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) 20:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pointless navbox for the village of Loose, Kent .

Contains:

• 1 redlink
• 6 links to sub-articles; those topics may not even meet the WP:GNG

&1 link to Loose Stream, piped to read "Loose Mill"

• 2 links to people: James Smith was born there, but made his career elsewhere; Ralph Steadman's article doesn't even mention Loose, just that he lives in Kent

AFAICS, the only link which belongs here is Loose Stream. We don't need a navbox for one link. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not all mills on the Loose Stream were in Loose. I've added the missing piped link (error of omission when creating template). Ralph Steadman's article doesn't even mention Loose, just that he lives in Kent WP:SOFIXIT applies, the Loose, Kent article clearly states that he lives there. Watermills having entries on their river systems does not mean that they fail WP:GNG. I could create thousands of individual watermill stubs, but I believe they are generally best covered under the river system they are part of. Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Per WP:BURDEN, if you assert a fact, then provide a reference yourself rather than blaming others for the fact you have made added unreferenced material to the article on Ralph Steadman. In the absence of a ref either in Ralph Steadman or in Loose, Kent, I removed Steadman from the template and thje template from Steadman.
    As to the mills, see WP:NAVBOX: "Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template". Apart from the one remaining person and the redlinked church, this template consists solely of seven links to Loose Stream
    You are quite right that it is best to cover the mills in one article rather than lots of stubs ... but since the mills are not in separate articles, we don't need multiple links to the same article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fact I did not add any unreferenced info to the Loose article. My only edit to that article was the addition of the template. Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fact You populated the template on the basis of an unreferenced assertion, and you then gave added emphasis to that unreferenced assertion by applying the template to the two article between which there is no verified link. Per WP:BURDEN, the onus is on you to justify the inclusion of the connection to which you have chosen to give such prominence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:04, 30 December 2010 (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) 20:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another pointless navbox for a small village in Kent.

It was padded out with links to people who were not a significant part of the history of the area. I have removed them, and replaced them with links to the "Notable people" lists in the head articles.

As it stands, it contains only 7 links:

• One to Matfield
• Kippings Cross, which redirects Matfield
• Brenchley#Notable_people and Matfield#Notable_people, which basically duplicate other links
• A redlink to the church
• Brenchley Furnace, which is not a standalone article, so may not meet WP:GNG

Strip out the redlinks and the duplicates and the sub-article, and we are left with only two links: Matfield and Hamo de Crevequer. Connecting those 2 with the head article does not require a template. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kipping's Cross can be turned into a stub article if desired. The redlinks are valid per WP:REDLINK. Re people, the template should be returned to the state it was in before BHG degraded it before nominating it for deletion. Any objections to individual entries should be raised on the template talk page. Re Brenchley Furnace, watermills having entries on their river systems does not mean that they fail WP:GNG. I could create thousands of individual watermill stubs, but I believe they are generally best covered under the river system they are part of. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • The red links are not valid per WP:REDNOT and WP:NAVBOX#Properties. Mhiji (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:04, 30 December 2010 (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) 20:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yet another pointless navbox for a small village in Kent, Ulcombe, per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kent#Kent_town_and_village_templates. The village article itself is only a 4-line stub.

Contains a grand total of 7 links. One of them is a redlink, three of them are not even standalone articles (and so may not meet WP:GNG). The two people listed are MPs (Francis Clerke Jr and Francis Clerke Sr) who appear to have lived there at some point, but are more notable for their connection to Rochester.

Strip out the redlink, the tenuous MPs, and the sub-articles, and we are left with one link: Chegworth, which would be better served by a direct link from the head article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The redlink is valid per WP:REDLINK. Both MPs have proven connections with Ulcombe, the issue is not "which is the most famous/important place they are connected with". Watermills having entries on their river systems does not mean that they fail WP:GNG. I could create thousands of individual watermill stubs, but I believe they are generally best covered under the river system they are part of. Ulcome (old) Village Hall is notable as it is now preserved as a museum exhibit, and therefore also meets WP:GNG. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The red link is not valid per WP:REDNOT and WP:NAVBOX#Properties. Mhiji (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before commenting repeatedly on these TFDs, it would help considerably if Mjroots would read the relevant guideline WP:NAVBOX, as well as WP:REDNOT, rather than continuing to rely on the logic of the essay WP:NBFILL whose existence he cited as his justification for creating these pointless templates.
      If Mjroots actually read that guideline, he would see that he is wrong to say that the issue is not "which is the most famous/important place they are connected with". The mere existence of a proven connection is not enough to justify inclusion in a template: the test is "Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?". Yet I see no reason at all to believe that a reader is likely to want to go directly from an article on either MP to any of the mills, or to Chegworth, and Mjroots has made no effort to advance one.
      If the MPs' connection to the village is significant, then a) list the MPs in the notable section of the article on the village, and link the text of MP articles to the village. There is no need to spam the MP articles with a whole load of links to every facet of a village which, according to their biogs, is a minor detail in their lives. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:04, 30 December 2010 (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) 20:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yet another pointless template for a small village in Kent, per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kent#Kent_town_and_village_templates. Contains four links to places, one of which is a redlink, and two of the others are not even a standalone article (so not not meet WP:GNG).

