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) 05:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A Nav Box is not needed for just one wikipedia article, template is being used for decoration. Laestrygonian3 (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficient links for a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Most of the companies listed in the box have their own articles here. I've improved the box and added it to the other articles to which it links. Delete. I've revised my original vote; per CliffC, this would be better as a category - and it is. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough content to be useful. I'm not a template expert, but would not the purpose be better served by creating a "Category:Self-storage companies" ? --CliffC (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. US-centric bias. Better as a category. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no real good reason to link these articles together in a template, and I have concerns it could be (or is being) used for advertising. The category is better on both counts. Robofish (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2009 (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) 05:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:General geographic template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, seemingly abandoned. Speedy? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused and redundant aren't speedy deletion criteria, but they are enough to get my !vote for regular deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unused and unecessary. Robofish (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2009 (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) 05:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Venezuelan state (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use, redundant to ((Infobox Settlement)). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Himalayan 10:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - no need for a separate template. Robofish (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2009 (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.

Note to admins: This template has not been recreated. ((Venezuelan state new)) has been moved to ((Venezuelan state)) and separately nominated for deletion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 05:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Micropolitan Area (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, Seemingly abandoned - unedited since the day it was created, over a year ago. Speedy? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to meet any speedy deletion criteria, although if you ask the editor who created it perhaps it could be a G7. --RL0919 (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unused and unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2009 (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 Speedy Delete (T3) NW (Talk) 00:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tokyo-Infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, seemingly abandoned and pre-populated. Speedy? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete T3. Hardcoded infobox. --RL0919 (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as an unused hardcoded copy of ((Infobox Prefecture Japan)). Jafeluv (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Himalayan 10:21, 11 September 2009 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The purpose of this template is to generate <font size="(({1))}">(({2))}</font>. It is unused in article space and is somewhat antiquated in terms of HTML (e.g., font tag and no style parameter). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If there were more uses, I would even change it to something like <span style="font-size:(({1))}">(({2))}</span>. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 21:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also bad for accessibility. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:47, 9 September 2009 (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) 14:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clickteam Products (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Whether or not this was a deliberate walled garden, it had the effect of one. A template that essentially used Wikipedia like a free web host for a software product catalog. None of the linked articles had any sources at all; some had been tagged for more than two years without improvement. No claims of notability for any of them. Have prodded all related articles; the navigation template might as well go too. Durova³¹⁴ 18:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Another editor suggested redirecting rather than deleting the product articles, but the result is the same as far as the navbox is concerned. We don't need a navbox where all the items listed redirect to just one or two articles. --RL0919 (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2009 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Beaumont, Texas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly redlinks, single use. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 17:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Premature to have this type of box when the articles haven't been created. Could always recreate later if/when they exist. --RL0919 (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not needed at this time. Robofish (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2009 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:12c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:12C (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:13c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:13C (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:14C (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:16O (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:18o (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:86Sr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:87Sr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:87Rb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with wikimarkup or with ((sup)). Some of them are redundant each other. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 17:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it seems there are more templates like these, all of them created by Smith609. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 17:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace with standard markup in the handful of articles where these are used. --RL0919 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have joined 86Sr, 87Sr, and 87Rb to this discussion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace with ((SimpleNuclide|Symbol|Number)) (aka ((SimpleNuclide|C|12)) yields ¹²
  C
  for example) or ^NumberSymbol. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone clarify what harm this shorthand is doing? When I write articles which refer extensively to nucleotides they save me considerable time. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harm, or lack thereof, is not something we consider in discussing template usage. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the only alternative was to use ((SimpleNuclide)), then I would be more sympathetic, but what I still don't understand (maybe I'm missing something here) is why any template is preferable to using a very simple HTML tag to create a superscript. An editor who can figure out a wiki-specific template scheme could surely figure out . --RL0919 (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The harm done by deleting the templates is that it wastes editors' time and makes them less likely to contribute in future. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} 81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep True redundancy is solved by redirecting; if this makes it easier for editors to improve the encyclopaedia I don't see what is to be gained from deletion.  Skomorokh  00:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or Redirect) - I too don't see what the encyclopedia gains from deleting these. They are not harming anyone, and are useful for some editors. Skomorokh is right; redirects might be the better solution, but deleting them and forcing editors to use the longer form adds to the template clutter within edit mode in articles, which we are currently spending nearly a million dollars to try to fix. NW (Talk) 00:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware that "clutters up edit mode" was a valid rationale for using a template. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to ((SimpleNuclide)), subst all uses, then delete. We don't generally go for hard-coded specifics purely to save typing. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused and redundant to ((SimpleNuclide)) and <sup>. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Deletion seems like a poor fit here. No reason to update all the transclusions. — Jake Wartenberg 21:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  None appear to be currently in use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:24, 17 September 2009 (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) 14:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is only used in a single article. TTN (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't appear to be useful outside the one article, where it could be replaced with in-body tables. --RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't appear to be particularly useful even in the single article it's in. Robofish (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2009 (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 userfy Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:9-11 Ribbon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:9/11 ribbon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template namespace is not a good place for this stuff. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 16:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ((9-11 Ribbon)) as it is unused. Userfy ((9/11 ribbon)) to the userspace of its creator/user. --RL0919 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Userfy, per RL0919 above. Things like this shouldn't be in template space. Robofish (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-Given their ubiquitous nature, I believe that awareness ribbons should be kept in template namespace rather than being scattered amongst various userspaces. Essentially, they are a type of userbox, so perhaps there should be a project page such as Wikipedia:Userboxes/Ribbons for them. If keeping it in mainspace would create distress, then it could userfied per Wikipedia:Userbox migration. Currently, there is also a ((9/11 Victim)) template. (See List of awareness ribbons for other ribbons.) Also, in the future, it is considered common courtesy to notify template creators of a tfd. Smallman12q (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Got rid of ((9-11 Ribbon)) per WP:CSD#G7 (the only other edit was a minor link fix so we'll let it slide). Probably best to userfy the other one.  GARDEN  17:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well that's something I never saw before...Smallman12q (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Their userboxes... I won't use them, but who are any of us to tell others what they should or should not display on their own user pages (within obvious reason)? The above CSD deletion is highly inappropriate, as well.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 14:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The best solution would be to create a name space specifically for templates that are restricted to user pages. It's ok as user space content, so it can be kept. Such templates should be constructed in a way that prohibits use in the article name space, but not every editor would probably know how to do this.  Cs32en  15:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prefix with "User", i.e. rename to ((User 9/11 Ribbon)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs32en (talk • contribs) 15:28, 16 September 2009

