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) 23:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Irony mark (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused.  Gadget850 ^talk 23:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is clearly being used, there are several listed transclusions -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really have to look at the transclusions and filter out the noise. Two are to the template in question, three are to the discussion on this page, one is to a user talk page who was notified of this discussion and the others are inconsequential uses on old talk pages. Often you will also find that the template is listed in the see also section on other template pages. --  Gadget850 ^talk 13:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because it is not used in articlespace does not mean the template is not being used. Considering what the content of the template is, it should NEVER be used in articlespace anyways. Since you do understand that it is being used in discussions, it clearly is being used, so makes your statement of being "unused" wrong. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have a nice day. Out. --  Gadget850 ^talk 05:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or userfy. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It is not "Unused", and those old discussions that do use it would have a red hole where the template once was. It isn't hurting anything by its presence, and this seems especially useful, with the new civility campaign and all. Wikipedia talk pages are a text based forum (for lack of a better word) and most online forums have emotes to help help make communications clearer, and this could be one of the more useful ones. Perhaps the reason it isn't used much because it is not included in Category:Emoticon insertion templates, which could be rectified if there is consensus to do so. Short version: not 'unused', and useful in that it could prevent misunderstandings. Eddymason (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The are no uses of consequence. Use on talk pages and archives will be substed. --  Gadget850 ^talk 20:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a matter of opinion. "Unused" is factually incorrect. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and either userfy or delete as this isn't being used enough to have a template —PC-XT+ 04:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gadget. --Izno (talk) 19:15, 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) 23:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Huddersfield Town current squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates should not normally be used to store article text: Wikipedia:Template_namespace#Guidelines. The Huddersfield Town squad should not be included in a template, but instead included in the main Huddersfield Town F.C. parent article. JMHamo (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not required. GiantSnowman 14:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nomination rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the template is also used in the current season article. Probably a way of keeping the 2 in step by having the information in a single place. Keith D (talk) 21:10, 8 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) 23:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:I* (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single page use; replace with ((efn))/((notelist))  Gadget850 ^talk 16:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 18:23, 7 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. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 09:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Single use; replaceable by <wbr> if really needed.  Gadget850 ^talk 16:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• On what grounds do you claim "single use"? I count five uses. Of these, one is a talkpage and one is a sandbox, leaving three; but one of those three is Template:GeoTemplate, which is linked from every single page that has ((coord)) (whether directly or via the infobox). Usage therefore runs into the . --Redrose64 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, two articles (three uses), one on its own talk page and one use in a template that is not used. ((GeoTemplate)) is noted in ((coord)) and other documentation but not otherwise used that I can see.[1] --  Gadget850 ^talk 20:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go to any page with coordinates, e.g. London. Locate the coordinates - they should be upper right, and click them. If you prefer, try clicking these: 51°30′N 0°00′E / 51.5°N 0°E / 51.5; 0. You should then see some tables of mapping services; these are built from selective transclusion of Template:GeoTemplate. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • tools.wmflabs.org can use templates from en.wikipedia.org? I see this when I click on the Template link on the GeoHack page. --  Gadget850 ^talk 20:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the only use of ((wbr)) in ((GeoTemplate)) is Open((wbr))Street((wbr))Map, which is shorter than Blue Marble Navigator. --  Gadget850 ^talk 20:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • "OpenStreetMap" is one word, so it won't wrap without <wbr> (or equivalent). Alakzi (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are right, it just shows as one word when not wrapped. Not relevant. --  Gadget850 ^talk 21:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Replace Open((wbr))Street((wbr))Map with ((Abbr|OSM|OpenStreetMap)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 7 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) 23:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused and duplicates other navigation. Frietjes (talk) 16:33, 7 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) 23:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Periodisation of Indian History (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Periodisation of Hinduism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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) 04:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nbsp! (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused.  Gadget850 ^talk 13:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is clearly in use, several transclusions are listed -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of consequense. -- [[User:Edokter]] ((talk)) 13:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevertheless, the nomination is factually wrong, and therefore there is no actual nomination rationale, since the nomination isn't right. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Once someone agrees and provides a new rationale, the discussion continues even if the nomination is withdrawn. I see your point that there are some links, though. —PC-XT+ 04:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete provided the deleter removes the few remaining links (i.e., from doc pages). --CapitalR (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since we might as well use the raw code for this —PC-XT+ 04:51, 11 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) 04:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of MTR Light Rail Stops (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Exactly one transclusion (on Light Rail (Hong Kong)). Should be substituted. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use ((ping|Jc86035)) to reply to me 12:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• move to articlespace without redirect, merge with Light Rail (Hong Kong), then redirect to preserve attribution. Frietjes (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect per Frietjes —PC-XT+ 04:56, 11 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 move to article space. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chrome Release History (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Subst and delete Templates should not normally be used to store article text: Wikipedia:Template_namespace#Guidelines.  NeoGeneric 💬  03:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There can be, and have been, exceptions. I expect this was split for reasons such as the article edit history becoming hard to follow. I prefer to subst and delete single-use templates in most cases, but would like to hear some discussion before I !vote on this case. —PC-XT+ 03:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Similar to Template:Firefox release compatibility (discussion). This template is used in Google Chrome and Google Chrome for Android--Claw of Slime (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlike the Firefox page, the Chrome version history template has enough material to be an article in itself and has no need for transclusion into other pages.  NeoGeneric 💬  14:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove from pages in which it is currently transcluded. Place on a new page (say Release History of Chrome browser). Link to it from those pages, then Subst: it on the new page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I'd also like to draw attention that this was the outcome for Windows Phone and iOS version history templates recently, which are of similar type.  NeoGeneric 💬  14:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's ways to copy the edit history from the template into the new article, we could do that ofter substing. --Distelfinck (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not just turn it into an article after removal, then move it to article space, if we want to keep the history? —PC-XT+ 05:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah moving it to article space would be better. --Distelfinck (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to article space after making it into an article, and turn transclusions into links —PC-XT+ 07:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and redirect - Save the history with a redirect, but there is no reason for a stand-alone article separate from the main Chrome article. I am indifferent if someone wants to move it to article space before converting it to a redirect. Six of one, half dozen of another. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to article space and make it an article. Link to it accordingly. (As PC-XT previously described above.) I believe there is every reason for this large, unwieldy, highly detailed technical history of the browser to be a separate article, especially as the browser's history continues to grow. As Claw of Slime mentions above, this data table is used on multiple pages, so it would ideally stay a template, branching only the information relevant to those pages. But I never implemented that functionality, not wanting to dedicate the time to maintain such a "delicate" system (by Wikipedia standards), and so I now believe that the most practical solution - and likely the most acceptable & agreeable one - is to simply make it an article.
  - Smike ( Talk ) 05:05, 19 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) 04:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:13th Grey Cup Ottawa Senators (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant template. Does not aid navigation... JMHamo (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unused duplicate of Template:13th Grey Cup. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nominator rationale. This is the very definition of "redundant template." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:23, 8 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) 04:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:.hack chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

.hack is a mixed media franchise with too many entries to list them all on this template. In addition to the fictional chronology being trivial information, there already exists a navbox and a media page which makes this box redundant. KirtZJ (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As redundant. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is the same as the multiple Video Game series chronology templates that were deleted recently.--64.229.166.35 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Navbox is good enough to serve this purpose, and can be expanded as a "site map" to include the individual video game titles and shows. A timeline can also be added to the franchise article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:53, 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.