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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Pppery 22:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Link current revision (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unfixably broken: the link leads to the previous revision, and it is not possible for a template subst to know the revision ID it is going the be saved as. Pppery 22:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to work as long as the page specified isn't the current page (so the documentation just needs to be clarified). - Evad37 [talk] 03:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Template creator here. The main use I intended for this template is to link a permanent revision of a noticeboard or other often-archived page in order to avoid link rot. For instance, right now at the village pump there is Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_secondary_school_notability on top of the page, but it will eventually get archived and then the link will break; if I provide instead this permalink, it will be valid at all times. As a consequence I did not really think about the case where it is used on the same page it links.

I have no thorough knowledge of TfD rules, but I would argue it does not violate WP:TFD#REASONS #3 (I intend to use it). If it violates #2 please show me a replacement (I asked a question at the Help Desk before creating the template; the main selling point compared to ((oldid2)) is that you do not need to know the rev id of the page at the moment you link it). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:40, 27 February 2017 (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 keep. Primefac (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PD-Hubble (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 1 image now uses this template, and images using this template should be uploaded directly to Commons. Retention of this template should be in deprecated form or as a soft redirect to the Commons Equivalent. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused, already on Commons, no reason to retain this locally. -FASTILY 09:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no requirement in policy to upload free content to commons rather than to en-wiki. Most of these templates should be expected to appear unused because anyone who uses them, will probably have their content moved to commons anyway. There are editors who choose to avoid commons, and deleting these templates only makes their work more difficult, for really no good reason. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This tag may be required for files temporarily copied from commons for protection purposes. For work in joint copyright this tag may be one of several for a file that is in copyright in one of the source countries and so may not be hosted on commons. Template deletion is not an appropriate way of encouraging uploading to commons. This is a template associated with a policy, WP:Image use policy, and so should not have been nominated here ("cannot be listed at TFD", see above). Thincat (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Thincat and the reasons discussed in the the Template:PD-Highsmith listing. —David Levy 00:58, 2 March 2017 (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 Relisted on 2017 March 5 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:PD-Highsmith (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).

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 relisted on 2017 March 5. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:V (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:View (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Navbar (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).

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 relisted on 2017 March 4. Primefac (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Kolis sidebar (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).

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 08:19, 24 February 2017 (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 relisted on 2017 March 4. Primefac (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:SeaMonkey release history english (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).

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 Relisted on 2017 March 5 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:TLS/SSL support history of web browsers (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).

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 relisted on 2017 March 4. Primefac (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Safari release compatibility (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).

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 relisted on 2017 March 4. Primefac (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ECMAScript test262 (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).