This page was nominated for deletion on 11 August 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy close (bad venue).

This page was nominated for deletion on 4 January 2014. The result of the discussion was mark as historical.

• Template:Akhil Bharatiya Rajarya Sabha/meta/shortname
• Template:Akhil Bharatiya Rajarya Sabha/meta/color
• Template:Akhil Bharatiya Loktantra party/meta/shortname
• Template:Akhil Bharatiya Loktantra party/meta/color
• Template:Akhil Bharatiya Lok Tantrik Alp-Sankhyak Jan Morcha/meta/shortname
• Template:Akhil Bharatiya Lok Tantrik Alp-Sankhyak Jan Morcha/meta/color
• Template:Akhil Bharatiya Desh Bhakt Morcha/meta/shortname
• Template:Akhil Bharatiya Desh Bhakt Morcha/meta/color
• Template:Akhand Bharti/meta/shortname
• Template:Akhand Bharti/meta/color

These templates are the parts of the categories, Category:Party shortnames templates (India) and Category:Party colours templates (India) which will be using on other templates. Some of them are already part of the Category:LS2004 templates. So, I object of complete deletion of these templates. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 02:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why on earth is Template:Archwelcome considered deprecated and orphaned - it gets subst'd to user pages everytime someone joins the architecture wikiproject. Can someone give me an explanation? Emphatically oppose. --Mcginnly | Natter 08:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OBJECTION! Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 11:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha ha ha! Perhaps having Template:1 source and Template:1source in this page would be prudent, though. ←Ben^B4 15:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I object to tagging Template:Arabic pop. It's a redirect for when the template link was typed incorrectly, not a real category. — Emiellaiendiay 06:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cpoll participant - this is part of the Wikipedia:Consensus polling proposal. It is currently marked as inactive, but I don't think that's a good reason to delete its components. --bainer (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Football player infobox3 - this is a very important template because some players are known by their total number of goals. The original template only lists league goals for some reason and excludes cup goals and continental goals etc. Amoruso 07:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ((Dylseixa))-Created as some amazingly funny vandal decided to miss-spell the template name, some helpful individual then deleted it rather than fixing it. This type of vandal is particularly common on the Dyslexia page (look @ the history) so having the redirect used until it is fixed is handy as the vandal fails. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 08:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, deliberately introducing spelling errors is an extremely common vandal on the Dyslexia page, one of these was done in the template so breaking the link. I created this redirect so that if it happens again the link will not be broken till we try & fix it. It's not essential but handy as someone helpfully removed the dead template link without checking the history to realise it had been vandalised. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 08:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:High-risk template and Template:Highrisk... These are harmless redirects that are easier for me to remember than the name of the original template. Grandmasterka 03:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:LS1952b-Sibasagar-North: This is the result of bye-elections in the Sibsagar North constituency (now defunct), in line with other Indian election templates. Can be de-orphaned once a separate page is constructed for the constituency (see Category:Constituencies of the Lok Sabha). --Soman 04:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:A1 through Template:A8 seem to be part of a broader system for CSD (see e.g. Template:G1 or Template:U2). This is not an objection per se, but it may be worth reconsidering the deletion of these. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rolled back some of my previous taggings. --MZMcBride 00:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Episode-unreferenced — Please hold-off on this a bit while I try and sort out the current usages. Thanks, Jack Merridew 12:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Linear algebra - It survived a very strange VfD with the deletion argument of "there's a category, so why do we need a navigation template?" Well, to not take up tons of room in a "See also" section. The Germany article, for example, has Template:Germany topics at the end rather than a huge See also; plus, the List of linear algebra topics article is a disaster zone. I think this should be restored to the linear algebra article. SnowFire 20:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it survived a previous VfD discussion, it is not eligible for speedy deletion. I have removed the ((deprecated)) tag. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've transcluded this template onto Linear algebra. --MZMcBride 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Blink - Currently unused (possibly substituted?), but don't see a problem with it. Could be useful for silliness on talk pages. SnowFire 20:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've listed this template on WP:TFD. --MZMcBride 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Lowercase/Sandbox - While the template itself is not useful anymore, it contains part of the edit history of Template:Lowercase. Part of the editing of that template was done in the Sandbox template to avoid disruptig the browsing experience of other Wikipedians, but it is nonetheless part of its editing history. If you delete it, you should merge the edit histories. Shinobu 19:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've delisted this template. --MZMcBride 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Luis estrada - You can delete this template, there is no problem... thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nubita (talk • contribs) 15:47, September 7, 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. --MZMcBride 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ma/599.9 - I assert that this template is still being