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 page.

The result of the debate was redirect. IronGargoyle 02:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Future video (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not used in any articles; not needed because ((Future film)) is used instead. — Dream out loud 22:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - almost an exact duplicate. If the semantic clarification between a "film" and a "video" is so important, then use (({type|film))} instead of film in ((Future film)). Gracenotes^T § 00:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as Gracenotes described. No real difference between the two. –Pomte 09:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and parameterize Why do we have ((Future video)), ((Future film)), ((Future television)), ((Future sport event)), ((Future theatre)) etc? Go to Category:Temporal templates and merge. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As they all have different icons, there's no need to complicate them with a meta-template (((Future))?) that uses a bunch of #if:s. In particular, ((Future television)) has its own set of types and ((Future game)) does some obscure categorization, that I think is better left alone from the rest. –Pomte 06:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then the icon would be a parameter. So would the categories. They probably all have the verbiage "This article or section contains information about one or more ... " and "The content may change dramatically as the xyz's release approaches and more information becomes available.". Why not put them in one place instead of several? If any update is required, it would be easier. ((Future television)) is already a parameterized template that's kind of similar to what I envision. This is the power of templates that we should take advantage to the fullest. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or Merge Whichever is necessary, especially considering this template really doesn't belong. Jmlk17 07:37, 5 June 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 02:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Monorail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can be easily replaced with ((Infobox Public transit)). Every form of public transportation shares one infobox, and there is no reason why monorails should have an infobox of their own. — Dream out loud 22:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Perhaps we should involve the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains in this discussion ... --Kralizec! (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not all monorails were or are public transit entities. See for example Bennie Railplane, Gyro monorail and Lartigue Monorail. Slambo (Speak) 13:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is true, but those articles are about historical systems, and don't even have infoboxes to begin with. –Dream out loud 14:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the infobox. Slambo (Speak) 14:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Articles that transclude ((Infobox Public transit)) may not be public. But that's just a problem of the name. ((Infobox Public transit)) can be renamed to "Infobox mass transit". And I agree with the first comment. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did leave notifications of this TfD on several talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains. –Dream out loud 03:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Maybe each form of public transportation should have it's own info box template. HeadMouse 08:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse[reply]
• Delete. I don't see any reason why this can't be superseded by Infobox Public transit, and if the name is a problem we can always change that. Where possible, we should favor one uniform box, especially if there's no compelling reason to have multiple boxes duplicating the same functionality. Mackensen (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've made a test switch at Jacksonville Skyway: Infobox Monorail Infobox Public transit difference. There isn't a significant difference between the two templates; if there's a feature badly needed from monorail that Public transit doesn't support I imagine adding it would not pose any problems. Mackensen (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I vote delete. 85.227.226.168 16:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Functionality of this template cna be intergrated into public transit. As an example, ((Infobox Broadcast)) is used for both TV and radio, though both are relatively quite different. hbdragon88 23:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Superseded and unnecessary...per nom. Jmlk17 07:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Mackensen -- Shmget 00:34, 7 June 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. After reviewing the discussion on this page as well as the edit war and discussion regarding the redirection of the template, I have considered the arguments carefully. Although I am normally inclined to accept such templates, the arguments of Gracenotes and Mackensen are particularly cogent. The information is available elsewhere and the same information can still be provided on the page (in a more detailed and helpful form if that is deemed necessary. Template is orphaned and its deletion will hopefully end a lame edit war. WP:DENY is also relevant, not so much because it encourages admins to fly off the handle, but because it fosters a general sense of wikidrama. IronGargoyle 01:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sysopindef (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template designed to identify banned/blocked administrators. This template was recently subject to an edit war over redirecting it to ((Indefblockeduser)). Nomination created in order to avoid listing this at WP:LAME. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Seriously, this needs a tag? I'm reminded of a line from the not-so-great movie Broken Arrow: "I don't know what's scarier, losing a nuclear weapon or that it happens so often there's actually a term for it". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep you know what? In United States the convicted corrupt officials get into a better prison than robbers, LOL but that's off topic. We need this template to at least honor the admins that have been banned for improprieties, because they are different from vandals/trolls, they have made substantially good contribution before becoming corrupt. Remember the seppuku is reserved only for samurai? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: That seems to suggest that other indef blocked users could not have also had positive contributions before their asplosion, an assumption I'm unwilling to make. A template for something so rare seems to throw sand in the eyes of common sense, served with a side of drama. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment In the article space there is a category named Category:Executed presidents, executed presidents are pretty rare, but the category is still appropriate. This template for banned admins, take an analogy, is like the category for executed presidents. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, but I think I'll retain my disagreement, as I'm not certain the two situations compare favorably. Cheers! - 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • And sorry if my comment seems to be a little impolite, cheers! Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yay, cheering! ... about executing presidents: comparisons are meant to provide a basis for understanding, not a basis for rhetorical argument. But never mind. Gracenotes^T § 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as Wooyi commented, perhaps certain admins deserve more than a ((Indefblockeduser)), but I believe that if this is the case, that they deserve more than a template. If the admin's account has been indef blocked, then use ((Indefblockeduser)), but also write a hand-written explanation. The situation really isn't that common. Gracenotes^T § 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Corrupted officials are worse than one-time murderers. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think there should be some way of keeping a list. I'm not sure whether this is on all the pertinent pages? DGG 21:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not on any of the the pertinent pages, what with being orphaned and all. —Cryptic 20:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's because the template was systematically removed from pages by admins who act unilaterally without consensus. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We already have a list of administrators who were involuntarily de-sysopped. It's at Wikipedia:Former administrators. Per WP:DENY, the userpage of a banned user is temporary anyways. The repeated references to murderers and executions above leave me...uneasy. Mackensen (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't see how this is necessary. I don't exactly appreciate the repeated references to murderers and executions, nor the negative implication that bold individuals are (1) "[acting] unilaterally" and (2) without consensus; ya know what? they are just bold, implying that they are in some way doing wrong is silly. --Iamunknown 02:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, that analogy was rather silly. >Radiant< 14:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's WP:IDONTLIKEIT, banned admins are like executed presidents, why is it silly? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 19:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... no they are not. That's why it is silly. --Iamunknown 19:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Something needs to be present to tell people that are completly oblivious to everything that this administrator is no longer around because they did something bad. Like at the Robdurbar page. I don't see why we should delete it anyways, it isn't mean or anything, just more informative. You should only really delete something if it is harming someone or something else, and this seems to do no damage. - Hairchrm 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful in the sense that attention is needed to take a certain issue with a grain of salt. Jmlk17 07:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It is useful to know that a user was an administrator. It is useful to know that a user is banned. So what's the problem?? — The Storm Surfer 01:29, 8 June 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 01:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uk music venue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template has been superseded by Template:Infobox music venue, and is no longer used in mainspace. CloudNine 19:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete replaced and unused. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Chochopk. Jmlk17 07:40, 5 June 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete all. I also see no reason to keep Spoiler-ref, because it is not being used. IronGargoyle 01:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler-ref (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Spoiler-nolines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Spoiler-ongoing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Spoiler-solicitation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:PreRel-Spoiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All templates have been orphaned and are redundant or forks of Template:Spoiler. We don't need the various permutations of the spoiler template when one can do in the cases a warning is warranted. Previously turned into redirects by Ned Scott, I've restored them for discussion and deletion. --Farix (Talk) 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not needed anymore > Rugby471 ^talk 18:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant to ((spoiler)) and some Category:Temporal templates. The work that is being spoiled should be obvious given the context of each article. –Pomte 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - instruction creep, it should appear. Disclosure: I'm not a fan of spoiler warnings in general. Gracenotes^T § 01:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant, Template:Spoiler does the job. Pax:Vobiscum 11:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above comments...nothing else to be said. Jmlk17 07:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We simply don't need a plethora of spoiler templates. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Spoiler-ref because the work being spoiled is not always obvious given the context of the article. Delete the rest, I suppose. — The Storm Surfer 01:25, 8 June 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unreferencedarticle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to and now replaced by Template:unreferenced. Consensus on the talk page for unreferenced is to have separate template for articles and sections without sources but unreferenced will be used for articles, not this. — Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 16:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a fork of Template:unreferenced. --Farix (Talk) 17:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant now > Rugby471 ^talk 18:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although it would have been more efficient to just redirect it. -- Visviva 07:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CG 19:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundancy is not needed here. Jmlk17 07:41, 5 June 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GCC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Superseded by Template:Infobox Country. No more used. — Guilherme ^(t/c) 12:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's been properly replaced at Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CG 19:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination...I agree. Jmlk17 07:42, 5 June 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler-aside (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only used in three articles, the template brings in random trivia from a later episodes when discussing an earlier episode. Pointless and entirely unencyclopedic, so thus I recommend orphan and delete. --Farix (Talk) 11:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• subst and Delete per nom. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I retract subst. Use ((Spoiler)). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and under no circumstances subst this ugly template. Kusma (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ugh, get rid of this useless template. Jmlk17 07:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We simply don't need a plethora of spoiler templates. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:32, 5 June 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler-storyelements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Recently orphaned template. Was turned into a redirect to ((Spoiler-about)), of which it is redundant to. Restored for TfD nomination. --Farix (Talk) 11:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redundant of ((Spoiler-about)). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, keep number of variants low for easier identification. Kusma (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary redundancy is not valued. Jmlk17 07:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above -- we simply don't need a plethora of spoiler templates. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:33, 5 June 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete Lexicon (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MINDEFCopyright (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Given the new licensing scheme of the Foundation, the images from here pretty much forbid everything that we want images to be; they can't be used commercially, they cannot be modified, cannot be used by reusers. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the license, keep the sourcing information (which is not otherwise included for images with this tag). Someone might also want to look at Category:Images from the Singapore Ministry of Defense, since it seems to have been intended to be filled by this tag. Gavia immer (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep the source information, as astutely suggested by Gavia immer; mass-producing notices like that is neither harmful nor against Foundation policy. Remove the licensing part, provide a fair-use rationale in each case for which the non-free image is essential to an article (or encourage the author to do so by spamming their talk page, which isn't exactly the same thing), and we're set. Gracenotes^T § 00:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This probably isn't a valid image license, but any implication that it is can be removed, and there seem to be enough pictures to make a source template reasonable. -Amarkov moo! 01:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then can we remove the licensing bit from the template so we can close the TFD? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would, but I'm not sure what it is that people think implies a licensing tag. It says explicitly that one is required, along with a fair use rationale... -Amarkov moo! 02:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it gives the terms on how the image is used, so I can assume this is a license tag (I found this one by going through a list of all things found by Orphanbot). Anyways, if the source is all that is worried about, we can always make put it in text with the URL of where the image is found. I really don't think that we have to have a template that says "The image is from x." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is only 5 images in this category, so what I was thinking is maybe we can do a substitution and a delete. Would that work? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • This sounds fine with me, in this case. Gracenotes^T § 06:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now that there are four images, with an orphan included, I wonder what others will think about a subst then delete. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, substed on remaining images. This is now an orphan template. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:02, 4 June 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AtlantaInfoBox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not being used. Template:Infobox City is being used on the Atlanta, Georgia article instead. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused and unnecessary. Jmlk17 06:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fork with only one single possible use. –Pomte 07:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Properly replaced. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reason to keep. Pax:Vobiscum 11:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless we discover multiple dimensions of reality, I don't see how this has more than a single use; which it's not being used for! --Haemo 23:15, 2 June 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox My Name Is Earl episode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Individual series fork of ((Infobox Television episode)). All uses have been replaced, time to delete. Jay32183 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused and useless. Jmlk17 06:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unused/redundant. –Pomte 07:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unused, useless. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Caaaaan you feeeeel the redundancy tonight, it is where we are. Pax:Vobiscum 11:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unused, redundant. No need to create new templates out of laziness about using standardized templates. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:38, 5 June 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AC Milan Squad2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplicate information already present and used only in the A.C. Milan article. — Angelo 02:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Jmlk17 06:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete single-use. –Pomte 07:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Properly replaced [1]. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:21, 1 June 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ApprenticeSpoiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single use template, perfectly replaceable by ((Spoiler)) or ((Spoiler-blank)). Wikipedia does not benefit from having all of these series specific spoiler templates. --Farix (Talk) 01:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete single use template redundant to spoiler template. Doczilla 04:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary single use template. Jmlk17 06:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessarily specific and no real benefit over ((spoiler)). –Pomte 07:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as a user (not creator) of the template, I have replaced its only use --Fritzpoll 12:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Use ((Spoiler)). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - again, I see no reason why The Apprentice needs its own set of spoilers. --Haemo 23:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We simply don't need a plethora of spoiler templates. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:36, 5 June 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pbspoiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominated for many of the same reasons as Template:BSG-Spoiler and Template:Sgspoiler. Its infrequent use can be easily be replace by ((Spoiler-season)) --Farix (Talk) 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete single use and unnecessary. Jmlk17 06:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessarily specific and no real benefit over ((spoiler)). –Pomte 07:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace and delete Use ((Spoiler)). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I see no reason why PB needs its own set of spoilers. --Haemo 23:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We simply don't need a plethora of spoiler templates. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:36, 5 June 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TapeDelaySpoiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused spoiler template. See also guidelines at Wikipedia:Spoilers. --Farix (Talk) 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused template. Doczilla 04:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unused, and unable to be really used template. Jmlk17 06:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessarily specific and no real benefit over ((spoiler)). –Pomte 07:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Use ((Spoiler)). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Huh? WP is not a plot summary collective for details which haven't even aired yet. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:35, 5 June 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HealthWarning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Medical disclaimer template. Duplicates Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. See Wikipedia: No disclaimer templates for other reasons why disclaimer templates, such as this one, are a bad idea. --Farix (Talk) 01:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete cliched, but per nomination. Jmlk17 06:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NDT and being an encyclopedia implies this. –Pomte 07:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 08:27, 2 June 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scoring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One of these templates that make you go, "Huh?". The template was used only on one article, World's Smallest Political Quiz, which it clearly didn't need it. Most likely a single propose template created for that article. See also Wikipedia: No disclaimer templates for other reasons why disclaimer templates, such as this one, are a bad idea. --Farix (Talk) 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete now unused template. Doczilla 04:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary clutter of a template. Jmlk17 06:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to either. –Pomte 07:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We can't have a disclaimer template for everything. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:09, 1 June 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler-inline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused and ugly template. Duplicates Template:Spoiler --Farix (Talk) 00:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused template. Doczilla 04:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete whoa, it is an ugly template. Also, unused and unnecessary. Delete. Jmlk17 06:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inappropriate for a spoiler warning to be inline, as Wikipedia is not a forum. –Pomte 07:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Use ((Spoiler)). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there needs to some kind of "hideous to behold" criterion for deletion - as there isn't I'll just go redundant and un-used. --Haemo 23:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Again -- we simply don't need a plethora of spoiler templates. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:34, 5 June 2007 (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.