It was padded out with 8 links to people, but I removed 4 of them (see history) because there is nothing in their biogs to say either that they were a notable part of Bearstead's history, or that they their connection with Bearstead forms part of their reasons for notability. The remaining 4 biographical articles seems equally misplaced: they are simply people who lived in Bearstead for some part of their lives, with no evidence that the connection is any way significant. If the template is to be kept, they should also be removed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Redlink is valid per WP:REDLINK. Again this template was degraded before nomination for deletion, but at least this has been admitted this time. Watermills having entries on their river systems does not mean that they fail WP:GNG. I could create thousands of individual watermill stubs, but I believe they are generally best covered under the river system they are part of. Mjroots (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The red link is not valid per WP:REDNOT and WP:NAVBOX#Properties. Mhiji (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mjroots, in all of these nominations where I have removed irrelevancies from the template, I have tried to explicitly state that fcat, so your snide "at least this has been admitted this time" is highly misleading. Try to discuss the facts without making smears.
      Per Mhiji, you are simply wrong about the redlinks: see WP:REDNOT. And WP:NAVBOX#Properties, a template should not include multiple links to the same article, which this one does.
      As to the removal of the people, those have not "degraded" the template; they have improved it by removing irrelevancies which do not meet the test in WP:NAVBOX, which is "does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:04, 30 December 2010 (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) 20:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another pointless navigation box for a small village in Kent: Appledore, Kent.

It links only 4 entities: one of them is a redlink, and one Appledore Heath redirects to the village. That leaves only two bluelinks: the station and Parkwood, a 2-line sub-stub which has already been tagged for merge to the village article.

The template also included two people: Ignaz Trebitsch-Lincoln and Harrison Weir. I have removed them both per WP:UNDUE, because neither of them is significant to the history of the village, and the village does not appear to be connected with the notability of either of them. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The redlink is valid per WP:REDLINK. Again the template was degraded before nomination, although this has been admitted. Objections to entries really should be raised on the template talk page for discussion. Parkwood was proposed for merger in September, there has been zero support for such a merger as yet. Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The red link is not valid per WP:REDNOT and WP:NAVBOX#Properties. Mhiji (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template has not been "degraded". The removal of the people has improved it by removing irrelevancies which do not meet the test in WP:NAVBOX, which is "does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:04, 30 December 2010 (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) 20:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:East Sutton (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Yet another pointless navigation template for a tiny village in Kent, this time East Sutton. The head article is a very short stub, and the template contains only three links, one of them red.