used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comperr (talk • contribs) 22:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to keep this page, if possible, for demonstration purposes. Thanks. Verisimilus T 09:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've delisted this template. --MZMcBride 10:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Add horizontal bar has a housekeeping function in Template:Graphical Timeline. Please don't delete it. Verisimilus T 08:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've delisted the template, even though it really isn't used in Template:Graphical Timeline or Template:Graphical timeline. --MZMcBride 17:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Autodate is used on the license selection list on the upload page. It's always substed so has no actual links links but deleting it would be a very bad idea. I already "speedy closed" the process by removing the tag from it, just giving a heads up so it's not re-nominated. --Sherool (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the heads up. --MZMcBride 17:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Nocaps : This is part of a trilogy of templates altering the display of text, ((Smallcaps)), ((Allcaps)), and ((Nocaps)) – they offer three tools covering the three main possible needs for altering the output of a text, especially from a variable or another template. I also object to the reasons given in the edit summary flagging it for deletion: about "unused", this was created very recently on 30 June 2007, so it'll need some time to diffuse, especially since it is not an everyday need; and about "can be accomplished via <span style>)" is nonsense since the whole point of templates is to wrap unfriendly HTML into short and extensible templates. I see no vital reason to hastily delete this tool. (P.S. I am not the template creator, I happened to overhaul ((Smallcaps)) and wanted to link the three interrelated templates, and I saw this deletion notice. I have now improved its documentation to make it more useful, but wasn't involved with it before this.) — Komusou ^talk @ 04:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Arianism is a relatively new template which needs some work but may be useful. I'm not sure why people are suggesting its removal. Jacob Haller 19:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template hasn't been put into full use yet because of the fact that I'm not entirely sure that all of the most relevant articles have been included on it yet. I actually have plans (which will hopefully be met) to do a good deal of work on the subject area this weekend, and hope to be able to at least add all the major names to the template, and then place it in the related articles. John Carter 21:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely totally disagree with removing Template:Arianism. Very important movement. Nonsensical to remove it. However, I am confused. At the top of this page it says THIS PAGE should be closed. Why is it opening and harrassing this legitimate template? --Blue Tie 06:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tag has been removed; it must have been tagged because (at the time of tagging) it was not used in any articles. As for the "speedy close" at the top of this page, it refers to the speedy closure of the deletion discussion, not of this page. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Deadend is useful; we should update it to modern standards - it is the only template I am aware of that explicitly states the article is missing internal links and links back to WP:BTW.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:On RM was intended to be parallel to Template:On AFD, for notice to projects that a page was proposed to be moved. Unfortunately, I've failed to categorize it or announce it so that other editors know it exists. Improvements would be appreciated, but it's not a G6 candidate, merely a rarely used template. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Restaurant. I do not understand why this template is not widely used. There are countless restaurant articles without an infobox, and I don't know what's wrong with this one.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 03:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Maratha Rulers Infobox. The template is important for Maratha Empire article as wel as the rulers mentioned articles. --NRS| ^T 17:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Signatures/Gangsterls. Should be userfied. --209.244.43.122 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since signature templates are not allowed, per Wikipedia:Signatures#Transclusion of templates, I've substed and deleted the template. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Signatures/Stuy1195. Should be userfied. --209.244.43.122 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Same as above. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ayiesha Woods. Just a heads-up, I removed the ((deprecated)) tag from the template. I apparently forgot to place this navbox on the appropriate articles (Ayiesha Woods and associated albums/songs) after creating the template. No longer deprecated, and in good use now. Jamie^☆S93 16:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bangladeshi general election, 1986. I got rid of the tag, because it's now being used in the article Politics of Bangladesh. - Rayizmi (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:1313sig. I always subst it, so it won't get very many links, I assure. I had to resort (hey, self-pun, resort) to bending the rules because my username is so long that it cannot be made into a short signature, even your basic pepperoni-cheese (Example (talk)) combo. 1313 S. Harbor _Blvd. ^(92802) —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Template:WSPA Article. This template is used with the project Wikipedia Saves Public Art utilizing the substitution ((subst:WSPA Article)). This template has been vetted and agreed upon and is an important part of keeping Public Art articles consistent. You can see where we encourage the use of this template here. After seeing the discussion below, it seems as if we fell victim to the templates being used for substitution. So it seems to just be an automated-misunderstanding. Thanks! HstryQT (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is a useful template that is often used.--Richard McCoy (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-transcluded templates

