Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 5

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) 20:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Circle shape (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Star (four points) shape (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Octagon shape (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Star shape (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Square shape (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. No use - just type the image code if you want to use the image. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also its sister templates from the same author. These are all T3 candidates IMO. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Co-nominating those others. Not T3, unfortunately, because they are not redundant to any other template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—typing the image code will easily deliver the same result; transcluding the template isn't any easier. Airplaneman ✈ 03:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Airplaneman. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:49, 13 February 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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Airplaneman ✈ 03:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two pages are actually linked from this box (the rest are either redirects, hash links, or irrelevant links, i.e. "Oregon", "Kansas"). Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, only a few on topic links, which are all well connected. Frietjes (talk) 17:27, 11 February 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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Airplaneman ✈ 03:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CinemaofMohsen Makhmalbaf (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is actually a copy of {{

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Airplaneman ✈ 03:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bolton Wanderers F.C. season 2007-08 game log (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by game log in article 2007–08 Bolton Wanderers F.C. season. This one is slightly broken, and not used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:45, 5 February 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.

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) 06:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big Purple Button (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Not sure where this is meant to be used. No scope for use, in my view. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Created in lieu of [1]. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 01:25, 12 February 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.

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) 06:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big Orange Button (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Not sure where this is meant to be used. No scope for use, in my view. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are five of these "big button" templates that I can find:

Template:Big Orange Button (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Big Purple Button (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Big Red Button (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Big Blue Button (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Big Yellow Button (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Of those, {{Big Blue Button}} is likewise unused. Whatever happens here, these need to be redesigned to inherit from a base template rather than reimplementing the same thing over and over using different code bases. It appears that user:Perseus, Son of Zeus made some effort to unify the appearance of the templates but was reverted; that should be carried out again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • It appears that they are intended for placement on user pages (???). Since their actual uses are slightly different, I believe they should be considered separately. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, they are meant to be used on user pages. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 01:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We are not getting rid of {{Big Red Button}}. I'd prefer to keep the rest as handy links for random articles, but Big Red Button is definitely not going anywhere. Source BLPs, not start TfDs! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Each of those buttons has a separate, individual purpose and they are particularly useful for that purpose. The Big Red Button has helped incredibly during the BLP Sourcing drive and is still being used. And I can see the Wikify Wikiproject and the Guild of Copy-editors finding those other buttons useful. And a generalized sourcing button will also be useful once the BLP drive is over. I don't see any reason why these need to be deleted. Silverseren^C 22:24, 12 February 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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Airplaneman ✈ 03:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Venezuela succession box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Superseded by {{succession box}}. Nothing specific to Venezuela here. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:38, 5 February 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.

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox football biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox football biography 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

Comment Just as some background for those unaware of the differences. The current "football biography" template has one field for |youthclubs=, |youthyears=, |clubs=, |years=, ... To list multiple clubs and multiple years, the editor uses a sequence of <br> tags. This is suboptimal for many reasons, including

WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Also, depending on the width of the field, things might linewrap, causing the wrong years to line up with the wrong clubs. This problem was addressed/solved with the "football biography 2" template by using |clubs1=, |clubs2=, ... So, the way the bot would convert to the new syntax would be by splitting the |clubs= field into |clubs1=, |clubs2=, .... However, a formal bot request will need to be filed since it is such a large number of articles which will need to be converted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - I would just like to point out that the original template is much easier to edit. If you come across a player with ten+ clubs listed yet one of his early clubs has been omitted, instead of just adding <br> 1990-1991 / <br> [[club]] / <br> stats (stats) it is neccessary to adjust dozens of parameters as all subsequent years/clubs/stats parameters need their values adjusting. King of the North East 23:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge. This is definitely the direction we should be going in. Although wouldn't 1-->4-->2-->5 be simpler? Step three, which as I understand it would involve two bot runs and a speedy CfD, would be redundant if we do the groundwork before merging. —WFC— 03:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can start the bot request, but I would rather run the bot after the templates are merged. The reason is that the new template name will be {{Infobox football biography}}. So, it would make sense to not change to a name that will eventually just be a redirect. Also, with 50k transclusions, I imagine it may take a few weeks. This is especially true given that there will almost certainly be some that the bot will fail to convert, due to malformed or unexpected syntax. I have run these sorts of jobs before, and this is what typically happens. There would only be one but run over the 50k transclusions using the old syntax. I will know when it is done, since the tracking category will be empty. I will also know if editors revert the bots edits (typically due to edit conflicts or in the process of rolling back vandalism), since they will show up in the tracking category. Does that make sense? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be lying if I claimed to know much about this sort of task. To be honest, I don't fully understand what a tracking category entails, but had assumed that using one in this instance would involve an automated process, and that it would need to be deleted at the end of the process.

