The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Juiced series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Three articles. WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:26, 11 January 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 Deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Conference football coaches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

duplicate of Template:MIAA football coaches navbox. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:04, 11 January 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 Deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CurrentMIAACoaches navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

duplicate of Template:MIAA football coaches navbox. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:04, 11 January 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. Mhiji 05:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hope Flying Duthmen football coach navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

misspelled duplicate of Template:Hope Flying Dutchmen football coach navbox. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 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) 01:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shin'ou Elite Four (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. All links go to List of Pokémon characters anyway. Mhiji 22:21, 11 January 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) 01:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Serbia and Montenegro 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete , Agree , per nominator. Adrian (talk) 09:06, 14 January 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) 01:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Semi-final team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and pretty useless. Seems to just show the line up of a team for one game. No links in it. Mhiji 22:07, 11 January 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) 01:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Self-proclaimed deities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary, broken. Mhiji 22:07, 11 January 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) 01:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scottish Television Channels (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Television in Scotland. Mhiji 21:41, 11 January 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) 01:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scotland Police (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:UK home nations police forces Mhiji 21:39, 11 January 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) 01:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scoring Legend (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 21:37, 11 January 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) 01:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. WP:SPR is no longer active. Mhiji 21:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Part of deprecated process. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:20, 12 January 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) 01:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scientific Lineage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 21:35, 11 January 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) 01:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Schools established 21C (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. The category now uses ((Eiei-decade)). It was created mimicking Template:Schools established 20C which was deleted in July 2006. This should have been deleted then too. Mhiji 21:33, 11 January 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) 01:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saturn's main moons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Blanked in July 2009. Unused since. Mhiji 21:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment WP:MAD -- it was merged into the article in 2009, so it should be moved to a history subpage. 65.93.14.29 (talk) 04:50, 13 January 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) 01:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sarkar Series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Sarkar Trilogy Mhiji 21:31, 11 January 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) 01:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sacred Beast Cards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. All the links in it redirect to now redirect to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! cards anyway after the articles where merged there. No longer needed. Mhiji 21:26, 11 January 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) 01:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SW1 linked (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. No longer needed. Mhiji 21:25, 11 January 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) 01:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Template:SWAGovs covers all the people in this. (Think this might just have been cut-and-pasted from there anyway.) Mhiji 21:24, 11 January 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) 01:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saba Battery F.C. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. The picture in this was removed in May 2007. It's useless now. Mhiji 21:21, 11 January 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) 01:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sabah at the Commonwealth Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. All red links. Mhiji 21:16, 11 January 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 userfy Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scrabble tile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Scrabble Mid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

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

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

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

Part of a set of templates used to generate scrabble board. The main template is in a userpage though. These others should be userfied as well. WOSlinker (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per nom. Mhiji 21:15, 11 January 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) 01:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Press kit rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no kind of automatic entitlement to use non-free content just because it happens to be from a press kit. The non-free content criteria state that NFC requires "a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use". A generic rationale like this means that a specific rationale is not being provided, and is not at all helpful. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The title sums it up, in that being from a press kit is not a rationale for use of the non-free image. It's sourcing information, but it doesn't provide a rationale for use. The existence of the template is more likely to hinder the uploading of non-free images than help. Accordingly, the template does not appear to help the project. —C.Fred (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; agree with J Milburn and C.Fred. Also, the template is not transcluded anywhere. It's not transcluded because its use is subst'd. There's no way to know how much it's used. But, the use is wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete: I say "weak" because I don't see right off hand what the issue is other than it is somewhat redundant. The first part is basically the ((Non-free promotional)) and the second part is the actual FUR. If the concept is "a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use" (which I agree with but as is evidenced at various discussions is not really followed) than may as well make a nom for everything at W:Category:Non-free use rationale templates such as ((Non-free Blu-ray Disc rationale)), ((Album rationale)), ((Album cover fur)) and ((Logo rationale)). Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The difference between those templates and this one is those templates cover cases where we use thousands of images in effectively identical ways; depiction for identification on articles specifically about that subject. Press kit photos are not such a category of items, and a generic FUR doesn't help. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No automatic entitlement, as J says. The actual utility and defense of the non-free image comes from the tailored rational, not the non-free license or boilerplate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom and other deletion views. Too generic. ww2censor (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This rationale will never work, in the form it has now. The "replaceability" argument provided in the templated FUR completely misses the mark of what such press kit images are typically wanted for, and what kinds of replaceability need to be considered. Typically press kit photos show living persons or non-unique objects, and are only wanted to illustrate that person or object, and as such they are replaceable with other photographs of the person or object. The rationale "Protected by copyright, therefore a free use alternative won't exist" would only apply if the image as such, rather than its object, was the topic of our article, which I don't think is often the case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 15 January 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) 01:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stricken passage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. May as well just use the s tag directly. WOSlinker (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In the rare event that we need to quote something with strikeouts, the strikeout tag works just fine. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:19, 12 January 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) 01:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disputed passage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused content template that is better covered by message boxes.. WOSlinker (talk) 18:38, 11 January 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) 02:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Highways in Fort Wayne indiana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No need for a template on highways in such a small geographic location. Admrboltz (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Dough4872 02:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Rschen7754 23:40, 13 January 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) 01:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geithner confirmation vote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. I'm wondering if this information should appear elsewhere. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Timothy Geithner/confirmation vote, then redirect to Timothy Geithner#Confirmation, which preserves history, and allows for it to be revived it needed. 134.253.26.11 (talk) 00:00, 19 January 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) 02:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:General Degrassi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Purpose unknown. Not used. Old. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject that used it is now inactive. No need for this now. Delete. Mhiji 21:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused, don't know what the purpose of this ever was. BTW, we're not inactive, there's just very very low activity in the Project space. We're active in the actual articles and most discussions take place there! :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:37, 12 January 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) 02:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gears of War 2 Versions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. This information appears in the section Gears of War 2#Limited_Edition. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:03, 11 January 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) 02:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Unclear purpose. (If usage begins in article space, then this nomination is withdrawn.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't even fathom what sport this is intended for, but it is obviously a duplication of something, and therefore redundant. The only GBL I am aware of is the Golden Baseball League. Resolute 14:43, 11 January 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:G10 delayed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No evidence of said discussion ever taking place. Anyway, it is almost 2 years old. Unused, unnecessary, useless. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm, yet you nominated it for deletion without any discussion with the creator whatsoever. Why? Good grief, I see you're going through unused templates and nominating them for deletion. What a way to waste everyone's time. Can't you go and help sort articles? Do I really need to take time out of BLP patrolling to respond to this. If you had bothered to come to my talk page and given me a good reason why you thought this needed deleted, as its creator I'd have removed it myself. Is there a good reason?--Scott Mac 11:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you have said this, I will nominate it for speedy G7. The template space rapidly fills up with old, abandoned stuff, and someone needs to do the dirty work once in a while. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What on earth? No, I didn't request deletion. I said I'd delete it myself if you gave a valid reason, which so far you've failed to do. The template space cannot ever be "full", no one needs do any dirty work, and there is no need to remove this, or waste my time debating it.--Scott Mac 11:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But is there any reason to keep it? If it's not used and you can't give any reason why it's needed or benefits the project, delete it. There is a perfectly valid reason to delete - "The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used". Also the process isn't "go to the creators user page and ask if they want to G7 it and if not list at TFD". This, that and the other has followed the correct process, so I don't know what your moaning about... If you don't like the process, proposed that it's changed, until then we should follow it. And if you do think it's unnecessary, which your comment above would suggest, just G7 it or put a delete vote here (or say why it should be kept), then you can go back to your BLP patrolling - your comments above are just wasting more of your time... Mhiji 14:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The template was created to start a policy debate. The debate never really took off at the time (although it was discussed with a few people off-wiki). The idea was that some negative and unsourced bios can be speeded under currently policy, but there might be no harm in giving a short time frame to see if someone would rather fix them up. Indeed, I've had this debate a few times, but I'd forgotten about the template. Now I've been reminded, I may seek to get some people's views on it, so it would be useful to keep it. However, if there were some pressing need to delete it, I'd not resist too hard as I can recreated it later somewhere else. So, this might be useful (or it might not be), but it is certainly not doing any harm, and there's no good done by deleting it. But whatever. I just rather object to someone saying "this is useless" without asking the creator "is there a use for this?"