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) 15:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Elitserien Team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox Pro hockey team)), so I replaced it with the standard. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might have discussed this first as some of the wording on Pro hockey team is not appropriate for european teams. Not saying it shouldn't be merged. But that the new template will have to be rewritten to account for this now. -DJSasso (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem? The Elitserien article states that it is a "professional ice hockey league composed of twelve teams in Sweden". The converted templates, (e.g., see AIK) appear to be using perfectly appropriate field names. So what particular wording is problematic? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking closer I guess its really only one field that needs to be fixed which is easy enough. No worries. Carry on. :) -DJSasso (talk) 10:37, 14 July 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) 21:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shefford Town F.C. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template that only links two articles (one of which is of spurious notability but that isn't for here). Both articles could easily be linked to without the use of the template, so the template is useless. BigDom 19:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. – PeeJay 19:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Substitute and delete, per nom description. /HeyMid (contributions) 18:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - template now only links one article, so is completely useless -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 23 July 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) 21:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UAE road (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant to ((Infobox road)) - see [1] compared with [2]. Infobox road also follows the accessibility and WP:MOSFLAG guidelines, and is used worldwide, whereas this template is not. Rschen7754 18:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—I truly believe that the English Wikipedia does not need unnecessarily redundant infoboxes for highways, many of which don't comply with the manual of style in some way or another. Most of them have accessibility concerns around the colors used. Highway articles on many other language editions of Wikipedia all use the same infobox. The infobox on Interstate 99 doesn't need to look like the infobox on Interstate 99 just because it's a US highway. Likewise, the infobox on a UAE road does not need to match another language edition, like E 11 road (United Arab Emirates) does with E 11. Imzadi 1979 → 19:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There doesn't really need to be lots of different road infoboxes. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The template is not redundant and is still in common use, in the same way many other countries have individual roads infoboxes. ((Infobox road)) does not meet the needs of all the templates the above 3 users are trying to replace. Jeni ^(talk) 06:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Is still in common use" because you reverted over the orphaning of the template. --Rschen7754 06:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—All parameters of this template are handled in ((infobox road)), although in slightly different form. In looking at E 11 road (United Arab Emirates), the infobox displays name, an image, the route marker, alternate names, route type (which is redundant to the number/name at the top), length, formation date, interchanges/junctions, and cities. Infobox road can display the route marker, name, alternate names, an image (typically a map, but the template can display any image), length, dates, interchanges/junctions, and cities. In addition to cities, IR can display any type of geographic subdivision of a country. If a type is not in place, it can be added. In other words, the template is redundant as both can display the same information. Actually, ((infobox road)) can display more information that this template. Imzadi 1979 → 06:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Subject to, and after any articles that use this template are converted to the standard ((Infobox road)) Codf1977 (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:31, 24 July 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) 01:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Back to the Future characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplication of information in Template:Back to the Future; no articles linked in the template actually contain the template being proposed for deletion. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete— not in use and redundant. Isn't that the definition of CSD T3? Imzadi 1979 → 20:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment CSD-T3 takes at least one week, which is about the same amount of time as waiting for a TFD to close. Either way works when the template is orphaned, but I actually prefer taking it to TFD if the orphaning was recent. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:09, 13 July 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.