Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 17

< January 16	January 18 >

January 17

Template:No definition

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. Airplaneman ✈ 13:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No definition (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too specific. Better to use Template:Lead rewrite (which has a |reason= parameter). In use on only three pages (which I have now provided with suitable definitions). In addition, it is rather unlikely that a lead should not define or otherwise adequately describe its title. Not likely enough to warrant a specific template other than the more general {{Lead rewrite}}. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No preference - note it was three pages because I had done the other occurrences. Also note that it is both a serious and relatively easily fixed error, so one would expect the number of occurances to be low. Rich Farmbrough, 00:15, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

keep -- I've used this before, and am using it again now -- seems useful to have a standard template for this -- also this is easier to find if you don't know about any of these templates than "lead rewrite", which I didn't know about. Joriki (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you didn't know about a template which is being used a hundred times more than the one you are using, and is part of a set of templates for introduction cleanup, says more about your experience on Wikipedia than about the templates in question. No disrespect intended, but your argument is flawed at the root. Debresser (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not in use, and basically redundant to lead rewrite. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 20:30, 25 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.

Template:Otheruses-number-areacode

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. Airplaneman ✈ 20:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otheruses-number-areacode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another hatnote template that is tailored for a very very specific situation. Also, the template produces non-standard hatnote markup. Documenting this special one would make the hatnote overview more cluttering than helpful. Currently two uses (while 275 US area code articles exist). Alternative: same effect is reached by the basic {{about}}: {{About|the year 425|the U.S. area code|Area code 425|other uses|425 (number)}} → . DePiep (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've edited the two area code articles referencing it to use the alternative documented above. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 21:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused and redundant. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now obsolete. Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Delete --Kumioko (talk) 13:10, 21 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.

Template:Db

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. Speedily closed as a versatile template in active use. Debresser (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

If all speedy deletions are supposed to be based on the criteria, then what is the point of this template? If the user cannot find a criterion that fits the article, then it clearly should not be speedy deleted. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep allows for a more specific reason in cases where more than one criterion fits, or the article is a common-sense WP:IAR deletion. Also useful if the tagger has a hard time remembering the various CSD numbers. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Helps new/uninformed users who don't know about the CSD criteria request an obvious deletion. I've come across many G7-able uses of this. We can always convert to prod if necessary. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SNOWy keep. I use this all the time, when I need to provide extra information with a speedy deletion nomination - e.g. {{db|it qualifies for CSD G8 - navbox is about topic whose article has been deleted}}. It was the first deletion template, too, and should be kept around for posterity's sake. Also, it's good for newbies and users more familiar with other wikis (WP in other languages or e.g. Wikibooks), which may only have a {{delete}} template and no specific criteria. No reason why this should be deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful for newbies. -- œ ^™ 23:48, 17 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.

Template:Neon Trees

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. Airplaneman ✈ 20:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Definitely way to premature. Only links to one album and one song. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 15:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NENAN. I think some people who make band articles are under the false assumption that every band article needs a navbox, that every band member needs an article, that every album article needs (album) in its name... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:12, 17 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.

Template:Distinguish the

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, not widely used, and basically redundant. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Distinguish the (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another variant for a grammatical peculiarity. Just for typing the word "the" by template. Creates more distractions in hatnote-documentation than it helps. Alternative: {{Distinguish2|the THING}} → DePiep (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad grammar is bad, name is simple and memorable (more memorable than a numerical series) for those few uses where it is needed. Rich Farmbrough, 15:34, 17th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Delete It doesn't seem that much more memorable as it's not very widely used. Why have so many variants of these sort of templates? -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not needed as far as I can tell. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- None of them are needed you can type the whole thing out if that floats your boat. Rich Farmbrough, 02:20, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

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.

Template:The

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) 03:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very specific template for a peculiar grammar+disambiguation situation. {{{For|the OTHER TOPIC|Other topic (some disambiguation)}} does it well. Technically, too, it is just using a For-template. Under 20 uses. DePiep (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename {{For the}}. Rich Farmbrough, 15:36, 17th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Delete Why have so many variants of these sort of templates? -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? The templators aim is to make the editor's life easier. Rich Farmbrough, 02:22, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Delete since another template does the same job. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing admin on logic: this template calls directly {{for3}}, which is also listed here on January, 17. -DePiep (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rarely used, and the logic is fragile in that it will break if the page is moved. 134.253.26.9 (talk) 18:26, 26 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.

Template:Denmark FIFA World Cup record

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. A newer mass nomination will be filed shortly, per DerBorg. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Denmark FIFA World Cup record (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. This is a "single-use template" - a template containing data that belongs only in one article. The article in this case is Denmark_national_football_team#World_Cup. I know it's recently created, but still... — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this doesn't need to be a template especially since it's only being used in a single article. An ordinary table would do exactly the same job. Bettia (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I vote "keep" for this "technical" reason: An user created this kind of templates for all 100 and more national football teams that took part to FIFA World Cup (see the category). IMHO, it could be necessary to open a singular and general "TFD" reguarding all of them to have an uniform decision for this kind of tables, not only for the Danish one. By the way, by now i'm adding the noinclude tags to the categories at the bottom of the templates, forgotten by the user. --Dэя-Бøяg 22:35, 21 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.

