The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox british hills double (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

overly specific, deprecated for years, can be easily replace. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:13, 15 July 2011 (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) 17:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment - redundant to/and replace with what, exactly? JPG-GR (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The template indicates what it is to be replaced with. I will go ahead and orphan it, since it has been deprecated for quite some time. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:17, 24 July 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 Merge, the point concerning "beach" vs. "indoor" volleyball is actually in favor or merging, and there appears to be otherwise consensus to merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox wheelchair tennis player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It can be merged to ((Infobox tennis player)) very easily. Magioladitis (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Different sport entirly. One is abled bodied the other is disabilty. Seen how cluttered the Tennis bio box is. Why add more parameters. It will only confuse people if merged. Plus the seperate infobox means that people can't mess it up through ignorence. Wheelchair drunk (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which parameters are missing? The ones referring to olympic games shouldn't be there at all since they are covered by medaltemplates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about Olympic games. I think you'll find that tennis bio box has Olympics in that one as well. And since this is wheelchair tennis what are you talking about Olympics for???? For starters the masters event is totally different to tennis. Secondly I think we could put in a category parameter. Wheelchair drunk (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundent would be that it's unused. Which is not. So therefore not a valid reason. Wheelchair drunk (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I meant "unused", I would have said unused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm somewhat wary of a merge here even given that there's significant overlap between the subjects simply because, as Wheelchair Drunk has pointed out, these are actually two distinct sports which happen to share a lot of rules. Nevertheless, we incorporate paralympic athletes in ((infobox sportsperson)), so a merge can make sense (and of course it's easily doable from a code point of view). What would need to be added / changed in ((infobox tennis player)) to ensure that both sports were covered without prejudice? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can check in a few hours. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only: WheelchairTennisMastersresult, Paralympicsresult, WheelchairTennisMastersDoublesresult, ParalympicsDoublesresult, WorldTeamCupresult. Moreover, I claim we don't need Paralympicsresult and ParalympicsDoublesresult (the same holds for the similar tennis biographies) because we now have medaltemplates and what matter in olympics and parlympics are the medals. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into ((Infobox tennis player)) as redundant to that template, then Delete. --Bob247 (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2011 (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) 17:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep since they are two different sports. This would be like merging volleyball played on a court with a full team of players and beach volleyball played on sand with two players per side. Yes, all of these sports (and many others) use nets, balls, and such, but just because they share a common name doesn't make them identical. The ((Infobox tennis player)) template doesn't need to be made more complicated, and this template isn't hurting or confusing anything. Efficiency at the risk of added complexity or confusion is a poor trade-off and a slight to the differently-abled players of this sport. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 03:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I don't think you realize that your point about beach and indoor volleyball is actually contradicting your "keep" vote. Have you checked which template is used for volleyball players? 198.102.153.2 (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge First, let me preface this by letting you know that I am in a wheelchair, myself. Second, just how many wheelchair tennis players are going to be added to Wikipedia? Only noteworthy people should be added to the project, and unfortunately, just being a wheelchair tennis player doesn't make one noteworthy. I can't see a need for a separate template. I think that using ((Infobox tennis player)) would be fine. Feel free to tell me how I may be missing a specific need for this template. Thanks.. JohnnyJ7788 (talk) 16:52, 28 July 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 Keep. Note: "It's useful" is an argument to avoid for articles, not for templates. --RL0919 (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikibreak3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and overly angsty. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So a template inspired by overzealous, judgemental, self-important deleters is up for deletion. Irony, thy name is wikipedia. Zeng8r (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are quite a few people I have come across who feel that way, and they might want to use this template. --Bduke (Discussion) 16:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Zeng8r, and it applies to some people.A Merge seems like a better idea, as suggested by the IP below. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 05:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• While I'm not that familiar with this venue, are those really valid reasons to keep? That someone might find it useful at some unspecified time in the future? And that those people, whomever they may be, at this unspecified time, won't be able to just, I don't know, not edit, but will instead have to use this template? Rather than just typing "back soon" or some-such? Delete, please, as unused-and-not-useful. And can we please make "Wikipedia is not angsty" a policy? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unused, and "it's useful" is an argument to avoid.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:15, 4 July 2011 (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) 13:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Merge to ((wikibreak)) with a parameter to indicate wikibreak level (level=2 in this case)65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the redirect ((wikibreak2)) should be deleted. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep do not merge. To allow WhatLinksHere tracking and date analysis, and help to detect and re-energize unhappy users, I say to keep "ansty" templates as part of a wide range of WP:NOTCENSORED coverage. It is widely advised by professional psychiatrists to let people vent anger and frustrations, rather than keep stress bottled up inside (WP:Wikistress) or be gunnysacking severe resentments. Any common fascist tyrant can suppress and delete any statements of unrest or disagreement, but it takes a higher sense of open-minded wisdom to let many people express their feelings without a sense of impending doom and censorship by "thought police" ensuring that no negative comments will be tolerated. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2011 (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) 17:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep per Wikid77: to "help to detect and re-energize unhappy users". Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:31, 6 August 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 to support deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Match in progress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia is not a news site or Live Feed there is no need for this template. It is clearly against Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Warburton1368 (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral comment I don't think the template is against policy, but the attitude of editors, who thinks this template gives them the legitimacy for live scoring. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 20:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thats the problem with it it creates the impression of legitimacy for something that shouldn't be happening. To accept that it happens is wrong as it shouldn't and actively should be stopped. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, this should be disqualified from speedy deletion as WP:NOT is specifically stated as a non-reason for speedy deletion.