How does this process account for templates that have not been transcluded (ie, templates that are substituted)? --bainer (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs are excluded. Right now, there is no mechanism or method to know if a template is subst'd all the time or not. I brought this up on Wikipedia talk:Template substitution, but no one has responded. Mistakes have been made (see above). The ((deprecated)) template is not put inside a <noinclude> tag, specifically so if a template is substituted, the big bold message will be shown. If you have a proposal or method of knowing which templates are substituted and which ones aren't, please share. Generally speaking, most templates are not substituted, so this really isn't an issue. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if a template is meant to be used only by substitution, there should ideally be some indication of that in the usage documentation on the template page itself. If this is missing from a template and it causes confusion, hopefully adding some documentation after the confusion is sorted out will prevent future recurrence. Bryan Derksen 02:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I brought that up here, however, there was absolutely no response. There needs to be standardized way to mark templates that are always substituted. Perhaps someone should take this to WP:VPR. --MZMcBride 02:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

I suggest this page use the wording of WP:PROD as much as possible, to avoid confusion between the two processes. >Radiant< 09:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pagemove

Since this page "is not a deletion process" but rather "a way to aggregate templates that can be deleted", I suggest moving it to Wikipedia:Deprecated and orphaned templates. As long as it remains a subpage of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, it will be perceived as a formal deletion process. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an objection, though, there should be a little more consensus before this is done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems no one really cares. I've gone ahead and made the move. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deprecated templates

The scope of Category:Deprecated and orphaned templates and Category:Deprecated templates seems to be similar. I would expect that most of the templates in the latter could be transferred to the former for deletion (and perhaps the latter category could be disbanded/deleted). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, some of those would qualify as being transclusion-less, however, others have many, many transclusions. I'll start going through them soon; any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to pitch in. - Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could be used in the Astronomy article. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 00:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deln trk LoPbN Entry served

1. to mark LoPbN entries for bios that appeared deletable,
2. to help find those entries again in order to move the corresponding bios a step further along the "deletion track" (say, from CSD to ProD, or Prod to AfD) if deletion did not occur in the earlier step,
3. to prevent the red-link entries resulting from deletion from serving as distractions or soliciting recreation of the deleted bios, once deletion occured, and
4. to help find the uses of the template, for
   • removal of the entry (in case of deletion)
   • or conversion of the entry back to template-free form (in case of AfD retention or a compelling argument for retention under CSD or ProD procedures).

