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) 19:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Mediterranean Games Macedonia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Was single use, but redundant to ((Infobox country at games)) with which I have replaced it.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• appears we lost information found in the old revision? Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant to ((Infobox Country Mediterranean Games)), as shown in Special:Diff/649721683, but Frietjes is right that the included information did change when switching to ((Infobox country at games)) in Special:Diff/649722296. —PC-XT+ 02:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NPB season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Only seven transclusions.

Template:Infobox Nippon Professional Baseball season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Only two transclusions.

Propose merging Template:Infobox NPB season with Template:Infobox Nippon Professional Baseball season.

Apparently identical purposes. The "NPB" template has the better appearance; but the other template's name is better. Perhaps a more generic template is available? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment regarding notice - WikiProject Baseball has been notified of this pending TfD: [1]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I think these can trivially be merged, though I find it likely that there is another more general template lying around which could replace the dozen uses between the two templates. --Izno (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Template:Infobox league season and Template:Infobox sports season almost hit the mark, though neither of those are for specific teams' season. I think what may be a (different) problem is that the articles the nominated templates are used on may not be notable. I'm not seeing evidence that there are similar articles for U.S. teams, nor do these articles in particular have anything but statistics, something Wikipedia is not…. --Izno (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I've converted the only two articles using T:I Nippon Professional Baseball season to use T:I NPB season. No preference on name of template at this time. --Izno (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2015 (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 consensus, now widely used. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Designation/infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: please remind me how this template was used previously and do you know why it is no longer used? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  No idea - you could ask its creator ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know if or how it was ever used, but it appears to duplicate ((Infobox designation list)). Alakzi (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Now I remember - something to do with using colored borders instead of backgrounds. Just going to ping Skeezix1000, Peter I. Vardy, Moxy and Zzyzx11 who reverted the change to Template:Infobox designation list. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Zzyzx11 claimed the issue to be that the coloured border hung outside the cell; all it takes to fix that is box-sizing: border-box, which I've now added to ((Designation/infobox)). Do I have everybody's blessing to reinstate the wrappers? Alakzi (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I've implemented the wrapper in the sandbox. Testcases are here. Alakzi (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps you were using it as a sandbox? Looks like I created Infobox designation list on 9 June 2011, and you created Designation/infobox later on 16 November 2011. The only other clue I see going through the list of 'WhatLinksHere' is an archived discussion on User talk:MSGJ/2013#Template:Designation/infobox, where you also stated that you did not remember what you were doing back then, and that you gave permission to delete or redirect it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Now in use at ((Infobox designation list)). Alakzi (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2015 (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) 19:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Youth Olympics Croatia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned (there were three transclusions, which I have replaced with the more common ((Infobox country at games)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• see [2] [3] [4]. may be useful to have an alternative set of succession links for previous summer/winter as we have in Template:Infobox games? Frietjes (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2015 (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) 04:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pad-quotes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unused --  Gadget850 ^talk 15:52, 4 March 2015 (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) 04:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roads of Fort Smith (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Roads of Hot Springs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Roads in Jonesboro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates add clutter to the articles they are placed on. The purpose is better served by categories to reduce visual monstrosity. See precedents at WP:USRD/P#Other debates and a couple TfDs that have already closed for similar templates that served the Valdosta, Georgia, and Lubbock, Texas, regions. TCN7JM 16:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom and previous discussions. Dough4872 16:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—per my previous comments in the preceding nominations, and the discussion which instigated them. They take up too much visual room in articles and pollute the results of the "What links here" tool. Since the impacted articles should have the appropriate "Transportation in <County> County, <State>" categories, and metropolitan areas are defined at a county level (the Fort Smith metropolitan area is defined as Sebastian, Crawford, and Franklin counties in Arkansas in addition to Le Flore and Sequoyah counties in Oklahoma), then the transportation categories already present on the articles serve the function of linking the metro areas' roads together. Imzadi 1979 → 17:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Valdosta precedent.  VC  02:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my previous comments in the preceding nomination discussions. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Rschen7754 05:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Valdosta and Lubbock precedents, and the practices of the relevant WikiProjects. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pine Bluff box, too added below. Given the addition of the fourth template, it is probably appropriate to re-list/extend this discussion for at least seven more days. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice – If it's alright, I would like to add one more navbox to this discussion that I seem to have overlooked. My rationale is the same as for the other three.

