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 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:APOD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite APOD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:APOD with Template:Cite APOD.
I recently made the original ((APOD)) a wrapper for ((Cite web)). User:Tom.Reding then moved that to ((Cite APOD)), and recreated the old ((APOD)). Since only one template is needed, I redirected that to ((Cite APOD)); however, Tom has reverted me.

I reiterate: only one template is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, nom has failed to read the documentation for each template. ((Cite APOD)) is only used for reference purposes, wrapped in ((Cite web)). ((APOD)) is used for non-reference purposes and is used to simplify, and standardize, APOD external links only. Both will be populated over the next few days.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know nothing about what I have or have not read; desist from pretending otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The templates' functions are clear from their documentation. Because, as you reiterated, "only 1 template is needed", I suggest that you re/read their documentation, which then precludes the need for this frivolous TfD.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have already read the documentation, which you recently wrote, and disagree with the need for it; or for more than one template. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tom.Reding basically, and WP:TROUT Andy for bring this to deletion. The templates have clearly different purposes, much like ((cite sbdb)) and ((JPL small body)) have different purposes. One is for citations, the other for external links. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep seems obvious. Clearly different functions that, I believe, could not be satisfactorily combined. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:53, 19 September 2016 (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 move to userspace (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Do for every Dutch province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overly specific reimplemnation of an old pre-lua version of Template:For loop used only in the creator's userspace. Pppery 00:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• move to userspace Frietjes (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or move to userspace not used in any article. The Banner talk 21:07, 25 September 2016 (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).