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).

The result of the discussion was Delete after substitution. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Motto (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant wrapper of ((tmbox)). Just 45 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is sometimes used, and what harm does it do for editors who like to use it to have the option? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sometimes used" is not a good reason to keep an otherwise-redundant template. The harm done by keeping redundant templates is explained in Wikipedia:Template consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Needless wrapper, does next to nothing. Also doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose of abstraction, as it's being used in a variety of different ways. Substitute and delete. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete Wrappers around a template that hardcode a subset of arguments can be good. However, this is only normally in cases where a) the arguments being hardcoded have some relationship to each other and are complex enough that it might be reasonable to edit the wrapper template to change them all at once; or b) the pages on which the template is being used have something in common that might require all the pages to be updated at once, in which case changing the wrapper is the easiest way to do so. As it is, this is only hardcoding one argument, and in a very generic way; given that it's unclear how a change to the wrapper could ever be beneficial (as it might help some pages, but would hurt others), it's better to just give the argument directly. --ais523 23:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Keep, but with NPASR or MFD nomination. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Beer-project-member (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((User WikiProject Beer)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not conform to UBX -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In use, including by active editors. UBX style is not mandatory. No maintenance necessary since 2011. Oppose mandatory uniformity. BethNaught (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not one of "mandatory uniformity", but of the harmfulness of redundant templates. (this one has only 31 translcusions, BTW). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This template is a simple instance of ((tmbox)). As far as I can see it is accessible. Does it need maintenance? Please step back from your somewhat dogmatic "redundancy is harmful" position and explain what actual harm this template is doing. BethNaught (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• better to discuss at WP:MFD. Frietjes (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not redundant; it's significantly different in size, content, and purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 30 September 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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Relist at Oct 20. Primefac (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Related interface messages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I intended this template to help with documenting the long tail of interface messages that are too minor to be listed in ((MediaWiki messages)), though I'm not sure how many groups of interface messages there actually are that use of this template would be appropriate on. If there're enough to justify it, though, the functionality from this template could easily enough be rolled into ((Interface explanation)), in which case this template would be wholly redundant. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 19:49, 13 August 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).