--Scott Mac 14:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, well you're more than welcome to userfy it for the time being. Mhiji 14:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, useless. Can be recreated as a useful template if any such discussion bears fruit. Also, believe it or not Scott, there are many more aspects to maintaining the 'Pedia than just BLP zealotry. There is nothing wrong with the nom's actions, and I encourage them to continue their work cleaning up abandoned templates. Resolute 14:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Having been reminded of this template, I've been motivated to start the debate it was created for here. So the template is now being used in debate. I'll delete it myself when the debate is finished, but I suggest this TFD is now moot.--Scott Mac 15:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and allow the creator to delete if it ends up not being used. A discussion has just begun elsewhere as to whether the process the template describes should be put into practice. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SlimVirgin.  -- Lear's Fool 15:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SV. --InkSplotch (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SlimVirgin. Also, my reading of the template is that there is not a substantive change in policy as such, but serves as a marker/beacon to facilitate improvement or removal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Useless" is not a strong reason for deletion considering the discussion above. Collect (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, given the discussion and renewed use, userfy. Personal proposals should be in userspace, as they are just that - "personal". Or, failing userfication, leave it as is and be sure to make future proposals in userspace. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy—arguably this template could be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#T2 as a misrepresentation of current policy. It should be moved to userspace unless and until consensus exists to implement this variation of the current speedy deletion policy. –Grondemar 17:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does it misrepresent policy? It simply says the admin isn't going to delete it immediately (and no admin MUST delete anything) and it leaves open the possibility that another admin might still immediately delete it. That is current policy. I've no desire for this in my userspace.--Scott Mac 17:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arguably any admin who places this template is violating WP:BLP, specifically where it mandates that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." If an admin places this template, they are effectively saying: "I read this article, I agree it is a negative unsourced BLP eligible for speedy deletion, but I decline to delete the article on the assumption that someone else will come by and fix it if we wait a little bit." If there is consensus to modify the speedy deletion and BLP policies to allow this approach, then so be it, but until then this flies in the face of the strict wording of our BLP policy. –Grondemar 17:48, 15 January 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:G-d (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seemingly exists because some editors do not wish to type the word "God". Instead they must type ((subst:g-d)). I am not sure that this is, in reality, used - there is no way to know, given that it is meant to be substituted. The creator is still semi-active, and may be able to shed some light on this. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems an odd way to get around religious dogma. Resolute 14:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak-Keep Just bought a new oven, and in reading the manual, it has a Sabbath mode. Very confusing on what it does, exactly, and I'm not sure why it's necessary...but evidently it's of benefit to many. I see no reason to deny other this small benefit. --InkSplotch (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What benefit are we denying people of? Typing more than they have to? Why type 13 characters when you can type 3? It was quite clearly a test page or the user didn't actually finish creating the template. If anyone can show how this is at all useful or of benefit to anyone (it's clearly not) then keep. But if not, delete. Mhiji 21:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For some religions (particularly Judaism that I'm aware of), practitioners aren't allowed to speak, say, or in this case write any of the names of God. For Jews, they tend to use G-d or JHVH (Jehovah with the vowels removed). It's perfectly acceptable to do this, and I imagine if you're Jewish and editing Wikipedia, you'd prefer a way to edit articles without starting protract arguments about whether a text should read "God" or "G-d". Which, by the by, I've seen here. However, do editor's actually use this? is a valid question, for which I have no answer. I just did some searching to see if this is mentioned anywhere, and couldn't find anything. So, I'm downgrading my keep slightly. I still think it's not worth deleting this, but it'd probably be more useful if it was mentioned places where people who might want this, knew about it. --InkSplotch (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, thanks for the explanation - wasn't aware of that. I still think we should delete because I doubt anyone actually uses it - unless anyone actually comes forward and say that they do use it, then we should keep. Mhiji 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly not useful. Just type "God" rather than "((subst:g-d))". Probably speedy G2. Mhiji 21:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if some editors want to use this for reasons of conscience, and it allows them to make useful contributions than we should clearly keep it. As long as it is substituted in articles, it is harmless to the project and allows some people to contribute. My only reason for not voting "strong keep, get over your scornful intolerance or take a course in [diversity training]]" is that I'd be less convinced anyone would actually use this. Maybe we should ask about.--Scott Mac 21:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your thinking people would use this (typing ((subst:g-d))) because they don't want to type the word God?! If they didn't want to type the word God they wouldn't use this template... And who was that gratuitous "get over your scornful intolerance" outburst aimed at? Mhiji 22:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You actually. There are some people who won't type G-o-d, and it isn't because they are lazy. See what InkSplotch is saying above.--Scott Mac 00:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I wouldn't call it "scornful intolerance", just ignorance - please assume good faith. Please stop these outbursts. They're not helpful or constructive. You've done it twice on this page in the last 14 hours (and I haven't been watching any of your other edits), both of which were to editors who are making good faith edits and comments. Also, This, that and the other's nomination of Template:G10 delayed has now actually prompted a new discussion (as you said yourself, you'd forgotten about it until the nomination) on the possibility of improving the speedy process and not just immediately deleting pages without trying to improve them - that's definitely of benefit to the project overall. Cleaning up unused templates is helpful as proved with this example and many others. I've done quite a bit of clearing up templates recently too and there are many templates which have been abandoned which shouldn't be (because the creator made them but never actually implemented them or they were just removed from pages without a good reason) and I've readded them to the relevant pages - definitely a positive for the project. And there's