Template:Roads of Pine Bluff (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

@Dough4872, Imzadi1979, Viridiscalculus, Morriswa, Rschen7754, and Dirtlawyer1: Does this change your opinion on the discussion at all? TCN7JM 15:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, this one should be deleted too. Dough4872 15:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No, my opinion is still the same: delete them all for the reasons that I previously stated above. Imzadi 1979 → 18:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This doesn't change my opinion to keep all of them. Sorry. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete them all, but usually it's best to make it separate so it doesn't hold up the others. --Rschen7754 01:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No change to my keep/toss opinion, but do keep this open another week per template added to this discussion for this to be procedurally kosher.  VC  01:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—we could also drop the new addition and run it with the next batch to be nominated. It may look odd to have one from a different state, but it wouldn't hold up this nomination (and the next one since we seem to want to avoid having two similar batch nominations open at once). Then again, it's all great to adhere to the letter of the law to follow procedure, but I don't think the outcome would be any different with this fourth template in a week's time or now. Imzadi 1979 → 01:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – My being the nominator aside, I think a case like this is why WP:IAR exists. All involved editors have already commented on the Pine Bluff box, and keeping this open for another week would bring minimal, if any, extra commentary. It would also slow down my bringing another batch of these in to TfD. That being said, the mistake was mine to forget about the Pine Bluff box for six days before adding it, so (potential) closing admin, the choice is yours. TCN7JM 13:35, 10 March 2015 (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. 28bytes (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unicode spaced ndash (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Unicode spaced mdash (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unused --  Gadget850 ^talk 15:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per above Jimp 05:50, 10 March 2015 (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. 28bytes (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

unused. Frietjes (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unused --  Gadget850 ^talk 15:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete them all. There's not used. We don't need them. Jimp 19:32, 5 March 2015 (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) 04:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused and redundant to ((pad)), ((px1)), ((px2)). Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unused --  Gadget850 ^talk 15:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete db-g7 Maiō T. (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2015 (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) 06:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Citation template used at just three articles. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2015 (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) 06:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Armenians 1986 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Citation template used at just two articles. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2015 (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) 06:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Suny 1994 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Citation template used at just one article Ricky81682 (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2015 (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) 06:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very odd citation template that links to a I'm not sure reliable source film festival website. Note that the templates calls don't work anymore and the links just go to their first page I believe. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2015 (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) 18:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref Enc German Tanks WWII (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Citation template used in just one article. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2015 (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) 18:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref WW2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Citation template used in just four articles. The level of intricacy involved to be able to properly use this template (when just text is required) is excessive and not helpful for other editors here. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2015 (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) 18:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref Tank Combat in North Africa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hard-coded citation template used in just two articles. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after replacing the template with content on the two articles. Josh (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2015 (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) 18:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref Fleets WWII (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hard-coded citation template used in just two articles. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2015 (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, per general consensus concerning hard-coded citations (for example, template:cite isbn). I will leave a copy of the template's contents, Davey, T. & Puschmann, H. (1996) Kiwi rock. Dunedin: Kiwi Rock Publications. ISBN 0-473-03718-1, in the deletion summary. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DaveyKiwirock1996 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Citation template used in only four articles. It would be easier for other people to work with the text (such as say if someone wanted to add a page number) if the text was subst directly into the pages and not in a separate template. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - template is usually subst'ed. I've used it on a couple of dozen articles from memory. It is useful and easy to work with that way. I'd see no objection to someone reworking the template so that page numbers can be added directly to it, but the template gets a lot of use, and the reasons given for deletion don't seem to be covered by WP:TFD#REASONS. Grutness...wha? 21:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you just copy and paste it? I think you could look at the Guideline against a template that "substantially duplicate or hardcode the same functionality of established templates". This is just hard-coded text. It's not a template really, or at best a hard-coded example of another template and now you're adding in an actual parameter for once that'll be passed along. We could also include the accessdate and more, all of which could be avoided if people just copied and pasted the reference or something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose it can be kept as a subst-only template —PC-XT+ 02:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC) I do wonder if it is needed. Copy/paste is probably better. If people are using it, I suppose it could be kept for now, but otherwise, it should be deleted. —PC-XT+ 14:45, 5 March 2015 (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) 18:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bouillet note (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't think it's necessary to have a separate template to create the note section that the (separate) reference template is then within. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete wrapper for ((Bouillet ref)) that adds no other form or function --  Gadget850 ^talk 15:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after replacing. Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2015 (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 2015 March 22. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:02, 22 March 2015 (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 2015 March 22. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:01, 22 March 2015 (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 2015 March 22. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:59, 22 March 2015 (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) 05:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

overly complicated method for linking to a portal. Frietjes (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete redundant to ((Portal-inline)) --  Gadget850 ^talk 19:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—overly complex (could just be substituted in place for simplicity within each article) but also redundant to ((portal-inline)). Imzadi 1979 → 19:10, 9 March 2015 (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.