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) 15:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Air Gear (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two links inside the template. deerstop. 23:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have added one more (List of episodes) but I see no reason why only 3 things need to be linked as they can all be accessed on the main article's page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgekid87 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 27 July 2010 UCT
• Delete There are only four links, plus the author link, and I'm not seeing potential for any additional articles to be created. If they are (and can pass WP:N et al); this template can be recreated, but until then it's not needed. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 23:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If needed, see also sections may be added to the lists to link to one another. G.A.S^talk 04:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Knowledgekid87's reasoning. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:31, 31 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. no longer used. Salix (talk): 13:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Updated nomination: No longer used following deletion of Accounting Standards Issued by ICAI, copying of template into Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, and merging & redirection of Audit and Assurance Standards issued by ICAI. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:55, 2 August 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) 15:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major Central Libraries in the United Kingdom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The definition of a 'major central library' appears to be original research. Pondle (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Even if the classification "major central library" is not original research, it hasn't been sourced to anywhere. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:12, 29 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 Userfy Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not used and somewhat duplicative to Template:Rollsign. Also, the creator used the edit summary "Created Test Template". Train2104 (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to my userspace. The NYCS articles now use SVG images; however, I'd like to preserve it for the clever use of CSS and HTML hacks. Same goes for Rollsign when the last transclusions are eliminated. — Dispenser 15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ((Rollsign)) shouldn't be deleted or userfied, it is used in several articles on discontinued services. As far as I know, there are no plans to deprecate it. Train2104 (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy per creator (Dispenser). Response to Train2104: ((Rollsign)) was cited as a template similar to the one facing deletion, but is not up for deletion itself. Airplaneman ✈ 03:21, 29 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((Hockey team)) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Airplaneman ✈ 03:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -Pparazorback (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:13, 3 August 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 as orphaned, with no objection to merger with another infobox if required. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RSA-OBR facilities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on one article, which has been tagged for deletion under CSD A3 (no context). If kept, this template needs to be rebuilt for accessibility as it fails WP:COLOR. Imzadi 1979 → 18:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename, I agree about the accessibility. Probably can be merged into some Infobox, but for now suggest renaming to "Infobox RSA-OBR facilities". The one article currently using it (Genting Sempah) has no deletion tags on it. Si Trew (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was tagged. The article at best should be transformed from an article on a rest area (which fails WP:GNG) to an article on the town, assuming an actual town exists. Since the only usage of the template is for a non-notable subject, the template is unnecessary. In full disclosure, there is a lot of cleanup work needed for Malaysian highway-related articles. Most of the interchange articles fail WP:GNG. There are only about 60 articles on road junctions in the rest of the world, but 200 such for Malaysia alone. (It appears that every freeway interchange in the country has a name, much like all of the interchanges on the Pennsylvania Turnpike are named, but a name doesn't equal notability.) At some point this year, after the cleanup on ((infobox road)) and consolidation of the 40+ redundant templates is completed, I plan to AfD the majority of the Malay interchange articles. Imzadi 1979 → 20:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the only article it was used in has been deleted and it is less than ideal in formatting/accessibility. Airplaneman ✈ 15:30, 7 August 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) 15:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-you (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is nothing but cruft and original research carried out by the creator. There is no significant notability for this template and as such is not required or needed on Wikipedia. If this template is allowed to stay it will open an unwated door to the proliferation of user created cruft templtes on narrow topics which are not noteworthy.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Skimming through the uses, I see usage such as "Most Subscribed on YouTube, Ranked 22nd as of 2010" and "Most Subscribed Director on YouTube, Ranked 45th as of 2010". The use in Ken Jennings is peculiar— it looks like it should be Record titles, but ((S-rec)) was redirected. that needs to be sorted out. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((S-rec)) was deleted in 2007,[1] then recreated and moved on July 19. Prior to that, the Jennings article used ((s-ach|ach)). ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Gadget850. In the unlikely event that the YouTube accomplishments described where this template is used are worthy of having succession boxes, I'm sure we must have, or be able to create, a more generic succession box template to use instead. The use of this template for Ken Jennings is particularly unusual because not only did his records have nothing to do with YouTube, but most of them were accomplished before YouTube was created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—I have found the templates confusing, and evidently, they are creating confusion. My other points have been covered by the above comments and the nomination. Airplaneman ✈ 03:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — as per nom. Bazj (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((S-rec)), the redir to this template, should also be deleted. Bazj (talk) 12:52, 3 August 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) 15:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cat also (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template which sorts categories, except that by using it, you make it harder to find and edit categories since they're not in the right order! Unnecessary barrier to novice editors. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Unued after four years; not compatible with HotCat. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:06, 26 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) 16:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unused typing aid template that reproduces the span element. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Looks like it adds more text than it saves. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment according to the documentation, this allows use of span inside parser functions. Have parser functions been updated to be able to use HTML span elements then? 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:38, 27 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 Greek myth (Olympian) and replace it with Greek myth (Olympian)2 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greek myth (Olympian) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Greek myth (Olympian)2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pick one: side bar or navbox. You don't need both. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I pick Template:Greek myth (Olympian)2, and suggest renaming after Template:Greek myth (Olympian) is replaced and deleted. I pick the navbox because it can be placed in a standard location (the end of the article) instead of somewhere in the body of the article. Airplaneman ✈ 03:16, 29 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 Move to ((sup2)) and salt causes potential problems with template parameters. Salix (talk): 15:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The purpose of these templates is to serve as typing shortcuts for typing ² and ³. While this might seem like a reasonable idea, there are a couple problems: (1) A common error in template programming is to type ((2))} or (({2)) instead of (({2))}, which would then transclude these templates. (2) Checking the links to these templates shows that they have a bit of a history, and have been used in the recent past for creating newlines. Hence, while I don't necessarily have the same objections to say ((^2)) or ((sup2)), these should be left deleted (in my opinion). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author Comment: While I have taken all of these into note before creating the templates, I would like to state the following:

1. I went through its history before conceiving the template, and while the concern of having (({2))} and (({3))} mistyped did cross my mind, I don't see how troubleshooting a programming error would differ very much if the end result would be Template:2} as opposed to 2}. Sure, one is a bit more spotable, but nevertheless, it's an error which has to be troubleshooted, regardless of the output. I doubt people would not double-check their templates before releasing them to the public, either. But that's just my opinion.
2. I don't necessarily see how someone could deduce using ((2)) as a double-linebreak. Whether or not it makes sense, however, prior templates on both Template:2 and Template:3 were composed (to my recollection) mainly of blatant nonsense and test pages. Hence, I don't see how this would hold the current template back.

Other than this, I created the template mainly to reduce the keystrokes needed to create a superscript "2" and "3", effectively from the eleventwelve keystrokes of <sup>2</sup> to the five keystrokes of ((2)). And when you are required to use the "2" or "3" often in prose, the difference shows. That's about it; but if the decision ever goes to remove the template from the page, I would like to recommend moving it to one of the redirects instead of simply deleting it, preferably to Template:Sup2 and Template:Sup3, accordingly. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and salt since these would be highly likely to cause headscratching errors on templates. As for moving it to Sup2/Sup3... I'm not seeing a need for the templates, but I would not be opposed if the consensus turns that way. The current names for these templates should be redlinked though. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — I remember running into this a while back and ripping up a template trying to figure it out. Redundant to ((sup)). -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to ((sup2)) and ((sup3)). That way, we save keystrokes and size while also not breaking templates in the process. Train2104 (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Not used in any articles; ((sup2)) and ((sup3)) were created as redirects yesterday. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to be rude, but isn't that rather obvious seeing that the template is two-days old, with no one knowing it exists? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; redundant to ((sup)). Airplaneman ✈ 03:19, 29 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.