• Secondly, it should be disqualified from speedy deletion as it is specified that if a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted. (This appeared on my talk page as notification of a speedy deletion)
• Pragmatic Keep. Ideally, this template would not be necessary. The same is true of all sorts of templates warning against bias, recentism, lack of references etc. Despite many attempts to persuade editors not to do so, many persist in updating matches before they are finished. Prior to this template, an informal convention had emerged of showing such matches in italics until the final whistle. This was obviously of no benefit to those unfamiliar with the convention: the template serves them better than misleading them into thinking that what they are reading is a result. This is explained in the documentation of the template. The matter has been previously discussed at least twice (1, 2) at WT:FOOTY. It is essentially a tool to avoid editwarring, and saves more responsible editors having to hover around the articles covering matches in progress for 105 minutes while they woulld rather be watching the match. Kevin McE (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We do not need templates to encourage people to go against policy. – PeeJay 20:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no encouragement: read the documentation. But given that people do this without encouragement, how you do you suggest we deal with the situation? Kevin McE (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If you take the opinion nothing will stop then it will always continue as it says in the intro its against policy for live updates although it dosent condone its existence encourages. Users should be politely warned its against policy and the update reverted as you would do with an issue on any other article. I dont want to badger anyone so will try not to comment again. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users have been politely requested on numerous occasions to desist. Feel free to continue asking them, many of us have tried before... Kevin McE (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Link to previous discussion of withdrawn TfD for reference.--ClubOranje^T 00:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• if kept rename to template:Current sport-inline, since this is the inline version of ((current sport)) ; it should not be called "match" since other sports aren't called "matches". 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia is full of current events. There is no policy against articles concerning current events or including information regarding such events. The tour de France is a current event, it would be unrealistic to repeatedly remove any current information from the article, as it would for any tournament, Olympics, 5-day cricket test. As long as the information is verifiable and noteworthy it passes inclusion criteria. It is therefore better to have such non-final information tagged for clarity, and this is as good a way to do it as anything. --ClubOranje^T 12:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant keep: deleting the template will not stop users updating scores while matches are in progress. All it will do is make it more confusing for everyone as there will be no standard way of showing that a match is yet to finish, so we may as well keep it. BigDom 12:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - in my experience, placing the template does not deter editors from updating + updating + getting information incorrect, so it's currently pointless. Renamed + reformat, and it'll start serving some purpose. GiantSnowman 13:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -there is clearly a lot of apathy within the project and acceptance that you can't stop the issue well if you don't try then it never will. One last point to compare this template use to that of use in Olympics or cricket tests is wrong. These articles are updated after each stage is complete and on the record. With goals in football these are not final and completed untill full time mathces may be abondended. It is encyclopaedic to include untill then.Warburton1368 (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You persist in saying that no attempt has been made to prevent these postings. That is simply not true. It has been tried many times, but the postings remain, and many make the point that the attempt to forbid them is at least questionable. Kevin McE (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've said something similar in the past... But in, WP:NOTNEWS, there is a line that "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information". As long as the match is in progress and it is being updated, the scoreline is breaking news and we are treating it differently by 1) italicizing it, and 2) having this template. Digirami (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not arrogant as was said in edit summary this is not a personal attack so nobody should attempt to make it so. This is clearly against the rules and in no way questionable as mentioned in previous comment read WP:NOTNEWS. Look back at my comments carefully i said there is apathy and that the nobody seems willing to try to stop it now no mention of the past. Warburton1368 (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It does not violate WP:NOTNEWS a goal being scored is not breaking news you are misinterpreting that policy. A news story changes and evolves as new facts come to light a goal just happens and it doesn't change. Some editors have said that the match can be abandoned but in that case the entire match, not just the scoreline, would be removed from the fixture list as it would have to be replayed. So that is a Straw man argument and in any case results can be changed after the match As cluboranje showed in the project football talk page. Adam4267 (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I strongly think that we should keep the template. If it is so objectionable for deletion, then you should keep it as not to affect others. I think we may have come to consensus here? A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Nothing you can't type out. --MicroX (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not that it will make a difference. Like the sun rising every morning, people will pound their keyboard to make sure that they're the one who added the fact that Joe Nobody scored a goal in the first qualifying round of the Hobo Cup. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until the actual problem is resolved, which is the in-match update of scores. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, WP is not up-to-the-minute (!!) news, so we do not need this. - Nabla (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories this template simply makes it easier for disruptive editors to persistently add live scores & therefore condones their actions. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 23:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep - out of all the 'current event' templates out there, this one has to be one of the more helpful. It simply alerts readers to the fact that a sports match is taking place at that moment, and therefore that any information in the page may be out of date. I don't see how it encourages users to provide live updates (and in any case, they'll do that anyway, whether this template exists or not). Robofish (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2011 (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) 16:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep Seems like a useful thing to me. As Robofish said, it alerts our readers to a fundamental fact about a sporting event, why would we want to withhold that from them? People are going to add breaking news to our articles and nothing can stop that, look at some of the ITN nominations some time. In any case, removing this is going to do nothing to fix the problem some see here. RxS (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Popular template that does not appear to directly violate any policies. Vanadus (talk) 04:24, 27 July 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. Redundant to ((collapsible list)). I replaced the 4 uses it had at article space + 1 at template space. Nabla (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapsible bulletlist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to ((collapsible list)) now that it's been rewritten to use actual HTML list elements (simply pass in the bullets parameter). Only three articlespace transclusions right now, so nipping this in the bud means not having to permanently maintain it for backwards compatibility as a wrapper. Substitution code is in the sandbox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Make into a wrapper (and rename with a space) - "Collapsible bullet list" is easier than "Collapsible list|bullets = yes". Rich Farmbrough, 13:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  