• Userify While I wouldn't consider it a "userbox" per se, it's still "a template used for decorating user pages" and IMO the same rules should apply. So either userify it, or rename it to something with a "User" prefix. Personally, I'd prefer userify to rename in this particular case. To answer the comment above regarding keeping it in the template namespace just to prevent ribbon templates "being scattered amongst various userspaces", use User:UBX if you want a centralized location. Anomie⚔ 16:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well said, that was the gist of what I was trying to convey above, but I see that I didn't do a very good job of it (and I didn't know about User:UBX anyway).
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I just wanted to clarify that my "userfy" recommendation above was based on the fact that this template is only being used by the editor who created it, not any generalized notion that something like this should never be in templatespace. If there are similar "ribbon" icons out there that are more widely used, I'm OK with that, although I agree with Anomie's point that they should follow the same basic rules as userboxes. --RL0919 (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2009 (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 redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:4im (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with ((Uw-test4im)). Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 16:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...which means it should be redirected, not deleted. I have done so. Cheers,  Skomorokh  03:24, 12 September 2009 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2ft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

((railgauge|2)) can be used directly instead of using this template. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 16:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete T3 as a hardcoded instance of ((railgauge)). --RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2009 (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 Keep all. These templates are used as simple examples in help pages. ((Loop)) is not a good substitute for them. ((1x)) is used for other purposes as well. Ruslik_Zero 08:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1x (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2x (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:3x (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

((2x)) and ((3x)) are redundant with ((Loop)) with respective parameters. ((1x)) seems aparently useless but it's protected and has a lot of uses. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 16:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For one of the purposes of ((1x)), see m:Help:Newlines_and_spaces#Spaces and/or newlines as value of an unnamed parameter. The technique is used e.g. in ((for loop)), which is used e.g. in ((scale row)).--Patrick (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep also ((2x)) and ((3x)), they are used on help pages in examples.--Patrick (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ((2x)) and ((3x)), but keep ((1x)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ((1x)) is very widely used, and the latter two appear as examples for explaining how template parameters work. --RL0919 (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 2x and 3x, since ((loop)) can take their place, and appears more flexible. Explain 1x. By itself it looks to be the most utterly pointless template ever - ((1x|hello)) produces "hello" (without markup), and I'm fairly sure we don't need a template to do that. Some explanation of where it's used and why is in order, given we have ((loop)) for multiple parameters and the #if parser function (and several related) for conditional parameters. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all – They are used in examples. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 04:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused as to why this makes them immune from deletion. They can be replaced. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, I will change the examples if that will help. Unused in article space would seem to be a more important point? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:03, 18 September 2009 (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 as not useful for navigation due to the plethora of redlinks. Articles about current members of the squad is already encouraged through the currently squad list at Reboceros De La Piedad. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reboceros De La Piedad squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There shouldn't be navboxes about a the current squad of a team. Mostly redlinks. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 15:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Navbox with mostly redlinks. --RL0919 (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes there should. look at all the football teams in the world. Real Madrid, Manchester United, they all have current squad templates. So what if it's all redlinks? all the other Primera A template i've created are mostly redlinks but no one has complained about it. besides, i am working on creating articles for every single player in the Liga de Ascenso, with references included. the template stays. Nore100 (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mostly redlinks, the other Primera Division A templates should be deleted since most of these also have redlinks, there's only a few players with articles in those templates. If the user create articles for players then most likely they will be nominated for deletion because it would most likely go against WP:ATHLETE. Black'nRed 23:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't just discriminate on Mexican football or the Primera A in general (now Liga de Ascenso). If the player pages were to be created, the would remain under WP:ATHLETE because they have played in the Liga de Ascenso which is A FULLY PROFESSIONAL LEAGUE. i have put too much of my time and effort to let people know about the second tier of Mexican football. everything will stay.Nore100 (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not the way to encourage the creation of several athlete pages. This is a legitimate template representing a professional team in a professional league. (Instinkt (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Navigation boxes should help users find their way among existing articles. If you want to encourage the creation of articles on these athletes, then mention them at Wikipedia:Requested articles or a related WikiProject. --RL0919 (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Instinkt is still right, thoughNore100 (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Too many red links. This navbox is completely useless—the squads of a team? subst: if completely neccessary, then delete. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 04:36, 18 September 2009 (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 speedy delete per T3. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Historic Homes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used on a single article for the purpose of adding a redlinked category. Tassedethe (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2009 (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 keep. JPG-GR (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

