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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World Trade Organization (WTO) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox is unnecessary and clutters up the pages of "Economy of Foo" articles. If people want to navigate through countries that are in the WTO, they can click the WTO link in the economy article. — Mangostar (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The inconvience this creates to users outweighs the very marginally benefits that come from having this as a template. Weygander (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Often the main articles on various countries fail to mention membership, which is why the bottom navboxes are useful for a quick glance at a country's political/economic allegiances. If there is clutter, then the navbox can be set to be closed by default. -Mardus (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Then why shouldn't the appropriate sentence just be added then? I would volunteer to do this if it would mean we could get rid of this box. It is set to be closed by default, but it's clutter nonetheless if no one cares about its contents. What reader of "Economy of South Africa" needs instant access to a complete list of WTO countries? Pretty much none of them, that is why an in-text link makes more sense. Mangostar (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This template is way too large. Membership status can be (and should be) indicated by other means. --Kildor (talk) 13:39, 16 June 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 already deleted by User:Grutness for being "malformed article (unrelated to the title, as well" (Non-admin closure) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Has nothing to do with the English language or the English people. Sort of a coatrack template. — Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. What is this intended to be used for? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is being transcluded in a couple of images descriptions. However, they don't really make sense. Was a different ((english)) there before and this was put in its place? Paragon12321 (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Close per the fact that it doesn't even exist anymore, did someone forget to close? DA PIE EATER (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, someone deleted it an hour ago and didn't close the TfD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did - it was listed at CfD, and I closed that debate, saying it should have been listed here instead. I didn't realise it had been listed here as well! Grutness...wha? 00:00, 14 June 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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stutz timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This timeline template has been around for a while, but it is not being used by any articles, and it does not appear useful enough to be used. — Vossanova ^o< 18:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - article links show it's a dead template. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the template has now been transcluded into all the linked articles. DH85868993 (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - --— Typ932^{T | C}  06:42, 19 June 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 some and delete others Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ION California (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This and the following several templates only navigate between one and four articles - generally two or three; therefore, they are not particularly useful. — —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ((ION Florida))
• ((ION Georgia))
• ((ION Iowa))
• ((ION Kentucky))
• ((ION Michigan))
• ((ION Mississippi))
• ((ION Missouri))
• ((ION New York))
• ((ION North Carolina))
• ((ION North Dakota Stations))
• ((ION Ohio))
• ((ION Oklahoma))
• ((ION Pennsylvania))
• ((ION Tennessee))
• ((ION Texas))
• ((ION Virginia))
• ((ION Washington))
• ((ION Wisconsin))

• Keep California, Florida, New York State, Texas, delete all the others. This was a good faith effort, however most of the intrastate templates don't have enough stations to justify them being broken out on their own. Nate • (chatter) 20:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep above, and throw in Wisconsin, Tennessee, Ohio and North Carolina as those states have 3 or more affiliates in a state. Delete everyone else. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 15:56, 14 June 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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Series in Jump SQ. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely unnecessary template. There is no need to stick a template in every series as it runs in the magazine, then have to remove and shift around as they go in and out of the magazine. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed. It's a template--shouldn't it be more permanent instead of continually edited? Such a list could easily be served by the proper category added to each series article, or a list within an article/as an article itself. When I saw this I thought it was a little silly. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Not a news page. Why have something more to maintain? Liashi (talk) 03:43, 20 June 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.