Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 23

< December 22	December 24 >

December 23 edit

Template:Cebu City news programs edit

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 19:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cebu City news programs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Only 2 blue links. WP:NENAN Mhiji (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2010 (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:Central America WPbox edit

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, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Central America WPbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{WPbox|Central America}} Mhiji (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2010 (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:Celebrity Big Brother UK sidebar edit

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 19:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Celebrity Big Brother UK sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Big Brother UK sidebar Mhiji (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2010 (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:Casualty series edit

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, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Has been subst'd at List of Casualty episodes. No reason to keep this too. Mhiji (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2010 (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:Caribbean WPbox edit

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, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Caribbean WPbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{WPbox|Caribbean}} Mhiji (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2010 (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:Canada WPbox edit

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, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canada WPbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{WPbox|Canada}} Mhiji (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2010 (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:Brittany edit

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, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicate of {{Portal|Brittany}}. -- WOSlinker (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2010 (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:British Columbia WPbox edit

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 per G7. Mhiji (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British Columbia WPbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{WPbox|British Columbia}} Mhiji (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old version that can go..if problems come up we can just remake it...PS I AM THE CREATOR ...so speedy if you like.Moxy (talk)

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:Bayer 04 Leverkusen seasons edit

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 for now. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bayer 04 Leverkusen seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. Nearly all red Mhiji (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST

It's a project I'm just about to start, to make season articles about German football clubs. I have laid the foundations and done some groundwork in order to improve the logistics, to make it easier to follow. That template is going to be very useful within a month or too, simply because I prefer doing the boring template work first.

Roslagen (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as work in progress.oknazevad (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2010 (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:Australia WPbox edit

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, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australia WPbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{WPbox|Australia}} Mhiji (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2010 (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:Arctic WPbox edit

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, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arctic WPbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{WPbox|Arctic}}. Mhiji (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2010 (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:Chile Labelled Map edit

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) 01:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chile Labelled Map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The map and table used at Regions of Chile is far clearer. --Geniac (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2010 (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:Categorization issues edit

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) 01:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Categorization issues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary cleanup template. Mhiji (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The message of the template seems incomprehensible. --Bsherr (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2010 (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:Chacarita Juniors squad edit

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 19:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chacarita Juniors squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Blanked in September. Mhiji (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2010 (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:Chhattisgarh edit

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, the extra information in {{Chhattisgarh}} are just section links within the article for Chhattisgarh. Hence, the only real navigation in this template is the list of districts, which is indeed redundant to the districts template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Redundant to Template:Districts of Chhattisgarh Mhiji (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would say that it is actually Template:Districts of Chhattisgarh that is redundant to Template:Chhattisgarh. So, I propose to replace the former with the latter. Ruslik_Zero 19:41, 31 December 2010 (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:Charles Kelley edit

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 deleted as a test/redundant to infobox used in article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Charles Kelley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Already been subst'd at Charles Kelley. No reason to keep this. Mhiji (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete obviously created in error by a clueless noob. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:29, 27 December 2010 (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:Character of western astrological signs edit

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 19:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Character of western astrological signs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2010 (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:Circus related edit

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) 01:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Circus related (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary Mhiji (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's not even accurate in its definitions of 'circus arts' and 'circus skills'. AtticusX (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since it's unused. Unless someone can speak to its usefulness. --Bsherr (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2010 (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:Children's channels in the UK and Ireland edit

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 19:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Children's channels in the UK and Ireland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Children's channels in UK & Ireland Mhiji (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2010 (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:Cher songs Part 2 edit

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 19:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cher songs Part 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Cher singles Mhiji (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2010 (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:Cheshire Jets roster edit

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 19:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cheshire Jets roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. All red links Mhiji (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2010 (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:Cherrypicked-ethnic edit

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) 01:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cherrypicked-ethnic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Too specific. Redundant to Template:Inappropriate tone and other similar cleanup templates. Mhiji (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Redirecting is ineffective here because the issue described isn't a problem. Assuming it must be some other problem, like balance or tone, would be speculative and inaccurate, so the solution cannot be to redirect to another template. --Bsherr (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2010 (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:Chough edit

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 19:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused navbox. Only 2 links. Mhiji (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2010 (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:CinemaofAlgeria edit