This is a template-for-the-sake-of-having-a-template. It's not needed for navigation, because the three entities can be directly linked to each other, if there is any relevant connection ... and I doubt there is any need for a link between Alice Keppel and East Sutton Park (HM Prison). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:04, 30 December 2010 (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) 20:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boughton Monchelsea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless template for the small village of Boughton Monchelsea; not needed for navigation. It has a total of only five links, two of them redlinks, and one of the others Brishing Court Mill is to an entity which does not even have its own article. Navigation between the related articles can be handled much more simply by just linking to the village article.
(Note: this is one of a long series of similarly pointless templates for small villages: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kent#Kent_town_and_village_templates.) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Redlinks are in accordance with WP:REDLINK. Watermills having entries on their river systems does not mean that they fail WP:GNG. I could create thousands of individual watermill stubs, but I believe they are generally best covered under the river system they are part of. Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The red links are not valid per WP:REDNOT and WP:NAVBOX#Properties. Mhiji (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would appear that the creator of these templates, Mjroots, has read neither WP:NAVBOX nor WP:REDNOT. Mjroots makes no attempt to explain why a template with only three bluelinks asssist navigation per WP:NAVBOX, or why (per WP:NAVBOX) a reader is likely to want to go from GKD to Boughton Green or to the linked mill, or vice versa. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:04, 30 December 2010 (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. Created over two years ago, and appears to have never been adopted. If someone wants to add it to each portal page, you could just add ((Asia topic|title = [[Wikipedia:Portal|Wikipedia portal]]s: [[Asia]]n countries|prefix = Portal:)), which is basically the entire content of this template. If someone wishes to recreated it, go right ahead, but put it to some use by transcluding it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asia country portals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Implement Seems like this should be added to all the country portals in the section for related portals. 65.93.15.73 (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there's already a "List of portals" link to Portal:Contents/Portals in those sections anyway. Therefore this box seems unnecessary. Also this box has lots of red links which shouldn't be there per WP:REDNOT. The list of portals doesn't. Mhiji (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can remove the redlinked ones. Portal:Contents/Portals is not specific. You could just go around and specify the most general wideranging list as a reason to delete any template or list article then. That does not help navigation. 65.93.12.93 (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:51, 30 December 2010 (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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 Mediacorp Channel 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. Only links 2 articles. Mhiji (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This board links articles to be created in 2011, details have been added. It's in response to Template:2010 Mediacorp Channel 8 and preceding templates -- Pehxinyi (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:19, 30 December 2010 (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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian areas affected (Top) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I still wonder, is there a template that could replace this one if it is deleted as useless?--ForgottenHistory (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is used in articles like the 2010-11 Australian region cyclone season. (See Season Effects). It is intended to replace the older hurricane article season effects templates as that involved some original research. — Iune(talk) 04:17, 4 January 2011 (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) 00:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This cycling team is defunct, making the template pointless. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 03:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose. Just because the team isn't around now doesn't mean they never existed. Agritubel is still a valid topic that has articles that are related to it. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, wow. Okay. All riders employed have either found new employment or retired. The purpose of these templates in the first place is to facilitate navigation to current teammates. There's no current teammates for a defunct team. Also, how big would you have the template be, then? Would you have every rider who was ever employed by any team documented by one of these and stuck at the bottom of their page? I think that's a very bad idea, but what other reason would there be for keeping this template for a (very unimportant) long since defunct team? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I could sorta see your point if we were talking about Team Movistar or the Rabobank (cycling team). Or maybe (maybe) even Astana (cycling team). Those are much more significant teams, with an actual winning history. Their templates that are like this one nominated in this TFD would still be pointless and indicated for deletion, but there could exist navboxes with links to managers, important riders, races won, seasons, etc. But not Agritubel. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That could be an argument for a Category (an idea that I would support if naming issues could be resolved), but not for a template. Kevin McE (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - pretty uncontroversial - consensus has been to only keep current templates as the option of having yearly squad templates would put ten or fifteen templates below many riders (many with duplicate links anyway) which is detrimental to any navigation purpose the navigation boxes have. No one is arguing that Agritubel should be deleted, or links to the article should be cut. ((Agritubel)) is unused and shows no potential for use. Severo^TC 08:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Template now depopulated: there are no riders now on this team, nor will there ever be again. Kevin McE (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2011 (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) 00:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wp-schools-notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The main project banner, ((WikiProject Schools)), will do instead of this. It's not even used. WOSlinker (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete (T3). Duplicates the standard banner; unused. (Since WP:CSD#T3 has a seven-day countdown, I'll tag it to start the clock, just in case this TfD doesn't get closed for a while.) TheFeds 06:52, 2 January 2011 (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) 01:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U.S. School (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only a few transclusions. Could be replaced with ((Infobox school)) WOSlinker (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no advantages over the generic ((infobox school)), except that it's a lot simpler (and that's of dubious value). Replace all instances with the generic. TheFeds 06:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((Infobox school)). Infobox school has more parameters, is wider used and follows the currently-used infobox style. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 07:59, 3 January 2011 (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) 01:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Students/Cherry Hill Public Schools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Students/Haddon Township School District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Students/Haddonfield Public Schools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Teachers/Cherry Hill Public Schools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Teachers/Haddon Township School District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Teachers/Haddonfield Public Schools (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Comparison of school districts in New Jersey is currently being PRODed. These template are only used within this article. Even if it isn't deleted then they should be substituted into it. WOSlinker (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Simply put, they're not templates. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 08:00, 3 January 2011 (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) 00:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hussain Al Jassmi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Useless, almost completely red-linked template. Used in and only links to the artist's article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2010 (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) 16:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Independent School (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:State School (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems little point to these two templates. Only used in one article and could be done without a template. WOSlinker (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2010 (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) 16:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St. Bees School WWI War Honours (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't seem much point in having this as a template. Could just be used directly in the article. WOSlinker (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2010 (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) 18:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Conflicted-license (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Self nomination this is a template I made, Following the disscusion on Short-Rationale, I'm expressing concerns that the template could allow some images that should not be allowed to avoid proper scrutiny. Also as can be seen from the history this template has gone through at least 3 rewrites, and it's still a mess. Delete and review taggings on a case-by-case basis. Well intentioned template but in it's current form it's a mess... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Well-intentioned, however. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:The wording may need to be tweaked here and there but it is a useful tag. Many editors may not be aware of the concept or this tag, but it doesn't mean it is not needed. The other option would be to convert it to some sort of semi-speedy, or pre semi-speedy, warning tag along the lines of ((di-no permission)). Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Turning it into a Deletable Image template seems a dandy idea, as such a nomination would fall quite neatly into speedy criterion F4, lack of licensing information. I would use the term "ambiguous or conflicting licensing terms" when describing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Take a look at Template:Conflicted-license\reword\ and see what you think. Two versions - one based on this and one based on the "di-no" series of tags. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox template moved to Template:Conflicted-license/Reword, but otherwise discussion occurring over there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Close this already. This discussion has been relisted three times (more than WP:RELIST recommends without a detailed explanation), and nothing additional has come out from any of the relistings. I'm going to restate my delete !vote from earlier, because despite our best efforts at reworking this template, I think that ultimately, it's still well-intentioned but unnecessary. Anything that needs to go down the path to deletion can go through PUF or FFD, since these kinds of matters often need a little more discussion than slapping a template on them. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:15, 2 January 2011 (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) 16:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SA school list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WA school list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused templates that appear to have been for help in creating lists. WOSlinker (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2010 (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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Classic Hits Radio Stations in Rhode Island (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. Only links to 1 article Mhiji (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the template is not unused and is a vital part of both a complete set of Rhode Island radio station format templates and a set of United States classic hits nav templates. Rhode Island is a very small state but deleting this template would disrupt navigation links in hundreds of articles. - Dravecky (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unused. There's no transclusions of it. Just noticed it's a duplicate of Template:Oldies Radio Stations in Rhode Island. Speedy delete per T3.Mhiji (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Again, Dravecky is right: it's not unused. One station in Rhode Island fits both categories. That's why it's a "duplicate." However, if another station were to flip formats to "oldies" or "classic hits" then that station would be added to whatever category fits it best. As for the template itself, it was designed to have both categories & currently, a station fits into both categories. When you click on the template that shows all of the stations in one format, there are links to other formats. This is done with these templates for all 50 states.Stereorock (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean it's not unused? Again, there's no transclusions of it. I fail to see how this template or Template:Oldies Radio Stations in Rhode Island are useful. Navboxes are suppose to aid navigation between existing articles. This template (and the Oldies one) both have just one radio station in them. They don't aid navigation. Mhiji (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • They aid in navigation from format to format within a state. There are sets of these templates for every state and removing a template like this would disrupt such navigation. - Dravecky (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a station which fits both formats. WWBB is definitely a classic hits station that occasionally ventures into oldies. But since there is a station, BOTH navboxes are in fact USED. Admittedly, WWBB doesn't fit well into the oldies box, but it fits well enough.Stereorock (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: As always, Dravecky is right on this one. Keep and close. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why speedy? Mhiji 03:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as duplicate of ((Oldies Radio Stations in Rhode Island)) (T3) --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 06:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, oldies & classic hits are not the same thing. WWBB is now primarily a Classic Hits station so this template should not be eliminated. Rhode Island is a small state & therefore there are other formats that only have one station in the whole state (CHR for example only has WPRO-FM). Doesn't mean we should get rid of it. It does help in navigation. I can quickly see what other formats are around. Plus some formats have sub-format groupings, like Rock. There's only one Modern Rock station in Rhode Island, WBRU but it is also part of the Rock Radio in Rhode Island template which includes WHJY. Two different formats but in the same family. Labeling WBRU as just "rock" would be technically incorrect. Same thing here: oldies & classic hits are different formats but part of the same family. WWBB grazes into oldies but is firmly planted here, as a classic hits station. One final thought: as a Rhode Island native, I can tell you the amount of people in their 60s who listen to & remember oldies (properly, rock & roll-based hits of the '50s & '60s) is big. It is therefore, reasonable to believe that at any point some station (maybe an A.M.) could flip to oldies. Getting rid of either template (or any template for that matter), is inadvisable.Stereorock (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2011 (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 speedily deleted Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redwood Middle School (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Looks more like the start of an article rather than a template. WOSlinker (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2010 (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) 07:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Raine's School (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused & contains no useful content WOSlinker (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2010 (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) 07:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collab-arch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused Mhiji (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2010 (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) 02:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collab-macintosh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Not changed in 4 years. Mhiji (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as useless. Page consists of a single link. It would be much easier to type the link directly. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:11, 3 January 2011 (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) 07:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Club Atlético Tucumán squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Blank since September. Mhiji (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2010 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleveland City Stars squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless navbox Mhiji (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. CCS folded a couple of years ago, so it's no longer needed. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2010 (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) 07:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Civil Air Patrol Squadron Infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2010 (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) 07:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Redundant to Template:Pittsburgh Mhiji (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2010 (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) 07:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Carnaval de Porto Alegre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless navbox. All red Mhiji (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2010 (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) 07:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Phoenix Union High School District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Looks as though this navbox was copied from another one and never fully updated. WOSlinker (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2010 (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) 02:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:5 digit numbers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary Mhiji (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; doesn't serve a purpose. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd go so far as to recommend a speedy delete for this template. As far as I know, there is already one or two numbers templates in regular use; we don't need another, especially one as limited as this one. --JB Adder | Talk 14:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary template, v. limited. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 02:40, 4 January 2011 (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 after conversion. JPG-GR (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't really seem that much different from ((Infobox NCAA football school)) and only used once as well. WOSlinker (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2010 (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) 06:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Melbourne High School academic results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't seem much point in having this as a template. Could just be used directly in the article. WOSlinker (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after substing only used in the article about Melbourne high school, and really wouldn't be used anywhere else. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:26, 6 January 2011 (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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mbire District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. Only 1 link Mhiji (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a standard type of template, created for each Zimbabwean district. I have now put some other links. Babakathy (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2011 (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) 07:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unneecessary Mhiji (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Silly as it may seem, there are people (some of the regular editors) who forget Wikipedia's primary purpose as an encyclopedia. Having a message up there to remind them when they forget/choose to ignore that fact can sometimes help out. --JB Adder | Talk 14:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we need a template for it though... Has it even ever been used? I can't think when it would be useful or why anyone would have a need to write those words. It would be just as easy to just give a link to WP:MEDICAL (which would be preferable since that page has been specifically worded and it is more detailed that this template). Also, per WP:MEDICAL and WP:NOT, we shouldn't really be telling people to contact their physician... Mhiji 23:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This function is already served by a Help desk template, ((HD/med)). --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 02:44, 4 January 2011 (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) 07:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Speedway Provincial League seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All data, which is too little for own template, is present on Template:Speedway British League seasons - essentially the merging of two templates into one. Officially Mr X (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2010 (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) 06:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MonasticHouses NonChristian Wiltshire England (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Red links Mhiji (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put it this way: if you delete it then you will be expected to amend the pages in which it is a transclusion so that the data is represented in those pages in the format in which it currently appears so that it is consistent with the rest of the article. JohnArmagh (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's used on two pages. I don't think that'll be a problem. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 04:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 04:28, 4 January 2011 (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) 05:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mosta F.C. squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. All red links Mhiji (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2010 (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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Redundant to Template:Dn Mhiji (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep histmerge into the newer template (Dn) and redirect to it. (This template is the older one with no edit history after the creation of the newer one). It's a useful name to use. "Dn" has no inherent meaning. 65.94.45.209 (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2011 (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 G7. Mhiji 23:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navbar Townshipstructure Borken (Hesse) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. Only 2 links. WP:NENAN Mhiji (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Used in seven articles <- unused is nonsens^^ This navbox can be used for 14 articles. Keep --Markus Schulenburg (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)The request is correctly. delete. --Markus Schulenburg (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redundant to Template:Navigation bar Borken (Hesse). Mhiji (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2011 (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 no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NPCin1984WinterParalympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:NPCin1980WinterParalympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navboxes. Nearly all red. WP:NENAN Mhiji (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comment They have transclusions, so how can you say they are unused??!! 