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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:29, 24 April 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. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Catholic Orders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned and redundant to ((Catholic religious orders)) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:29, 24 April 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 deleted by author Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template, not sure if is of any use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:43, 24 April 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) 21:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coor dec (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned and redundant to ((coord|...|...|format=dms)) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I say redirect to coord. The history might still be useful to some people. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((Coord)), to which it is clearly redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:38, 30 April 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) 21:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thug Life (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Thug Life is a redirect and the group is briefly mentioned Tupac Shakur article. The template has links only to articles of the members. Karppinen (talk) 17:51, 24 April 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) 00:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

As well as the sub templates (now substed):

• Template:TGV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:TER  (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Transilien (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:RER (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I have tried to reform this template, but just can't find a solution. The problem is that it has no homogeneity, or any of the characteristics of an infobox (which it claims to be). On one hand it has the LGV (High speed lines) which are individual tracks that belong to the RFF and not the SNCF. On the other it has the TER which are the regional train networks, and are organised by the individual regions (the SNCF only provides the service); plus it includes Corsica which in completely separate railway-wise from the rest of France. On a third hand has a huge Paris bias, giving each sector an individual link (doesn't do that for other regions), and then even each single line of the RER network (but even there the A line and half of the B line belong to the RATP and not the SNCF). Oh, and a rather ugly effort is made to include the REAL.

The solution would be to give the LGV pages a proper BS box, with the LGV section being made into a sort of ((Campaignbox)) to go underneath, the TER list accessible thru a category (that already exists), and the last two sections will be merged into ((Infobox Paris Network)) (already done). ChrisDHDR 16:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace with ordinary footer navboxes for the specific networks. The subtemplates are unused (having been substed), and the parent is an unwieldy mess as explained in the nomination. --RL0919 (talk) 21:33, 5 May 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. Amalthea 22:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox True Blood season one (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox True Blood season two (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to list appearing in List of True Blood episodes Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They are not templates to sit at the bottom of the individual episode pages (as they are created) but rather sit in the infobox to help move within the episodes in each season. At the moment there are only two individual episodes because of concerns about a lack of sources, but they will serve a different purpose once more episodes are created. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  ... like e.g. here. Amalthea 17:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment, the purpose of these templates is to facilitate a hack to wedge a list of episodes into the infobox. Why not just use the functionality already provided in the prev and next links? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it's not really a hack, listing the season episodes via the "Season list" parameter has been part of ((Infobox television episode)) for three years, albeit undocumented. And with seasons like List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) where we have an article on every episode, I think I would actually prefer a navbox-like navigation in the infobox. Whether to redundantly keep the episode titles in all episodes, subclass the infobox template for the whole season or series (with a season number #switch to decide which list to show), pull the episode titles from a template (which should then follow a naming convention and live as subtemplates so that they are automatically transcluded), or avoid explicitly listing the episodes in the first place seems to be the core question, and probably depends on the number of episodes concerned. Amalthea 18:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unnecessary and just adds a glut of episode titles that are unnecessary. There are already season lists for this, and the individual episodes are interlinked with next/prev links, as noted. Further, it seems unlikely this series (like most) has enough notable episodes to warrant such a template at all. As noted, only TWO have articles, making it doubly excessive and bloaty. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Collectonian. Airplaneman ✈ 23:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as needlessly redundant. The appropriate place for this type of information is the main article on the series or a separate list of episodes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:02, 27 April 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.