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) 01:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused navbox. Only links to 1 article, the rest are categories. Mhiji (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello: Why do you want to delete this template, all the links in are working well and not a (single link). I hope that you don't delete this template ...? These deletions are located only in the Arabic Wikipedia. We hope that does not exist here in the Premier Site and thank you for understanding...? --ترجمان05 (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I thank the creators for this contribution, but it would be better to simply include links to the categories in the see also section of the main article. Then, in the more specific articles, include a link to the main article in the see also section. A navigation template like this isn't needed to provide links to the categories. --Bsherr (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. On reviewing, it does seem to be part of a larger series of these templates. It may be fine to the extent it links only top-level articles, but it would be absurd to see this on every Algerian film article. --Bsherr (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Bsherr .Thank you for this value observation.--ترجمان05 (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2010 (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:Christian Bale edit

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, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Christian Bale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. Delete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries Mhiji (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unneeded and unused given the consensus at the project on these. --Bsherr (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2010 (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:MCFL seasons edit

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 19:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MCFL seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

MCFL article no longer exists, remaining seasons up for deletion - template no longer necessary. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete parent article was deleted through AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2010 (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:1975 Pan Am medal titles edit

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. Ruslik_Zero 20:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1975 Pan Am medal titles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1971 Pan Am medal titles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:05, 15 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) 05:31, 23 December 2010 (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:2000s WSOP Bracelet Winners edit

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 on the condition that they are placed into use. Ruslik_Zero 17:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2000s WSOP Bracelet Winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1990s WSOP Bracelet Winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1980s WSOP Bracelet Winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1970s WSOP Bracelet Winners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree that these templates meet the criteria for being unlikely to be used. I'll post a discussion regarding them on Wikiproject Poker to see whether they may be used or what alterations I can make to allow them to be used. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit) I will add them as soon as the dicussion for their deletion is closed. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep on the condition that they be placed into use. I think that this is a good format. I would like to see this added to the bio pages. Since you have done this by decade, it will not cause too much clutter to anyone's page. You will need a new template for the 2010s.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:15, 17 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) 05:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak deletee Tony asked for my input as the author of the article on the WSOP bracelet... but in honesty, I don't think there is enough of a demand for this category... and personally, I'd rather not clutter up bracelet winners with multiple tags... yeah, only a few winners would involve an actual inrease in the number of categories, but I don't see the need to break it down by decade.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a category discussion. Please clarify your statement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - keep ooops.... I see no harm in the category... as long as the default is to keep it minimized. 98% of the people who will get the tags will be primarily notable as poker players. Those who are not, will still be notable poker players themselves.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you aware we are discussing templates and not a category?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This was mentioned on WP:POKER---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:40, 26 December 2010 (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:2010 Tri Nations table edit

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 22:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 Tri Nations table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:23, 15 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) 05:03, 23 December 2010 (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:2010 Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipients edit

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) 09:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipients (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:23, 15 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) 05:03, 23 December 2010 (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:2010 PBL PG-Flex - Erase Placenta Cup Basketball edit

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 22:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 PBL PG-Flex - Erase Placenta Cup Basketball (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:23, 15 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) 05:03, 23 December 2010 (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:2010 OIA-White Football Standings edit

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, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 OIA-White Football Standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:23, 15 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) 05:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused and very possibly misleading (Does the Associated Press issue a poll on these teams?)--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2010 (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:2010 Football in Bolivia edit

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, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 Football in Bolivia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:22, 15 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) 05:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, surpassed by Template:2010 in Bolivian football. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:50, 23 December 2010 (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:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - OFC edit

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, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - OFC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:22, 15 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) 05:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, surpassed by Template:FIFA World Cup 2010 Qualifiers. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:52, 23 December 2010 (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:2010 Coca-Cola Tigers Fiesta season game log edit

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 17:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 Coca-Cola Tigers Fiesta season game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:22, 15 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) 05:03, 23 December 2010 (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:2010 BWF Super Series edit

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) 09:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 BWF Super Series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:22, 15 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) 05:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been added to the tournaments now. Kante4 (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not unused (any more). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:07, 1 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:2010 Asian Games Men's Volleyball - Iran edit

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, as it is now in use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 09:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 Asian Games Men's Volleyball - Iran (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:22, 15 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) 05:03, 23 December 2010 (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:2010 Asian Five Nations Standings edit

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 22:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 Asian Five Nations Standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:22, 15 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) 05:03, 23 December 2010 (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:2010AthleticsYOGSchedule edit