Template:Deliberate redlink

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. Airplaneman ✈ 20:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deliberate redlink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This was used on Talk:The weather in London. But it isn't anymore. No plausible article is going to go at (e.g.) like this one, so I don't think this template is needed anymore. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the warning never needed a template in the first place IMO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:10, 17 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.

Template:Delhi Metro : Blue Line

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. Airplaneman ✈ 20:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Delhi Metro : Blue Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused version of {{Delhi Metro Blue Line Route}}, the latter of which seems to be in better condition. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unlikely typo in the title. -DePiep (talk) 14:32, 17 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.

Template:Delhi Metro: Blue Line etc.

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 all. Airplaneman ✈ 20:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Delhi Metro: Blue Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Delhi Metro: Green Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Delhi Metro: Violet Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Delhi Metro: Red Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Delhi Metro: Yellow Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Superseded by the newer BS rail templates, at Template:Delhi Metro <color> Line Route. (Note: Orange line intentionally not included in nom.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:39, 17 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.

Template:Defunct BCHL

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. Airplaneman ✈ 20:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Defunct BCHL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. This same nformation is contained in {{BCHL}}. That navbox is not unwieldy by any means, so there is no reason why these should be split off into their own navbox. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reso lute 14:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -DJSasso (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kumioko (talk) 13:14, 21 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.

Template:Defacto

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. Airplaneman ✈ 20:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. This contains a blue star, which apparently "marks de facto states". This is not a standard designation, as far as I am aware. Unnecessary, no scope for use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Kumioko (talk) 13:15, 21 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.

Template:No BDC B-day

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. Airplaneman ✈ 02:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No BDC B-day (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A birthday greeting template that appears to intentionally avoid mentioning WP:BDC. Its amount of usage is unclear (due to assumed subst'ing), but the fact that its capitalisation error and lack of full stop have not been corrected in 5 years suggest it is seldom, if ever, used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, over 400 uses, but mostly back in 2007. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:21, 17 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) 05:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's useful: a reasonable alternative for those who want to personally wish their wiki-friend a happy birthday but don't want to be associated with any kind of 'committee'. I don't see how deletion would in any way be beneficial. The punctuation and capitalisation errors can easily be fixed. -- œ ^™ 18:40, 17 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.

Template:DecadeLink

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 both. Airplaneman ✈ 20:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:DecadeLink BC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Proposed here in 2008. No take-up. No foreseeable use. Could confuse editors if used in article wikicode. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not needed, were superseded by something else.--Kotniski (talk) 08:50, 17 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.

Template:Debate-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. Airplaneman ✈ 20:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Debate-section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{debate|section}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rebuild {{debate}} shows no indication of such usage in the documentation. Further, section templates should use the small box format, not the large box format. If debate|section is used, it should activate this template in the small box format. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added information about the section parameter to the {{debate}} documentation. Thatoneguy89 Chat 04:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it is not actually redundant to {{debate|section}}, it is redundant to {{debate}} as they are both exactly the same. As a separate exercise, the debate template could be expanded to support a section param. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just replace by {{Debate|section}}, like Template:Cleanup section or Template:POV-section. Debresser (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone needs to fix "debate" so that the section formatting is appropriate for sections then. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I created this template I was unaware that it duplicated the functionality of {{debate|section}}. Because this template is not used on any article page and is unnecessarily redundant, it should be deleted. Thatoneguy89 Chat 04:16, 18 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.

Template:Ddbr

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. Airplaneman ✈ 20:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Purpose unclear. No reason why this would be used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be included in Broken redirects (configuration) (check the page history). No objection from me to delete it. Not really sure why you didn't just ask on my talk page.... --MZMcBride (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I could've. It's easier just to nominate it for deletion, though, even if the notice that Twinkle gives you on your talk page isn't really the warmest, most encouraging sort of thing. I usually check the page history to see if the creator is someone I know, but I must have neglected to do it. (Checking links, page source (for interesting parameters), history etc. takes a while, and I occasionally miss one.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify, you didn't check the page history before you nominated this for deletion? Odd and just slightly careless. I have no opinion of the merit of the template itself, but one should *always* check the history before proposing deletion of a template (especially if you're "unclear" about what the purpose is). Killiondude (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ehh, it looks like he's going through some sort of list of unused templates. Sometimes it's just easier to press a tab and there isn't anything in the page history to suggest that there's anything special here (except that this particular unused template was created by me!). I've done plenty of automated nominating before; I didn't realize until I looked at the rest of this page that this is what This is doing. No worries. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, nothing suspicious here. No automated tools or anything (well, except for Twinkle, but that's a manually-assisted script). Don't worry, the triage of these templates, writing of reasons, etc. is all manual labour (which is the reason for the occasional lapse of concentration). For the source of the nominations, see User:This, that and the other/Unused templates (which MZMcBride kindly provided). (I realise those weren't quite the concerns expressed, but I am trying to avoid the same fate as User:Mhiji, whose lack of transparency about his editing processes has got him blocked.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:17, 17 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.