At SPI, the use of this template has been deprecated. In fact, we SPI clerks actually remove this template from any IP userpage tagged with it after a case has been closed. CUs do not tag IPs with it because of privacy reasons. I see no real reason to have this template around anymore. NW (Talk) 02:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems pretty useful for keeping track of IPs frequented by persistent, high-impact offenders (Bambifan101, Grawp, etc.) EDIT: Especially what Woody said below. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't tag IPs anymore; case history at WP:SPI includes IPs blocked, rangeblocks performed and etc when necessary. The intersection of accounts and IPs used can be machine read using WP:SPI/C, as well. Nathan ^T 03:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - in addition to my comment above, the information communicated by the IPsock template is only of limited and short-term use. Years later, whether Bambifan used any particular IP in 2005 is completely irrelevant. Nathan ^T 03:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I introduced the template 2 years ago as a way for editors to tag IP addresses as possible sockpuppets of another user. The template has been protected so I cannot edit it until I become an admin myself. I don't see a need to delete it but if the template has surpassed it's useful life, I certainly wouldn't mind. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has surpassed its useful life. So why should it be kept? NW (Talk) 04:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - while I'm not passionate about this, and admit that things could have changed some while I was on wiki-break, I have used this template and found it quite useful when dealing with socks who are using multiple IPs. The way it's worded just notes concern and advises checking contribs. While I acknowledge that it can become less useful over time, I've seen this template speed up and simplify a number of investigations. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not every sockpuppet investigation or blocks are fed through SPI, nor do they have to be. I have used the template recently for a number of socks of a user who is blatantly obvious and doesn't need a paper trail at SPI. The paper trail is constructed through the use of this template and as such it provides a useful resource. Woody (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep,per Woody, useful for keeping track of persistent IP sockers, like Television Radio. WuhWuzDat 17:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I echo what Woody said. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Multixfer and Woody. I've used the template too to find the ranges of IPs used by persistent spammers. Laurent (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I've found the categorisation provided by this helpful template highly effective and very useful, particularly for long-term ip socks. Deletion of the template would result in the loss of lots of evidence about a range of ips used by our most prolific offenders. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Personal experience has shown that it is a lot easier to do trend analysis of ISP usage at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101, rather than try to parse the information I need out of the 58k of text at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101/Archive. — Kralizec! (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Helps establish an easy-to-follow history of sockfarms and makes it easy to follow IPs which suddenly turn suspect when they jump to a new user who has less than good intentions about contributing. Nate • (chatter) 05:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Woody; this is a useful way to track block evaders and helps admins establish a pattern of IP usage. Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP per Nick-D, SEE ((sockblock|mario)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.84.248 (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per common sense. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Speedy keep Whatever happened to common sense(have the common people lost it?)?Smallman12q (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2009 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Romania Villages (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently abandoned - no longer used in article space. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused and redundant to more generic infoboxes. --RL0919 (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Currently adding infoboxes to Romanian communes at the moment. Redundant. Himalayan 11:21, 10 September 2009 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Municipality pt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently abandoned - no longer used in article space. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused and redundant to more generic infoboxes. --RL0919 (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Empty template. Himalayan 10:21, 11 September 2009 (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 redirect and history merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Orienteering concepts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

On 24 August, User:Kslotte added ((tfd)) to this template with this edit and edit summary Template replaced and merged to ((Orienteering)), but didn't list it here. Svick (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think this is a mistake. The template appears to be in good working order, and has usefulness. --Jay(Talk) 16:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge histories - ((orienteering)) now contains all of the links, however, there appears to have been a cut-and-paste move done here. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with ((Orienteering)) per above. --RL0919 (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the histories have been merged, and this is now a redirect to ((orienteering)) - I suggest we close this now as there's nothing more to do. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2009 (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.