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 17:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010AthleticsYOGSchedule (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:22, 15 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) 05:03, 23 December 2010 (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:5-star hotel edit

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 17:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:5-star hotel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expand and Merge. Make it so that you can specify the number of stars the hotel has, then merge into Template:Infobox hotel. Otherwise delete. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 22:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary. There was a stars field at Template:Infobox hotel but it was removed. If the field is to be added in the future, the picture file will still be there (and I'm sure there are much better quality star pictures which would be better anyway) - it could easily be added again then. It's not as though by deleting this we are deleting any useful code! Mhiji (talk) 00:49, 17 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) 05:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have {{stars}}, and if this is needed it can be added to {{Infobox hotel}}. This one is very weak with respect to accessibility, due to lack of the advanced alt text as found {{stars}}. Also, the template author seems to have no objection to this template's deletion. . Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 09:23, 1 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:1967 in Asian Football (AFC) edit

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. Mhiji (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1967 in Asian Football (AFC) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. nearly all red links Mhiji (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1956 one is nominated too, here (sorry should have listed them together really...). Mhiji (talk) 12:29, 22 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) 04:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not unused any more. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:09, 23 December 2010 (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:1956 in Asian Football (AFC) edit

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. Mhiji (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1956 in Asian Football (AFC) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also Category:Years in Asian football (soccer) navigational boxes. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1967 one is nominated too, here (sorry should have listed them together really...). Mhiji (talk) 12:28, 22 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) 04:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as not unused. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:27, 23 December 2010 (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:2009 EL North standings edit

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. Unused and author blocked. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 EL North standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 20:10, 15 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) 04:44, 23 December 2010 (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:1990 FIFA World Cup venues edit

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 as redundant to location maps in articles, e.g., 1990 FIFA World Cup#Venues Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1990 FIFA World Cup venues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1978 FIFA World Cup venues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 21:06, 15 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) 04:44, 23 December 2010 (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:1996–97 Big 12 women's basketball standings edit

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) 00:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1996–97 Big 12 women's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1997–98 Big 12 women's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1998–99 Big 12 women's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:1999–00 Big 12 women's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2000–01 Big 12 women's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2001–02 Big 12 women's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2002–03 Big 12 women's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2003–04 Big 12 women's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2004–05 Big 12 women's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2005–06 Big 12 women's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2006–07 Big 12 women's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2007–08 Big 12 women's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:15, 15 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) 04:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these templates should be kept and used on the pages of the teams who are in the standings.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying we should add all 12 of these templates to this article (and the other teams)?! Mhiji (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. team season articles like 2009–10 Oklahoma Sooners women's basketball team use these templates. General team articles do not.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but there isn't an article at 1996–97 Oklahoma Sooners women's basketball team, 2003–04 Missouri Tigers women's basketball team etc etc. So these are unnecessary - there aren't pages to put them on. Mhiji (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well. WP is slowly starting to fill in team season articles. There is likely to be at least one team on each template in the future that has an article in need of this template. It would be best if someone would stub out one article for each template now. However, if a template has no articles yet, we could delete these with a clear note that there is no prejudice against their recreation when the appropriate articles come into existence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:12, 31 December 2010 (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:Byzantine Empire timeline infobox edit

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) 00:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Byzantine Empire timeline infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Handy and encyclopedic, I could imagine a use for this in the future. Them From Space 11:07, 21 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) 04:22, 23 December 2010 (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:Infobox reactor edit

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, but make it clear in the documentation that this template is for research and experimental reactors, and not for power stations. There may be some interest in renaming the template to reflect this, but that can be discussed elsewhere. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox reactor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template largely contains fields of which its contents are, in most cases, very difficult to find. While the rest contains fields which largely duplicates the nuclear section of {{Infobox power station}}.

For instance, at template:infobox reactor/doc, the first part could be found in the nuke infobox mentioned above. In the second section ("construction and upkeep"), five lines are dupes, while the other four are fields for rare info. In the third section ("technical info") nearly all of it are fields for rare info.

