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. WOSlinker (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Indian Institute of Technology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is both unused and redundant. It was forked from ((Infobox university)) way back in 2006. The template ((Infobox university)) has been completely rewritten since then, and this template has not benefitted from those improvements. This template was used in only six articles; on October 15, 2010 I replaced five with ((Infobox university)) and one with ((Infobox laboratory)). HairyWombat 23:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unused, and there's simply no need for this. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 09:02, 24 October 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. WOSlinker (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Army Institute of Technology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is both unused and redundant. It appears to be a recent fork from ((Infobox Indian Institute of Technology)), which was itself forked from ((Infobox university)) way back in 2006. The template ((Infobox university)) has been completely rewritten since then, and these forked templates have not benefitted from those improvements. This template was only ever used in a single article, Army Institute of Technology, Pune; I replaced it with ((Infobox university)) on October 15, 2010. HairyWombat 22:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 09:03, 24 October 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. JPG-GR (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RFPP2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I concede this hasn't caught on, and is superfluous, but since I wasn't the creator, any objections? --Bsherr (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As the original template creator, I can tell you that the original template was rather different. It used to be simply 'Endorse protection', with a small blue plus sign next to it. The nominator then moved the template to it's current location, also 'expanding it's scope'. The new template only allows editors to support or oppose RFPP requests, voting shouldnt happen at RFPP. So delete.Acather96 (talk) 09:20, 25 October 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 substitute and delete per WP:SNOW Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My bot is working on substitution of all uses. The template will be ready for deletion in approximately three days. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:City-region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template offers no advantage whatsoever over using normal wikitext. For example, ((city-region|Nashville|Tennessee)) merely results in [[Nashville, Tennessee]], so it's actually more work to use the template, not to mention it's less intuitive and makes wikitext harder to read. Suggest substituting all uses then deleting. PC78 (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It used to provide for easy linking to [[Nashville, Tennessee|Nashville]], [[Tennessee]], but an earlier discussion determined that that was unwarranted overlinking, even done manually. If that consensus isn't likely to change, there's no reason not to delete the template.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• revert to previous version or replace with [[Nashville, Tennessee|Nashville]] 76.66.199.238 (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace totally obsolete, go back to normal wikitext Hekerui (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace and then delete per nom. I can see the point of the original version of this template but really, it's not worth the extra trouble to use. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, are we really becoming this bored that we need to create templates like this? This is just as bad as the marriage template, which should also be deleted. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 19:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert per 76.66.199.238. --Nlu (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand the nom's point and I generally agree. However, to the extent that there is any possibility of consensus changing back in favor of linking both the city and region/state, it makes sense to keep this template to make changing between the two easier (changing one template is easier than changing lots of pages). I wasn't even aware it existed, so I've just been linking manually.--Chaser (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace and delete: Note that this template survived a previous TFD, but it was later determined to be contributing to overlinking and delinked earlier this year. The intention was that the template would later be removed, and I'm okay with that, but we of course need a bot to go through and convert these 15,000 or so uses to the standard [[City, State/Region]] format before deleting the template. WildCowboy (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst out via bot, then delete. Totally unnecessary. —Angr (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is simply useless. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 09:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This exists? I never used it in five years here at all and it seems like it was written by someone with too much excitment over typing brackets and pipes. Not everything needs a template (especially city names) and this is Exhibit A of why. Nate • (chatter) 12:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why is this here? Completely redundant and unneeded. C628 (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete finally. Thank you. I've replaced these silly templates with normal wikilinks or plaintext over the years and most of the time eventually been reverted, meaninglessly. It should be subst and deleted. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see a need for it either. --Kumioko (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely useless. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Per above. Kanzler31 (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. More work than standard wikitext and no advantages over it. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 03:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The template is useless. I never liked it to begin with. Blackjays1 (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Made sense at the time but no longer. Good riddens. Wknight94 ^talk 13:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst out via bot, then delete per nom. Sb617 (Talk) 15:03, 26 October 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, and if that is not enough feel free to take it to RFD. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since the commencement of the first nomination, Template:Cleanup has been edited such that it is now designed for all relevant namespaces, including the category namespace. I believe the substantial difficulty with the first nomination was that opponents lacked confidence that such edits would be accomplished. As they now have, I think it's appropriate to determine whether the consensus is now different. Cleancat, which is only for categories, is redundant to the Cleanup template. Also, Cleancat is designed in a "needs attention" format, a format which previously existed for the mainspace too but has now been abolished in favor of the "cleanup" format; the category namespace should now follow for the same reasons the change was made in the mainspace, and for consistency. Bsherr (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is now redundant to and replaceable with ((cleanup)), so there is no reason to maintain a seperate tag just for category space. PC78 (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect people will be expecting this template to exist, since not everyone tagging categories are avid readers of TfD. 76.66.199.238 (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, redirecting would be fine. --Bsherr (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the bots that replace cleanup with article-issues don't touch things outside of NS:0 right? (this might cause problems, as ((article issues)) doesn't work outside of NS:0 correctly, and most of the issues listed on that template do not matter in categoryspace, so would be erroneous if activated with those switches). 76.66.199.238 (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, but I can find out. Which bots are these? --Bsherr (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think SmackBot does it when it dates cleanup templates. 76.66.196.13 (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok. I'll go get Rich. --Bsherr (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        1. SB uses WP:AWB functionality for merging/demerging templates - I tend to run it manually or semi-manually outside ns0, and haven't seen that issue arise. Anyone doing that with their own code should be name-space aware.
