by RHaworth per speedy deletion criterion G6 after attributions moved to Consumer Alert/IRS form 990 table by Frietjes. Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Consumer Alert/IRS form 990 table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use; article content template. Subst: then delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• move to a subpage, substitute, and redirect to preserve history behind the redirect. Frietjes (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2014 (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) 05:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete along with ((ntc)) and ((ntr)), all three are redundant to '|align=left/center/right|((nts|...))' Frietjes (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2014 (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, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused (I Subst: the only two instances, in a single article). Content is style="background: #f9f9f9; text-align: left; font-weight: normal;" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. When I created it, I had hoped that this would become a useful and widely-used template, encouraging users to create more-accessible tables without worrying that the th visual styling might be inappropriate. As that's evidently not the case, as this template is completely orphaned now and as the nominator is probably the Wikipedian whose opinions on accessibility I most respect, I'd suggest it can be deleted immediately without further debate. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenBlacker: Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete we have 'class=plainrowheaders' for this exact purpose. Frietjes (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2014 (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) 05:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2014 (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) 05:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I remember this being used on multiple "Big Brother" pages. Make sure it is properly subst: on all of those pages and delete. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(e • t • c)} 00:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2014 (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) 05:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I remember this being used on multiple "Big Brother" pages. Make sure it is properly subst: on all of those pages and delete. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(e • t • c)} 00:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2014 (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) 05:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I remember this being used on multiple "Big Brother" pages. Make sure it is properly subst: on all of those pages and delete. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(e • t • c)} 00:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2014 (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 relisted on 2014 November 29. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:07, 29 November 2014 (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 relisted on 2014 November 29. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:03, 29 November 2014 (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 as unused Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:?& (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused (I Subst:@ the only instance, on a talk page archive). Content is <span style="color:royalblue; font-weight:bold; font-style: italic;" alt="blue question mark">?</span>. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, replaceable by ((dunno)) in tables. Frietjes (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2014 (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 into one template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hotcold-1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hotcold0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hotcold1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hotcold2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hotcold3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hotcold4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hotcold5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hotcold6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hotcold7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hotcold8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hotcold9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hotcold10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hot Cold templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in article space; better delivered as classed styles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - lots of templates are not used in article space; perhaps the majority are not. As it stands, you've broken this template by nominating it and made a mess of every table where it is currently displayed, like this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cline (talk • contribs) 22:07, 1 November 2014‎
• Addendum - I've changed my !vote to speedy keep because like Redrose64 said below: my immediate feeling was that a wp:point was being made along some wp:idontlikeit party line. To be honest about how it has affected my collaborative wiki mood, I don't like it a lick. I challenge Andy Mabbett to come correct and withdraw the nomination. I do know that you are more than strong enough to discuss what it is that you don't like about this template; that is not used in article space, without disrupting a half dozen other name spaces where this template is in some form of current use. Unless of course, you'd rather stand firm on your perspective coming in to this discussion. I'm keen to see your reply.—John Cline (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to be unfamiliar with both our Speedy keep criteria and WP:AGF. That aside, please can you explain why, to pick one example at random, the mere 34 non-article pages which use ((Hotcold4)) need it? How many of our editors do you think are aware of it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also seems that your !vote was changed due to improper canvassing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize to you; having confused you with another editor I had worked with in the past who had a username similar to yours. I have stricken the portion of my !vote where I mistakenly expressed a collegial editing familiarity with you that does not exist. Having said that, I stand on the balance of my !vote, and trust that the proper consensus will prevail. Also, I wish with Godspeed you fare well, for all of the way that you fare.—John Cline (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Noted that you have failed to strike the part of your comment where you falsely accused me of a bad-faith nomination. My questions, which you have ignored, were- "please can you explain why, to pick one example at random, the mere 34 non-article pages which use ((Hotcold4)) need it? How many of our editors do you think are aware of it?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did see your questions; they seemed rhetorical to me. And by telling me, (and everyone else who reads), how unfamiliar I apparently am with basic wikipedia-norms, not !answering seemed like the "correct answer", and fair-enough by me. I find the query's reiteration, a tad-befuddling; being no-more qualified to give any !answers now.

Just as I did not ignore your first incantations, I'll not acquiesce the reiteration's aspersion that I had. In rebuttal, I assure you that I do not, nor have I ever, intentionally ignored anything. And my answer of the 2nd query is to recuse and give deference to others well read, and better spoken than me; I have no appetite for sparring with "Straw Man".

There is no failure to strike, as no strike-able accusation exists, (from me at least). On the other hand, your allegation against me exists, and should comport with your beliefs on how a baseless allegation ought to be handled. I found the attempt at "breaking my skin" using such a miniscule prick, humorous; (I've a bit thicker skin than that). I also enjoyed the poetic nature of the charge, as levied, and the self-evident vindication of its unintentional metaphoric irony – for if canvassing could be properly done, it surely would at least have a hint of some form of canvassing, (it seems, one would think).

