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 No consensus. RL0919 (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Track listing item (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason it's "unused" is because until very recently the documentation advised substituting it. Without work to establish how it's used in existing articles it is not clear that editors are not still using it in their workflows. I'm not comfortable that the nominator has done his homework in establishing that at this stage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I honestly have no idea what you're talking about or why you have put the word "unused" in sarcasm quotes. Nothing uses this template on Wikipedia and it's been superseded by another template. I don't know what you mean when you are talking about it being used in someone's "workflow"; there are no pages in userspace that employ this template. What more do you want me to do to convince you that it's unused other than point you to the use link above? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I put "unused" in quotation marks because your definition of "unused" appears to be "has no transclusions". Given that the documentation said to substitute it until I removed that comment six days ago, it would seem obvious that there would not be any transclusions showing up. This does not mean that editors who work on updating track lists are not still using the template; many editors who do heavy template work keep their own cut-and-paste lists on their local machines for such work. The ((tdeprecated)) template was only added to the template in the last week, and I don't consider that enough time to ensure that people aren't still going to want to use it. ((track listing)) is a superior replacement for the complete track listing section of an article but it isn't a drop-in replacement for this template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Uses
  • Check the uses link and select show links: no users have linked this template, making it unlikely they have it listed in a private toolbox
  • I did a database scan for <small>featuring — there are 171 uses, which of course are all substed. I can provide the list upon request.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at the first 50 articles that used the template, I don't see any current uses of it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  For the third time, that's because it's been substituted. It's still in use on all of those articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:33, 30 March 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, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Economy of Slovakia table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think there is no reason to keep this template anymore. It isn't included anywhere in articles (see), and the main article Economy of Slovakia uses more common template ((Infobox economy)) instead of this one. RoadTrain (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it is not used in any articles (and therefore orphaned). The article it was intended for now uses a different template. —Airplaneman— 02:12, 25 March 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) 00:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Augusta GreenJackets Roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was listed at CSD but does not meet any of the CSD criteria. It is, however, unused anywhere on Wikipedia and is two years out of date. Furthermore, players at this level of baseball are highly unlikely to meet WP:N and thus the template is somewhat redundant - note that there are no blue links listed on the playing roster listed at Augusta GreenJackets. Rje (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it is unused, outdated, and somewhat trivial as many of the players listed don't have their own articles. —Airplaneman— 02:14, 25 March 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) 02:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Template:Mnb2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

delete Low use reference templates that are redundant with more standard methods. Unless there are objections, I will begin converting the current uses in a few days.-— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redundant, long-since deprecated. Happy‑melon 19:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant to other note templates. As part of a failed proposal for a footnote scheme from 2005, these have already survived much longer than they should have. --RL0919 (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - deprecated almost three years ago. —Airplaneman— 02:18, 25 March 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) 02:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

delete Low use reference templates that are redundant with more standard methods. Unless there are objections, I will begin converting the current uses in a few days.-— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redundant, long-since deprecated. Happy‑melon 19:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant, but care should be taken with that one, we cannot just delete it, we need to use a bot to replace the current values. FFMG (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please conclude this discussion asap. All over Wikipedia, there are articles now in horrible style. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, this discussion needs to be concluded one way or another, it is breaking many pages. Another approach should be taken to start a discussion.
If the decision is to remove the template we need to use a bot for it rather than red linking it. FFMG (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will convert it using AWB, checking each instance by hand. My experience in doing this shows that there will be a number of broken uses. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because, for whatever reason, tagging Fn caused it to stop working, and considering that the template was deprecated in 2006, I started on these earlier rather than wait until the discussion was closed. I think others must have been at it as well. However, I noticed that there are several articles, like Windows XP, that use the Fn but with linking to anything. Others have ((fn|1)) and ((fnb|something else)) but it's 8:00 am and time for bed in the Arctic. something lame from CBW 13:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been updating a number of these templates, and have found many instances where a reference is defined but not used, or invoked by not defined. Each page requires a preview to ensure that there are no cite errors. I fixed Windows XP, but I really need to finish updating ((Rf)) before I take on this task.

Yes, the TfD template is intrusive, but I don't know a better way to attract attention to the discussions. That discussion belongs at Template talk:Tfd. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the TFD notification causes problems, it can be placed inside "noinclude" tags. This isn't the first choice because it reduces the publicity for the discussion, but it is appropriate in some cases. --RL0919 (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant and deprecated for six months in one case and over three years in the other, so users have had plenty of time to plan for their departure. --RL0919 (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Care has to be exercise when replacing old stuff with new stuff, but that's obvious so I doubt it'll be a problem here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as they are redundant and deprecated. —Airplaneman— 02:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and tag as deprecated, as is. This template was widely used, and remains used in history versions of pages, including policy pages, where there are often good reasons to revisit very old versions. Deleting the template would (I presume) upset the readability of past versions. The template deletion notice is currently messing the readability of past versions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 25 March 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) 02:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

delete Low use reference templates that are redundant with more standard methods. Unless there are objections, I will begin converting the current uses in a few days. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redundant, long-since deprecated. Happy‑melon 19:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant old note templates, used on just a handful of articles where they can be replaced with much more widely used varieties. --RL0919 (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as they are redundant and deprecated. —Airplaneman— 02:19, 25 March 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.