My thought was that using {{

infobox football biography 2}} for the new template would serve as an equivalent measure to a tracking category. There is a case for what you propose as the redirect to be the primary name. Practically, at the moment football editors will probably associate the newer syntax with biography 2. Technically, the only infoboxes we need to touch are the ones using the older name; if we rename them all to biography 2 while converting them, and biography 2 is the primary destination, we would theoretically end up with no redirects. —WFC— 16:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The tracking category is only added in one place, namely to the bottom of the template. See for example the tracking at the bottom of {{

Infobox football biography 2}} added here. I agree that I could just redirect "Infobox football biography" to "Infobox football biography 2", but then it's a bit confusing for new editors who are trying to figure out why there is a "2" at the end of the name. After the merge, both the new syntax and old syntax will be possible, and both names will work, but a bot would convert the old syntax to new syntax. At some point down the road it may be desirable to change the redirects, if they are indeed confusing, but that's not critical. However, deciding on the default name for the merged template is something that should be discussed before I start the bot, since it would make sense to do any renaming while converting the syntax. Let me know if this is still unclear. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support, however it is done, been waiting for someone with the wherewithal to initialise a merge. Will this also include replacing
  Template:Football player infobox links with the new one (or is Sporkbot doing that as part of the current run?)--ClubOranje^T 07:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Yes, the bot would change the "Football player infobox" redirect in any articles that it edits. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, this has been a long time coming. footybio2 has been thoroughly break-tested in the field by now and there shouldn't be any major obstacles to the migration path described by Plastikspork. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:18, 7 February 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.

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) 06:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R from other template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

To understand this nomination, I must first explain, that it should really be Template:R to other template. Such is evident from its use and documentation, and has been agreed upon on the template's talkpage.

I see no purpose in such a template. It automatically applies to any redirect in template namespace. (With the very unlike exception of a template referring to a page outside template namespace.) That is like adding a category to all articles saying that it is an article. This nomination follows discussion on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename template to
  Template:R to template would be a better name (I was actually about to change these templates around). Having a category for redirects to templates is useful just to have that list, and there's nothing gained from deleting it. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. Unless I'm missing something, there is no purpose to tracking this. Template redirects are never printworthy, and the target of the redirect is readily determinable in case of a RfD. So, can anyone explain why this is useful? --Bsherr (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just somewhere to put them. Is there any point in categorising soft redirected categories other than to have a list in case someone needs it? McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose I humbly suggest we don't need just somewhere to put them,
      WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding. --Bsherr (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • What's the point of not having a category for them? It's a tracking category: it keeps a list for maintenance purposes. Every page should be categorised. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • What maintenance purpose? You just said there wasn't one. Wikipedia:Categorization only provides that every article be categorized, not every page. --Bsherr (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Categorising every page isn't a rule (yet) but it's still useful. There is no specific maintenance purpose behind certain categories but it provides a list that could be useful to someone needing to make mass edits or some other administrative procedure. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • AutoWikiBrowser can create a list of redirects in the template namespace to other pages in the template namespace, and consumes no page storage resources to do so. Does that address your concern? --Bsherr (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, it's nowhere near as convenient and I still don't think we gain anything by deleting this category. But, yes, it does address that particular concern. However, I would still like all these redirects categorised somehow. McLerristarr | Mclay1 00:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of the system of organizing maintenance activities. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify what maintenance activities are related to this category, please. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since it is barely used (487 transclusions). If, at some future point, the template and category are found to be needed, it would make far more sense to then ensure that it is placed on all template redirects, of which there are over 54,000.
• Moreover using the template also means that template moves can only be undone by admins. Rich Farmbrough, 22:49, 25th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
  