The infobox is used in only a handful of articles, and IMHO, could be well off in the nuke section of the power station infobox. Comments? Reh man 15:33, 15 November 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) 03:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused and redundant. 119.235.2.141 (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Template:Infobox power station. --Bsherr (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is anything important to merge; the fields that are at {{Infobox reactor}} and not at {{Infobox power station}} are fields for rare content, which may most of the time be unused; a bad thing for the already-large Power Station Infobox. Lets add the fields there only when the real need comes. Reh man 00:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no visable consequence to unused fields in a the power station template. The consequence of deleting those fields is visable deletion of content from the encyclopedia. The latter seems far worse than the former, unless you can justify the deletion of that content. --Bsherr (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. But adding the "ever-unused" fields to the power station infobox doesn't make sense. Of course, if sufficient need is shown to have these fields, we could add it. But not just to "save the fields" of a template that's going to be deleted. Reh man 11:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fine to only merge the populated fields. --Bsherr (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, when you orphaned the template, were there any populated fields that you left out of the new infobox? --Bsherr (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They were a few which was removed, as they fit well in the main text instead, as such fields should per WP:IBT. Reh man 05:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you recall which parameters? Before orphaning, did you always integrate the material from those parameters into the article text? Could you give examples of which articles? Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All except four already has the necessary contents mentioned in the main text. The remaining four lost a few lines that doesn't have direct inline citations (1, 2, 3, 4). Could you tell me what this has to do with the deletion of this template? If there was a copyediting or referencing issue, it should be dealt with at the article talkpage or my talkpage (as I made the edits). Reh man 06:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pertinent because, by orphaning the template out of process, you caused the deletion of content from the encyclopedia without consensus to do so. In determining whether the template should be merged or deleted, users here need to understand the significance of that deleted content. Personally, I find that parameters in Infobox reactor, such as cooling, moderator, control rods, shielding, are important and valuable, and should be merged, not deleted. If they're not sourced, they should be marked with a template, not deleted. Do you disagree? If so, why? --Bsherr (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying is, no doubt, correct. But, in this case, the 8-or-so infoboxes I boldly replaced, did very little change; have a look at the diffs provided by the IP. Yet again, per WP:IBT, those fields do not go in the infobox. And if you really would like to have those fields in, I suggest you take this to WT:ENERGY, or the template talk, to gain consensus to do so. But whether we add it there or not, IMVHO there is clearly no reason to keep this infobox. Reh man 09:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this discussion is to form consensus on the relevant templates, including possibly for a merge, so there's no need to start a new discussion. Could you be more specific about why, per WP:IBT, these fields don't belong? I only want to reply with what's relevant to your assertion. (Also, I don't take issue with bold edits generally, but the instructions here at TfD provide that templates are rarely orphaned while under discussion. It's just an issue of sequence. Thanks.) --Bsherr (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the bold edits; I guess you are right, I shouldn't have done that. But thanks to the IP below, the few such edits are now accessible for any review. Back to the topic, per IBT:

[...] keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, [...]. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.

