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) 00:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free vector version available (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is only used on one image, and that image will soon be deleted. As Fut.Perf. said, "Why would we actually need to tag such situations? If they're non-free, only one of the two files should be in use anyway, and the other be marked as orphaned and deleted." See this discussion for more. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: this template uses the "nonfree=yes" parameter of ((Vector version available)). If this nfvva template is deleted, I think the "nonfree" parameter of vva should be removed as well. I made a note of that at Template talk:Vector version available. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. This is actively harmful. We don't want people using high-res non-free work here under any circumstances, which means we shouldn't ever be hosting it, let alone pointing people to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The reason this template came to attetion at WP:MCQ was that someone had used ((Vector version available)), which shows a thumbnail of the vector version, on a non-free file. If nfvva is deleted, some attention should be given to preventing the use of vva on non-free files—particularly if the nonfree=yes is removed from vva. —teb728 t c 18:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. How about a big-honkin' notice that says "Do not use this template for non-free files"? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd rather that it were used, actually, as that allows us to track down and delete the non-free vector files in question. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per Quadell. Also, add that notice to vva and remove the parameter. --Nathan2055^{talk - review} 19:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I believe that we should not be encouraging the use of vector non-free images on Wikipedia. Such images arguably/obviously fail the requirement of being low-resolution, so why encourage non-free vector images with this template? Regards, {|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 03:19, 23 August 2011 (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) 00:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((Tlu)), which is much easier to use (1 instead of 2 parameters, and in the correct order, too). The Evil IP address (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to mention that it takes up a title which could probably be used for something more useful than Yet Another Utility Template Just Because I Could. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:12, 17 August 2011 (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 no consensus to delete yet, but some consensus to significantly limit its use and orphan it where possible. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Auto link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely against Wikipedia practises. Red links shouldn't be avoided, and so all templates that do so. I see this is used quite a bit, but this shouldn't prevent it from deletion, see ((Being deleted)). The Evil IP address (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: template is fully-protected, so I couldn't add a tag to it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have tagged it. JIMp _talk·cont 00:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the primary use for this template is within other templates (e.g., infobox templates) and not directly in article space (as far as I can tell). Perhaps the best first step would be to figure out how to remove it from use in templates and the number of transclusions in article space would drop dramatically? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • here's the template transclusion list. A fair few, and at least some of them are inappropriate (de-linking navigation to next-previous years, for instance, when we actively want those articles to be created). Makes sense to add a cleanup cat to ((auto link)) which flags its uses and work through the templates which include it until they're all gone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have deleted ((noredlink)) since it did the exact same thing (this either redundant or undesirable). JIMp _talk·cont 00:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Red links are good things, but it would have many uses in userspace and template space. I move to keep it. --Nathan2055^{talk - review} 02:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that having many usages is not a reason to keep a template. In general, templates don't have to be deleted immediately after closing the discussion. There will be enough time to replace the usages. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said it would have uses not usages. --Nathan2055^{talk - review} 17:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see, indeed. However, where exactly do you think it would have uses. Most transclusion currently come from article namespace, not from the user namespace. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, but see if it is feasible to orphan it from templates using it. If this is feasible, then orphan it, if it isn't feasible, then keep it. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This would have big uses on userpages as a "If there is a link here someone opened a discussion page/RfC/Arbitration case/Sockpuppet case against me. I've seen something like this on another users userpage. --Nathan2055^{talk - review} 21:21, 4 September 2011 (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) 00:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Useless leftover from 2004, when Wikipedia still used "wiki.phtml" instead of "index.php". Only usage on a user's sandbox. The Evil IP address (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2011 (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. Author request. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused demo template, no longer necessary. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I marked it ((db-g7)), as it's no longer used.   — Jeff G.  ツ 14:53, 17 August 2011 (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) 00:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pointless template that says one should type ((Tli|template name)) instead of just ((template name)). The two remaining usages are easily replaced. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2011 (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) 00:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Demo template that's no longer in use. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2011 (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) 00:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

We really shouldn't change the way we link articles with hacky templates. If a specific feature is required that this template is supposed to give, it should be done in the MediaWiki core, but not like this. Since the template has more transclusions than usual, I suggest replacing the template with an internal link, so that a bot can easily substitute the remaining usages. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: terrible hack. It seems like this template can just be subst:'ed in all usages, thanks to this edit by Happy-melon (which also removed the feature that was apparently the point of the template). Ucucha (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: unfortunately, for new links in external link style to the same wiki the linksearch feature has been abolished (the link table is no longer updated), see mw:Special:Code/MediaWiki/53104. As a result, even after restoring the earlier version of the template, the feature that was the point of the template does not work anymore.--Patrick (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2011 (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) 00:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old template sharing cruft, no longer in use. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2011 (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. Ruslik_Zero 08:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cal Poly Mustangs Athletics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template Template:California Polytechnic State University already contains all articles in this template. It's redundant to have it as a stand-alone. Marco Guzman, Jr  Chat  19:30, 16 August 2011 (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. Ruslik_Zero 08:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Catalan Wikipedia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template only used in one article, where it can easily be substituted. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2011 (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) 03:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User talk orange box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is only transcluded on four pages, and seems a bit harsh. I think the current translusions should be substed, and then the template be deleted. Nathan2055^{talk - review} 18:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep. Way too passive-aggressive for templatespace. If this were only used once then userfication would be a no-brainer, but substitution is probably okay. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It's dangerous if you have css customising the banner in a rather intrusive way. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 05:13, 18 August 2011 (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) 03:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commons template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another template sharing remainder. We should delete this template and remove it from where it's used because Wikipedia and Commons are completely different projects, and while some templates may share the same name, their purposes are completely different, making the links misleading. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace with the code ((Commons|Template:TemplateName)). We shouldn't be telling everyone that they may not have links to Commons templates, but we don't need a rare template to do something that another template already does. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after replacement. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2011 (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) 17:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused in main namespace, ((Commons)) and ((Commons category)) should do just fine. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2011 (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. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sisterlinkqsc-author (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant to ((Sister project links)). The Evil IP address (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As the primary author, I've deleted it per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 10#Template:Sisterlinkqsc. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:40, 16 August 2011 (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) 06:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((Wiktionary-inline)). Used on one page, where it should be replaced with the latter for consistency. The Evil IP address (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2011 (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. Ruslik_Zero 08:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Useless template that adds a link to Help:Magic words. The 2 or 3 remaining usages can easily be substituted. The Evil IP address (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The few usages are better replaced by ((Mwl)). The intent was to have the text of a magicword displayed and then easily link to that word's documentation page. Agree to delete. — MrDolomite • Talk 03:16, 17 August 2011 (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) 06:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used only on two pages, where using ((Wikibooks)) is just sufficient. The Evil IP address (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2011 (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) 06:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hardly navigates anything —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:59, 16 August 2011 (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 no consensus to delete, but also no consensus to keep them all either. Perhaps a good step forward would be to renominate all with fewer than X entries, where X is near 2? See, for example, Neon compounds. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hydrogen compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lithium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Beryllium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Boron compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Carbon compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Neon compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sodium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Magnesium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Aluminium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Silicon compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Phosphorus compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Chlorine compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Potassium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Calcium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Scandium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Titanium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Vanadium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Chromium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Manganese compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Iron compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cobalt compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Nickel compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Copper compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Zinc compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gallium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Germanium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Arsenic compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Selenium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rubidium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Strontium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Yttrium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Zirconium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Niobium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Molybdenum compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Technetium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ruthenium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rhodium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Palladium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Silver compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cadmium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Indium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tin compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Antimony compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tellurium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Iodine compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Xenon compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Caesium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Barium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lanthanum compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cerium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Praseodymium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Samarium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Europium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Terbium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dysprosium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Holmium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Erbium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Thulium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ytterbium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lutetium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hafnium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tantalum compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tungsten compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rhenium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Osmium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Iridium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gold compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mercury compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Thallium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lead compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bismuth compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Thorium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Protactinium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Uranium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Neptunium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Plutonium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Americium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Curium compounds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2011#Templates. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, most elements have only a few especially notable compounds and these templates serve as useful navigational aids to reach them all. Categories do not fulfill the same function, since they are internally unorganized. Furthermore, nothing dictates that the link in this template box should be a single compound; for example, I added organolithium reagent to the lithium box, although this is an arbitrarily large class of compounds. --vuo (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Articles are encouraged to have navigation boxes to lead to related articles and this is one of the more useful templates for this. Some of these like carbon may have such a large number of possible articles as to be too incomplete to be useful, but most will have a reasonable size. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - these lists will be notoriously incomplete, making the templates for the more common elements (C, H, N, O, e.g.) of no significant use. Part of this is already incorporated in the ((chembox)) (for 'related compounds' - which makes more sense, there is no real link between CH₄ and CO₂ and C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁ except for them all being carbon compounds, while CH4 then would have templates for C and H compounds (containing a lot of unrelated compounds), while SiH4 (which is more related) would be hard to find there. Having navigational templates for related compounds, sure, but this is taking it a step too far. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete – per Beetstra. In addition, we have categories. --Leyo 15:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Categories cannot list the redlinked articles that should be written! They also require extra clicks to reach and are not as nearly nicely formatted as a template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  A template for compounds of commons element such as hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen a.s.o. cannot be nicely formatted. Categories are the only way there. Please have a look at examples of well defined templates: cycloalkanes, aldehydes, allotropes of oxygen, n-alkane acids. We should focus on creating such templates. BTW: What is your knowledge in chemistry? --Leyo 13:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all per Grame Bartlett. Txiиg$ Tx/-\t VV!ll +8I+E 02:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I do think the listings for elements like hydrogen and carbon are a bit random, but for elements with a limited number of articles this system begins to become useful. Walkerma (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  How about for elements that have a large number of compounds the templates only lead to the families of compounds articles, and the very top importance articles for that element. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Argh. Most of these are pointless, as the compounds in question will all be linked from the main element articles. Those for elements where this isn't practical would be ludicrously large unless they arbitrarily deviate from the smaller templates (the carbon one has a label saying it only links inorganic compounds, for instance, while Vuo has apparently been adding summary articles to the lithium one). There is therefore no obvious navigational value to these templates, and not everything needs a navbox. What may have been a good idea to someone once has gotten out of hand with the half-finished copycat templates. Lastly, the suggestion that these are handy because it gives people wads of redlinks to go work on flatly contradicts what WP:NAVBOX says. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep those template that serve a useful function by linking to the most prominent compounds, possibly with sub-groups. Delete those templates that are intrisically unsuitable for that task (e.g., there are so many Hydrogen compounds that a template would end up to be either unwieldy or incomplete).  Cs32en Talk to me  16:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will also suggest that we not have Template:Neon compounds which has no useful articles included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Chris Cunningham. Theoldsparkle (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all- per Graeme Bartlett --Yu-Fan 宇帆 (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think that such “votes” without new arguments are useful at this stage. It seems that the only compromise would be to
  • delete the non-useful ones (elements that are present in hundred or [much] more compounds or of which no or less than a hand-full compounds exist): carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, chlorine, bromine, silicon or elements present in countless salts such as sodium or potassium are examples for the first case, whereas for e.g. noble gases except xenon the second case is true.
  • keep the useful ones (elements with a manageable number of existing compounds [≠ compounds with WP articles]): examples are americium and curium.

--Leyo 08:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I will quite possible regret saying this later, but I wonder if separate TfDs might be necessary here, or at the very least, sub-groupings, as each template is very different versus some others (i.e. Hydrogen vs. Curium). Consensus for keep all or delete all seems unlikely. JPG-GR (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. There are two different problems here: overreach and pointlessness. The pointless templates (mostly the really heavy metals) could all be mass-nominated, while the other ones could be nominated individually as desired. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps there can be a consensus to keep a particular selection of the templates. I would be happy to see those with zero or one compound be deleted. Those with too many, I believe should instead list families of compounds, eg for hydrogen we could have hydrides, acids, hydroxides, hydrocarbons, hydrosulfides and so on to make the list a manageable size. Anything with over 60 compound articles is going to be uselessly big and needs a reorg or a trim. And templates with two to 59 compounds could be kept as they are. If we don't agree here then our arguments will be repeated many times on individual templates. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd dispute "two to 59" as the "leave as they are" range, but otherwise this makes sense. If a discussion is started for how exactly to split these then I'd be fine with closing this discussion for now and moving it elsewhere until a consensus is reached. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • 59 is a bit high IMO. What is more important is that the list of compounds in a template is complete and not an arbitrary selection. --Leyo 21:08, 16 August 2011 (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) 04:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ravenloft character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Easily replaceable with the main infobox character. What makes Ravenloft special? Axem Titanium (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A strong case could be made for deleting every article that it's currently transcluded on for being solely in-universe plot reiteration, to be honest. That said, this is plainly not of value above and beyond ((infobox character)). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it appears to just be WP:FANCRUFT. I saw other subboxes for things like Final Fantasy characters. My opinion is they should be deleted as well, but that's for another discussion. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2011 (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) 06:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, inferior cousin of Template:Lts. Another element of User:Fabartus' ill-conceived inter-wiki template sharing project. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that it's unused, this is obviously unneeded. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:23, 16 August 2011 (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) 06:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EarthBound towns (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template that contains no links. All of the potential articles that this template would include are covered in the main EarthBound article under the story section and thus do not require articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2011 (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.