  • That argument could be applied to any redirect template. Also, being underpopulated is not a reason to delete a category, it's a reason to fill it up. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – A possible use for this template could be for finding particular template redirects to be bypassed with
  WP:AWB/TR. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 13:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Utterly pointless. Garion96 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. As per nom, virtually all redirects in template space point to other templates. The few that do not are probably redirects to userfied userboxes, which might deserve their own tag and corresponding category. It makes more sense to tag the smaller number of redirects (i.e. userfied userboxes) with a specific tag, rather than tagging all the other redirects. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:10, 13 February 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.

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, the character article was not deleted, but turned into a "series" article. Feel free to renominate if you still think it should be deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep if the character article gets deleted then I would have no problem with the template getting deleted, but if it doesnt then the template should stay.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment consensus at the character's

The Transporter (film series), and reworked to serve as an article for the entire series. I have no opinion on the template's fate, but if it is to remain, it will presumably also need to be reworked accordingly. Regards, —WFC— 17:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 13:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Pending delete. Once the merge of the articles takes place, this can be deleted, as it will be no longer necessary. It could brobably be held in the holding cell until the merging is done. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no articles are being merged. One article is renamed and expanded in topic. 184.144.169.126 (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:15, 5 February 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.

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) 14:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. No scope for use. There's some discussion on the talk page which I can't make head nor tail of; it might be relevant. Also delete redirect {{ml/archive}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment seems perfectly reasonably to me. Many redirects are not correctly formatted, having not been targetted to the section of the target article in which the information is found, frequently this section has the same name as the redirect, so if a redirect X exists to article Y, and article Y has a section X covering topic X, then {{rlk|X}} would target [[Y#X|}|} ([[X#X|}|} would be the equivalent action without needing to know the target's name) . 184.144.169.126 (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems usable to me. 184.144.169.126 (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. But where would this template be used? Instead of hackishly avoiding the issue with the redirect, the redirect in question should simply be
    BOLDly fixed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I've encountered editors who slavishly destroy content on redirects, leaving a bare "#redirect ????" instead of whatever was there before (section links, the {{R from templates}} , categories, etc) 184.144.169.126 (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:07, 5 February 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.

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, someone should feel free to create a Template:Southeast Asian topic template, but as it stands right now, this template is not in use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South East Asian Literature (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This unused template is made entirely redundant by Template:Asian topic, a template generator that can create the following template: {{Asian topic|literature}} Neelix (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional "Keep" or Merge, as appropriate: This nomination seems unjustified (as a "Delete") to me, because "Asian literature" and "South East Asian literature" are not in fact "entirely redundant" with one another at all; the latter is clearly a subset of the former. Nominator may have a clearer deletion rationale, though, and having a completely different template for a subtopic may not be the best solution, so maybe I'll change my mind. Perhaps a merge of sorts (an expansion of {{Asian topic}}'s functionality) is in order? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Asian topic|literature}}

• Keep Asian topic literature is mostly redlinks, and undocumented. Further, there is a WikiProject on Southeast Asia to support the template and its topics that has some activity (WP Asia seems dead). And Southeast Asia atleast has some cultural linkages to make the template usable, whereas Asia does not. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as nominator - I'm not sure I understand the reservations for deleting this template. To declare a template entirely redundant is not to declare that it is exactly the same as another template but that all of its relevant links are already included in another template. The only two links that are included on Template:South East Asian Literature that are not included on Template:Asian topic are a link to Southeast Asia literature, an article that does not exist, and a link to Southeast Asia, which is an article that is not sufficiently specific to literature to justify inclusion on the template. I do not understand any of 65.93.14.196's objections. What is the reservation about the template being "undocumented"? Templates never include references. The navbox does not need to be supported by a particular WikiProject, and even if it did, the Southeast Asia WikiProject should be able to support either of these navboxes just as well. Also, a merge would be inappropriate as Template:Asian topic is a template generator, not a template. Neelix (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:59, 5 February 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.