  If it were more widely used that would be fine, but the relative saving is trivial and it means having to update the sub-template every time the main one changes (for instance, to add support for another ten rows). The aim here is to reduce maintainability costs and to prevent situations in future where editors expect the parent functionality to be inherited by the child even though that's not automatic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, there are many wrapper templates where that is an issue, and it is wholly automatable. A WM feature would be better, though - one that passes all non-over-ridden parameters. Rich Farmbrough, 17:08, 9 July 2011 (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) 16:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete: Redundant to ((collapsible list)) and somewhat a mess. Per nominator. A\/\₉3r-(0la 16:07, 3 August 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Billy Bitter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear and obsolete. --JetBlast (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not an infobox; not a template; no pages use this templateCurb Chain (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly speedily under WP:CSD#G10. This is a personal comment about some unidentifiable person, not something that ought to be a template. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:11, 28 July 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) 04:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thai Airways International Fleet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear and obsolete. --JetBlast (talk) 12:15, 24 July 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) 04:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This navbox has only three specific links: Department for Social Development, Margaret Ritchie (which is an outdated link), and Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The Committee mentioned at the bottom of the box appears to be non-notable: the committee is not mentioned in the members' articles, and the committee itself has no article. In other words, WP:NENAN. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:32, 24 July 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) 04:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disney residential infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Purpose unclear. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:18, 24 July 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 keep. JPG-GR (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User-nnband (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a CSD warning template - I'm not sure why anyone would take the time to leave this message. ((nn-warn)) is enough. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• They would use this template because it's more specific in its content and advice. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It goes in to more detail and is friendlier in tone as we always should assume good faith i would rather use this than ((nn-warn)). Warburton1368 (talk) 22:04, 24 July 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) 04:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overly specific neutrality template. ((POV)) is sufficient. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Excessively narrow template. Ironically is not NPOV because of this nature.Curb Chain (talk) 07:18, 24 July 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) 04:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Purpose unclear. Probably obsolete. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:58, 24 July 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) 04:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simon Cousins (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Simon Cousins is a producer. As such, he does not deserve that his navbox is placed on articles of albums which he has produced. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:57, 24 July 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) 04:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talksh. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

How can templates be shortcuts to talkpages? Doesn't make sense. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:43, 24 July 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) 04:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PepsiCo, Inc table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. The infobox at PepsiCo is rather better. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:00, 24 July 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) 04:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Not PC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused tag. No incoming links. Creator blocked. No-one ever said our articles have to be politically correct; the ((disputed)) or ((POV)) tags do the job just fine for such disputes. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ((NPOV)) works fineCurb Chain (talk) 07:13, 24 July 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) 04:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Not for vector discussion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template that has served its purpose. No longer needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:49, 24 July 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) 04:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:General InfoBox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hardcoded instance of ((infobox)). Unused; not useful. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:19, 24 July 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) 04:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

If a statement is being tagged as "obvious", this just makes the encylopedia look silly. Obvious statements can simply be removed from an article if they are considered unnecessary. This tag is not used, and I don't think it should be. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not usedCurb Chain (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since, as point out above, it would be better to spend the time taken to add this tag, and just fix the article instead. We don't need to weaken the encyclopedia's quality by pointing out the obvious. Rather, we should be improving the writing of articles.^[obvious] :-) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 04:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete^[obvious] It's unprofessional. --Σ ^talk_contribs 21:03, 29 July 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Purpose is largely unclear. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, I have only the faintest clue why I made it. And in any event was made at a time I didn't know what I was doing.User:Sonarpulse (talk) 01:28, 25 July 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) 04:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Purpose better served by ((flagicon)) or similar templates. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:05, 24 July 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) 04:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edit Nicely (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Personal template from a user who has gone away. Not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:01, 24 July 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) 04:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eleventh Hour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Only two pages are linked to, because of redirects. Not used, not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:59, 24 July 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) 04:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Purpose unclear. Unneeded. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:57, 24 July 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) 04:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Enzyme references (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Obsolete; unneeded. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:33, 24 July 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.