        2. ((Multiple issues)) could be name-space aware to the extent required. The complexity would not be that great if a sensible approach was used. I would immodestly suggest that if that is needed it might be worth letting me know.
      • Rich Farmbrough, 19:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
        
• Unsure. Keep? How would I find categories needing cleanup if this is deleted in favor of Template:Cleanup ? Advanced Search of some kind? My first tries didn't work: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=%7B%7Bcleanup%7D%7D&fulltext=Search&ns14=1&title=Special%3ASearch&advanced=1&fulltext=Advanced+search , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Category%3Acleanup&namespace=14 . I note there's no http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Categories_needing_cleanup, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_needing_cleanup exists. --Elvey (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Wikipedia categories needing cleanup. PC78 (talk) 21:56, 24 October 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 close as being out of scope. The userbox should be discussed at WP:MfD. The cross-space redirect should be discussed at WP:RfD. PC78 (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Religion Is Harmful (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I thought we banned POV userboxes from template space.

Even if we hadn't, there might be a case for "user atheist" but not x is harmful. Can I create "Atheism is harmful" or "Scientology is evil" or "The world needs Jesus"? No, delete this. Don't even userfy it, people should use "I am an X" boxed (if they need to assert POV) not "I hate Y". Scott Mac 10:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please guys, this article has been nominated earlier and the result was keep. If you want to delete it for its name, then move it. The box is names religion is harmful because thats what atheism means. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that POV userboxes are not allowed in template space.--Scott Mac 10:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed at length [1]. But if you insist on nominating this one then feel free to nominate its "counter userbox" too: "Atheism is harmful". Also, which userbox doesn't have a point of view in it? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The counter one is in user space. I don't like it either, but it isn't in community space. Banish this one to your userspace and the problem is much less.--Scott Mac 10:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My understanding is that POV userboxes are not allowed in template space. Thus ((User Atheist)) should also be deleted. I note that other belief userboxes are long gone (see the User:Christian one here --Scott Mac 10:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Why not move it rather than nominate it for deletion in the first place? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but we also need rid of the resultant cross space redirect. Which means that all the users currently using this template need to change it, or they will end up with redlinks. We don't have any cross-space redirects for any of the other ideological userboxes. Would you also be willing to move ((User atheist)) to your userspace on the same basis. That seems to be our policy compromise on these things now.--Scott Mac 12:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Close as out of scope - TfD does not discuss userboxes, even if in the template namespace. --Bsherr (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense - it's a template, where else would we discuss it?--Scott Mac 15:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You must be new here. :-) Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#What not to propose for discussion here. It goes to MfD. --Bsherr (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good grief. What ridiculous instruction creep. This is the type of nonsense that leaves wikipedia having little ghettoes populated by self-regulating regulars, throwing rule-books to bully outsiders. It's a template - it needs discussed - I brought it to templets for deletion. If there's a rule 453b(ii) preventing that, I choose to ignore it. Now, unless there's a good solid reason for taking this discussion elsewhere, can we return to generating a consensus about what to do here?--Scott Mac 15:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a very commonsense measure. Userboxes are in both template and user namespaces, and it makes no sense that where they're discussed arbitrarily depends on where they're located. MfD is where this discussion belongs. That was the consensus in the previous nomination of this very template not a month ago, and I'm sure you'll find that's the consensus again. But besides this point, this "template" is really a redirect, so it actually belongs at RfD!. --Bsherr (talk) 15:40, 22 October 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. Airplaneman ✈ 03:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships events (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Depreacted by ((UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships)) - unused and no potential for use. Severo^TC 09:32, 22 October 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.