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 debate was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G6 - the natural completion of a completed XfD. Happy‑melon 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User WikiProject Beta Theta Pi Projects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The associated Wikiproject was deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Beta Theta Pi Chapters about 8 months ago. No need for this to exist anymore. — Metros (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2008 (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 debate was } Keep Happy‑melon 21:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free stamp of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Non-free stamp of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:USPSstamp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Happy‑melon 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC) - might as well have consistency[reply]

These don't provide anything that ((Non-free stamp)) doesn't, and having country-specific templates just makes keeping track of the templates and images harder. --Carnildo (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm the person who actually does 99% of the maintenance of stamp images here, and I created them as a convenience for myself, similarly to the long-existing ((USPSstamp)) which is also a country-specific template (your case would be more plausible if you'd nominated that template for deletion also - why is the US special?). There are a couple reasons for these: one, the copyright periods are different, and I can see at a glance whether the country's category has anything that is actually PD and can go to commons instead. Second, people are always trying to sneak in random images by tagging them as stamps, and smaller categories makes this easier for me to detect. Stan (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The US is special in that the cutoff date for stamps entering the public domain isn't determined by copyright law, but rather by when the US Postal Service was split off from the government. --Carnildo (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment your point about ((USPSstamp)) is valid - the US is not special, so I have nominated this template also. This does not necessarily indicate a desire to delete these templates, only a desire for consistency. Happy‑melon 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — this seems like a valid use for more specific licensing. If we can specify the license more precisely, I think we should. --Haemo (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2008 (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 debate was delete Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this template is useless now since the template "elementbox" replaced it

• Delete per nom. Redundant to ((Infobox element)). In future, consider tagging something like this for WP:CSD#T3. Happy‑melon 21:09, 13 February 2008 (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 debate was } ((Infobox church2)) moved to ((Infobox church)), all other likely templates redirected to ((Infobox church)). Happy‑melon 21:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template is redundant as the "((Infobox church2))" template is better designed and more widely used. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse template names because infobox church is much more intuitive and more expected than having to type "church2". hbdragon88 (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree absolutely. Actually, I suggest that "((Infobox church2))" be renamed "((Infobox church))" (note the lowercase "c"), but that template needs to be deleted first. "((Infobox Church))" should redirect to "((Infobox church))". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 23:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2008 (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 debate was delete Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template is redundant as the "((Infobox religious building))" template is better designed and more widely used. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - redundant to ((infobox religious building)). Happy‑melon 20:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2008 (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 debate was delete Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unused. Replaced by Template:VictorianClosedStations. Wongm (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2008 (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 debate was Deleted. There appears to be no substantial consensus in favour of retention, and by the end of the discussion period all the transclusions of these templates had been successfully converted to ((VictorianTouristRailwayStation)) with no objections. These hardcoded instance therefore qualify for WP:CSD#T3. Happy‑melon 22:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Replaced by more general Template:VictorianTouristRailwayStation at covers all. Wongm (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - themore specific templates were better and more appropriate to each station. JRG (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2008 (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 debate was speedy delete G7 by User:NawlinWiki. Non-admin close. JPG-GR (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mendelssohn string quartets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Superseded by Template:Mendelssohn chamber music. Centy – reply• contribs – 00:53, 13 February 2008 (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 debate was delete Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Any talk page could attract trolling, but some are more vulnerable than others. There are major WP:DENY, WP:BEANS and WP:AGF issues here. If there's been a troll warning on a page for months that serves as a symbol of the troll's victory, and nothing necessarily to suggest that that talk page will ever be used again for trolling. Also there is a lot of overlap here with the "this is a controversial topic which may be under dispute", and it clutters up the talk pages that are already full of such templates in some cases.. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If anything, this is just a big neon sign saying "TROLLS COME HERE!" JPG-GR (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per JPG-GR. Don't give them the satisfaction. Happy‑melon 21:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a big neon sign that says "TROLLS COME HERE!", and thats the point. As it serves be one of the first things at the top of the talk page, it should remind editors not to get drawn into an argument by a troll. I have also linked the prior TfDs, two "keep" closes and one "no consensus Very useful template" close. I would encourage people to read over them before !voting on this, the forth nomination. Fosnez (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, it does the opposite. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 21:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I believe there was a misunderstanding caused by the above sentence's missing a comma, which would have rendered it "TROLLS, COME HERE!" an imperative rather than a declarative statement. Ron Duvall (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No reason I see for this templates removal. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I just removed this template from the talk page of WT:ARS I'm pretty sure we can identify trollish behavior without having to resort to a warning template, and I do fear the WP:BEANS attention as well. -- RoninBK _{T C} 08:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)_{That's right folx, one of those "wild-eyed inclusionists" at ARS actually nominated for Delete...}[reply]
• Delete, along with "IgnoramusWarning", "IlliteracyWarning", "TestosteroneLadenTeenagersAboundWarning". -- Fullstop (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2008 (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.