been many cases where I've found templates which are broken or left half-made and I've then fixed them or finished them off and put them to good use (e.g. earlier I found this and fixed it and it is now a useful navbox on a number of articles). There's also been cases where I've nominated a template because I couldn't see a use for it and editors have said that they'd made it or half made it and forgotten to finish it or implement it. There's also been times when I've nominated a navbox because it's unused with nearly all red links and the creator has then said that they had planned to create the articles but forgotten and they've then go on to create a number of articles. And there's loads of times where I've found duplicates or duplication between templates - these can actually be harmful if we're working on 2 pages which are intended to do the same thing. There's been times I've nominated templates and then because of the discussion we've found a better way to implement a template or idea. So I wouldn't call cleaning up orphaned templates a waste of time at all... Mhiji 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence that we have any editors who refuse to type God's name. If we do, then it would surely be a LOT easier just to ask another editor to type it for them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first deletion reason makes sense. The second confused me. What do they do? Drop a note on someone's page and say, "Please can you help me. I don't want to type G_d. Well, not literally "G_d" since I'm obviously just typed that. But "G_d" with an o in the middle. So can you do me the favour of going to the article on Love and in the fourth line of the third paragraph you'll see I've typed "Religious people love G_d" - can you put the "o" in for me?". Is that really a LOT easier than typing "Religious people love ((subst:G_d))"?--Scott Mac 23:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia does have observant Jews who edit. It is possible that few know of this template, but that does not mean we should delete the template once it exists. Collect (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—harmless and potentially useful for people unwilling to type the word "God". This is better than the alternative of those editors writing "G_d" in articles and either asking others or simply waiting for others to clean it up. –Grondemar 17:50, 15 January 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) 01:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fubuki class destroyer characteristics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to section at bottom of infobox at Fubuki class destroyer. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:48, 11 January 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) 02:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template would be subst'ed, but there is no evidence of its use (no incoming links). Written-by-hand FURs are rare nowadays anyway (although still permitted), because templates are used. A full-text search reveals that only some old uploads (<2008) used this template, probably before the current system of FUR templates appeared. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it is allowed to roll-your-own FUR, this should remain, possibly renamed. IT should be documented into the FUR system. 65.94.71.179 (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we have other templates that do the same thing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:38, 12 January 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) 02:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Part of failed WP:Esperanza project. Unused; no foreseeable future use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:43, 11 January 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) 02:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Four time Richmond Tigers premiership players (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See earlier related nomination. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too specific to be useful. Jenks24 (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete would be better to use this information in a list of players with multiple premierships. Lindblum (talk) 07:10, 12 January 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) 02:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Framed sumo calligraphy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Why would anyone want to use this? Unused, unnecessary, useless. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:40, 11 January 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) 02:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Forum frame (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Draws a double box around things. Unnecessary. Broken ("(({$1))}"). Old. Useless. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:39, 11 January 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) 02:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Purpose unclear. Old, unused, useless. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:38, 11 January 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) 02:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fooian social scientist types2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Purpose unclear. Old, unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:36, 11 January 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) 02:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to be part of some footnoting scheme. Untouched for over 5 years. Unused. No usage information provided. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:35, 11 January 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) 02:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fooian archaeologist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not useful. The categories can, and should, be added manually. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:34, 11 January 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. G2. Admrboltz (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template was apparently vandalised 3 years ago, and no-one has bothered to fix it. This shows that it is unused, and no-one cares about it any more. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• G2 template transcluded only two words. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:22, 12 January 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) 02:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Five time Richmond Tigers premiership players (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too specific. Unused, unnecessary, useless. Need I say more? — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too specific. And with only two links, unnecessary. Resolute 14:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree, too specific to be useful. Jenks24 (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete also agree, too specific. Information would be better used in a list of players with multiple premierships. Lindblum (talk) 07:13, 12 January 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) 02:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ferrol-San Cibrao Port (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A random collection of a list of ports in a certain region, a map, and a navbox. Not used; no scope for use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:30, 11 January 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) 02:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fenerbahçe Ülkerspor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Out of date; current list appears at Fenerbahçe Ülker#Current_roster. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:27, 11 January 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) 03:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Superseded by other templates, like ((ArticleHistory|currentstatus=FA)). Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:02, 11 January 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) 03:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old, unused, superseded by WPBanner-style templates. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:00, 11 January 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) 03:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fertile Crescent myth (Mesopotamia) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to ((Mesopotamian myth (heroes))) and ((Sumerian mythology)). — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:40, 11 January 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Nicktoon episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless template. All but a couple transclusions are on talk pages of redirected episodes, so they essentially categorize nothing — since they were all redirected there's no way any of the Nicktoons episodes could be FA, stub, etc. and it wouldn't make sense if every single one were just listed as redirect-class. (As a note, some others are on redirected episodes of shows that aren't even Nicktoons!) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Template:WikiProject Nickelodeon. I doubt it would be useful for Nicktoon episodes, I suggest to merge with the WikiProject Nickelodeon banner. JJ98 (Talk) 05:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per JJ98. Rehman 10:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's up to WikiProjects how they organize their templates, and no one here has addressed whether deletion benefits or hurts the project. It also makes no sense to delete this template while keeping ((Nicktoon character)). Even if there are no present episode articles, there's no reason to think that will be assured in the future. --Bsherr (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2010 (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) 06:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Since it's the same group (or subgroup) of people who works with Nicktoon, then it should be the same banner (with taskforce if needed). -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:21, 3 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:30, 11 January 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 move to project space Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject U.S. state capitols (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This Project has been long dead. After discussing on the WPUS talk page it was agreed this project was dead and no longer needed. I initially just redirected it but it might be better just to delete it. Kumioko (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. Rehman 10:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment doesn't this get deleted at MFD? 65.94.47.218 (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is a WikiProject banner template for use on talk pages, not the actual WikiProject, so should be listed here. Mhiji (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Mhiji (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. There's no reason to purge the history of the template, as the project may eventually be revived. Project pages and templates are rarely deleted. Redirection is preferable. --Bsherr (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to where? and why? Since "project pages and templates are rarely deleted" then why not just keep it? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only benefit would be if it is presently used on articles. Redirecting would be a convenient way of retemplating them as part of WikiProject United States. If it's unused, keeping it is fine. --Bsherr (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. Per above, since it is unused. --Bsherr (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Template:WikiProject United States as a task force. Also, I'm not quite sure what the point of moving the project page to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. state capitols/Archive1 instead of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/State capitals and then nominating the redirect that was left behind for deletion. —Farix (t | c) 20:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theres really nothing to merge. I could create a task force but is it really worth it for 50 articles? And, if there is knowone working the task force its just more work to maintain than its worth. I would rather just merge them into the WPUS pool of articles. Also, many (although not all) of the state capital buildings are already counted on WP:NRHP. My reasoning for archiving the page was, as Bsherr pointed out, in case it was ever needed again. Frankly though it wasn't very active when it was running and that was several years ago. I doubt there will be much interest in reviving it. --Kumioko (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see the logic of Kumioko's position. He/she says delete, because it won't be needed again, but also says keep it in an archive in case it is needed. If we want to keep it in case it's ever needed, why not just keep it in its original place? An archive is normally a way to keep old material out of the way of current work in the main page, and I can see no earthly reason for having an archive for a main page that has been deleted, rather than simply keeping the main page. As far as deleting or keeping the contents is concerned (irrespective of whether in the original page or in an archive), I see no harm in keeping it, even if it's not wanted, and it may be useful. Apart from the remote chance of the project being resurrected, there is the much better chance that someone may one day have a reason to want to check the history, and it can be quite frustrating to find the history you want to check has gone. If, on the other hand, nobody ever wants to look at it then it can just be ignored, without doing any harm. (Note: I found my way here as a result of responding to a request for Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. state capitols to be speedily deleted and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. state capitols/Archive1 to be moved there, and I have already made those changes. If consensus here is in favour of restoring the archive then obviously that can be done, but it seems to me we may as well leave things as they are now until this discussion has run its course.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem let me clarify then, I am perfectly ok with deleting this. I am nearly 100% sure that we won't need it or need to recreate it in the future. As far as history the project didn't do too much when it was active so there isn't anything in the history that I can see worth keeping. It only applies to about 50 articles so to me the scope is too small to be its own project anyway. I only suggested keeping an archive of it as a safety blanket in the minute chance that someone does want it (which is doubtful). Right now there are more than 200 projects relating to US things and many of the Defunct and inactive ones are quite frankly getting in the way of the ones that are active. I am just trying to eliminate some of the clutter so that we can get down to the real business of building up the article content. There are no articles that link to it, no activity in a couple years (other than the occasional spam or maintenance edit) and knowone is actively participating in it. I have already added all the articles that relate to it to WPUS. I was of the same opinion for a while but one of the problems that was happening was that people were leaving comments about actual lthings that required action (items for deletion and whatnot) and I didn't know until it disapeared. If we can get WPUS back on track (which is well under way now) instead of being fragmented out into so many pieces and some