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, appears to be no longer in use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hi and Go (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

HUGE welcome template. Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 23:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Welcome templates are subst'd, and thus it can't be determined, that the is is unused or not. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template has been substituted on these user talk pages. I can't see any recent usage though. Mhiji 14:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 02:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Too big, rather overwhelming to new users. There are enough welcome templates as it is. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. This TfD has been open for almost a month. The only "keep" argument has a rationale which was shown to be incorrect by Mhiji. So, I don't understand why this has been continually relisted. The template should be deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:23, 7 February 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.

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) 20:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary duplicate. We already have {{Hinduism}} which as of now is used pretty widely and maintaining two duplicates for the same articles is not necessary. —SpacemanSpiff 19:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hello,Some of the pages related to Hinduism are so long that navigation becomes somewhat tough when one is at the near end of article(one need to again come to top for navigation from the first template).Instead this template helps for this.also the construction of this template took me hours of work.and regarding maintenance i assure that i will be responsible for maintenance.also you can see all the religions Buddhism,Sikhism,jainism and many more have dual templates.so please i request you not to delete the template considering the ease of navigation and all other factors.thank you - SunilShamnur talk06:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Pare down and put into use. I agree with you, Sunilshamnur. A navbox for Hinduism would be nice and handy. Unfortunately, this one is rather too large to be of any use - at over one screenful (for me), it is an information overload. In my opinion (mind, this is nothing official), a navbox should either have no more than about fifteen lines of text on an average screen, or have internal collapsible sections (like {{
  West Midlands railway stations}} does for the "open stations", "disused", "heritage", etc). — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:54, 5 February 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.

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

Template:Missinginfo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages

)

Redundant to {{Missing information}}. Magioladitis (talk) 21:19, 5 February 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.

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) 20:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Breck Eisner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Keep Three films in my opinion is enough for a template.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment MovieBuff is the template creator. Several other templates of his, including {{
  WP:NENAN, so there is a consensus that said templates are inappropriate. Even so, I'm relisting for further consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Regarding this and the four TFDs below it, I think
  WP:COMMONSENSE come into play here. Almost 100% of the time, any template with only three items on it gets deleted. Also as mentioned below, Tom McGrath and Tim Johnson's templates are fully overlapped with the DreamWorks template, so despite the creator's flimsy "keep" argument, I still see no reason to keep. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, last film was in 2010, so appears to be actively directing (see Breck_Eisner#As_director). More than 3 films. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:05, 5 February 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.

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) 20:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tom McGrath (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Director only has three films to his credit, so this is already

Keep Three films in my opinion is enough for a template.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many of us navigate according to director, not production company. When he directs for other companies in the future (as a highly successful director does), this template will have to be added again anyway, so we may as well leave it. --Nicholas0 (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Superseded. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete They're 3 very good films that did quite well, but they were all for the same company and already linked. I think they should all just have a category added, "Category:Films directed by Tom McGrath" or something like that. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:04, 5 February 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.

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, orphaned for a very long time, with no signs of development. No significant difference from a standard {{navbox}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RP province and territory navigation box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Purpose unclear. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is already the {{Luzon lateral}}, {{Visayas lateral}}, and {{Mindanao lateral}} templates used in its place.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 07:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Amending as per HTD's comments below.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not the purpose of the template; its purpose is similar to {{US state navigation box}} (w/c is used in templates such as {{Ohio}}). This may come in handy once such articles such as "geography/demography/economy of <province>" are created. Note that templates such as {{Aklan}} can use this template. I'll have dry run of this on a few such templates later to see how it goes. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete or userfy or move to project space. Created back in 2009, and no uses. I don't see a clear advantage of using this over a standard Template:navbox. Very little if no reduction in code. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:03, 5 February 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.

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) 18:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Details2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hatnote. Produces exactly the same text as {{