Therefore, please don't prod me to reply, here, any further. Especially to append the kind of off-topic-banter your query solicits. I prefer to conclude my participation instead; by standing on the !vote I already gave; as it is given. And by inviting you to my talk page if you require anything further of me. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all They were doing no harm, and were an aid to formatting tables. This appears to be another WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Redrose64: That's not - obviously - the first time you've impugned my motives in this manner. Wanting to reduce the template-related maintenance overhead, and the learning curve for new editors; or to move styles from templates into stylesheets, is in no way what is meant by WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and I would be grateful if you would desist from such unbecoming and fallacious accusations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the template-related maintenance overhead for these? Templates are maintained primarily by their creators, or if protected, by those users who have the appropriate editing right. There is no requirement that a template has to be used in article space. If there were, ((tfd links)) would be dead in the water. Templates exist to make it easier to construct repeated sequences of wiki markup, and to simplify the use of constructs that might otherwise be dauntingly technical. Consider User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month, one of the pages where the templates under discussion are used - this has a row which begins

      | January ||||((Hotcold0|2))||((Hotcold2|13)) ||
      

      These templates apply one class - table-no - and some inline styling via a style= attribute. If suitable CSS rules existed in style sheets we could mark up that row as

      | January ||||class="hotcold-0 table-no" | 2||class="hotcold-2 table-no" | 13 ||
      

      but this is clearly longer and, for those unfamiliar with the class= attribute, not as easy to use. Moving styles from the inline style= attribute to style sheets is often ideal from a HTML point of view, but in order to do that, a style sheet needs the appropriate rule adding first. Wikipedia does not permit page-specific style sheets, either coded into the page itself as <style>...</style> or loaded from another file using <link rel=stylesheet type="text/css" href="..." />, because the necessary elements are not whitelisted and so ineffective; gadgets and user style sheets are possible but impractical because we can't ask everybody who views the page to set their preferences or user style sheet first; so this leaves site-wide style sheets, which are loaded for every page whether or not the page needs the rules defined within. There are several of these, some of which are only editable by developers; the others are editable by admins, but not by template-editors or confirmed users; moreover, not all admins have the knowledge to write the selectors and declarations that constitute a rule, or the confidence to add a rule that was written by somebody else. Occasionally a request is made to add a rule to MediaWiki:Common.css, but these are sometimes turned down because the use case is inadequate.
    • So the choice is this: do we (a) create some sitewide CSS rules that are only needed on a very few pages, and replace the template wherever it is transcluded by a HTML attribute that sets the styling through a class like

      class="hotcold-0 table-no"
      

      (b) replace the template wherever it is transcluded by the equivalent HTML attributes that sets the styling inline like

      style="background:#FCC200; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-no"
      

      which will clearly bloat the wikimarkup to the point that the information that is intended to be visible - an integer - is lost in the trees; or (c) do we keep the templates and leave things as they are? I choose (c). --Redrose64 (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Speedy keep AND merge into a single Template:Hotcold. There is no need to have multiple versions of near identical templates that only have a single difference that could very easily be accomplished with a magnitude parameter (named or not, doesn't matter). Then, the "lack of use" of any one sub-version argument would be wiped out. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(e • t • c)} 00:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Technical 13, that would need be a good solution, if the template is not deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge per T13. Even if a template is used in one article, if it standardizes and prevents having to re-type the same code repeatedly, it should remain. It would be helpful if such nominations gave a more detailed explanation of the proposed solution. If the idea here is to just use raw classes, I believe that's less accessible and understandable to the average editor, and there's no documentation, searchability, etc. Why is that better? In general (not just this particular TfD), is it really necessary to break the rendering of templates during the discussion? Can't we come up with a better way of attracting relevant editors to a discussion? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I created this template, I don't claim to be an expert at templates and there may well be better ways to do what this does. But if so there are rather less bitey ways to improve it than to nominate it for deletion. Whilst this template may not yet be used in article space, it is used by various people discussing the admin drought, and suggesting an improvement by tagging it for deletion makes a mess of the matrix that uses it. ϢereSpielChequers 20:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge per T13's suggestion and Redrose64's logic. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 22:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge, seems like a good solution, given the comments above about why this is better than CSS markup for this use.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (and delete. I have no idea how merging and keeping would serve us) to a single ((hotcold)) with a level parameter. ((hotcold7)) would become ((hotcold|7)). Using css classes for this while they still have to go in common.css seems suboptimal - though hopefully that will change in the not-so-distant future - so inline styles are the way to go for now. A cool feature could be having an x/y hotcold (i.e. 7/10 or 2/5) and have the template dynamically calculate it's color. But such daydreaming is for another day. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @Martijn Hoekstra: I tried making a template with a background color that varies linearly based on the cell content at User:SiBr4/sandbox/template2. See this testcase. Instead of a parameter for the "magnitude", it includes min and max parameters which specify the range of numbers to compare the displayed number with. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per T13 and others —PC-XT+ 07:12, 11 November 2014 (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) 05:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFC Champions League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_9#Template:UEFA_Europa_League these groupings are not useful in either their club's articles nor the competition article as well. It also still is used on older season articles, thus proving wrong info. Koppapa (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous consensus with UEFA templates, I don't see how this is any different. GiantSnowman 13:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--2nyte (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as it appears to offer a summary of how the season played out which for me would aid in navigation. I'm not a big sports person, and I've no clue what the importance of such a thing to an enthusiast would be, but for a Joe Schmoe like me, it seems useful. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(e • t • c)} 02:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. -- Jkudlick (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2014 (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.