Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 4

< January 3	January 5 >

January 4 edit

Template:Jack Harkness stories 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) 04:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jack Harkness stories (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm not clear why Jack Harkness should, uniquely amongst the hundreds (thousands?) of Doctor Who characters, have a template for the stories in which he appears. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 22:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, we have similar templates for Dalek/Cybermen/UNIT stories. In this case, one can make the argument that this character is special because he has his own spin-off with Torchwood. Regards So Why 22:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Daleks, Cybermen and UNIT are not characters. Sarah Jane Smith has appeared in a spin-off, and in way more episodes than Harkness; she doesn't have her own page. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 22:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike most companions who usually appear within a single elongated run of stories (as was the case for Sarah Jane until recently, bar The Five Doctors and K-9 and Company), Jack has appeared much more sporadically throughout the episodes since his introduction. Surely if we can have an Ood template, a template for Jack isn't that out of the question? TR-BT (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, she appeared mainly in a consecutive run, though also in Sarah Jane Adventures, School Reunion, The Stolen Earth, Journey's End, The End of Time - seems sporadic to me. And how about Mickey Smith, who has appeared sporadically? Or Jackie Tyler? Or Wilf Mott? It's neither helpful nor practical to do this for every user who doesn't appear in a consecutive run of episodes. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 22:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual characters do not need a navbox for appearances. Species and races are another matter. — Edokter • Talk • 22:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what's so important about this particular character? or are we planning to create templates for other ones? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify into the Jack Harkness article, if people don't want to read the prose, they can have an easy to peruse list. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No other companions have this honour, and the only other character who does is the Master, as his stories chronicle a thread of storylines within the show. Jack doesn't really do that, does he. U-Mos (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Love the character, but his appearance in an episode is not a good basis for a navbox. He is not the major focus of most of these episodes, so most of them are being linked based on a minor or even trivial connection. There is also the concern about navbox clutter on episodes where a number of recurring characters appear, if we started making the mere appearance of a character the basis for a navbox. I'm doubtful about even the "species appearance" navboxes, unless the appearance is crucial to recurring storylines (the Daleks and the Master may qualify, not so sure about some others). --RL0919 (talk) 12:30, 9 January 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:Citation step free tube 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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation step free tube map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Citation step free south east rail (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hardcoded reference for use in British rail station articles. The reference itself is acceptable and ought to be substed wherever it currently appears, but we don't use the template namespace for things like this. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Don't we? Why not? This is used on 100+ articles and will need to be updated on all of them when the source gets updated. This is exactly the sort of thing we use templates for. MRSC (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of problems with hardcoded reference templates. The first, minor, technical issue is that <ref> tags don't always work well with some template features - that is easy enough to work around if needed. The second, bigger issue is that it can make it difficult for other editors to edit the reference if they dispute it or wish to use a different one. I want to be clear that I myself have no problem with the content of your references - I think they are good ones. However, other editors are allowed to not like them, so in my experience we tend to disapprove of templates that make it difficult to do that. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ref tags work fine with these templates. They do not prevent other references being used, in fact the opposite. They could have been hardcoded into {{Infobox London station}} but were not for exactly that reason. Can you point to any policy or guideline that supports your view? And can you explain why others exist without any problems. Recommend you withdraw these nominations as they seem to me without basis other than personal preference. MRSC (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't see a problem with this way of formatting a source. It doesn't seem to cause any major problems or breach policies. Replacing it on every page it appears on would be a lot of work for no obvious benifit. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like I said before to MRSC the South East Map needs to be more update and clearer to read, but the template should stay.Likelife (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Using templates to transclude regular text into articles (without performing any other functions) is discouraged, but there is widely accepted precedent for using templates to simplify and standardize the citation of a particular source that is used repeatedly across many articles. --RL0919 (talk) 12:44, 9 January 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:Embassyheader 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 substitute and delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template uses a poor-quality image (white patches in the middle of the ‘transparent’ segment). This template is patronising and, I would imagine, it’s message has never been necessary. Finally, this template is used on only one page (so should be substituted there and deleted, if in use at all). ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 16:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. You'd be surprised; Wikipedia:Local Embassy is quite high in the Google search results for "embassy" and gets a fair amount of inquiries of the exact type this is meant to discourage. However, it is not needed on any other page, so there's no need for a template. Alternately, it could just be moved to a subpage of Wikipedia:Local Embassy to prevent clutter on that page. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. Google's wikilove strikes again! The disclaimer may unfortunately be needed, but it doesn't need to be in a template for use on just one page. --RL0919 (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well it's used on one page so it should probably be subpaged around there (Wikipedia:Local Embassy/<Whatever name is chosen>) and it does seem to be more useful as a edit notice on the intended pages. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 05:45, 8 January 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:QQQQ 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The orphaned template, which is merely a link to the Google News RSS feed, is not being employed in any useful fashion, and for three years has not appeared on any page except for the inactive user's namespace. DMCer™ 10:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - template is not in use, and is therefore unnecessary. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:15, 4 January 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 CollegeBasketballPlayer 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 and replace with {{Infobox NCAA Athlete}}. Ruslik_Zero 14:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Almost all college basketball articles use {{Infobox NCAA Athlete}}. There are currently only two transclusions. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are there any articles on college players who aren't in the NCAA? Players in the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics for example? I'm just wondering if there is a place for this template that isn't redundant to the NCAA template. --RL0919 (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also {{Infobox basketball player}} as well, although it too only has two transclusions. I believe the issue is that most non-professional players aren't notable, or aren't non-professional for very long if they are notable. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since there is another generic alternative for the (presumably quite rare) situations where a non-NCAA template is needed. --RL0919 (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RL0919; the NAIA, for example, is tiny enough that it's virtually impossible for any of its players to be notable, and we can always use the other infobox in the odd chance that one is. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 11 January 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:Swimsuit Issue template list 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Swimsuit Issue template list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template with nothing but redlinks Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - not in use and as it is full of redlinks to further template pages. The template is next to useless. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:18, 4 January 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:Swimmingresult 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. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Orphaned templates Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and seemingly abandoned, with no activity since October 2008. --RL0919 (talk) 03:56, 10 January 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:Spider-Man adversary 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. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 08:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spider-Man adversary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Spider-Man/adversaries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Spider-Man Supporting characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Spider-Man}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused, not formatted to typical navbox standards, and redundant to a well-formatted and widely used template. --RL0919 (talk) 04:05, 10 January 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:Spongebob1 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 all. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 08:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spongebob1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Spongebob2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Spongebob3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Spongebob4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates. SpongeBob episodes do not appear to have individual articles, so this navigation template is not necessary. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They are navigation boxes that don't point to articles. What is the point? BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 02:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears that the individual episodes did have their own articles until May 2007, when they were merged, at which point these navigation templates became unnecessary. --RL0919 (talk) 03:58, 10 January 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:Western philosophers 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. Since there are potentially thousands western philosophers, this template will never be complete. If restricted to a subset of the w. philosophers, the inclusion criteria will be too vague. Ruslik_Zero 13:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Western philosophers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? - Orphaned, yes, but why can't it be added to the relevant articles? Seems a relevant enough subject. I'd be willing to do this myself, if that's the outcome. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused and unnecessary. There are numerous philosophy navigation templates; many articles linked in this navbox already have several. This one is so broad that it is better handled by categories and list articles, which already exist. If it were used, there would be tremendous inclusion issues. Currently it includes obscure figures like Julien Offray de La Mettrie and Nicolas Malebranche, but not Quine, Popper, or Rawls. You might say that could be cured by editing, but the end result of that would be a gigantic template filled with figures related to one another by little more than the title "philosopher". This is what categories are for. --RL0919 (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RL0919. Navigation templates work well when dealing with groupings whose membership is well-defined and relatively small (e.g., Template:Presidents of Turkey). In such cases, navigation templates can present information that is complete and reflects an objectively-defined set of members. Navigation templates do not work well when dealing with groupings whose membership is poorly-defined or subjective (such as "influential Western philosophers") or very large (e.g., "Western philosophers"). In such cases, navigation templates either present a reasonable amount of information that is incomplete and reflects a subjectively-chosen set of members or present so much information (e.g., a few hundred or thousand names) that readers are no longer able to easily utilise the template for navigation. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 01:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add "v d e" and make collapsable or autocollapse. If you think it is too large, just remove links to minor philosophers and the relable as "Major western philosophers." ^{Carlaude:Talk} 21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too broad in scope to be complete (or to want complete); too trite and controversial if it only lists "major" philosophers. Also (per RL0919) tries to do the work of categories & adds another template to many articles already burdened with a disorienting proliferation of them. Wareh (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as superceded by several other templates as per the above. --Izno (talk) 21:59, 13 January 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:Wet Paint 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. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 08:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wet Paint (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, appears to be redundant to "in use" Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is redundant to several other "in use" or "under construction" templates, and appears to be more of a joke template anyway. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Qualifies for Template:Db-t3, as it's not being used on any articles, and serves the same purpose as a few other "in use" plates.—DMCer™ 00:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not being used (though that doesn't mean to say it hasn't been used - or does it?). It is also redundant to "in use" template, albeit in a humourous, unencyclopedic sort of way. IMHO, however, it's not really suitable for the main article space, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not appropriate for most namespaces. If the user who created it was active I would suggest inquiring with him about userfication, but he hasn't edited since August. --RL0919 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 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:Wexp Experience 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 all. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 08:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wexp Experience (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wexp Honor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wexp Skill Point (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and seemingly abandoned, with no backlinks, no talk and no edits since the day they were created in May 2008. Also, the level of game detail in these templates seems to go against WP:NOT. --RL0919 (talk) 04:40, 10 January 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:White ethnicity 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. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 08:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:White ethnicity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused, and would undoubtedly create POV controversies if it were used. --RL0919 (talk) 04:43, 10 January 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:Whitespace 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template, which does not appear to be necessary. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't think of any situation in which whitespace would not be impossible, or even necessary, to add. But maybe there are. If we had some context from the author maybe? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:17, 6 January 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:Wide image IE7 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. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 08:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wide image IE7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, not sure if it is still of any use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and seemingly abandoned, with no backlinks, no talk and no edits since the day it was created in March 2008. --RL0919 (talk) 04:45, 10 January 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:Wigan 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Orphaned, doesn't seem to be particularly useful, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:22, 6 January 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:WikiBIBL 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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to be an orphaned template for a project with one member. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Project has a single member, who hasn't edited since March 2007. Unlikely to be used in the foreseeable future, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Project is long inactive, if it was ever active at all. --RL0919 (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the WikiProject itself seeming to have never gotten off the ground, I've nominated the project page for deletion at MFD. --RL0919 (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single member (the creator). Never active --Hu12 (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not used on any articles, and it appears the "wikiproject" is five days from being history at any rate. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:10, 13 January 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:WikiDD 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. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 01:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned template, possible redundant to {{rescue}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and abandoned, with no backlinks, no talk and no edits since it was created. The edit summary for its creation makes it sound like it was intended as a joke. --RL0919 (talk) 04:52, 10 January 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:WikiMatrix Top 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 unused and redundant. RL0919 (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiMatrix Top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WikiMatrix Row (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WikiMatrix End (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template, which is basically redundant to a simple wikitable. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redundant and basically pointless template. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:32, 6 January 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.