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 relisted on 2015 March 22. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:17, 22 March 2015 (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, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Code example (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

4 uses; redundant to ((markup)) or ((markupv)).  Gadget850 ^talk 16:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, replaced here with no problems. the input syntax is basically the same as ((markup)), although the output is nearly the same as ((markupv)), so redirecting to one of the two might be useful. Frietjes (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian lists of roads table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per Australian road routes table templates TFD, poorly designed template not used in mainspace. Issues include excessive spacing between rows, text formatting in contradiction to MOS:TEXT, image accessibility issues with route marker images, no provision to include notes. The template was previously used in List of major roads in Perth, Western Australia (link to old 2012 revision), but is unlikely to be used again in mainspace due to the previously mentioned issues, and is now only used on one userpage: User:MagpieShooter/GC Roads - these instances could be substituted prior to deletion, or the template could be userfied. (Note that User:MagpieShooter hasn't edited since 2011) - Evad37 [talk] 10:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per precedent. --Rschen7754 04:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unused, and apparently deprecated template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2015 (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) 01:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Frequent collaborations of Judd Apatow (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No actor navboxes per MOS:FILM#Navigation Rob Sinden (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2015 (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, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe film crew (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not really a coherent group, and these shouldn't be encouraged, the same way we do not have cast navboxes. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Rob Sinden. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rob Sinden. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 12#Template:Star Trek film crew --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' per nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NAVBOX. Betty Logan (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Template:James Bond film crew --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not well written either. Who is suppose to comprehend this? Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 23:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Carlisle Indians football navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Contains absolutely no links except to the article on the team. ...William 09:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator's rationale. Navboxes exist to provide readers with easy navigation among existing related stand-alone Wikipedia articles. We routinely delete navboxes where most of the "content" does not exist. The navbox fails this basic test. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment regarding notice - WikiProject College football was notified of this TfD: [1] Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With all red links, there is nothing to navigate to. No prejudice to recreate when the majority of articles are created.—Bagumba (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This one is clearly notable as Carlisle is one of the uber-important football programs from the early years of the sport. Unfortunately, the template consists entirely of red-links at this point. It appears that the cart has come before the horses. Once the a few horses arrive, any deletion now should be without prejudice. Cbl62 (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on lack of content, not on the template itself The Carlisle Indians are a legitimate subject for a navbox, but can't have a nav template with all redlinks.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2015 (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 refactored. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lochaber narrow gauge railway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Infobox, only used on one page, can be substed there, allowing straightforward editing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

I moved the infobox part into the article, leaving the RDT in place. At en.wp, such diagrams are usually contained in a separate template; don't ask me why, but in 95% cases they are. Probably to keep the article wikicode clean from all that BS-code, or to keep the textual info separate from graphical... YLSS (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks that looks like a good solution to me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

Should not really have a dedicated template, a standard rail info box should be used. This was created at a time when rail line templates where in an early stage of development. The RDT as a template works just to separate the article text and the RDT coding. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 18:26, 12 March 2015 (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.