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) 13:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kosovo je Srbija (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In the words of User:Ev, here:

"Compare with our entry on "Kosovo je Srbija" ("Kosovo is Serbia"). This thing could serve as a textbook example of creating the wrong editing atmosphere and even a "battleground" mentality. Balkan-related articles have enough problems with behaviour, attitudes & approaches already; and such barnstars would only add more fuel to the mix by exacerbating perceptions of biased approaches to article content".

Giving out awards for editing which espouses a particular point-of-view is not compatible with WP:NPOV. Knepflerle (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a direct attack on the new independent state of KOSOVO --Vinie007 19:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Knepflerle and Ev. kedadial 22:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 13:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whether intended as a reward for biased editing or as a particularly ill-conceived reward for maintaining neutrality by trying that Serbia's position on Kosovo be not left out of articles, the end result is the same: it will be perceived as just another divisive nationalist graffiti in Wikipedia, and further poison the editing environment. It will provoke reactions like that of Vinie007 above. It will re-inforce an "us vs. them" mentality & editing approach. It will lead to more volunteer time being wasted in nationalist spats. Whatever the intentions behind its creation & use were, it is detrimental to Wikipedia's aims. — The barnstar's image (a map of Kosovo in the colours of the Serbian state flag) was deleted from Commons yesterday as "Out of project scope: and risks nationalist tensions." - Ev (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per above. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 15:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Typical Balkan squables.1812ahill (talk) 12:25, 28 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) 15:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Luxury Marketing Council Worldwide – New York Chapter Members (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template refers to an organisation that doesn't have a wikipedia article. It is a mass of redlinks, and is hardly ever used. There seems to be no case for its continuing existence. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Neutrality^talk 01:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Tooo long and full of redlinks --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 02:48, 1 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 Speedily redirected to ((Expand)) by expert admin. Debresser (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Very short (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Recently created template, was used on 1 article so far. Redundant to ((Expand)). Debresser (talk) 12:33, 25 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per the same arguments of my deletion nomination of ((FL)). It's redundant to ((ArticleHistory)), which is much better suited for these purposes, because it contains links and can easily be changed when the article loses its featured status. The Evil IP address (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So long as somebody orphans this template and converts the last remaining valid uses to ((ArticleHistory)), then deletion seems OK. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 15:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has already been done, the one transclusions left are in some template message page, where they can be easily removed. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:17, 25 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 delete as dependent on a deleted page Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Template:Father's Day (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:President's Day (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:New Year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Since the Holiday Committee page was deleted a long time ago, shouldn't their templates also be deleted? WOSlinker (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• G8 all as dependent on a deleted page, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:26, 25 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) 15:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Catholic-Hierarchy-bishop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:26, 25 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) 15:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Catholic-Hierarchy-diocese (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:26, 25 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 and replace by ((Infobox Finnish municipality)) or ((Infobox settlement)), which is probably more appropriate for former municipalities, and since the Finnish municipality template is just a frontend for the general settlement infobox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, very few transclusions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are still 20 articlespace transclusions. Is ((Infobox Finnish municipality)) backwards compatible? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:37, 26 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) 17:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Polish2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, very few uses which can be easily amended. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (after the transclusions are amended, obviously - wouldn't it make sense to first amend them and then nominate for deletion, if only to avoid showing the "template nominated for deletion" notice on the target articles?).--Kotniski (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thought that was frowned on as fait accompli.?

  Please see ((Being deleted)) This isn't a problem, really. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a problem in as much as all the transclusions of the template have a deletion notice on them, which will be of not the slightest interest to the several billion people who might potentially read those articles in the meantime. And doing it in reverse can hardly be frowned on if we've already agreed to deprecate the template. (I just bring this up as a small point for future consideration, it doesn't matter that much.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:10, 26 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.