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) 03:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abundant Life Church (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's not entirely clear what this nav box is navigating to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This does not link to anything. Lastcent (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and per Lastcent. Softlavender (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2014 (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) 03:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used only to create piped links for battles using ((Battle|name)) to produce [[Battle of name|name]]. Its just as easy to teach editors how to do piped links, rather than use this template, and its way too narrow as it only applies to battles. --Netoholic @ 09:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Helper template with way too narrow of a scope. APerson (talk!) 13:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is easy to write a piped link.No template is needed.Ssaz 12 (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not at all useful Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not useful, multiple battles of the same name, several which are "siege of", "invasion of" etc. and as you say, a piped link is a very simple concept. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:21, 4 July 2014 (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. It is already obvious that these templates will both be kept. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Find sources multi/gnewsrecent (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Find sources multi/gnews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Find sources multi/gnewsrecent with Template:Find sources multi/gnews.
Apparently the feature that distinguished these template – search in news archive – is gone, so template:find sources multi/gnews serves no purpose any more. So basically I suggest moving template:find sources multi/gnewsrecent to template:find sources multi/gnews over pre-existing template. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I don't see this as controversial, as the two have been functionally identical since Google pulled their news archive search. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If Google's news archive search might come back, then keeping these two link codes separate is probably the best solution. If we merged them and split them again later, users will get a different search link depending on what code they chose, and they may not have been aware that there was a possibility of the links changing when they made their code choice. Keeping the news archive search around with a red "this is deprecated" notice may not look neat on the template page, but it's not going to make much difference to the transclusions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Note: this is showing up in quite a lot of draft-space pages since it's transcluded in the AfC decline template. APerson (talk!) 13:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google have always maintained that they are not removing their news archive service. They say they are working on improving it.[1] The "site:google.com/newspapers" is just a temporary workround. My feeling is to leave this alone (BTW: I sometimes seem to get more hits after restricting to the "newspapers" site that I do when I have not restricted). The present nomination is causing widespread (but slight) disruption and to merge would, I suppose, cause more. Let's wait and see what Google does. Thincat (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get six hits with this but only four with this. Thincat (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have separate template:find sources multi/gnewspapers for newspapers. Also note: current naming scheme is very unfortunate: "gnews" is not simply "Google News", but "Google News archive", and "Google News recent" (which is currently broken, at least for me) is for generic Google News. I would suggest to, well, do as I proposed and introduce new options for complex news queries once Google adds corresponding services back. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. They're very old newspapers. Thincat (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per thincat.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep also per thin cat. Jed 20012 (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree with Thincat's reasoning that because Google have indicated their news archive service may return, there's no need to merge. I also agree with Thincat about this nomination causing widespread, but slight, disruption. PhilKnight (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, most helpful features. — Cirt (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2014 (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) 04:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's not even a template. All it is is something about the 2014 Grammy awards. Call for a speedy deletion of it. GamerPro64 05:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete boilerplate text that is used in only one article. Inappropriate content for a template and highly unlikely to be used in other articles -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment after deletion I propose that this template name be repurposed as a companion template to ((won)) that colorizes a table entry that says "tied", to indicate the outcome of a competition, which is tied. (such as being a wrapper to ((yes2)), say... ((yes2|(({text | Tied ))))} -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete and Support 65.94.171.126's proposal; not even sure how this came to exist. APerson (talk!) 13:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy subst and delete - Obviously an editor error (someone else put ((Tied)) in that table, but created a red link, and then creator Contributions/Peterhtoo clicked it, and put in this text - his only edit). -- Netoholic @ 18:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The one usage (at Scott Cam) was this vandalism that's been reverted. Support the proposal as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom, as created in error. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:23, 4 July 2014 (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.