My recollection is that i never noticed anyone but myself using the template; if there were instances of the template in use when the roughly a thousand pages of LoPbN content and infrastructure were deleted under Deletion Review, some bios on "the deletion track" may have escaped attention, since i was indisposed from even the normal process of following up on them at the time, let alone doing so under the conditions of disruption of the templates function that the LoPbN deletion imposed. But that would be of small moment, and no objection to the template's deletion will come from me.
--Jerzy•t 02:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently two sections: "Templates currently marked for deletion" and "Templates ready to be deleted" - What's the difference? — Sebastian 04:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Templates ready to be deleted" section is for those templates that have been tagged with ((deprecated)) for 14 days or more. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so we have to wait 14 days before actually deleting them? I see now that it is implicit in the text above the sections, but I didn't make the connection. I'll therefore write it more explicitly on the page. — Sebastian 08:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a CFD update pending, to rename Category:Deprecated and orphaned templates to Category:Wikipedia deprecated and orphaned templates. It's far from obvious how the 14-days bit works, and presumably just updating ((Deprecated)) will stuff things up. I imagine Category:Deprecated and orphaned templates for speedy deletion will need renamed too, but what's the automagical process of moving templates into that category? I updated ((deprecated)) - since put it back the way it was - which has apparently confused things. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the notice sent to me by User:Black Falcon, I have removed the ((deprecated)) tag from this template, as I disagree with the nomination for deletion.

As a member of Canada's military forces, there are times when it is important to me to have a disclaimer that what I am saying is personal opinion and not representative of the Government of Canada. I created the template so that other users who might feel a similar requirement could easily include such a disclaimer. I would be happy to generalize the template so that it could be used by a member of any nation's military. Thanks.    ¥    Jacky Tar  05:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I tagged the template, I assumed that you had created it for your personal use and subsequently substed it (there were no incoming links). However, given your explanation above, I agree that the template is not a good candidate for speedy deletion under the general housekeeping criterion. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I offered above, I have generalized the template so it is no longer specific to the Canadian Forces.    ¥    Jacky Tar  18:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- In wp:NRHP there is rapidly expanding use of ((dts2)) for date-sorting in tables, but i was just informed (by Belhalla at wp:ships) that DTS2 is "deprecated". I see that there is a category tag "Templates deprecated since March 25, 2008", on DTS2, but the category link is a red-link. What does that mean, and what does "deprecated" mean? And i have tried some searches, but do not find my way to discussion of deprecating DTS2, so I don't understand what the issue with it is. I happen to prefer the syntax for dts2 entry over dts syntax, and dts2 is now built into a NRHP list-table generator tool that is getting increased usage. Any clarifications would be appreciated. doncram (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if this is the reason, but the use of wikilinking dates in order to facilitate format is deprecated. This is because it is considered a bad idea that readers see something different compared to editors. Autoformating of dates rely on Special:Preferences, which anons will not have. Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) Taemyr (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why this template was orphaned; having created it as potentially useful to anyone trying to understand the relationship of past and present Aintree stations I had forgotten to plug it in to anything. Having added a hatnote to Aintree railway station I will try to add similar links to the other stations it features over the next few days. Britmax (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the next few minutes really. I'll remove the tag now. Britmax (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the proposed deletion of the ((CAS registry)) template, I have a more general question about the deletion of templates that were formerly widely used (in this example, the ((CAS registry)) template was trancluded into ~3000 articles). As discussed here, I expressed a concern that if this template were deleted, then it would compromise the viewing of older versions of articles that transcluded these templates. I don't have any strong objections to deleting the ((CAS registry)) template (and the closely related ((enzyme links)), ((enzyme references)), ((GO code links)) templates). However I wanted to bring up the issue of maintaining the history of articles that translcluded these templates. Any thoughts? Boghog (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We still use it but we the Users have been busy with othe stuff, school, other wiki articles. House1090 (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template was tagged for speedy deletion as deprecated on July 17. As of July 30 however it is now in use at Aquilegia chrysantha. Leaving note here per ((deprecated)). Jujutacular ^talk 16:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template is a mess up between WP-project and WP-namespace (ie articles). Indeed, as proposed somewhere, TFD-it. -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]