Per above, I think we should proceed with the deletion of this template (as keeping this is now out of the question), and if you prefer, you may nominate new fields at template talk:infobox power station, linking to this (to-be archived) discussion. And if consensus is reached to add any of the fields, we add, or else simply get along with other stuff. Agree? If not, why? Reh man 02:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the discussion here will suffice to form consensus to add fields to infobox power station, if the consensus here is merge. If the consensus is not merge, I would oppose deletion of infobox reactor. Ok, so you're pointing to the value criterion. To me, the information is valuable, and in appropriate short form for an infobox. Do you think the information on cooling and casing isn't valuable? --Bsherr (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it isn't valuable; it just doesn't fit in the infobox per IBT. We currently have three deletes and two merges; I still don't support your argument. Reh man 03:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, why doesn't it fit? It would be easier for me, I think, if you could explain, rather than quote the guideline. (I'm not sure 3-2 is a consensus, but if you wish to stop discussing, that's up to you.) --Bsherr (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge It appears someone figured out a way to merge this, since it is now orphaned? ~~In that case, I would say full speed ahead with deletion.~~ 134.253.26.9 (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unused becuase User:Rehman orphaned it out of process. --Bsherr (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Check these edits to see what (if anything) was lost in the process: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully Rehman will help by volunteering the information, so I don't have to dig. Meanwhile, would you consider revising your vote to merge (or at least neutral until we get this information)? --Bsherr (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing necessary to merge. Per WP:IBT, this merge is useless. See my comment above; the information for the fields are so rare and hard to find. And the contents that could be found, is already at {{Infobox power station}}. If ever something "rare" is really needed in the infobox, use the |extra= parameter instead; not create a whole new parameter. Reh man 01:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you answer my question above, please? --Bsherr (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't see that. See above. Reh man 05:57, 4 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) 06:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all reactors are used for power generation. It is reasonable to have a separate template for reactors. It would be confusing to use {{Infobox power station}} in them. Ruslik_Zero 18:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what are the other uses of a reactor? Reh man 10:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am indifferent to the merger, but see the list of reactors in Template:Nuclear technology. None are using an infobox right now? 68.35.24.151 (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are deviating from the subject; the current nom ({{Infobox reactor}}) doesn't contain the fields that you say are better off in a separate reactor infobox. The current reactor infobox proposed for deletion is mostly used only for power generation. Not for medical, etc. And I also don't see how useful it would be to have an infobox like that either. Reh man 04:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reactors may be used for many purposes: testing, research, production etc. You can see the full list here. In the future, please, acquaint yourself with the topic before nominating anything for deletion. Ruslik_Zero 18:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I fully agree that power generation reactors are covered by {{Infobox power station}}. However, it seems that we probably need an infobox for the different reactor types and the name "Infobox reactor" seems perfect for this purpose. Of course, in this case this infobox should be redigned. Beagel (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I am trying to say above. This current infobox is just a dupe of the current power station infobox, with the other fields falling redundant per WP:IBT. If for any reason the need for such a new "Infobox Reactor" is needed, it can by all means be created then; the current box is ok to be deleted. If someone wants to transform it now, by all means do so, else just delete this and recreate the title when the need comes. Reh man 11:14, 22 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) 03:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nuclear-specific portion of {{Infobox power station}} assumes a nuclear power plant with multiple reactors (as it should), and is not appropriate for research and experimental reactors which generally have no turbine, a single reactor, and no power generation. {{Infobox reactor}} is relevant to those reactors (specifically, the fast and thermal fluxes are directly relevant to the usual use of these reactors as neutron sources; this information can be found at [9]). Because research reactors don't generate power I don't think a merge is appropriate. Perhaps {{Infobox reactor}} should be renamed to "experimental reactor" (I would support that), but the two templates serve different purposes. Sho Uemura (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment immediately above applies here. If someone wishes to change the template, they are most welcome to do so. But if no one is willing to do it sooner (which means such a need for the infobox hasn't come yet), then delete for now and recreate later. As a side note, I would support the current title, as opposed to "experimental reactor". Do you agree? If not, why? Reh man 02:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't have a problem with the infobox as it is now. It is not redundant with the power station infobox. I've attempted to address your concern about the technical info being rare; 7 of the 8 articles using this template now have meaningful amounts of information. As far as it being useless, that's a matter of opinion. As a former operator at the MITR I think the fields add valuable information to an article. Sho Uemura (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't respond to your question. I would prefer a rename, just to set this template apart from {{Infobox power station}}. This template is not relevant for power reactors. If people want power station articles to have information about their cores, they can add that to the power station template. I would prefer "Infobox research reactor" as the name, since research reactor is the corresponding Wikipedia article name. Sho Uemura (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this template should be used only for research reactors (and not for reactors for commercial power generation), then I support you in keeping this. My personal opinion though, it to use the current title, and mention its purpose in the template documentation. But that could be discussed separately; template talk maybe? Reh man 15:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. Sho Uemura (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2010 (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:Chem. edit

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) 09:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chem. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an unusable attempt at a redirect to {{chem}}. It was probably an experiment consisting only of {{chem}}. The only possible output is no output at all. JIMp_talk·cont 02:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect to Template:Chem. Mhiji (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Just" makes it seem like a redirect is the simpler option. It's not (hence Wikipedia:Speedy deletions#T3). Why have a redirect that nobody will use? JIMp_talk·cont 14:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Redirects are cheap. The creator was clearly trying to create a redirect for some reason so I don't see any harm in creating the redirect which was intended. Mhiji (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2010 (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:Fb team 17 Nëntori edit