editors want to break it out and go for it againe fine but that will be a very long way down the road. I hope this helps to clarify. --Kumioko (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the decision is to keep this project though I would like to move it as suggested above from Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. state capitols/Archive1 to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/State capitals. If we are going to keep it then Ill have to find a use for it. Tracking the status of the capitals or something. --Kumioko (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the project is inactive, there's no reason to move it under WikiProject US. It can remain where it is, inactive. If it's reactivated as a task forse of WPUS, then we can move it. --Bsherr (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're right so far as the template should be kept, but labeled that the project is inactive. --Bsherr (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand that the project is inactive but we just don't need it or the template. For one as I mentioned before it would only apply to less than 100 articles (to me not enough to warrant being its own project) and the likelihood it will be resurrected is unlikely. There are others, such as politicians for example or US counties that I think have the potential to become active again so I am keeping those but this one is unlikely to be one of those. --Kumioko (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hear that, but we generally keep the pages and templates of inactive projects, even if only for historical preservation. There's no harm to keeping it, and, although a remote possibility according to you, should the project be reactivated, the templates will remain. The number of articles the project might serve is not relevant, and I expect it would be more than that, if you consider articles on things located in state capitols, for example. --Bsherr (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2010 (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) 06:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The current template says that the project is inactive, as Bsherr suggested above. I see no problem with keeping things the way they are now. YardsGreen (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in favor of the new WikiProject. This should be obvious. We have some people who want to work with these articles. They choose the project. I don't understand the meaning of keep here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect for historicalness (is that even a word?). In my (rather humble) opinion, it's always a good idea to keep historical stuff readily accessible, even if it's for a defunct WikiProject. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 07:43, 3 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• move without redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. state capitols/banner, which would preserve history, and allow for it to be resurrected. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 17:51, 11 January 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) 03:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Israel-FOP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused image copyright tag. Kelly ^hi! 07:42, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the content of the template seems problematic. It implies that any image that falls under FOP is automatically PD – but that can't be true, because FOP only means we don't need to take the copyright status of the pictured object into account; there's still the copyright of the photographer to consider, and thus the image can have just about any copyright status at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 15 January 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 consesus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Russia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated unused license template. Kelly ^hi! 07:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 20#Template:PD-Russia. Same logic applies here (I don't know why it's an issue, but I believe Alex Spade). Deprecate and delete only after all transclusions on commons are deleted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:22, 11 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:24, 11 January 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 consesus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-GallicaPic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused file license template. Kelly ^hi! 06:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "BNF gave us the authorization to use any image from their database on our sites and CD/DVDs." Is there any record elsewhere of such permission being given by the BNF? If not, this should be looked into further before deleting this template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:28, 6 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 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, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-GWPDA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused file license template. Kelly ^hi! 06:36, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 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) 03:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Meyers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused file license template. Kelly ^hi! 06:35, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Nelson (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused file license template. Kelly ^hi! 06:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support keeping this. Though not being used right now, the material on medieval Europe here is very useful and free content. I have just added the website, and a link to the template, to Wikipedia:Public domain resources and Wikipedia:List of free online resources. Neutrality^talk 22:48, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 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) 03:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-UTportrait (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused file license template. Kelly ^hi! 06:32, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 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) 03:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused file license template. Kelly ^hi! 06:29, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a widely-used license for media. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'd have to agree with the previous comment. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:08, 12 January 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) 03:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LC-cwpbh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused license tag redundant to ((PD-Brady-Handy)). Kelly ^hi! 06:20, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Agência Brasil (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused file license tag. Kelly ^hi! 06:16, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Used on occasion when images from Agencia Brasil need to be uploaded from Commons to English Wiki for protection for usage on the Main Page. It is, for example, currently being used. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 02:21, 16 January 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) 03:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UW-Madison CIMSS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused image copyright tag. Kelly ^hi! 06:10, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 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, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused file copyright tag. Kelly ^hi! 06:04, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a widely used license. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:56, 11 January 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) 03:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Open Audio License (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused file license. Kelly ^hi! 06:00, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a widely used license. Identical to CC-BY-SA-2.0. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:56, 11 January 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) 04:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Free-game-screenshot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused redundant image license template. Kelly ^hi! 05:54, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 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) 04:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Flatart-Nosource (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused redundant image license template. Kelly ^hi! 05:50, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 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) 04:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-insignia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused redundant image license template. Kelly ^hi! 05:49, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 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) 04:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Webpage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused redundant image license tag. Kelly ^hi! 05:47, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 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) 04:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-clipart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused image license tag, redundant to ((PD-author)). Kelly ^hi! 05:42, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:56, 11 January 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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-user-w (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated unused image license template, complicating trans-wiki moves. Kelly ^hi! 05:35, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Exists at Commons; should be kept to facilitate copying procedures that occur relating to the Main Page, etc. How are trans-wiki moves complicated? — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:56, 11 January 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) 04:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-self-ineligible (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused overly specific license template with no equivalent on Commons, complicating trans-wiki moves. PD is PD, whether it's ((PD-self)) or ((PD-ineligible)). Kelly ^hi! 05:04, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not useful. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, delete. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:18, 14 January 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) 04:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Planet illogica partners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

template is not necessary; promotional in nature. Phearson (talk) 04:29, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Navbox for topic for which the article has been deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:56, 11 January 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) 04:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused image license. Kelly ^hi! 03:35, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Promotional in nature; unnecessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:56, 11 January 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) 04:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GFDL-Armenica (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Source-specific GFDL tag no longer needed at Wikipedia. Future images from this source can either be uploaded with ((GFDL)) or uploaded to Commons; images copied back to Wikipedia from Commons can use generic GFDL tag. Kelly ^hi! 03:28, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:20, 11 January 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) 04:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GFDL-AeralPhoto-MlitJp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused GFDL license template. Kelly ^hi! 01:23, 4 January 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, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No foreseeable use at enwiki. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:56, 11 January 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) 04:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Redundant to Template:Infobox racing driver Mhiji 02:23, 11 January 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. Mhiji 20:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 02:20, 11 January 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 Withdrawn. Mhiji 14:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Redundant to ((Translated)) Mhiji 02:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's a substitution template so it is definitely supposed to be untranscluded. It is currently documented at Template:Cleanup-translation, and it is 'not redundant with ((translated)) since it is used for a very different purpose, it is a WP:PNT discussion template. 65.94.71.179 (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, hadn't realised. Thanks for adding the doc. Mhiji 14:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appears proposer does not understand its use. Certainly not unused, its one of the few templates I have used.
  Arjayay (talk) 08:52, 11 January 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) 04:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dutch Civil Wars (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 02:13, 11 January 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) 04:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Drmspeedy2-n (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Drmspeedy3-n (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Drmspeedy4-n (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates ((Uw-speedy1)),((Uw-speedy2)),((Uw-speedy3)), ((Uw-speedy4)) Mhiji 02:10, 11 January 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) 04:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gmina Spytkowice, Nowy Targ County (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gmina Ornontowice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gmina Kozy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gmina Kobiór (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gmina Jaworze (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gmina Goczałkowice-Zdrój (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gmina Jejkowice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gmina Koszarawa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gmina Marklowice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gmina Polanka Wielka (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gmina Słopnice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless navboxes. All have just one link in them. Mhiji 01:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, were created as part of an automatic process, and are presumably not being used.--Kotniski (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, then delete per CSD#G7 (Kotbot = Kotniski)? 134.253.26.10 (talk) 16:29, 13 January 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 19:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gaelic Games in Westmeath (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 01:53, 11 January 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 19:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Red link. Mhiji 01:53, 11 January 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.