65.94.45.209 (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point... Mhiji (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Created two stubs to make the template less red. Bib (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2011 (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) 00:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Newcastle United Jets FC W-League managers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless navbox Mhiji (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2010 (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) 00:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Phineas & Ferb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused duplicate of Template:Phineas and Ferb Mhiji (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect — Iune(talk) 04:20, 4 January 2011 (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) 05:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Unused. Were previously used on a now non-existent page (the author requested deletion of that) Mhiji (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2010 (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 deletion as a subpage of a page which does not exist  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portal:Pakistan/Image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Has been blank/unused for 4 years. Mhiji (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2010 (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) 00:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quebec Ministries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless navbox. Mhiji (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2010 (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) 00:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tom Jordan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless navbox Mhiji (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2010 (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) 00:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Redundant to Template:Tintin and Hergé Mhiji (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2010 (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) 00:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main Cornish Towns (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Cornwall Mhiji (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2010 (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) 00:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists of number-one albums in the World (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. All red links Mhiji (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete template is a navbox for articles on a chart that were deleted over two years ago. They don't seem likely to be recreated. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:19, 5 January 2011 (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 speedily deleted Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists of known Band of Brothers veterans' deaths by year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. All red links Mhiji (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. It's a pointless navbox-to-nowhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I, the creator of the template (from well over a year ago), agree. I thought that it was removed a while back. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2010 (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) 00:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. WOSlinker (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't immediately find the matching article, and even then its content could be transcluded directly. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:18, 3 January 2011 (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 speedily deleted Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists of EU countries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Empty navbox Mhiji (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I was stunned to see that i created this template back in 2007 i totally forgot about it. Who knows what i was thinking back then :))— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bine Mai (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom. No links at all, not even redlinks, so it's pointless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 30 December 2010 (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) 00:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Jehovah's Witnesses District Conventions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless navbox Mhiji (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2010 (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, articles are merged, so templates might as well be as well. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jefferson Starship - The Next Generation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Jefferson Starship Mhiji (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2010 (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, also redundant to Template:Jesus footer. I don't see anything to merge, and Jesus2 is not very helpful as a redirect, so I would say just delete it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jesus2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Jesus Mhiji (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Template:Jesus. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:20, 3 January 2011 (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, and redundant to Template:DresdenTV? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jim Butcher (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Dresden Files and Template:Codex Alera Mhiji (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2010 (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) 00:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jimmy Dooley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless navbox. No links Mhiji (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2010 (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 as a subpage of a page which does not exist.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:John Mayer discography/Singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. There's already John Mayer discography which lists this info Mhiji (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2010 (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) 00:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JudoAtUAAP70 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. All red links Mhiji (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2010 (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) 00:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Juvenile Series Books (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Baby Boomer Series Mhiji (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2010 (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) 00:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iraq 1991 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary Mhiji (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2010 (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) 00:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hey Hey It's Saturday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless navbox. No links. Mhiji (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2010 (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 Invalid nomination. This template is not redundant to Template:Heroes episodes, it is transcluded into it, and therefor part of that template. — Edokter • Talk — 21:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heroes season 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Heroes episodes Mhiji (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? It's formated the same way as all the other templates and it adds continuity to the whole scheme of the overall Heroes episodes template. There is nothing wrong with leaving it right where it is.  Snake Chess5 19:03, 30 December 2010 (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) 00:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Group B Seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. Only one link and its red! Mhiji (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2010 (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) 00:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused navbox. All red links Mhiji (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2010 (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 speedily deleted Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Formula V6 Asia years (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Formula Renault years Mhiji (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete redundant - Rollof1 (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2010 (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) 00:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All it really does is change the font format. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can't really see how this would be used. This only changes it to a specific font and font size. It's not really necessary to have a template this specific. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:40, 4 January 2011 (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) 00:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Five Good Emperors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Roman Emperors Mhiji (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although the template isn't really redundant (it lists a subset of emperors), the subset it lists isn't really well known. The term Five Good Emperors was coined in 1503 to describe a thesis that isn't really widely accepted nowadays. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:26, 4 January 2011 (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) 00:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diatonic scale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Modes Mhiji (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Template:Modes. 134.253.26.11 (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2011 (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.