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 for now Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb team 17 Nëntori (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Ada Velipoje (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Adriatiku Mamurras (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Apolonia Fier (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Bardhyli (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Bashkimi Elbasanas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Bashkimi Shkodran (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Besa Kavaje (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Beselidhja (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Bilisht Sporti (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Bylis Ballsh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Dinamo Tirana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Dragoj (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Durresi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Elbasani (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Flamurtari Vlore (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Gramozi Erseke (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Gramozi Ersekë (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Gramshi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Ismail Qemali (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team KF Tirana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team KF Vlora (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team KS Burreli (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Kamza (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Kastrioti Kruje (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Labinoti (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Laci (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Luftetari (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Lushnja (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Partizani (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Partizani Tirana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Pogradeci (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team SK Kavaja (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Shkumbini Peqin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Skenderbeu Korce (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Sportklub Vlorë (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Terbuni Puke (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Teuta Durres (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Tirana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Tomori (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Traktori (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Urani (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Vllaznia Shkoder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fb team Ylli i Kuq (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

(List taken from Category:Fb team templates Albania) Templates are simply a link to their respective football team's name. Looking at Special:WhatLinksHere (for example, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Fb team 17 Nëntori), the templates are used in situations where it would be entirely permissible to just use links to the football teams' names. Actually, many of the templates from subcategories of Category:Fb team templates seem to be the same thing. cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 03:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, They simpely couldn't be deleted, the seasons will be expanded and the use is than needed. See other leagues (This template). All use this form. Deleting these don't make sence. Al must be deleted than of albania and other countries. I consider this nomination totally wrong. Vinie007 11:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – at least for now. The team templates are part of a whole system of templates which is used throughout articles of WP:FOOTY and has been in use for several years. Since this template system is very widely used for all kinds of season articles, a deletion of any parts of this system at this point would be disruptive. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:37, 23 December 2010 (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:Speedway Premier League seasons edit

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 22:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Speedway Premier League seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox for racing seasons duplicates links found on the more comprehensive {{Speedway Premier League}} template. RL0919 (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I put it up for deletion for the simple reason that you stated above. The template serves no useful function since it is a duplicate of part of another template. Officially Mr X (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2010 (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:Governor box edit

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Governor box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An interesting idea, to create a succession box for governors which will automatically create the link to [[List of governors of STATE|governor of STATE]] based on some pagesize logic. However, in the end, I don't think it saves much over using {{succession box}}. It was only being used on two articles, George W. Bush and Ann Richards, where I replaced it with the more generic box. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I initially had patterned it after Template:U.S. Senator box, Template:USRepSuccessionBox. ―cobaltcigs 22:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept, it should be renamed to {{US governor box}} per the US Senator box, as there are governors outside the US as well. 65.94.47.218 (talk) 06:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The latter concern is correct, but the {{{state}}} parameter need not be the name of a U.S. state necessarily. In fact one could generalize it for any at-large “Foo of Bar” position where Foo of Bar or List of Foos of Bar, but not necessarily both, are likely to exist as proper articles.

Actually I think a more streamlined long-term approach to succession templates would be to store the succession data for the role or distinction in question within one central template for each, creatable by pasting a manipulated version of the wiki-table markup from which it is derived. Such a template could choose which node to display by combining {{PAGENAME}} with a {{#switch:}} statement and perhaps other available technologies. Keeping the information in one easily inspected place would help avoid factual/continuity errors, formatting idiosyncrasies, etc, and may be of particular interest in cases where we know the intervals but not enough other details to write a stub that won’t be deleted on sight. That’s another matter altogether I know, though not unworth saving for a rainy night. ―cobaltcigs 01:29, 7 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) 06:58, 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) 01:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree we need to do something to improve the presentation of succession boxes, which --however useful -- seem too prominent in the articles and might be made both less glaring in color and more compact in organization. However, the approach in the present templates seems an interesting step forward, and should not be deleted until we have a chance to think out something better. Cobaltcigs' suggestion might be a good approach to increased standardization & functionality. ( the rename suggestion is of course correct. ) DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Multiplely redundant. It is redundant with general succession box templates. In addition, most states have templates listing all governors in sequential order. E.g., {{Governors of Texas}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 1 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:MSFL edit

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. If the articles are recreated, then this could be recreated, but until then it is not providing any navigation. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

After all but one of these teams, and the article for the league, have been deleted at AFD (The last team is still pending), deleting of the template seems like housekeeping to me. Courcelles 00:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The last article survived AfD, so this template may be potentially useful going forward. --Bsherr (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a navbox with only 1 link is useless. Navboxes are supposed to aid navigation. This doesn't do that. Mhiji (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2010 (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.