Template:Deans of the Levin College of Law Timeline

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. Airplaneman ✈ 19:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deans of the Levin College of Law Timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Levin_College_of_Law#Deans_of_Levin_College_of_Law does the job fine. Timelines are good for non-linear progressions, but this is a linear progression, so the timeline is useless. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:56, 17 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.

Template:Death sidebar

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. Airplaneman ✈ 19:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Death sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused "content fork" of {{Suicide}}. Replaces mentions of "suicide" with "death". — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:59, 17 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.

Template:For3

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) 02:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:For3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As Blackadder says: as useful as a cat's door in an elephant's cage. For3 can be reproduced by regular "For" or others. Whatever outcome text is expected, it can dbe done with regular tools. Hail Blackadder. -DePiep (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose {{for}} doesn't have this functionality. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ... or other, I wrote in the nomination. Example:

- {{for3|PAGE1|TOPIC2|some dab}} →
{{for3|PAGE1|PAGE2|some dab}}

- {{redirect|PAGE1|the TOPIC2|PAGE1 (some dab)}} →

So "for3" is very useful for those too lazy to type brackets, & smart enough to remember some name3 & its usage requirements. Which explains its usage. -DePiep (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Rearrange for readability -DePiep (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing editor: this template is directly used in Template:The (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages), which is a TfD too from the same day. Technically, it would be unlogic (and creating one cascading red link) if that one were to stay and this one not. Most practical would be to close the other one first and use the outcome. Of course, concluding a 'keep' here makes this note irrelevant. -DePiep (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can be replaced by Template:redirect, and is not widely used. 134.253.26.9 (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and nom. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 01:32, 27 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.

Template:USAF Civil Engineering Units

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. Airplaneman ✈ 19:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USAF Civil Engineering Units (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Sea of redlinks. Declined speedy (due to its use on two pages). — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no need for this one. --Kumioko (talk) 13:07, 21 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.

Template:Estonian SSR PMs

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, with no prejudice toward recreation if the indicated articles are ever created. JPG-GR (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Estonian SSR PMs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless navbox. Nearly all red. Mhiji 00:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Red links does not necessarily mean the template is useless, it indicates what articles need to be created and thus it is useful for that purpose. Perhaps someone could create article stubs rather than nominate the template for deletion. --Martin (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is useless... Navboxes are to aid navigation between existing articles. The red links shouldn't be there per WP:REDNOT. After removing the red links, we have a navbox with just one link in it. What use is that to anyone? Mhiji 19:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is useful as an aide-mémoire so we can see what gaps exist in a particular topic area and where we need to create new articles to fill those gaps. --Martin (talk) 19:37, 13 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) 03:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to an article like Chairman of Council of Ministers of Estonian SSR. 134.253.26.4 (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. --Martin (talk) 10:59, 22 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.

Template:Elliott Smith Vertical

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. Airplaneman ✈ 02:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Elliott Smith Vertical (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Inappropriate. Mhiji 00:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Template:Elliott Smith is suitable, and we don't need this one. 134.253.26.10 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think vertical templates are easier to navigate using. --Afghana ^[talk] 01:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where would this go? There's already an infobox at Elliott Smith and there's a navbox at the bottom. Also, why should this artist have a template in a different style from all other artists? Mhiji 01:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your first question is valid; I can put it on the Elliott Smith articles and replace the bottom nav buried under the article among other things, since I think this it is **much** easier to navigate. However as for the second question, template usage changes on Wikipedia like a fad (notice the recent popularity of colourful templates on all the religious articles in the last few years?); to say it's very different from others I don't think is a valid question. But, maybe there is some written WP:CONSENSUS that WP:Music has in regards to this? If there is, enlighten me. --Afghana ^[talk] 03:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure whether it's written down any where. But considering (currently) 96082 pages transclude {{Navbox musical artist}}, I think it's safe to say consensus is that we should use that template for musical artist articles. Mhiji 03:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, of course we'd keep that; I never thought otherwise. But, what about the other articles about him and his works? They only have the footer template which as I stated before, I find unintuitive for the reader. --Afghana ^[talk] 18:58, 15 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) 03:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mostly harmless (I think this is a stunning box, whether it is quite WP I'm not sure, but worth trying it out). Rich Farmbrough, 02:32, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

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.

Template:Courtstick

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. Airplaneman ✈ 19:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. This seems to be two different user talk messages in one. No scope for use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:35, 17 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.

Template:County routes in Erie County, New York (129–160)

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. All authors consent to deletion. Admrboltz (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:County routes in Erie County, New York (129–160) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless. All links eventually go to same article. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't say that I understand why it was ever created. – T M F 01:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nor can I. Rich Farmbrough, 01:56, 17th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
- Maybe it wwas intended as a component of something like this. Rich Farmbrough, 01:59, 17th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Delete regardless of the origins, it's not serving any useful purpose. Imzadi 1979 → 02:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This could probably be speedied since all of the contributors to the template have called for its deletion. – T M F 14:13, 17 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.